U of California Grad Students Strike

[Durchlässigkeitsbeiwert]

Somehow related to the discussion:
"Funding disparities are pushing Canadians to enroll in U.S. doctoral programs"
https://www.universityaffairs.ca/opinion/in-my-opinion/funding-disparities-are-pushing-canadians-to-enrol-in-u-s-doctoral-programs/

[marshwiggle]

Somehow related to the discussion:
"Funding disparities are pushing Canadians to enroll in U.S. doctoral programs"
https://www.universityaffairs.ca/opinion/in-my-opinion/funding-disparities-are-pushing-canadians-to-enrol-in-u-s-doctoral-programs/

A couple of points from the article:

What's more, the probability of receiving external fellowships to supplement a meager stipend was restricted by the fact that only two Canadian universities offered programs in her field.

Well, yes, if there are fewer choices then the options are likely to be less competitive;  something about "supply and demand".

Noah Houpt, a doctoral student in evolutionary ecology who grew up in the Peterborough area, was eager to work in a specific lab at Yale University, but funding was also a major factor in his decision-making process. "As I understand it, research-focused universities in the U.S. fund graduate stipends to a much higher level than similar universities in Canada," he explained. "That certainly contributed to me coming here." At Yale, Mr. Houpt's stipend is double that which he received as a master's student at the University of Ottawa.

"The stipends in Canada, especially for students without other funding [and] international students who may have to pay higher tuition, are very low and tough to live off of," he continued.

Yes, if you're not hot enough to be getting scholarships then you're not going to have as much money.


Don't do even consider grad studies unless you're going to be able to do it without debt.

[Mobius]

The lesson is go to Yale if offered admission.

[mleok]

I'd have thought it was obvious, but $54k is the opening bid in a salary negotiation. They don't think they'll get it, but if you don't ask for the sky, who's going to give you a hill of beans?

This is the argument that's always made, but I haven't seen any evidence that making a ridiculous opening proposal is more useful than making a reasonable one. I hate all those sorts of negotiations because of how much of it is theatre; it's for the media, not for the negotiating table. It also amplifies the differences between the two sides at the outset, rather than starting with something at the limit of what is realistically achievable, so there's still room for movement. Acting like grownups rather than two-year-olds would be a refreshing change (on both sides).

I agree, I think putting forth a ridiculous opening offer increases the temperature of the negotiations, and makes positions more entrenched, reducing the likelihood of a successful outcome for everyone. I think it is easier to maintain the moral highground if the students had made a more reasonable demand and stuck to it.

[mleok]

In many lab/STEM fields, it would just get absorbed into grant requests.

No, it wouldn't, if both the students and postdocs got what they asked for, it would literally be cheaper to hire a 100% postdoc than a 50% GRA. Unless the funding agency explicitly requires me to support graduate students, I would hire postdocs instead.

[mleok]

mleok could tell us what the math TAs and Das make now. I'm guessing it's around $40k.

I'm looking at my most recent grant proposal, and it looks like the monthly salary is $5400, but it's a 50% appointment during the academic year. We could pay them 100% during the summer, which would give a total of $40,500.

[mleok]

The link below shows info for math TAs at Purdue. Big 10 public, and while lower it is much cheaper to live in West Lafayette than SoCal or NoCal. Clearly very low with respect to living, but as dismalist points out still "plenty" of applicants. What is missing to me is the fact that R1 grad students are essential to US research interests. We've funded universities to do what many think is vital to our national interest, and haven't invested in it in a way that attracts quality US students in the sciences.

https://www.math.purdue.edu/resources/gradta/policies.html

Ironically, I moved from Purdue to UCSD, my salary only increased by 10% despite moving from an assistant professorship to a tenured associate professorship, and my housing costs doubling. This 10% increase is roughly the difference between what Purdue pays at the top of their salary scale and what UCSD pays their GTAs during the academic year initially.

[mleok]

I understand that this is a touchy subject, but I don't think graduate students, working half-time, should earn more than the median wage in the US. Being a student is meant to be a temporary status and comes with sacrifices for what is hoped to be longer term benefits. Sometimes these opportunity costs are actual costs (i.e., not able to find a job that utilizes the skills you developed as a student after you graduate), and sometimes they pay off as they are expected to.  Making it so that it is more beneficial to stay employed as a student than it is to graduate creates very bad incentives.

Personally, I too have issue with the notion that graduate students should be paid as if they were full-time employees. As I mentioned, if both the postdocs and graduate students received their demands, it would literally be cheaper for me to hire a postdoc on a 100% appointment than a GRA on a 50% appointment, which is absolutely ridiculous. For teaching, hiring a lecturer is far more cost-effective than hiring a GTA.

[marshwiggle]

I understand that this is a touchy subject, but I don't think graduate students, working half-time, should earn more than the median wage in the US. Being a student is meant to be a temporary status and comes with sacrifices for what is hoped to be longer term benefits. Sometimes these opportunity costs are actual costs (i.e., not able to find a job that utilizes the skills you developed as a student after you graduate), and sometimes they pay off as they are expected to.  Making it so that it is more beneficial to stay employed as a student than it is to graduate creates very bad incentives.

Personally, I too have issue with the notion that graduate students should be paid as if they were full-time employees. As I mentioned, if both the postdocs and graduate students received their demands, it would literally be cheaper for me to hire a postdoc on a 100% appointment than a GRA on a 50% appointment, which is absolutely ridiculous. For teaching, hiring a lecturer is far more cost-effective than hiring a GTA.

And potentially more pedagogically sound if the lecturer has experience. This illustrates an issue that I have pointed out before, in the context of part-time faculty. There are lots of jobs that are not intended to be scaled to full-time employment, and while the remuneration is less than what full-time employment would offer, the barriers to entry for the part-time job, (experience, qualifications, etc.), are also much lower than for a full-time position. In other words, if it were going to be a full-time position, the person doing it part-time wouldn't likely be on the short list of candidates.

Scaling up a partial apple doesn't make a full orange.

[Parasaurolophus]

The "person doing part-time" is on your list of candidates because you enjoy the privilege of teaching graduate students. If you don't fund them, you won't have them. And if you don't have them, then yours is a pretty different job, usually with higher teaching requirements and a heftier grading load.

Again, it seems to me that anybody who wants a functional PhD program should be prepared to fund graduate students enough to live on. if your only mechanism for generating a stipend is a TAship, then that's your only mechanism, and sure, it'll look a little strange to fold an entire liveable wage into someone's salary for a course or two. But that's just because we're misunderstanding the nature of the "job".

In other words, the sticking point here is sufficiently funding graduate students, rather than the exact pay appropriate for what an institution calls a 50% TAship vs. a 100% TAship (although the fact that some institutions label 50% what counts as 100% at others should be troubling).

[marshwiggle]

The "person doing part-time" is on your list of candidates because you enjoy the privilege of teaching graduate students. If you don't fund them, you won't have them. And if you don't have them, then yours is a pretty different job, usually with higher teaching requirements and a heftier grading load.

Again, it seems to me that anybody who wants a functional PhD program should be prepared to fund graduate students enough to live on. if your only mechanism for generating a stipend is a TAship, then that's your only mechanism, and sure, it'll look a little strange to fold an entire liveable wage into someone's salary for a course or two. But that's just because we're misunderstanding the nature of the "job".

That's the problem. By munging "paying a TA" with "supporting a grad student" into a single entity where the "pay" is officially for the TA part, it makes the rate of pay out of whack with what it pretends to be for.

The solution is to have a grad student stipend, independent of TA pay, and then TA pay for the hourly work. Figuring out the reasonable level for both of those would then be much more rational. (And then if students have scholarships, the TA portion is completely unaffected by that.)

[research_prof]

The link below shows info for math TAs at Purdue. Big 10 public, and while lower it is much cheaper to live in West Lafayette than SoCal or NoCal. Clearly very low with respect to living, but as dismalist points out still "plenty" of applicants. What is missing to me is the fact that R1 grad students are essential to US research interests. We've funded universities to do what many think is vital to our national interest, and haven't invested in it in a way that attracts quality US students in the sciences.

https://www.math.purdue.edu/resources/gradta/policies.html

Ironically, I moved from Purdue to UCSD, my salary only increased by 10% despite moving from an assistant professorship to a tenured associate professorship, and my housing costs doubling. This 10% increase is roughly the difference between what Purdue pays at the top of their salary scale and what UCSD pays their GTAs during the academic year initially.

The truth of the matter is that public universities in general pay much less than private ones unless you are a superstar professor (this typically happens after the age of 60). For example, superstars in my field make a bit less than football coaches at most public universities. Private universities usually pay everyone much better. The major cost for most people I know is housing. If you live in midwest and you make X dollars every year and you move to California, to maintain the same standard of living you need to be making 2*x dollars (at least). However, universities in California (with probably the exception of Caltech, Stanford, and USC--all private) do not pay that much. UCs pay assistant profs the same amount of money as my private R1 pays me (in a much lower cost of living area). There is simply no comparison in terms of how far my salary can take me where I am vs California. Where I am, I can afford a mansion along with my spouse. In California, I could probably afford a townhouse (best case scenario). Now the real question is: other than weather, are there any major advantages in terms of doing your job?

To answer my own question: if I were to be hired at Berkeley or UCLA, certainly. UCSD maybe (?). All other UCs: I do not think so. Would I be much poorer than what I am now? Absolutely. In other words, UCs pay well enough only if you are a Dean, a football coach, a superstar academic, or a Provost. Everyone else will simply make an average salary for California and grad students will be below the poverty level for Cali.

[mleok]

The link below shows info for math TAs at Purdue. Big 10 public, and while lower it is much cheaper to live in West Lafayette than SoCal or NoCal. Clearly very low with respect to living, but as dismalist points out still "plenty" of applicants. What is missing to me is the fact that R1 grad students are essential to US research interests. We've funded universities to do what many think is vital to our national interest, and haven't invested in it in a way that attracts quality US students in the sciences.

https://www.math.purdue.edu/resources/gradta/policies.html

Ironically, I moved from Purdue to UCSD, my salary only increased by 10% despite moving from an assistant professorship to a tenured associate professorship, and my housing costs doubling. This 10% increase is roughly the difference between what Purdue pays at the top of their salary scale and what UCSD pays their GTAs during the academic year initially.

The truth of the matter is that public universities in general pay much less than private ones unless you are a superstar professor (this typically happens after the age of 60). For example, superstars in my field make a bit less than football coaches at most public universities. Private universities usually pay everyone much better. The major cost for most people I know is housing. If you live in midwest and you make X dollars every year and you move to California, to maintain the same standard of living you need to be making 2*x dollars (at least). However, universities in California (with probably the exception of Caltech, Stanford, and USC--all private) do not pay that much. UCs pay assistant profs the same amount of money as my private R1 pays me (in a much lower cost of living area). There is simply no comparison in terms of how far my salary can take me where I am vs California. Where I am, I can afford a mansion along with my spouse. In California, I could probably afford a townhouse (best case scenario). Now the real question is: other than weather, are there any major advantages in terms of doing your job?

To answer my own question: if I were to be hired at Berkeley or UCLA, certainly. UCSD maybe (?). All other UCs: I do not think so. Would I be much poorer than what I am now? Absolutely. In other words, UCs pay well enough only if you are a Dean, a football coach, a superstar academic, or a Provost. Everyone else will simply make an average salary for California and grad students will be below the poverty level for Cali.

Well, since I already said that I was at Purdue, and I'm currently at UCSD, I'll say that one thing in the UC's favor is that they have a step system that results in regular merit increases, unlike a raise pool at Purdue that ends up shortchanging faculty who already have a high salary relative to their career stage. The combination of trying to avoid salary inversion and market forces resulted in significant salary compression.

[mleok]

The "person doing part-time" is on your list of candidates because you enjoy the privilege of teaching graduate students. If you don't fund them, you won't have them. And if you don't have them, then yours is a pretty different job, usually with higher teaching requirements and a heftier grading load.

Again, it seems to me that anybody who wants a functional PhD program should be prepared to fund graduate students enough to live on. if your only mechanism for generating a stipend is a TAship, then that's your only mechanism, and sure, it'll look a little strange to fold an entire liveable wage into someone's salary for a course or two. But that's just because we're misunderstanding the nature of the "job".

In other words, the sticking point here is sufficiently funding graduate students, rather than the exact pay appropriate for what an institution calls a 50% TAship vs. a 100% TAship (although the fact that some institutions label 50% what counts as 100% at others should be troubling).

The reality is that we already pay our graduate students a liveble wage, so long as they're willing to share an apartment with another graduate student. They're not going to get rich on this, but the notion that they have to live in a car or rely on food stamps is a bit hyperbolic. There is already a huge variability in the amount that graduate students are paid, and the irony is that many of the unfair labor practices that the union has flagged have to do with STEM departments increasing the stipend for their students.

[mleok]

In other words, the sticking point here is sufficiently funding graduate students, rather than the exact pay appropriate for what an institution calls a 50% TAship vs. a 100% TAship (although the fact that some institutions label 50% what counts as 100% at others should be troubling).

In defense of labeling a GRA as a 50% appointment during the academic year, that means that I can hire my GRAs at the 100% level during the summer.