Harvard slashing PhD programs + layoffs

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This opinion is really about stroking your own ego. I don't disagree that science PhD programs are designed to accept most and then weed out those without the chops, but I also don't believe those gunning to be an MD couldn't redirect that same tenacity and intelligence to get a PhD if that's what they wanted. You're not that special.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This opinion is really about stroking your own ego. I don't disagree that science PhD programs are designed to accept most and then weed out those without the chops, but I also don't believe those gunning to be an MD couldn't redirect that same tenacity and intelligence to get a PhD if that's what they wanted. You're not that special.

Believe what you want, but I'd take a look at the number of students that master out of a PhD program before thinking that those gunning for an MD program but didn't make it are somehow special. They are not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This opinion is really about stroking your own ego. I don't disagree that science PhD programs are designed to accept most and then weed out those without the chops, but I also don't believe those gunning to be an MD couldn't redirect that same tenacity and intelligence to get a PhD if that's what they wanted. You're not that special.

Believe what you want, but I'd take a look at the number of students that master out of a PhD program before thinking that those gunning for an MD program but didn't make it are somehow special. They are not.

I never said students who are gunning for an MD program and didn't make it. I said students who could choose to do a PhD instead of an MD--that would be students with the aptitude to get into med school. It's a choice to get an MD instead of a PhD for them, not a backup option.

And I don't need to look at stats. I was in a program that started with 20 PhD candidates and that graduated 8 PhDs. I am fully aware of the wash out rate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This opinion is really about stroking your own ego. I don't disagree that science PhD programs are designed to accept most and then weed out those without the chops, but I also don't believe those gunning to be an MD couldn't redirect that same tenacity and intelligence to get a PhD if that's what they wanted. You're not that special.

Believe what you want, but I'd take a look at the number of students that master out of a PhD program before thinking that those gunning for an MD program but didn't make it are somehow special. They are not.

I never said students who are gunning for an MD program and didn't make it. I said students who could choose to do a PhD instead of an MD--that would be students with the aptitude to get into med school. It's a choice to get an MD instead of a PhD for them, not a backup option.

And I don't need to look at stats. I was in a program that started with 20 PhD candidates and that graduated 8 PhDs. I am fully aware of the wash out rate.

If you're aware of the wash out rate then what exactly is your problem here? You really think that a bunch of people gearing up to get into med school will be well-suited for a Ph.D. program, or you just really wanted to get into a fight. International students just really bug you that much, huh.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This opinion is really about stroking your own ego. I don't disagree that science PhD programs are designed to accept most and then weed out those without the chops, but I also don't believe those gunning to be an MD couldn't redirect that same tenacity and intelligence to get a PhD if that's what they wanted. You're not that special.

Believe what you want, but I'd take a look at the number of students that master out of a PhD program before thinking that those gunning for an MD program but didn't make it are somehow special. They are not.

I never said students who are gunning for an MD program and didn't make it. I said students who could choose to do a PhD instead of an MD--that would be students with the aptitude to get into med school. It's a choice to get an MD instead of a PhD for them, not a backup option.

And I don't need to look at stats. I was in a program that started with 20 PhD candidates and that graduated 8 PhDs. I am fully aware of the wash out rate.

If you're aware of the wash out rate then what exactly is your problem here? You really think that a bunch of people gearing up to get into med school will be well-suited for a Ph.D. program, or you just really wanted to get into a fight. International students just really bug you that much, huh.

International students don't bug me at all. I'm pushing back on the notion that there aren't enough Americans in science PhD programs because US middle and high schools don't teach math and science well enough. I think there are plenty of undergrad science majors who have the ability to shoot for a PhD if they want, but who choose to take an easier, more lucrative, and less risky path, including options like being an MD, consultant or investment banking. Top American students have options. A science PhD is grueling and the job options coming out aren't always great.

In short, American students aren't pursuing science PhDs in greater numbers because science PhD programs are hard, long, and don't necessarily lead to high paying jobs, not because they don't have the fundamental science skills or the opportunity. Cutting international students is not going to increase the number of interested American students.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This opinion is really about stroking your own ego. I don't disagree that science PhD programs are designed to accept most and then weed out those without the chops, but I also don't believe those gunning to be an MD couldn't redirect that same tenacity and intelligence to get a PhD if that's what they wanted. You're not that special.

Believe what you want, but I'd take a look at the number of students that master out of a PhD program before thinking that those gunning for an MD program but didn't make it are somehow special. They are not.

I never said students who are gunning for an MD program and didn't make it. I said students who could choose to do a PhD instead of an MD--that would be students with the aptitude to get into med school. It's a choice to get an MD instead of a PhD for them, not a backup option.

And I don't need to look at stats. I was in a program that started with 20 PhD candidates and that graduated 8 PhDs. I am fully aware of the wash out rate.

If you're aware of the wash out rate then what exactly is your problem here? You really think that a bunch of people gearing up to get into med school will be well-suited for a Ph.D. program, or you just really wanted to get into a fight. International students just really bug you that much, huh.

International students don't bug me at all. I'm pushing back on the notion that there aren't enough Americans in science PhD programs because US middle and high schools don't teach math and science well enough. I think there are plenty of undergrad science majors who have the ability to shoot for a PhD if they want, but who choose to take an easier, more lucrative, and less risky path, including options like being an MD, consultant or investment banking. Top American students have options. A science PhD is grueling and the job options coming out aren't always great.

In short, American students aren't pursuing science PhDs in greater numbers because science PhD programs are hard, long, and don't necessarily lead to high paying jobs, not because they don't have the fundamental science skills or the opportunity. Cutting international students is not going to increase the number of interested American students.

I think you're talking past me at this point. But hey, I'd love to have a better pool of applicants the next time I'm recruiting, and I'd love to invest in a graduate student that doesn't freak out the first time they fail at the bench. And all the better if they're American (and cheaper) for me to recruit. So here's hoping that happens.

[Anonymous]

Please note that “slashing” is an overly dramatic phrase used by OP, not in the articles. Also remember The Crimson is a student paper so will always be ultra hysterical. To that point, when the author talks about “75 percent cut!”, it’s deceptive because not that many numbers are actually involved. Dropping from eight to five or three PhD candidates in a department is hardly a crisis, especially when some departments (see article) are choosing not to cut any PhD candidates.

And note the first article is about admin cuts. This Harvard needs to do.

Harvard has relied for far too long on the federal dollar. It needs to cut staff - which the first article is about- and unnecessary PhD spending, which it could choose to fund out of its massive endowment but is opting to
make this statement instead.

[Anonymous]

At least Harvard did not cave to Trump the way UVA just did.

[Anonymous]

^Harvard grad opinion

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This opinion is really about stroking your own ego. I don't disagree that science PhD programs are designed to accept most and then weed out those without the chops, but I also don't believe those gunning to be an MD couldn't redirect that same tenacity and intelligence to get a PhD if that's what they wanted. You're not that special.

Believe what you want, but I'd take a look at the number of students that master out of a PhD program before thinking that those gunning for an MD program but didn't make it are somehow special. They are not.

I never said students who are gunning for an MD program and didn't make it. I said students who could choose to do a PhD instead of an MD--that would be students with the aptitude to get into med school. It's a choice to get an MD instead of a PhD for them, not a backup option.

And I don't need to look at stats. I was in a program that started with 20 PhD candidates and that graduated 8 PhDs. I am fully aware of the wash out rate.

If you're aware of the wash out rate then what exactly is your problem here? You really think that a bunch of people gearing up to get into med school will be well-suited for a Ph.D. program, or you just really wanted to get into a fight. International students just really bug you that much, huh.

International students don't bug me at all. I'm pushing back on the notion that there aren't enough Americans in science PhD programs because US middle and high schools don't teach math and science well enough. I think there are plenty of undergrad science majors who have the ability to shoot for a PhD if they want, but who choose to take an easier, more lucrative, and less risky path, including options like being an MD, consultant or investment banking. Top American students have options. A science PhD is grueling and the job options coming out aren't always great.

In short, American students aren't pursuing science PhDs in greater numbers because science PhD programs are hard, long, and don't necessarily lead to high paying jobs, not because they don't have the fundamental science skills or the opportunity. Cutting international students is not going to increase the number of interested American students.

I think you're talking past me at this point. But hey, I'd love to have a better pool of applicants the next time I'm recruiting, and I'd love to invest in a graduate student that doesn't freak out the first time they fail at the bench. And all the better if they're American (and cheaper) for me to recruit. So here's hoping that happens.

This type of snotty "I'm better than everyone else" attitude is one of the reasons Republicans are defunding science.