> On Nov. 10, Colla wrote to current math graduate students that “status and support” for current students “are not changing” and that the program will see “every currently enrolled student through graduation,” according to an email obtained and reviewed by The Dartmouth.
> “Stipends, insurance and the five-year funding guarantee all remain in place for students making satisfactory academic progress,” Colla wrote. “Advising relationships, qualifying exams, degree requirements and teaching and research appointments will continue as planned.”
Everybody's attacking this but when have graduate school programs ever been responsive to the job market? They're constantly minting more PhDs, MBAs, and LLBs than the professions can absorb; even MDs have begun to find it hard to get a good return on their investments. Maybe getting out of that business is the responsible thing to do?
Yes - that's how the markets are supposed to work.
It is the student's responsibility to plan their own lives - and the job market should be part of that. It is not the institution's responsibility to "correctly" govern the life trajectories of their applicants.
If you, dear xhevahir, wanted to buy a math phd attempt and had the chops, you could self-fund the training, courses, and examinations of a Math PhD, and it'd be up to your own abilities to finish.
But nobody, nowhere, would (should!) stop you because "the jobs" aren't there. You could do it because you can find the money to do it.
Asking universities to set their intake numbers according to the perceived demand 5+ years down the road (let alone the coursework + specialization of those PhDs)? Madness - they'd effectively be planning the whole economy at that point.
It's easy to blame Dartmouth for its shortsightedness but they have a point. Education, including graduate school, is more and more resembling vocational training and anyone paying for it, whether an individual or the university via an assistantship program, has to calculate the return on investment. With the recent FUD created by LLMs for math research, it is reasonable to ask what kinds of careers math PhDs can now expect and whether the field can absorb the current level of math PhDs.
As a Dartmouth alum, this is a step in the right direction. I appreciate that the school doesn’t chase growth for growth’s sake. And PhD graduates are being minted at too high of a rate according to many people.. so you’re damned if you do (“why aren’t schools preparing their students for jobs?”) and damned if you don’t (“look at them cutting positions!”).
The reality is that a PhD means just about nothing these days. Speaking as someone with a PhD (very thankful I graduated before LLMs ruined academic publishing completely), I’d like to see a bit more meaning to the degree.
Moreover, basically no one wants to stay in academia anymore because the pay is laughable and the prestige isn’t what it once was thanks to the last political decade. Salaries need to increase.
> I’d like to see a bit more meaning to the degree.
Does scarcity convey meaning?
I’m asking earnestly as I know nothing about PhD programs, holding a worthless bachelor’s degree from a tiny liberal arts college myself (still changed my life for the better and wouldn’t do any differently again but I digress.)
"The field is changing; rather than be a force for change or try to help steward folks through the change, we'll be sitting this one out. Good luck out there kids."
Whoever makes these decisions should get admitted to the drama school!
Indeed, they also just discounted every PhD currently in progress in their program by demonstrating academic nonchalance and potentially even past ones. Let’s shut it down and cash our tenure’s worth out.
"""
Beilock announced at the meeting that the College is “working to reduce Dartmouth’s spending by $50 million,” in order to increase faculty and staff salaries “especially if and when inflation continues to rise,” according to a transcript of her speech published on the Office of the President’s website.
"""
Maybe try to reduce admin staff to save money? What I read in multiple places is that administrative staff increased a lot over the past 30 years, about double the pace of teaching staff and 4 times more than the number of students. That sounds like terrible efficiency that can be reversed.
That's the difference between discretionary spending and mandatory spending.
Discretionary spending largely aligns with what the organization is supposed to do. A university can choose how much effort it puts on educating the students, because education is discretionary. Mandatory spending, on the other hand, is what the organization must do, due to external reasons or earlier commitments. Because mandatory spending is beyond the direct control of the organization, it tends to bloat.
The biggest sources of administrative bloat seem to be regulations, student expectations, and running a residential campus. None of which are particularly easy to change.
Being very generous, not even for full automation, but with all the tools and help of technology in the past 30 years they can be more productive, not less. We moved from hand-writing everything to computers, how is that reflected?
I said "staff" not "faculty". If you think staff (other than the grad students, which are being not allowed in at Dartmouth) teach, well, just try hanging around at a university for a week or so. See how many of the bureaucrats teach. (Hint: it rounds to zero.)
There is a special case of the poor adjunct faculty people, who are not paid well at all. They, in fact, need more support than the other staff.
> On Nov. 10, Colla wrote to current math graduate students that “status and support” for current students “are not changing” and that the program will see “every currently enrolled student through graduation,” according to an email obtained and reviewed by The Dartmouth.
> “Stipends, insurance and the five-year funding guarantee all remain in place for students making satisfactory academic progress,” Colla wrote. “Advising relationships, qualifying exams, degree requirements and teaching and research appointments will continue as planned.”
Everybody's attacking this but when have graduate school programs ever been responsive to the job market? They're constantly minting more PhDs, MBAs, and LLBs than the professions can absorb; even MDs have begun to find it hard to get a good return on their investments. Maybe getting out of that business is the responsible thing to do?
Yes - that's how the markets are supposed to work. It is the student's responsibility to plan their own lives - and the job market should be part of that. It is not the institution's responsibility to "correctly" govern the life trajectories of their applicants.
If you, dear xhevahir, wanted to buy a math phd attempt and had the chops, you could self-fund the training, courses, and examinations of a Math PhD, and it'd be up to your own abilities to finish.
But nobody, nowhere, would (should!) stop you because "the jobs" aren't there. You could do it because you can find the money to do it.
Asking universities to set their intake numbers according to the perceived demand 5+ years down the road (let alone the coursework + specialization of those PhDs)? Madness - they'd effectively be planning the whole economy at that point.
It's easy to blame Dartmouth for its shortsightedness but they have a point. Education, including graduate school, is more and more resembling vocational training and anyone paying for it, whether an individual or the university via an assistantship program, has to calculate the return on investment. With the recent FUD created by LLMs for math research, it is reasonable to ask what kinds of careers math PhDs can now expect and whether the field can absorb the current level of math PhDs.
As a Dartmouth alum, this is a step in the right direction. I appreciate that the school doesn’t chase growth for growth’s sake. And PhD graduates are being minted at too high of a rate according to many people.. so you’re damned if you do (“why aren’t schools preparing their students for jobs?”) and damned if you don’t (“look at them cutting positions!”).
The reality is that a PhD means just about nothing these days. Speaking as someone with a PhD (very thankful I graduated before LLMs ruined academic publishing completely), I’d like to see a bit more meaning to the degree.
Moreover, basically no one wants to stay in academia anymore because the pay is laughable and the prestige isn’t what it once was thanks to the last political decade. Salaries need to increase.
> I’d like to see a bit more meaning to the degree.
Does scarcity convey meaning?
I’m asking earnestly as I know nothing about PhD programs, holding a worthless bachelor’s degree from a tiny liberal arts college myself (still changed my life for the better and wouldn’t do any differently again but I digress.)
"The field is changing; rather than be a force for change or try to help steward folks through the change, we'll be sitting this one out. Good luck out there kids."
Whoever makes these decisions should get admitted to the drama school!
Indeed, they also just discounted every PhD currently in progress in their program by demonstrating academic nonchalance and potentially even past ones. Let’s shut it down and cash our tenure’s worth out.
Also FTFA:
""" Beilock announced at the meeting that the College is “working to reduce Dartmouth’s spending by $50 million,” in order to increase faculty and staff salaries “especially if and when inflation continues to rise,” according to a transcript of her speech published on the Office of the President’s website. """
Uh huh. Increase staff salaries. That'll fix things.
Did inflation stop for the teachers too, or just for you?
Maybe try to reduce admin staff to save money? What I read in multiple places is that administrative staff increased a lot over the past 30 years, about double the pace of teaching staff and 4 times more than the number of students. That sounds like terrible efficiency that can be reversed.
That's the difference between discretionary spending and mandatory spending.
Discretionary spending largely aligns with what the organization is supposed to do. A university can choose how much effort it puts on educating the students, because education is discretionary. Mandatory spending, on the other hand, is what the organization must do, due to external reasons or earlier commitments. Because mandatory spending is beyond the direct control of the organization, it tends to bloat.
The biggest sources of administrative bloat seem to be regulations, student expectations, and running a residential campus. None of which are particularly easy to change.
school admin seems like the perfect place for automation
Being very generous, not even for full automation, but with all the tools and help of technology in the past 30 years they can be more productive, not less. We moved from hand-writing everything to computers, how is that reflected?
I said "staff" not "faculty". If you think staff (other than the grad students, which are being not allowed in at Dartmouth) teach, well, just try hanging around at a university for a week or so. See how many of the bureaucrats teach. (Hint: it rounds to zero.)
There is a special case of the poor adjunct faculty people, who are not paid well at all. They, in fact, need more support than the other staff.
(Source: I'm a retired, soft money, academic.)