Harvard slashing PhD programs + layoffs

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:One third to 50% of phD students are international. Most of the phD cuts are in very small departments. Even with the cuts, American students will likely have the same chances as in prior years, due to all programs cutting internationals most. They will not go abroad because phD is not funded abroad. That is why so many come here! Our funding is much better than overseas phD programs.
Top internationals will continue to get in. Harvard and the rest of the top 20-30 phd programs in STEM will continue to have the same quality of students they have always had--the pool is deep. Lower ranked schools will suffer.
Additionally, the SEAS cuts are admin cuts, not phd-student cuts. SEAS phd remain a priority for top schools.

+1

Finally, an accurate take.

Only a minor quibble---the PhD numbers at the top schools will be a little lower, at least in the short term, due to adjustments needed for funding shortfalls. But some of those cuts are long overdue among groups that have been taking a surplus of PhDs in areas where there's limited hiring demand on the other side.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One third to 50% of phD students are international. Most of the phD cuts are in very small departments. Even with the cuts, American students will likely have the same chances as in prior years, due to all programs cutting internationals most. They will not go abroad because phD is not funded abroad. That is why so many come here! Our funding is much better than overseas phD programs.
Top internationals will continue to get in. Harvard and the rest of the top 20-30 phd programs in STEM will continue to have the same quality of students they have always had--the pool is deep. Lower ranked schools will suffer.
Additionally, the SEAS cuts are admin cuts, not phd-student cuts. SEAS phd remain a priority for top schools.

+1

Finally, an accurate take.

Only a minor quibble---the PhD numbers at the top schools will be a little lower, at least in the short term, due to adjustments needed for funding shortfalls. But some of those cuts are long overdue among groups that have been taking a surplus of PhDs in areas where there's limited hiring demand on the other side.

This isn't even close to true. Read the Nature article that was posted. The number of PhD slots is decimated. You better hope you don't have a kid who is graduating in the next 5 years who wants a science PhD.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One third to 50% of phD students are international. Most of the phD cuts are in very small departments. Even with the cuts, American students will likely have the same chances as in prior years, due to all programs cutting internationals most. They will not go abroad because phD is not funded abroad. That is why so many come here! Our funding is much better than overseas phD programs.
Top internationals will continue to get in. Harvard and the rest of the top 20-30 phd programs in STEM will continue to have the same quality of students they have always had--the pool is deep. Lower ranked schools will suffer.
Additionally, the SEAS cuts are admin cuts, not phd-student cuts. SEAS phd remain a priority for top schools.

You're just wrong. These were deep cuts that are hurting American science and American students. Many PhD programs aren't able to accept students right now because their funding was slashed. And many foreign students come with their own funding from their home country, so these cuts are hurting American students the most.

This makes no sense.

If you're low on funding, you'll take an international with their own funding over a better home student that you can no longer afford.

Not true.

Our top-tier university funds all of our PhD students, regardless if they are domestic or international. International students typically cost us as much and often more (due to visa support and the fact that they're ineligible for many US gov't based fellowships and grants).

Not true. I attended a large state school for my chemistry PhD and had many classmates who were being funded by other countries including, off the top of my head, Mexico, Turkey, China and France. Many also came with research funds that they could contribute to their PI's lab to cover the cost of their research.

This is no different from a US student coming with an NSF GRF. That's funding that follows the student. Students without funding usually have to TA to cover their stipend, or their PI can pay them from a grant.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One third to 50% of phD students are international. Most of the phD cuts are in very small departments. Even with the cuts, American students will likely have the same chances as in prior years, due to all programs cutting internationals most. They will not go abroad because phD is not funded abroad. That is why so many come here! Our funding is much better than overseas phD programs.
Top internationals will continue to get in. Harvard and the rest of the top 20-30 phd programs in STEM will continue to have the same quality of students they have always had--the pool is deep. Lower ranked schools will suffer.
Additionally, the SEAS cuts are admin cuts, not phd-student cuts. SEAS phd remain a priority for top schools.

You're just wrong. These were deep cuts that are hurting American science and American students. Many PhD programs aren't able to accept students right now because their funding was slashed. And many foreign students come with their own funding from their home country, so these cuts are hurting American students the most.

This makes no sense.

If you're low on funding, you'll take an international with their own funding over a better home student that you can no longer afford.

Not true.

Our top-tier university funds all of our PhD students, regardless if they are domestic or international. International students typically cost us as much and often more (due to visa support and the fact that they're ineligible for many US gov't based fellowships and grants).

You're confused. Universities commit that students are fully funded, not that they'll fully fund the student's PhD. Students are absolutely allowed to come with external funding and fellowships. It would be stupid for a university to turn down such money. The commitment is that the student will be funded for their full PHD. Not that the university will necessarily be the one to provide the funding.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you’re concerned about bloat, there was a measured approach that could have been taken to reduce the percentage of admin costs covered by the feds. That isn’t what happened. Research funds have been indiscriminately slashed and by a lot. This has had a generational impact on American science and killed many worthwhile projects that were underway. Not just at Harvard. Trumps goal wasn’t reducing bloat. It was killing institutions of higher education.

Overhead rates on grants are negotiated between the institution and the government. The institution doesn't just get to pick. The US government has agreed to these rates. There are statues and regs about how this is to be done.

I understand. I was saying if Trump was concerned about bloat like PPs said, his admin would have renegotiated overhead reimbursements. Not slashed across the board.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One third to 50% of phD students are international. Most of the phD cuts are in very small departments. Even with the cuts, American students will likely have the same chances as in prior years, due to all programs cutting internationals most. They will not go abroad because phD is not funded abroad. That is why so many come here! Our funding is much better than overseas phD programs.
Top internationals will continue to get in. Harvard and the rest of the top 20-30 phd programs in STEM will continue to have the same quality of students they have always had--the pool is deep. Lower ranked schools will suffer.
Additionally, the SEAS cuts are admin cuts, not phd-student cuts. SEAS phd remain a priority for top schools.

+1

Finally, an accurate take.

Only a minor quibble---the PhD numbers at the top schools will be a little lower, at least in the short term, due to adjustments needed for funding shortfalls. But some of those cuts are long overdue among groups that have been taking a surplus of PhDs in areas where there's limited hiring demand on the other side.

This isn't even close to true. Read the Nature article that was posted. The number of PhD slots is decimated. You better hope you don't have a kid who is graduating in the next 5 years who wants a science PhD.

PP here. I actually do. This year he was admitted to every program he applied to and awarded an NSF GRFP fellowship. Yes, it's competitive (acceptance rate in his dept < 4%), but the spots are there for strong candidates. He has several peers who landed in outstanding programs with full funding.

Yes, this is a VERY challenging time for academia; but the top US programs are not "decimated."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Focus on training US citizens and giving rural and city kids a chance. The US imports way too much foreign talent.

I agree in theory, but the US K-12 STEM curriculum is sh*t in most places. It is really hard/too late to correct for a poor foundation once the students are at the college and post-grad level, when you are talking about cutting edge research. That’s how you end up with school like Harvard having to add remedial math courses like pre-calculus to get some of their admits up to speed.

It’s not either/or. We need to get our students better trained and we need to continue to attract the best from other countries. It’s what makes us powerful.

That will never happen in a million years. You need solid family support for this kind of education which is lacking in US. Most students are dealing with non-academic stuff. The only option to get high achieveing American students are to have more naturalized Americans from Asian countries. Their kids (Asian-Americans) are killing it here.

Asian-Americans are good at regurgitating overly prepped info. It is the culture. Good or bad.
But you need creative minds for ground-breaking research. Look at the demographics of pretty much all the great inventors. You'll see what I mean.

Ah, yes. No creativity.
Zoom
Youtube
Yahoo
Zappos
Instant pot
Scale AI
Invidia
Tiktok
Linked In
Doordash
Fitbit
N95 masks
OLED Screens
The first oral contraceptive pills
The first AIDS medication.

shall we go back further?
Jet Propulsion Labs
Gunpowder
Paper
Paper money
Compass
Printing

I could keep going but I’ll stop here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One third to 50% of phD students are international. Most of the phD cuts are in very small departments. Even with the cuts, American students will likely have the same chances as in prior years, due to all programs cutting internationals most. They will not go abroad because phD is not funded abroad. That is why so many come here! Our funding is much better than overseas phD programs.
Top internationals will continue to get in. Harvard and the rest of the top 20-30 phd programs in STEM will continue to have the same quality of students they have always had--the pool is deep. Lower ranked schools will suffer.
Additionally, the SEAS cuts are admin cuts, not phd-student cuts. SEAS phd remain a priority for top schools.

+1

Finally, an accurate take.

Only a minor quibble---the PhD numbers at the top schools will be a little lower, at least in the short term, due to adjustments needed for funding shortfalls. But some of those cuts are long overdue among groups that have been taking a surplus of PhDs in areas where there's limited hiring demand on the other side.

This isn't even close to true. Read the Nature article that was posted. The number of PhD slots is decimated. You better hope you don't have a kid who is graduating in the next 5 years who wants a science PhD.

PP here. I actually do. This year he was admitted to every program he applied to and awarded an NSF GRFP fellowship. Yes, it's competitive (acceptance rate in his dept < 4%), but the spots are there for strong candidates. He has several peers who landed in outstanding programs with full funding.

Yes, this is a VERY challenging time for academia; but the top US programs are not "decimated."

Yeah, I had an NSF GRF too. That program was cut by 55% last year, on top of the cuts to individual PIs, and is in chaos this year. It's a mess.

https://cen.acs.org/policy/research-funding/Last-minute-changes-NSF-graduate/103/web/2025/10

All of US science is being gutted. The top programs aren't immune at all. If anything many are being targeted.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Harvard’s class of 2029 is now 41% Asian. Everyone needs to think long and hard about the implications here.

Implications? Smart group of students who study diligently, score well, and don't waste time getting into trouble.

I think both of these statements are weird. Just because there’s more Asians doesn’t mean we should revert to racism. Just because there’s more Asians doesn’t mean we should assume everyone is some perfect angel child either.

Treat people like people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Focus on training US citizens and giving rural and city kids a chance. The US imports way too much foreign talent.

I agree in theory, but the US K-12 STEM curriculum is sh*t in most places. It is really hard/too late to correct for a poor foundation once the students are at the college and post-grad level, when you are talking about cutting edge research. That’s how you end up with school like Harvard having to add remedial math courses like pre-calculus to get some of their admits up to speed.

It’s not either/or. We need to get our students better trained and we need to continue to attract the best from other countries. It’s what makes us powerful.

We have lots of American students who could get a science PhD. Most just choose not to because it's really really hard work, takes a really really long time and has very uncertain and not well compensated career prospects. It's way easier to go work in consulting or for an investment bank than to spend 6 years making 40k/year during your PhD, then two 2-year post doc making $78k, only to fight for a possible faculty job in your 30s. All of those years as a graduate student and post docs years you're grinding it out with 80+ hour work weeks, going into the lab 7 days a week. If you don't get a faculty job, you have to try to find an industry job and those prospects really depend on your specialization. Many end up working at Starbucks. American students have other options.

A science PhD? No not really. There’s plenty of careers and you’d actually get priority as domestic talent, but people usually aren’t qualified or actually mature enough to get though a PhD program. It’s also a bit strange to argue that there aren’t many Americans in phd programs but to then say PhD students end up at Starbucks- something international job applicants can’t work at.

I think many more people go into consulting cause it’s easy to get from a top school, career offices at top schools push everyone into it, and it’s super easy to bs an interview spewing how passionate you are about whatever McKinsey does that isn’t some borderline crime.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Focus on training US citizens and giving rural and city kids a chance. The US imports way too much foreign talent.

I agree in theory, but the US K-12 STEM curriculum is sh*t in most places. It is really hard/too late to correct for a poor foundation once the students are at the college and post-grad level, when you are talking about cutting edge research. That’s how you end up with school like Harvard having to add remedial math courses like pre-calculus to get some of their admits up to speed.

It’s not either/or. We need to get our students better trained and we need to continue to attract the best from other countries. It’s what makes us powerful.

We have lots of American students who could get a science PhD. Most just choose not to because it's really really hard work, takes a really really long time and has very uncertain and not well compensated career prospects. It's way easier to go work in consulting or for an investment bank than to spend 6 years making 40k/year during your PhD, then two 2-year post doc making $78k, only to fight for a possible faculty job in your 30s. All of those years as a graduate student and post docs years you're grinding it out with 80+ hour work weeks, going into the lab 7 days a week. If you don't get a faculty job, you have to try to find an industry job and those prospects really depend on your specialization. Many end up working at Starbucks. American students have other options.

A science PhD? No not really. There’s plenty of careers and you’d actually get priority as domestic talent, but people usually aren’t qualified or actually mature enough to get though a PhD program. It’s also a bit strange to argue that there aren’t many Americans in phd programs but to then say PhD students end up at Starbucks- something international job applicants can’t work at.

I think many more people go into consulting cause it’s easy to get from a top school, career offices at top schools push everyone into it, and it’s super easy to bs an interview spewing how passionate you are about whatever McKinsey does that isn’t some borderline crime.

If even a small percentage of those from top schools trying for med school or who go into consulting or banking decided to stay in science and get a PhD, programs would be overwhelmed. And I don't buy the argument that there's top 50 science grads who are totally unequipped to enter a PhD program. The issue is that there are options for those tops students that are less work and more lucrative.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Focus on training US citizens and giving rural and city kids a chance. The US imports way too much foreign talent.

I agree in theory, but the US K-12 STEM curriculum is sh*t in most places. It is really hard/too late to correct for a poor foundation once the students are at the college and post-grad level, when you are talking about cutting edge research. That’s how you end up with school like Harvard having to add remedial math courses like pre-calculus to get some of their admits up to speed.

It’s not either/or. We need to get our students better trained and we need to continue to attract the best from other countries. It’s what makes us powerful.

We have lots of American students who could get a science PhD. Most just choose not to because it's really really hard work, takes a really really long time and has very uncertain and not well compensated career prospects. It's way easier to go work in consulting or for an investment bank than to spend 6 years making 40k/year during your PhD, then two 2-year post doc making $78k, only to fight for a possible faculty job in your 30s. All of those years as a graduate student and post docs years you're grinding it out with 80+ hour work weeks, going into the lab 7 days a week. If you don't get a faculty job, you have to try to find an industry job and those prospects really depend on your specialization. Many end up working at Starbucks. American students have other options.

A science PhD? No not really. There’s plenty of careers and you’d actually get priority as domestic talent, but people usually aren’t qualified or actually mature enough to get though a PhD program. It’s also a bit strange to argue that there aren’t many Americans in phd programs but to then say PhD students end up at Starbucks- something international job applicants can’t work at.

I think many more people go into consulting cause it’s easy to get from a top school, career offices at top schools push everyone into it, and it’s super easy to bs an interview spewing how passionate you are about whatever McKinsey does that isn’t some borderline crime.

If even a small percentage of those from top schools trying for med school or who go into consulting or banking decided to stay in science and get a PhD, programs would be overwhelmed. And I don't buy the argument that there's top 50 science grads who are totally unequipped to enter a PhD program. The issue is that there are options for those tops students that are less work and more lucrative.

Then you don’t understand what it takes to get through a science PhD program. I absolutely believe that many top grads are unequipped - I’ve witnessed them flame out first hand. And we already prioritize recruiting American students because they’re eligible for federal training grants (and are therefore cheaper for the university).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Focus on training US citizens and giving rural and city kids a chance. The US imports way too much foreign talent.

I agree in theory, but the US K-12 STEM curriculum is sh*t in most places. It is really hard/too late to correct for a poor foundation once the students are at the college and post-grad level, when you are talking about cutting edge research. That’s how you end up with school like Harvard having to add remedial math courses like pre-calculus to get some of their admits up to speed.

It’s not either/or. We need to get our students better trained and we need to continue to attract the best from other countries. It’s what makes us powerful.

We have lots of American students who could get a science PhD. Most just choose not to because it's really really hard work, takes a really really long time and has very uncertain and not well compensated career prospects. It's way easier to go work in consulting or for an investment bank than to spend 6 years making 40k/year during your PhD, then two 2-year post doc making $78k, only to fight for a possible faculty job in your 30s. All of those years as a graduate student and post docs years you're grinding it out with 80+ hour work weeks, going into the lab 7 days a week. If you don't get a faculty job, you have to try to find an industry job and those prospects really depend on your specialization. Many end up working at Starbucks. American students have other options.

A science PhD? No not really. There’s plenty of careers and you’d actually get priority as domestic talent, but people usually aren’t qualified or actually mature enough to get though a PhD program. It’s also a bit strange to argue that there aren’t many Americans in phd programs but to then say PhD students end up at Starbucks- something international job applicants can’t work at.

I think many more people go into consulting cause it’s easy to get from a top school, career offices at top schools push everyone into it, and it’s super easy to bs an interview spewing how passionate you are about whatever McKinsey does that isn’t some borderline crime.

If even a small percentage of those from top schools trying for med school or who go into consulting or banking decided to stay in science and get a PhD, programs would be overwhelmed. And I don't buy the argument that there's top 50 science grads who are totally unequipped to enter a PhD program. The issue is that there are options for those tops students that are less work and more lucrative.

Then you don’t understand what it takes to get through a science PhD program. I absolutely believe that many top grads are unequipped - I’ve witnessed them flame out first hand. And we already prioritize recruiting American students because they’re eligible for federal training grants (and are therefore cheaper for the university).

I have a flippin' chemistry PhD from a top school. I absolutely know what it takes. And I don't think the Harvard, Yale, Stanford, Princeton, MIT, Pomona, Berkeley, etc science grads who are applying to med school or IB jobs are too stupid for a chemistry PhD. It's about choices.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Focus on training US citizens and giving rural and city kids a chance. The US imports way too much foreign talent.

I agree in theory, but the US K-12 STEM curriculum is sh*t in most places. It is really hard/too late to correct for a poor foundation once the students are at the college and post-grad level, when you are talking about cutting edge research. That’s how you end up with school like Harvard having to add remedial math courses like pre-calculus to get some of their admits up to speed.

It’s not either/or. We need to get our students better trained and we need to continue to attract the best from other countries. It’s what makes us powerful.

We have lots of American students who could get a science PhD. Most just choose not to because it's really really hard work, takes a really really long time and has very uncertain and not well compensated career prospects. It's way easier to go work in consulting or for an investment bank than to spend 6 years making 40k/year during your PhD, then two 2-year post doc making $78k, only to fight for a possible faculty job in your 30s. All of those years as a graduate student and post docs years you're grinding it out with 80+ hour work weeks, going into the lab 7 days a week. If you don't get a faculty job, you have to try to find an industry job and those prospects really depend on your specialization. Many end up working at Starbucks. American students have other options.

A science PhD? No not really. There’s plenty of careers and you’d actually get priority as domestic talent, but people usually aren’t qualified or actually mature enough to get though a PhD program. It’s also a bit strange to argue that there aren’t many Americans in phd programs but to then say PhD students end up at Starbucks- something international job applicants can’t work at.

I think many more people go into consulting cause it’s easy to get from a top school, career offices at top schools push everyone into it, and it’s super easy to bs an interview spewing how passionate you are about whatever McKinsey does that isn’t some borderline crime.

If even a small percentage of those from top schools trying for med school or who go into consulting or banking decided to stay in science and get a PhD, programs would be overwhelmed. And I don't buy the argument that there's top 50 science grads who are totally unequipped to enter a PhD program. The issue is that there are options for those tops students that are less work and more lucrative.

Then you don’t understand what it takes to get through a science PhD program. I absolutely believe that many top grads are unequipped - I’ve witnessed them flame out first hand. And we already prioritize recruiting American students because they’re eligible for federal training grants (and are therefore cheaper for the university).

I have a flippin' chemistry PhD from a top school. I absolutely know what it takes. And I don't think the Harvard, Yale, Stanford, Princeton, MIT, Pomona, Berkeley, etc science grads who are applying to med school or IB jobs are too stupid for a chemistry PhD. It's about choices.

I have a child at a top 10 college majoring in bio or chem with a minor in the other. I think everyone is so focused on what is needed for med school, which has some riducylously intricate requirements, that it acts as a sort of funnel. I think mine would most prefer a joint MD/PHd program for clinical research — some of my family members did that — but I’m also guessing funding for that won’t exist when my child graduates. I’m hoping things don’t look as bleak in a year or two ….

I have to think that at some point the rich donor class will start to push back on all this anti-science stuff. Unless you run a supplements company, I can’t see how any of this benefits the people in this country with money and power. They are the ones that typically make money off scientific developments and the ones who typically get first access to life saving medical treatments. Maybe it gives some of them some nice schadefreude to beat up on Harvard—but I think most of them lose out in this anti-science world.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Focus on training US citizens and giving rural and city kids a chance. The US imports way too much foreign talent.

I agree in theory, but the US K-12 STEM curriculum is sh*t in most places. It is really hard/too late to correct for a poor foundation once the students are at the college and post-grad level, when you are talking about cutting edge research. That’s how you end up with school like Harvard having to add remedial math courses like pre-calculus to get some of their admits up to speed.

It’s not either/or. We need to get our students better trained and we need to continue to attract the best from other countries. It’s what makes us powerful.

We have lots of American students who could get a science PhD. Most just choose not to because it's really really hard work, takes a really really long time and has very uncertain and not well compensated career prospects. It's way easier to go work in consulting or for an investment bank than to spend 6 years making 40k/year during your PhD, then two 2-year post doc making $78k, only to fight for a possible faculty job in your 30s. All of those years as a graduate student and post docs years you're grinding it out with 80+ hour work weeks, going into the lab 7 days a week. If you don't get a faculty job, you have to try to find an industry job and those prospects really depend on your specialization. Many end up working at Starbucks. American students have other options.

A science PhD? No not really. There’s plenty of careers and you’d actually get priority as domestic talent, but people usually aren’t qualified or actually mature enough to get though a PhD program. It’s also a bit strange to argue that there aren’t many Americans in phd programs but to then say PhD students end up at Starbucks- something international job applicants can’t work at.

I think many more people go into consulting cause it’s easy to get from a top school, career offices at top schools push everyone into it, and it’s super easy to bs an interview spewing how passionate you are about whatever McKinsey does that isn’t some borderline crime.

If even a small percentage of those from top schools trying for med school or who go into consulting or banking decided to stay in science and get a PhD, programs would be overwhelmed. And I don't buy the argument that there's top 50 science grads who are totally unequipped to enter a PhD program. The issue is that there are options for those tops students that are less work and more lucrative.

Then you don’t understand what it takes to get through a science PhD program. I absolutely believe that many top grads are unequipped - I’ve witnessed them flame out first hand. And we already prioritize recruiting American students because they’re eligible for federal training grants (and are therefore cheaper for the university).

I have a flippin' chemistry PhD from a top school. I absolutely know what it takes. And I don't think the Harvard, Yale, Stanford, Princeton, MIT, Pomona, Berkeley, etc science grads who are applying to med school or IB jobs are too stupid for a chemistry PhD. It's about choices.

And I have a flippin' biomedical PhD from a top school. Which as noted above, are the majority of the PhD programs that we're talking about right now. It isn't that they're too stupid, it's that they have been trained on a skillset that is irrelevant for being successful in a Ph.D. program. They flame out because success is no longer measured by how well one does on their exams, or how facts they can memorize. They can't get themselves to the lab bench because they want someone to tell the the 'right' way to design their experiments, and when their data confuses them they freak out instead of digging in and figuring out why. There just aren't as many people that are academically, emotionally, and professionally prepared. It isn't just a 'plan B' if med school didn't work out, despite how many young folks and people like you want it to be.