Research Universities Are Admitting Fewer PhDs, a Bad Sign For Science

Research Universities Are Admitting Fewer PhDs, a Bad Sign For Science (nytimes.com) 31 An anonymous reader quotes a report from the New York Times: The number of students admitted to Ph.D. programs this fall dropped 15 percent from the previous year, according to data from over 50 top research universities, raising fears that the nation's capacity to produce new science could be diminished. The decline is driven, in part, by a chaotic and unpredictable federal funding environment under the Trump administration, as federal cuts are promised and then reversed, and budgets remain unclear. A reduction in doctoral students could mean fewer scholars at universities to teach and mentor undergraduates. Higher education leaders also worry that, if the declines continue, there will be fewer researchers to power a rapidly evolving scientific work force. The data showing the decrease comes from 55 universities, all of them members of the Association of American Universities, an invitation-only organization that includes 69 of the most prestigious research institutions in the United States. The data collection was conducted by another group, the Association of American Universities Data Exchange. Schools in A.A.U. confer half of the nation's research doctorates, according to the association. "We are at risk of losing a whole generation of new talent because of the reduction in the capacity to support those students," said Toby Smith, a senior vice president at the A.A.U. University leaders and research advocates cite many reasons for the declines in new doctoral students. Key federal agencies, such as the National Institutes of Health and the National Science Foundation, have been funding fewer research grants. The wealthiest institutions also face a new federal tax on their endowments. But the most cited reason in interviews was the unreliable nature of federal funding under the Trump administration. The administration proposed major cuts to federal research agencies last year, but Congress restored the funding. It is again proposing big cuts. While Congress may again reverse the administration's proposed reductions, the uncertainty makes it hard for schools to make multiyear commitments to doctoral students. The administration also abruptly ended thousands of research grants last year, arguing that they did not align with the government's priorities. The administration restored many of the grants after judges deemed the eliminations illegal and arbitrary, but research advocates say the whiplash was damaging. A reduction in doctoral students could mean fewer scholars at universities to teach and mentor undergraduates. Higher education leaders also worry that, if the declines continue, there will be fewer researchers to power a rapidly evolving scientific work force. The data showing the decrease comes from 55 universities, all of them members of the Association of American Universities, an invitation-only organization that includes 69 of the most prestigious research institutions in the United States. The data collection was conducted by another group, the Association of American Universities Data Exchange. Schools in A.A.U. confer half of the nation's research doctorates, according to the association. "We are at risk of losing a whole generation of new talent because of the reduction in the capacity to support those students," said Toby Smith, a senior vice president at the A.A.U. University leaders and research advocates cite many reasons for the declines in new doctoral students. Key federal agencies, such as the National Institutes of Health and the National Science Foundation, have been funding fewer research grants. The wealthiest institutions also face a new federal tax on their endowments. But the most cited reason in interviews was the unreliable nature of federal funding under the Trump administration. The administration proposed major cuts to federal research agencies last year, but Congress restored the funding. It is again proposing big cuts. While Congress may again reverse the administration's proposed reductions, the uncertainty makes it hard for schools to make multiyear commitments to doctoral students. The administration also abruptly ended thousands of research grants last year, arguing that they did not align with the government's priorities. The administration restored many of the grants after judges deemed the eliminations illegal and arbitrary, but research advocates say the whiplash was damaging. Trump cut the funding (Score:3, Insightful) Ironically we lose scientists and doctors and advanced nursing degrees but we keep all of the filthy filthy humanities phds because virtually all of those are paid for by grants and not by government programs or loans. It turns out once again politicians lied to you in order to take your money. In this case they raised your taxes while cutting theirs. But in order to cut their taxes they needed a procedural trick where they saved a bunch of money on paper. That's what doge was about. On paper it made it look like they had saved a bunch of money which allowed them to use a procedural trick to cut their taxes without having the votes to do it under normal circumstances Isn't politics fun? Re: (Score:2) Oh man theres a comical tyrany of perverse incentives when it comes to government interventions in universities. We had this turbo-conservative govt here in australia, John Howard, awful dude, but his govt tried to smash the humanities by adjusting how the uni fees work (We pay fees, but they become tax loans that start being paid off once income hits average wage. Its a fucked system, but there are more-fucked systems so, que cera. I *guess*). Anyhow the plan was , was to massively increase the fees paid to Re: (Score:1) We don't need more scientists. We need better ones who do their jobs instead of wasting their time being political activists. Get that and everything will be fine. Re: (Score:1) In jurisdiction, there is the principle: Ignorantia legis non excusat. We should apply the same principle to science. Ignorantia scientes non excusat. Being wrong about science is not an opinion. It's something you could rectify by educating yourself about science, in the same way you educate yourself about the legal situation before d Re: (Score:3) Okay we get it you're an internet lawyer. The person you responded to is talking about people who manipulate data to match their predetermined outcome. There has been a wild amount of fabrication in published papers coming to light over the past decade because funding dries up when the outcome isn't what the people controlling the funds wanted. Re: (Score:1) No judge will excuse you for having a "different legal opinion" about something that is clearly stated otherwise in the law. We should do the same for science. So you want a ministry of truth, how cute! Re: (Score:2) We don't need more scientists. We need better ones who do their jobs instead of wasting their time being political activists. Get that and everything will be fine. Can I ask how you define "being political activists"? Does it cover simply pointing out that statements by some politicians are at odds with the evidence? Do you consider saying "The available data consistently indicated that climate change is the result of human activity." or "Vaccines do save lives; here are the studies which show it." to be activism? I submit that the perception that scientists are being political activists has very little to do with what the scientists are doing and a great to do with Re: (Score:2) I agree. Quality scientists like Albert Einstein or Ben Franklin should have just shut up and not lend their expertise to the discussions of the day. WTF. Scientists have always been involved in political discussions. It would be utterly ridiculous to do without their informed advice - they tend to be smart people with knowledge and perspectives that many do not have. I am not saying one should blindly follow their opinions and advice, but I really, really don't want them to shut up. They contribute immense Re: (Score:2) Well if I ever meet one I'm sure I'll pass that message on. But the vast majority of scientists are profoundly uninterested in activism. Which is a bummer. I work in climate science and most of those guys really OUGHT get political but its just not how the field rolls. Re: (Score:2) "the filthy filthy humanities phds" Yeah, what use do we have with philosophers to plumb moral issues (religions do not count, they only regurgitate what brings them income), new logics, quantum physics (most philosophy departments these days have PhDs working on quantum mathematics and its relationship to gravity), etc.? Sociology? That's good for looking back at society and discerning what makes it tick, what ails it, how transformations can screw up (e.g., AI). History? Yes, let's forget our history so we Re: (Score:1) College is equal to learning. It is never the opposite. Be mindful of the financial debt you may incur, but don't let anti-intellectualism deter you. Avoid student debt like the plague (Score:4, Interesting) That depends on what value you place on the degree. Nowadays, a degree is nothing more than an invitation to an interview. It suggests that you have been exposed to the bare minimum information that will be helpful for a particular job. No company views a degree as proof that a candidate can step into a job and be proficient on day one. Every company has particular procedures, policies, and protocols that every new hire will need time to assimilate. A degree suggests you are willing to learn. As far as student loans, I view them as the newest version of crushing payday loans. Only the most desperate reach for them and get roped into a crushing interest rate trap. There are too many ways to finish a degree without accumulating soul-crushing debt. 1. Apply for grants. These include applying for academic scholarships. I received a half-semester scholarship at my first college simply because I was the only person that applied. If you don't qualify, move to the next step. 2. Begin your degree at a community college. A two-year degree at a community college is much cheaper and in some states tuition free for state residents. Get your associates degree then apply for a bachelors program. 3. Apply for a low-level position in a job in your field, then ask about tuition assistance. Many companies will help fund your education with tuition assistance. 4. Volunteer for the military in a related field, or even in a general occupation. A two-year military enlistment qualifies for the GI bill which will fund your 4-year degree with perhaps some left over for other education. 5. Once you start school, take every bypass testing route you can. Every CLEP test you pass is one less class you have to pay for. Every class you challenge is also one less to fund. You can sometimes test your way past enough beginning level courses to reduce your degree to three years. 6. Don't get locked into the four-year degree must be completed in four years trap. Find a paying job and enroll in night school instead. Do a year of school then work and save money for a year. Rest and repeat. Student loans are like buying a house on a credit card. The interest so overwhelms the small amount that is applied to the principle that the payment schedule is designed to take 30 years to pay off. Taking six years with no student debt to complete a four-year degree is so much better financially that I would NEVER recommend anyone take a student loan. There are many options that still result in a degree without accumulating soul-crushing debt. Re: (Score:3) Student loans are like buying a house on a credit card. The interest so overwhelms the small amount that is applied to the principle that the payment schedule is designed to take 30 years to pay off. Student loan interest rates are usually less than 10%, much much better than credit card debt. Never make the minimum payment and you should be ok. Whether or not it's a good financial decision depends on the expected income from your job after work. You can't make the decision based on loan amount solely, you must also look at expected salary. Re: (Score:2) Student loan interest rates are usually less than 10%, much much better than credit card debt. Good point. I had seen some interest rates on private loans that were above 15% but I see now that is not common. I've seen both opinions championed. Jump into a four-year degree using student loans and plan on getting a job capable of paying the debt in a reasonable time frame, or working and stretching a degree to six years with no debt. Both have advantages and the choice heavily depends on the demand for the job your degree supports. Re: (Score:2) By design (Score:3) "I love the poorly educated" https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com] No, this is not a bad sign for science (Score:2) Yeah, we get it: Trump is a troglodyte & a cockwombling ass-hat, but in the grand scheme of things, any president is wonderfully temporary. Congress on the other hand creates spending agencies & budgets that outlast... empires. They need term limited or purged much more frequently in some sort of Roman Colosseum grudge match to the death. Tenured professors should probably face the same fate... up to and including facing every fresh batch of incoming freshmen themselves - no TA's, noone to run in Re: (Score:2) Re: (Score:2) That's US - how is the rest of the world doing? (Score:2) In US we pray, not research, so that is consistent - we do not need scientists. How is China, EU and the rest of the world doing? Re: (Score:1) >have mentally ill gender confused sodomites outright lying about every issue imaginable and denying reality. So NON-gender-confused sodomites like Donald Trump are okay with you? And those who want to force their gonad rules on others don't deserve to fly a Gadsden flag. Immigration (Score:5, Insightful) I'm surprised there's no mention of Trump and immigration. In STEM fields, anywhere from 30-65% of PhD students are foreign students. For computer science and engineering, the percentage is near 60%. Not being able to get a visa, being fearful of the Trump government, and uncertainty about work visas and green cards is arguably more significant than even funding for some programs. We don't need so many PhDs. (Score:2) Having so many people in adult academia is not a good thing. It creates a pressure to produce results and promotes bad science and unreliable, or even fake, research.