Research Universities Are Admitting Fewer PhDs, a Bad Sign For Science (nytimes.com) 145
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:1, Troll)
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
And he basically cut off all spendings on things (Score:2, Insightful)
Good for the citizens like us while enriching himself and his family with the tariffs. Because of the Donald. His crazy tariff policies have already precipitated the whole world into the abyss. It's very very very unfair for China and Iran too now everybody rightfully hates America like everybody should be. He is really racist against China and Iran while cheating at soccer too.
Trump's goal here along with the tariffs is to create a national sales tax so that he can eliminate his tax burden and the tax burd
Hanging on forever (Score:2)
One of the missed discussion points is that tenured faculty are staying in the job as professors for much longer than in prior decades.
Effectively limiting the number of open tenure track jobs will result in a diminished number of tenure track jobs for new PhD recipients.
Re:Trump cut the funding (Score:5, Informative)
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 do a humanities degree while slashing the fees for science degrees. The problem was, they lowered the fees so much that the universities couldn't afford to put on the more important science degrees, so universities started dropping sciences and focusing on the now highly profitable humanities degrees. It didnt effect much what students chose, because 17yos are rarely good at reasoning about money and future incomes, and anyway, statistically humanities graduates get higher incomes (science wages suck, trust me. Especially if you work in a field the govt actively wants to shut down like climate change, like I do.). So engineering, metalurgy, chemistry , *especially* physics which was always an expensive course to run, all those degrees started closing down and the "degree in surfing"* humanities degrees that the govt bitched about thrived.
So the govts idiotic attempt at market manipulation just made the whole thing even more skewed against their desired goal;- Stopping students from questioning their world.
*although ironically the "degree in surfing" the govt used as its example was refering to a unit in the sports medicine degree that dealt with injuries in water sports. It actually didn't do great because of those funding cuts to science.
Re:Trump cut the funding (Score:5, Insightful)
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 deciding something important. 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. And if you don't like the way scientists are of a different opinion than you about the possible outcome of a political decision, it's not because they are activists, it's because they know something you want to ignore.
Re: (Score:1, Informative)
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: Trump cut the funding (Score:4, Insightful)
There has always been a shitload of fabed data (Score:4, Insightful)
Science is about results that can be consistently repeated. The amount of money spent on that fabricated data isn't even a glitch in the system for our economy. We have hundreds of billions of dollars every year spend on propaganda to make you vote to raise your own taxes but a few billion a year on useless research mixed in with useful research and everyone is suddenly freaking the fuck out.
That's not an accident. Part of that propaganda budget I mentioned earlier is making sure you get angry at scientists. You are being manipulated in the most transparent and obvious way imaginable. It's up to you whether you continue to play along with that.
Re: (Score:2)
"Electric cars if anything are going to make smog worse. They're heavier and they burn through tires faster because of it"
decades of switching to SUVs & pickups already did that and some of us have been trying to get better mass transit everywhere and better urban design but "MAH FREEDUMS!!"
the same very fine people who are making a fuss about EV tire wear would rather piss broken glass than do anything to change.
were it up to them we'd never have implemented catalytic converters which were derided as e
Re: (Score:3)
There has been a wild amount of fabrication in published papers coming to light over the past decade
Some yeah.
because funding dries up when the outcome isn't what the people controlling the funds wanted.
You have no fucking clue what you're talking about.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It doesn't matter what the plaque on the door is, if the output is still lies.
See: Department of Defense / Department of War bullshit.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
stand your ground
Re:Trump cut the funding (Score:5, Interesting)
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 politicians who don't like the science constantly complaining that scientists are activists and radicals. I'd be happy to run a study to try to measure that, but I suspect that it wouldn't sway the opinions of the people who wrong.
Re:Trump cut the funding (Score:5, Insightful)
Ever notice how the fuck your feelings crowd has the most fragile feelings of all?
Re:Trump cut the funding (Score:5, Insightful)
Hey dumbass, it's those Red states trying their best to implement Sharia law through forcing the Bible into the classroom [yahoo.com] (but no other religious texts), displaying the ten commandments in schools [okhouse.gov] (which they ignore), telling women what they can wear, telling women they must have babies, and a whole host of other things they're trying to force down people's throats.
As always, every accusation is a confession with you people.
Re:Trump cut the funding (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Trump cut the funding (Score:5, Insightful)
The Christian nationalists running the country have the same goals as Sharia law. Cross out Muhammad and scribble in god and it's virtually unchanged.
Re:Trump cut the funding (Score:5, Insightful)
Please point to anyone of consequence "calling for Sharia law."
We'll all wait patiently for your forthcoming evidence of your claim. You will not reply.
Re: (Score:2)
Please show proof of specifically anyone of consequence calling for Sharia Law. I want a name, and a quote. No generalistic fuckstickery like what you just wrote.
Next, show how that could even happen. Hint: it would require constitutional amendment. Go through the steps of how you get to 280 in the House, 67 in the Senate, and 3/5ths of state legislatures ratifying it.
Now kindly fuck off. Adults are talking that actually know how our government functions.
Re:Trump cut the funding (Score:5, Interesting)
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 immensely when they get involved.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Trump cut the funding (Score:4, Informative)
So what? I was replying to a post saying that it would be better if scientists stayed out of politics. It wasn't about how they came to be a scientist (and yes, I know that Franklin was also many other things). You don't need (especially in Franklin's time) to have a doctorate to be a scientist.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
The parent comment did not says Ben Franklin had a Phd. He was among other things a scientist.
Benjamin Franklin was a printer, publisher, member of the Royal Academy, scientist, states man and much more. He fluently knew five languages. No matter how you slice it he was a smart man.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
And you don't see that as an outlier compared to all the other scientists out there with full postgrad educations that delivered important research to create the society we have today.
Why bother with this picking of nits?
Re: (Score:2)
On a related note, I'll be opening a rat sanctuary. A very dirty job that remains undone.
Re:Trump cut the funding (Score:4, Informative)
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)
Science has no politics or bias, only data. If the results frighten you then maybe conduct your own experiments to prove them wrong?
Re: Trump cut the funding (Score:2)
Science is done by humans, who have bias. It is reviewed by humans, who have bias. It is reported by humans, who have bias. Making science an idol is how you get grifters and charlatans cloaking themselves in Science (TM)
Re: (Score:2)
And you don't see how the scientific method and peer review is meant to eliminate that bias?
Re: (Score:3)
Science is done by humans, who have bias. It is reviewed by humans, who have bias.
You yourself just broke whatever convoluted point you were trying to make.
It is the very review of scientific work by other scientists that weeds out the bias you allege.
Recent scientific research has demonstrated that the widespread HPV vaccinations have dramatically reduced the instances of cervical cancer - In some cases down to zero.
Those researchers might have had bias (I am not saying they did), but the revie
Re: (Score:2)
It is the very review of scientific work by other scientists that weeds out the bias you allege.
Yeah. Sort of like the cops policing their fellow cops or medical boards doing the same for doctors. Totally works. LOL.
Re: (Score:3)
I think you are way oversimplifying in a dangerous manner.
Science has plenty of politics, plenty of bias and just boring experimental error - and always has. Data can be filtered and presented to show a given point. Scientists are people with their own agendas, their own conflicts of interests, their own blindnesses.
The hope (and usually the result) is that in the long term the ideas of the scientific method - ideas such as reproducibility of results, documenting how results were obtained, etc. - will remov
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Trump cut the funding (Score:4, Informative)
"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 can repeat the same goddamn mistakes. Why do you think the Christian Nutjobs want step on history of the founding of the U.S. They want to Whitewash all the crap they've visited on the U.S., slavery being one of the biggest sins.
Psychology? Why do we do the things we do? With no retrospective we just lurch from one idiocy to the next.
Poly Sci? Failure to understand the nature of dictatorial and Fascist regimes is leading the U.S. directly into one.
So while you will have your technomarvels as all that counts, do not forget the little Nazis in Silicon Valley who figure they are to be the ones to rule over everyone once their data centers and AI bullshit get strong enough.
Re: (Score:3)
It didn't even look like they saved a bunch of money on paper when you consider the ramifications of some of the critical things they cut. Example: the screw worm infestation in Texas / Oklahoma is going to cost us WAY more than the entirety of the DOGE cuts.
Penny wise, pound foolish.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
So the programs you would need to get one of those phds got cut by Trump and Elon Musk. The cuts were pretty massive.
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?
Quoted against censor moderators. Some agreement with the content...
By design (Score:2, Informative)
"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:No, this is not a bad sign for science (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Read your first sentence and stopped.
I don't care how "temporary" a President is, and how "outlasting" Congress is, if neither are doing their Constitutionally mandated duties.
The President should be executing the laws passed by Congress. He is not. In fact, he is regularly violating those laws.
Congress should be conducting oversight to make sure the Executive is executing their laws. They are not. They are putting on blinders, earmuffs, and yelling LA LA LA LA LA LA LA instead of doing anything about t
Re: (Score:2)
100% of the Criticism can be levied at both parties. You're only mad because it isn't "your guy" this time.
STFU
Re: (Score:2)
"bothsides" is lazy bad faith argumentation. Corruption is not a digital on / off. There is a scale of how corrupt each and every politician is, from not-corrupt-at-all to our current high office holders.
To put an equals sign between someone who fixes a parking ticket and the guy fleecing us for billions is unbelievably stupid and only serves to make you look ridiculous. Yes, both are degrees of corruption, and should be dealt with by jurisdictional authorities. But there is a gradient of "what a douche
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:3)
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.
Re: (Score:1)
You’re a fucking moron. The Chinese are winning with the sciences that underpin solar PV, battery chemistries, electric motors, high voltage transmission, and a ton of other decarbonisation strategies that you would declare “woke” and thus illegitimate science. And no-one who uses the word “Sodomite” the way you did has the slightest interest in science, you’re just another religious bigot clinging to your ancient book and angrily masturbating to yourself.
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah you definitely have a grindr account.
Re: (Score:2)
donâ(TM)t have mentally ill gender confused sodomites outright lying about every issue imaginable and denying reality.
I really don't think you want to get into a conversation about whom on the political spectrum is "outright lying about every issue imaginable and denying reality."
Stop chugging kool-aid. The GOP, it's members, and it's multi-billion-dollar right-wing media propaganda machine are lying to you WAY more than anyone else out there - except for maybe Putin and his government-scale propaganda machine.
Every tightie-rightie accusation is a confession of their own behavior.
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.
Re: (Score:3)
More pressure to get results generally gets more results, yes.
And some fraction of those results won't be good ones, true.
BUT - the whole way science is set up is self correcting, so the bad results... just plain don't work. So you won't ever be harmed, by, say, getting the wrong diagnosis from a Theranos machine. Because it just doesn't work. Instead, people will have egg on their faces, get fired, waste money. (hey wait, wasn't Theranos a business side venture not academia? Surely that must make it i
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, that's the way science is *supposed* to be set up. But when results are difficult to confirm, the process can be quite slow. And when fake results are easy, they can drown the process in noise. You need the signal to be enough stronger than the noise, and the noise level has been rising.
Partially this is because of corporate science, which isn't shared. Partially this is because of "publish or perish". The addition of AI assisted fabrications is recent, but adds significantly to the noise.
We
Re: We don't need so many PhDs. (Score:2)
No, not self-correcting at all. It's become a society of mutual adoration where people trade endorsements for favours, without proper review.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Interesting hypothesis (not theory, theory = proven), lets test it out.
Internet search results: ( https://streamlinedai.app/blog... [streamlinedai.app] )
2% of people have a PHD.
Hm, that sounds low, not high. Especially as PHDs are not just for academia.
Internets search results ( https://academiainsider.com/wh... [academiainsider.com] )
20% of people with a PHD stay in Academia.
Sorry, the real world seems to disprove your hypothesis. PhD's are not 'too common', nor do they stay in Academia. They go out into the real world and use their knowledge t
Re: (Score:2)
Need is the key word, and why your argument is the sort of thing anti-education people keep throwing around. You don't NEED a college education, you don't NEED a higher degree. Yet at the same time, there is a definite benefit to society when people who know more about a given subject are actually around and in the community.
Your comment about what is needed ignores the benefits of having people with a higher level of knowledge actually interacting with and passing on knowledge to those around them.
The only winner.... (Score:5, Insightful)
The only winner here is China.
Thank you Trump.
In what fields? (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
That's the important question. Is this across all fields, or just some specific fields? A drop in STEM PhDs is concerning, a drop in advanced racism PhDs is a boon. A drop in Fine Arts PhDs is irrelevant. The article says nothing about that.
Yes, it would be nice if the article drilled into whether the declines were in certain degree programs or broadly spread across all fields.
TFA does mention this was a survey of "research institutions" and has a picture of MIT's Great Dome so we're intended to think this is STEM programs. OTOH, Harvard is a quite respectable research institute which also has Graduate School of Education.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And when did I demand anything other than information about what programs were impacted? Is it wrong to suggest that we have a greater need for, and receive greater benefits from, STEM degrees than degrees in academic social studies, and that tax dollars should be allocated on that basis?
Overproduction of elites (Score:2, Troll)
Peter Turchin has quite a lot to say on that subject.
As a previous poster pointed out, what fields are affected? There might be a shortage of mining engineers, but there is a surplus of surplus of gender studies. I'd also point out that the periodic table is complete. Cosmology might be interesting but isn't putting food on the table or electrons on the wires.
Speaking personally, I have a Ph.D in extractive metallurgy. That career field was largely shut down by the Democratic Party during the Clinton admini
Re: (Score:2)
As a previous poster pointed out, what fields are affected?
Per TFS, this is specifically a study regarding "50 top research universities"
Given the current economic turmoil is it really surprising the students are thinking twice before committing that much money and time to a field that may not exist by the time they are done?
That could be literally any field, though.
Some firms will still employ people who can think, because their leadership can think well enough to know computers can't. They will no doubt reap the rewards of keeping humans in more loops. But in the meantime, a lot of people are going to suffer a whole lot.
Re: (Score:2)
So, back to quality over quantity. (Score:3)
USA Has Always Had Excessive PhD Output (Score:2)
Action to Oppose by July 13 (Score:2)
I got an email from a colleague on how the administration is trying to get around the judges' actions. It included a link to the American Association for the Advancement of Science on how to oppose this if you are so inclined. Public comments need to be submitted by July 13.
There is also a link to send to non-scientific friends and relatives on why this is bad to try to get them to take action.
Scientific Discussion: https://www.aaas.org/resources... [aaas.org]
Layperson focused: https://www.cbpp.org/research/... [cbpp.org]
Where t
What fields? (Score:2)
What fields are they referring to? Does this include e.g. "environmental science," English, "black studies," sociology, education, political science, etc.?
Smart foreigners stay away (Score:2)
Stupid locals stay.
PhD is another word for memorization (Score:2)
I've looked at a few engineering PhD programs and it just seems to be all about memorizing every course you ever took since freshman year. The irony is that real engineers never memorize anything. They look it up because that's far better than relying on a fallible memory.
Headline is missing a word... (Score:2)
U.S. research universities are admitting less doctoral candidates.
Do people really think folks are just shrugging and say "guess I'll go sweep floors at the Quik-E-Mart instead", or do you think they're finding schools in other countries who will happily take advantage of the U.S. shooting itself in the foot yet again?
Avoid student debt like the plague (Score:5, 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:Avoid student debt like the plague (Score:4, Informative)
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)
Re: (Score:2)
The question is, is the payment rate optional? You may expect to get a good paying job, but this may well not happen.
At the current time I would think taking on debt for a student loan would be a bad idea. I expect many expertises to become obsolete rapidly, and I don't feel like anyone really knows which of those it will be.
Re: (Score:2)
The question is, is the payment rate optional? You may expect to get a good paying job, but this may well not happen.
Yeah, it's a probability field, not a binary solution.
Re: (Score:2)
If the point of these programs is to educate Americans and improve our economy, why should the federal government try to profit off it to the detriment of the economy?
Re: (Score:2)
The quality of education isn't as good at a community college as at a university. You may have to retake classes like I did, wasting time.
An associate's degree requires extra classes that won't transfer to a bachelors program, so you'll be wasting more time.
Re: (Score:3)
Nowadays, a degree is nothing more than an invitation to an interview.
It was never anything more than an invitation. A degree is a prerequisite for many jobs, but it has never been a guarantee.
It suggests that you have been exposed to the bare minimum information that will be helpful for a particular job.
That's part of it, but the smaller part. The more important parts are that a college degree demonstrates that you can learn, that you can take on a large, somewhat challenging, multi-year task and complete it, and that you succeeded at acquiring some level of broad-based education. Engineers and other specialists tend to scoff somewhat at "liberal education" because it doesn't seem l
Re: (Score:2)
The GI Bill is important, but it's not the only thing this gives you that will help you for the rest of your life. You also get VA medical benefits that never end even if you come out without any Service Connected conditions. And, judging by all the complaints about the high costs of
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Stop conflating education with knowledge. Knowledge is power.
But one can also have a lot of power and very little knowledge. Obvious examples abound.
Re: (Score:2)
You wouldn't say that a Nobel prize winning biochemist had very little knowledge just because they don't know anything about running an auto-repair shop, hair salon, elementary school, or observatory.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Not entirely. Some people go to college to goof off for a few years. I have a number of nieces and nephews who aren't using their college degrees for anything. Granted they were not in PhD programs but still, learning is not necessarily the primary reason some people attend college.
In addition, not all learning is equally valuable. I just saw some stats about what degree programs produce what lifetime earnings, the most objective way we have to measure educational value. Engineering degrees were on the top,
Re: (Score:2)
Do you have a reference for a college that has documented results of maths students leaving with less knowledge of the subject than when they started?
Re: (Score:2)
Now be a good scientist and publish your data showing how you arrived at this conclusion.
The Big Crunch: why PhDs can't get jobs etc (Score:3)
By David Goodstein, then vice-provost of Caltech in 1994, pointing to a long need for systemic change: https://web.archive.org/web/20... [archive.org]
"Let me finish by summarizing what I've been trying to tell you. We stand at an historic juncture in the history of science. The long era of exponential expansion ended decades ago, but we have not yet reconciled ourselves to that fact. The present social structure of science, by which I mean institutions, education, funding, publications and so
Re: (Score:2)
The other excerpts, "we need to politicize everything" and "Utopia is totally possible, we just need to change human nature", are just silly.
Re: (Score:2)
It's a feedback loop. Calling him the reason is oversimplifying.