Being a professor where you want

[Rika]

bardeen couldn't understand "dishonesty" - universities that produce physicists that can't find a job afterwards. Education is big business. As long as people are willing to pay for a degree, unis will lure new students. As long as people are willing to sacrifice 4-6 years of their lifes for a slim chance of getting permanent job in academia, unis will gladly welcome them. And because Obama is donating this business, bubble is getting bigger and bigger. I'm curious what will happen when it explodes.

What I wanted to say is that regardless of PhD formal status, current education system is one, big lie. Not only in USA but also in Europe. It's a lie because there is no way that 41% of young (18-24 years old) people can get a job that truly requires higher education. No matter how rich or advanced in terms of technology your country is, you still need more plumbers and technicians than scienstists.

Someone was whining about "2 years of experience" for entry level job - that's one of the side effects of mass-producing people with degree. There is only one field where you can mass-produce for now - it's IT because supply/demand ratio is far too good. For now.

 

[ZapperZ]

bardeen couldn't understand "dishonesty" - universities that produce physicists that can't find a job afterwards. Education is big business. As long as people are willing to pay for a degree, unis will lure new students. As long as people are willing to sacrifice 4-6 years of their lifes for a slim chance of getting permanent job in academia, unis will gladly welcome them. And because Obama is donating this business, bubble is getting bigger and bigger. I'm curious what will happen when it explodes.

Snide comment aside, YOU are benefiting for this so-called "big business". Open PRL from 10 years ago, and tell me how many of the papers and advancements made back then out of universities that you are USING now!

I've heard this so many times before, and it never cease to amaze me how hypocritical such a comment can be! I mean, how ignorant can one get to severely criticize these institutions on one hand, and then on the next, pick up devices and use the advancement that CAME OUT of work done at these institutions. Don't believe me? Go look at where advancement in NMR/MRI came from, for example!

The fact is, you and society as a whole has benefited from work done out of these institutions! Period! Now whether the students that went into these line of studies found jobs afterwards does NOT diminish the importance of the work done out of these institutions. Rather, what is lacking is a comprehensive dose of reality that should be conveyed to these students so that they know what they are getting into. I've lost count how many students on this forum alone who simply ignored my advise of opening up their interest beyond just the sexy fields of "high energy physics", "string theory", etc. and into areas that have a higher degree of employability. You simply can only lead a horse to water, and if *I* can't tell them to wake up and assess the situation, no one and no institution can! At some point, the responsibility and the inability to find a job in the area of interest falls on that person itself!

Rather than making a blanket accusation that only reveals your bitterness, one should instead figure out if there are ways to do physics and yet, make one very employable beyond just the confines of academia! This is WAY more than possible, because there are tremendous range of fields under physics that continue to have good employment rate even in these trying times!

Zz.

 

[Choppy]

And I have never understood why physics departments do so much advertising for physics. Why do they want more and more physics PhDs if there aren't enough appropriate jobs for them? I don't think the field would die if not for their advertising, since there will always be people that go into physics for the love of it. I find it really dishonest on their part. Even if they do it to increase the pressure on the government for more funding, I don't think it's the way (assuming that somehow having more PhDs means they can pressure the government into spending more money on them).

I'd like to respond to this.

First, you have to remember that studying physics is different from vocational training. A physics department is not set up to train students to a specific level of compentancy in the trade of physics professorship. It's set up to teach physics. Eventually, if you master the subejct enough, you may have the opportunity to pursue it academically as a career. More often you will take that knowledge with you into whatever vocation you take on.

Second, what is "so much advertising for physics" anyway? Maybe it's different in the US, but most of the advertising that I've seen that is physics-specific is either (a) on equal footing with every other department in the faculty of science, or other departments for that matter, or (b) specificially targeted at groups that are under-represented in the field (ie. women). And it's far far less than advertising for schools that provide specific vocational training.

Departments need to advertise their programs to some degree. I don't think anyone wants a world where studying physics becomes a secretive pursuit available only to a small subsection of society.

 

[atyy]

That last part is a fallacy.

1) Graduate students cannot hold NSF/DOE grant fundings, i.e. they never control the money or able to allocate such fundings.

2) Graduate students are not Principle Investigators (PIs) in any research projects.

That "formal sense" is what DEFINES the position, regardless of how one feels about it.

Zz.

I don't agree with the formal argumentation. But let me ask about it.

What is your view on whether graduate researchers are doing jobs in the cases in which graduate research assistants are unionized? The Northwest Labor Press reported earlier this year: "Last year, they turned in union authorization cards signed by nearly 500 graduate research assistants, but the OSU administration argued that they’re students, not public employees. The Oregon Employment Relations Board disagreed, and scheduled an election." Another case reported by the Nature Jobs website says: "Research assistants at the Research Foundation of the State University of New York (SUNY) in Stony Brook have decided to unionize... In 2004, the federal National Labor Relations Board ruled that research assistants are students, not employees, and so could not be represented by a union. But a 2007 board ruled that those at the SUNY Research Foundation in Albany, Buffalo and Syracuse were fundamentally employees."

I don't think anyone wants a world where studying physics becomes a secretive pursuit available only to a small subsection of society.

I very much agree with this sentiment.

 

[ZapperZ]

I don't agree with the formal argumentation. But let me ask about it.

What is your view on whether graduate researchers are doing jobs in the cases in which graduate research assistants are unionized? The Northwest Labor Press reported earlier this year: "Last year, they turned in union authorization cards signed by nearly 500 graduate research assistants, but the OSU administration argued that they’re students, not public employees. The Oregon Employment Relations Board disagreed, and scheduled an election." Another case reported by the Nature Jobs website says: "Research assistants at the Research Foundation of the State University of New York (SUNY) in Stony Brook have decided to unionize... In 2004, the federal National Labor Relations Board ruled that research assistants are students, not employees, and so could not be represented by a union. But a 2007 board ruled that those at the SUNY Research Foundation in Albany, Buffalo and Syracuse were fundamentally employees."

I don't know why this would matter.

Our technicians here are unionized. They are employees. In many cases, I consider them as my colleagues because when I want to design something, I consult them. They attend our weekly meetings as everyone else. But just because I consider them "equal", they still have different pay grades, they are still not PIs, and we each have formally different titles.

Want more examples? Many faculty members don't distinguish themselves among each other. Assistant professors, associate professors, full professors, senior professors, etc...etc. We all consider ourselves equal. Using your logic, there should be any difference. Yet, the reality is, no matter how you feel about it, there are distinct differences, especially between tenured and non-tenured faculty! The reality is, there ARE significant differences in the status that the institution has granted, and what other agencies have granted, regardless of how you "feel" about it.

These graduate assistants can be unionized, or not. But they still do not hold the research grants, and they still are not PIs in the research initiated by their supervisors! That doesn't change no matter if you call Pluto a planet or not!

Zz

 

[atyy]

I don't know why this would matter.

Our technicians here are unionized. They are employees. In many cases, I consider them as my colleagues because when I want to design something, I consult them. They attend our weekly meetings as everyone else. But just because I consider them "equal", they still have different pay grades, they are still not PIs, and we each have formally different titles.

Want more examples? Many faculty members don't distinguish themselves among each other. Assistant professors, associate professors, full professors, senior professors, etc...etc. We all consider ourselves equal. Using your logic, there should be any difference. Yet, the reality is, no matter how you feel about it, there are distinct differences, especially between tenured and non-tenured faculty! The reality is, there ARE significant differences in the status that the institution has granted, and what other agencies have granted, regardless of how you "feel" about it.

These graduate assistants can be unionized, or not. But they still do not hold the research grants, and they still are not PIs in the research initiated by their supervisors! That doesn't change no matter if you call Pluto a planet or not!

Zz

I was referring to the issue of whether being a graduate student is a job or not.

 

[ZapperZ]

I was referring to the issue of whether being a graduate student is a job or not.

Being a graduate student is not a job. You PAY the school to be there. Why is this so difficult to sink in?

Zz.

 

[atyy]

Being a graduate student is not a job. You PAY the school to be there. Why is this so difficult to sink in?

Zz.

I guess we shall have to disagree on that point. I'd still appreciate your comment then on how your formal argument holds in the cases in which graduate students (or perhaps more legalistically - graduate research assistants) are unionized.

 

[ZapperZ]

I guess we shall have to disagree on that point.

Disagree on what point? That graduates students have to PAY to attend graduate school? This is a point of debate and uncertainty?

I'd still appreciate your comment then on how your formal argument holds in the cases in which graduate students (or perhaps more legalistically - graduate research assistants) are unionized.

1. Faculty members are designated as "faculty members" by the school. They receive privileges that are reserved only to them. They are also recognized by other institutions such as DOE and NSF as being such, and are able to apply for the standard research grants, etc.

2. Graduate students are designated as "graduate students"! Even if they receive stipends either for their work at TA or from their supervisors at RA, they are still NOT considered as "faculty members" by both the educational institutions, and by grants institutions! They are not the same!

3. In many schools, graduate research assistants comes in many different forms. I went through my graduate work alongside someone from Turkey, who, even though he did work alongside of me, he got paid NOTHING by both our supervisor and the educational institutions. Why? Because he received support from his home country. So, do you consider him to have a job, and he should be "unionized"?! There are many instances where students, especially international students, pay their own way through graduate schools! Do you think they have a job, and should be unionized??!

Zz.

 

[Locrian]

Being a graduate student is not a job. You PAY the school to be there. Why is this so difficult to sink in?

Zz.

No I didn't. There were things they expected me to do for them and things I expected them to do for me.

The net financial transfer was from them to me.

The difference between that arrangement and my current job is in the magnitude of the transfer and the time spent on those two types of activities.

 

[atyy]

Disagree on what point? That graduates students have to PAY to attend graduate school? This is a point of debate and uncertainty?

Yes, in my view, most graduate students in the sciences are paid, regardless of legal formalities as to what the pay is called.

1. Faculty members are designated as "faculty members" by the school. They receive privileges that are reserved only to them. They are also recognized by other institutions such as DOE and NSF as being such, and are able to apply for the standard research grants, etc.

2. Graduate students are designated as "graduate students"! Even if they receive stipends either for their work at TA or from their supervisors at RA, they are still NOT considered as "faculty members" by both the educational institutions, and by grants institutions! They are not the same!

3. In many schools, graduate research assistants comes in many different forms. I went through my graduate work alongside someone from Turkey, who, even though he did work alongside of me, he got paid NOTHING by both our supervisor and the educational institutions. Why? Because he received support from his home country. So, do you consider him to have a job, and he should be "unionized"?! There are many instances where students, especially international students, pay their own way through graduate schools! Do you think they have a job, and should be unionized??!

I don't have a strong view as to whether they should or should not be unionized. But it appears, reagardless of my views, that some are, as the reports I linked in post #34 indicate. Do you hold that such graduate students are not having a job?

 

[ZapperZ]

Yes, in my view, most graduate students in the sciences are paid, regardless of legal formalities as to what the pay is called.

Read carefully what I wrote. I said that THEY PAY, not ARE PAID, to attend graduate school. School isn't free.

I don't have a strong view as to whether they should or should not be unionized. But it appears, reagardless of my views, that some are, as the reports I linked in post #34 indicate. Do you hold that such graduate students are not having a job?

Correct. I do not consider them to be jobs. They have to do research work REGARDLESS if they get paid or not, and even if they do get compensation, regardless of WHO paid the compensation.

If the IRS treats them has having a regular job, then watch out! That tuition and fees waver will be taxed!

Do you know that priests, who live in rectories, have to pay taxes on their "rent free" living as if they were income? Want to treat graduate assistance as having regular jobs? Go right ahead, but be careful what you ask for!

Zz.

 

[ParticleGrl]

Read carefully what I wrote. I said that THEY PAY, not ARE PAID, to attend graduate school. School isn't free.

But it is free, the net transfer is school -> student or graduate students.

In fact, your first post on this thread made the exact opposite point-

Most physics graduate students DO NOT pay tuition and fees.

My two cents are that if you watched a graduate student and someone of similar age with a job for a week, you'd have trouble deciding which one "has a job" (apart from the wardrobe, maybe). So if it looks like a duck, and all that.

 

[ZapperZ]

But it is free, the net transfer is school -> student or graduate students.

In fact, your first post on this thread made the exact opposite point-

Then you have picked and chose what you read about my post. If you read the following paragraph that I wrote in that SAME post, you would have noticed this:

I do not consider them to be jobs. They have to do research work REGARDLESS if they get paid or not, and even if they do get compensation, regardless of WHO paid the compensation.

Here's how the sequence goes:

1. Student registers for research credit course.

2. Student has to PAY for that course, and pay to be enrolled at the school (fees).

3. Oh, student's tuition and fees are being paid for by another party! This party can be (i) the department, (ii) his/her supervisor, (iii) external agency (iv) parents, (v) home country, (vi) money from robbing a bank.

How is this similar to a regular job?

My two cents are that if you watched a graduate student and someone of similar age with a job for a week, you'd have trouble deciding which one "has a job" (apart from the wardrobe, maybe). So if it looks like a duck, and all that.

Not considering it to be "job" has nothing to do with not working or putting in effort. If you look at an assistant professor and compare him/her to an associate professor, you'd have the same trouble in deciding which one is which. But this certainly doesn't give you the ability to call them by the same title!

What you feel, what you see, and what you WISH for is distinctly different than what has been officially designated. It may not be fair, and it may not be what should be done, but unless you are able to change things, it is what it is NOW.

Zz.

 

[atyy]

Here's how the sequence goes:

1. Student registers for research credit course.

2. Student has to PAY for that course, and pay to be enrolled at the school (fees).

3. Oh, student's tuition and fees are being paid for by another party! This party can be (i) the department, (ii) his/her supervisor, (iii) external agency (iv) parents, (v) home country, (vi) money from robbing a bank.

How is this similar to a regular job?

There are jobs in which the employer contributes to the cost of an education. Whether that contribution goes on the employee's W2 is a different matter, and varies from job to job.

For example http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p15b.pdf
"Education. Certain job-related education you provide to an employee may qualify for exclusion as a working condi-tion benefit. To qualify, the education must meet the same requirements that would apply for determining whether the employee could deduct the expenses had the employee paid the expenses. Degree programs as a whole do not necessarily qualify as a working condition benefit. Each course in the program must be evaluated individually for qualification as a working condition benefit. The education must meet at least one of the following tests.

The education is required by the employer or by law for the employee to keep his or her present salary, status, or job. The required education must serve a bona fide business purpose of the employer.

The education maintains or improves skills needed in the job.

However, even if the education meets one or both of the above tests, it is not qualifying education if it:

Is needed to meet the minimum educational require-ments of the employee's present trade or business, or

Is part of a program of study that will qualify the employee for a new trade or business."

 

[ZapperZ]

I give up. You may call it a cow if you like. It doesn't change a single thing.

Zz.

 

[D H]

There are jobs in which the employer contributes to the cost of an education. Whether that contribution goes on the employee's W2 is a different matter, and varies from job to job.

That is completely off topic. This thread is not about businesses that provide educational benefits to their employees. The rules you cited do not pertain to qualified educational institutions. You need to look at IRS publication 970 for that little bit of tax law. Even that little bit of tax law is also off topic. This thread also is not about whether graduate students have a "job".

This thread has migrated very far from the original topic. Keep the discussion on topic or this thread will be closed.

 

[StatGuy2000]

It's not such a bad idea. If we want effective higher education, only 10-20% of society should be enrolled in it. Rest should get solid general education and then high quality vocational training. Otherwise everything will go "boom".

The problem with your view is who gets to decide which elements of society can pursue higher education. There is a strongly held view that all people who have the desire, the will and the ability to do so should have the option of pursing higher education open to them.

 

[HallsofIvy]

Being a graduate student is not a job. You PAY the school to be there. Why is this so difficult to sink in?

Zz.

Being a graduate student is not a job. But being a "teaching assistant" or "research assistant" is and that is what is being discussed here.

(When I was a graduate student, my tuition, room and board, etc. was payed by the college (or Defense Department) through fellowships and assistantships. I had slightly MORE money when I completed my Ph.D. than I did when I started it.)

 

[ZapperZ]

Being a graduate student is not a job. But being a "teaching assistant" or "research assistant" is and that is what is being discussed here.

(When I was a graduate student, my tuition, room and board, etc. was payed by the college (or Defense Department) through fellowships and assistantships. I had slightly MORE money when I completed my Ph.D. than I did when I started it.)

So why are they given stipends and not salaries? Why are they often not given benefits as the regular employee at that same institutions? Did you or someone had to pay on you behalf to the institution for you to work when you were a faculty member?

Zz.

 

[Lavabug]

So why are they given stipends and not salaries? Why are they often not given benefits as the regular employee at that same institutions? Did you or someone had to pay on you behalf to the institution for you to work when you were a faculty member?

Zz.

Every US grad program I've seen offers health and dental benefits as well as privileges like subsidized housing, does this not count? That is better than any "official job" I've ever had.

Zz, I really don't see the grounds to your objections of calling what US grad students do as a "job"("a regular activity performed in exchange for payment" according to wiki). They do services to the university/their adviser in exchange for money and tuition waivers. Would grad students still get stipends and tuition waivers if they did NOT complete their ~20 hours of teaching/research assistant obligations? I don't think so.

Also,

Disagree on what point? That graduates students have to PAY to attend graduate school? This is a point of debate and uncertainty?

It's not a point of debate or uncertainty. According to AIP, only 1% of physics PhD students in the US are self-funded, the rest are paid as teaching or research assistants: http://www.aip.org/statistics/trends/highlite/bach/figure5b.htm

What you are saying might hold for Masters students, but not PhD students.

As a loosely-related anecdote, I received what you would call a "stipend" during my undergraduate study in my country on top of a tuition waiver, like what many US grad students perceive. My only obligation to maintain that "stipend" was to maintain satisfactory academic progress (being in a low income bracket was also required). However, all the official documents I have on the matter address my stipend as "BECA SALARIO" which literally translates into "SALARY AWARD". Since I literally receive a SALARY and not a STIPEND, does this mean I have a job?

 

[Vanadium 50]

This thread has migrated very far from the original topic. Keep the discussion on topic or this thread will be closed.

And so it goes.