How much of the glut of overqualified candidates at all levels of academia is, to some significant extent, explained by the failure of enrollment at the "top" 50 colleges and universities to keep pace with population growth? Shouldn't the astronomy, physics, chemistry, etc. departments among all R1 institutions be ~50% larger than they were 35 years ago?
Astronomy undergrad degrees might be rising because undergrad STEM degrees are more marketable to employers than liberal arts degrees. I highly doubt all of these undergraduates intend to be astronomers.
One of the ways to reduce the grad student population is to severely restrict student loans. Right now grad students are allowed to borrow 100 percent of need- which is tuition plus room and board and living expenses. And then through income based repayment options, paying only 10 percent of even a miserly salary results in eventual loan forgiveness. Many of these PhD’s, MA’s, JD’s from second and third tier schools borrow six figures and then can’t even pay the interest. The taxpayer is being had, all while perpetuating bloat in academia.
Of course, this would just eliminate teaching jobs and programs at many second and third tier schools- so be it. Offer value for money rather than relying upon stealing from the taxpayer .
How much of the glut of overqualified candidates at all levels of academia is, to some significant extent, explained by the failure of enrollment at the "top" 50 colleges and universities to keep pace with population growth? Shouldn't the astronomy, physics, chemistry, etc. departments among all R1 institutions be ~50% larger than they were 35 years ago?
Population of 18 year olds peaked about 10 years ago, didn’t it?
And the undergrad classes of many of the top 50 schools are upwards of 50 pct larger than they were 30 years ago.
Tenured Faculty hasn’t grown by as much. More post docs and contract profs. But administration has massively increased headcount
Astronomy undergrad degrees might be rising because undergrad STEM degrees are more marketable to employers than liberal arts degrees. I highly doubt all of these undergraduates intend to be astronomers.
One of the ways to reduce the grad student population is to severely restrict student loans. Right now grad students are allowed to borrow 100 percent of need- which is tuition plus room and board and living expenses. And then through income based repayment options, paying only 10 percent of even a miserly salary results in eventual loan forgiveness. Many of these PhD’s, MA’s, JD’s from second and third tier schools borrow six figures and then can’t even pay the interest. The taxpayer is being had, all while perpetuating bloat in academia.
Of course, this would just eliminate teaching jobs and programs at many second and third tier schools- so be it. Offer value for money rather than relying upon stealing from the taxpayer .
No, most PhD students don’t take out loans, at least in STEM.
They order these things better in China where, adjusted for PPP, they invest four times more money in STEM R&D than we do.
Four times more: 2.6% of their $30 Tn GDP, compared to 0.8% of our smaller GDP.
Let the education economy sort itself out and do the best by your students. Undergraduate research opportunities are a great thing.