U of California Grad Students Strike

[mleok]

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.

I'd like to revisit this for a comparison. I spent six years at Purdue as a grad, always as a TA. I had at least one roommate five of them. One year friend and I shared a very small cheap house, then one year in a cheap apartment. Then two years of a small cheap house with a friend, then one year of a bigger cheap house with two friends. Only one year alone, in yet another cheap small cabin (think Cabin in the Woods or Evil Dead). We thought we lived well, but we couldn't have done that comfortably in LA or San Diego or San Fran.

There is no easy way to make things livable there without a reduction (expenses) or increase (wages). My choice (not dismalist's for sure) is to increase what the Feds/State contribute to this in some meaningful way. We as a country reap the benefits of what these public R1s create but have not kept up our share of funding the increases in the cost of what they produce since the late 60s early 70s.

There is no question you can live better on a graduate student stipend in West Lafayette compared to San Diego, and you definitely need to live frugally, but it doesn't mean that you can't have a roof over your head and eat healthily.

[Parasaurolophus]

I think it's one thing to say that graduate students shouldn't have to know how academic funding works, but the problem is that they incorrectly believe with absolute certainty that they do know how it works, and  that tuition is just a made up number. Again, I think it's unfair to say that the UCs do not pay livable stipends, they simply need to have roommates and live a bit further away, like the vast majority of people in California. Two graduate students in STEM fields receive roughly the equivalent of the median household income in San Diego, for example.

Without effective public transit, there's a limit to how far away from campus one can live. I know of one student who lives 25 miles away and shares a 4-bedroom (1 bathroom) house with seven other students. This person can't afford a car, given their stipend. They cycle, but as you know southern California is a bunch of highways and freeways, and these often cut off access to places via smaller roads. So... yeah. Those are not really the conditions I'd want my PhD students to have to put up with, especially if I'm going to be delegating moderately important work to them.

Now, I don't want to assume that this person's situation is typical. On the other hand, if the average stipend is $24k, then it's hard to see how many students could possibly be much better off, unless they've done something weird when calculating the average student's stipend.


And FWIW, I had to pay tuition out of my stipend. Thankfully, tuition was low and so was the cost of living--but so was my stipend. Still, I didn't have to make weekly pilgrimages to the food bank. Or share my washroom with six other people. And although I walked an hour to campus every day, that was by choice--we had great public transit, which I could have afforded.

[mamselle]

So, first notice my second (qualifying) post: I'm talking about those who denigrate grad students for wanting the basics as if it were gravy.

Also, I understand very well how the whole budgeting thing works: Those PI's I did grant management for were at R1s with globally functioning grants: I was paying students in SE Asia and elsewhere to report back to US sites with their findings (often stymied by really obstructive accounting officers), and I agree, there are many trade-offs and compromises to be made to get the whole machinery to run decently and in order.

So, that was not meant as an overall observation, just a commentary on a few folks taking pot-shots at students who do work hard, study hard, and provide value-added services in teaching, research, and publications to the labs they are a part of, while appreciative of the headaches that all that can cause for lab PIs trying to keep it all running.

M.

[Durchlässigkeitsbeiwert]

As in Mleok's example, why pay for a grad student who needs to be trained and then will leave after a couple of years, if for the same rate, you could hire a post-doc, or even better, a full-time research associate who will stay indefinitely?

Actually, it is very hard for grad students to leave professor ahead of originally planned schedule without forfeiting all the sunken costs that went into pursuing their degree. In contrast, actual employees can easily leave on short notice if better opportunity presents itself.
So, paying for grad student may be viewed as a way of insurance.

[mleok]

As in Mleok's example, why pay for a grad student who needs to be trained and then will leave after a couple of years, if for the same rate, you could hire a post-doc, or even better, a full-time research associate who will stay indefinitely?

Actually, it is very hard for grad students to leave professor ahead of originally planned schedule without forfeiting all the sunken costs that went into pursuing their degree. In contrast, actual employees can easily leave on short notice if better opportunity presents itself.
So, paying for grad student may be viewed as a way of insurance.

Usually, the beneficiary of a policy pays for the insurance, what's the benefit to the PI here?

[Durchlässigkeitsbeiwert]

As in Mleok's example, why pay for a grad student who needs to be trained and then will leave after a couple of years, if for the same rate, you could hire a post-doc, or even better, a full-time research associate who will stay indefinitely?

Actually, it is very hard for grad students to leave professor ahead of originally planned schedule without forfeiting all the sunken costs that went into pursuing their degree. In contrast, actual employees can easily leave on short notice if better opportunity presents itself.
So, paying for grad student may be viewed as a way of insurance.

Usually, the beneficiary of a policy pays for the insurance, what's the benefit to the PI here?

PI is getting a near guarantee that
1) the labour needed to complete the project (grad student) will stick around long enough to prevent interruptions during the project
2) the budget needed to pay for such labour will not change during this period
In contrast, "normal" employee (post-doc / lab tech) can easily leave on a two-weeks notice or leverage an outside offer for a raise - jeopardizing the schedule or budget of the project and leaving PI to deal with consequences.
I think many academic PIs underestimate the value of such "near guarantee" that is even higher in the tight labour market conditions.

[dismalist]

As in Mleok's example, why pay for a grad student who needs to be trained and then will leave after a couple of years, if for the same rate, you could hire a post-doc, or even better, a full-time research associate who will stay indefinitely?

Actually, it is very hard for grad students to leave professor ahead of originally planned schedule without forfeiting all the sunken costs that went into pursuing their degree. In contrast, actual employees can easily leave on short notice if better opportunity presents itself.
So, paying for grad student may be viewed as a way of insurance.

Usually, the beneficiary of a policy pays for the insurance, what's the benefit to the PI here?

PI is getting a near guarantee that
1) the labour needed to complete the project (grad student) will stick around long enough to prevent interruptions during the project
2) the budget needed to pay for such labour will not change during this period
In contrast, "normal" employee (post-doc / lab tech) can easily leave on a two-weeks notice or leverage an outside offer for a raise - jeopardizing the schedule or budget of the project and leaving PI to deal with consequences.
I think many academic PIs underestimate the value of such "near guarantee" that is even higher in the tight labour market conditions.

For the PI to make sure that his project will proceed smoothly, and the kids don't run away, he has to pay enough. That means in tight labor markets budgets have to rise or projects have to shrink. Treating this as an insurance problem ["PI insurance" :-)] doesn't change anything real: One is just pulling the financing into the present rather than leaving it in the future. It, too, is implicitly a call for more money.

From the employee's point of view, there already is unemployment insurance, though the rules vary by state.

If there is lots of sunk cost, the employee will hesitate in leaving. A PI should welcome the employee sinking cost! If he gets kicked out, he still can turn to unemployment insurance.

[Wahoo Redux]

There is no easy way to make things livable there without a reduction (expenses) or increase (wages). My choice (not dismalist's for sure) is to increase what the Feds/State contribute to this in some meaningful way. We as a country reap the benefits of what these public R1s create but have not kept up our share of funding the increases in the cost of what they produce since the late 60s early 70s.

I simply don't understand why this is not part of every discussion about grad students/TAs/GAs, tuition remission, scholarships or fellowships or what-have-you. 

We all stand to gain a great deal from these peoples' work. 

Some people, some of them posters on this thread, seem to treat these researchers-in-the-making, whose training will pay off for decades, as if they are freeloaders or wish to low-ball them as if they are Walmart workers who should know better than to take a job as greeter.

Particularly true of academics, all our careers are built on the work of graduate students and the scholars they become. 

[marshwiggle]

As in Mleok's example, why pay for a grad student who needs to be trained and then will leave after a couple of years, if for the same rate, you could hire a post-doc, or even better, a full-time research associate who will stay indefinitely?

Actually, it is very hard for grad students to leave professor ahead of originally planned schedule without forfeiting all the sunken costs that went into pursuing their degree. In contrast, actual employees can easily leave on short notice if better opportunity presents itself.
So, paying for grad student may be viewed as a way of insurance.

Usually, the beneficiary of a policy pays for the insurance, what's the benefit to the PI here?

PI is getting a near guarantee that
1) the labour needed to complete the project (grad student) will stick around long enough to prevent interruptions during the project

How many researchers just want someone for a "project"? The ideal employee is one who will be with them indefinitely. Yes, a paid employee can leave with two weeks' notice, but a grad student will leave when they graduate or otherwise leave the program. A grad student will be around for, at best, a couple of years, whereas an employee has no implicit end date.

A competent employee is a much better long term prospect if the cost is similar.

[Durchlässigkeitsbeiwert]

How many researchers just want someone for a "project"? The ideal employee is one who will be with them indefinitely. Yes, a paid employee can leave with two weeks' notice, but a grad student will leave when they graduate or otherwise leave the program. A grad student will be around for, at best, a couple of years, whereas an employee has no implicit end date.

It may be field-dependent, but I have rarely seen professors whose funding is stable enough to maintain the same number people (grad students / techs / postdocs) over long periods. Even for positions that were maintained throughout, techs actually had shorter tenures than grad students (gained experience => got better jobs elsewhere).

A competent employee is a much better long term prospect if the cost is similar.

For a student there is rarely a change in cost over few years of employment.
Most employees would expect salary increases as they gain experience or cost of living changes.
Furthermore, truly long-term employee (as opposed to notionally short-term post-docs) in large organisations tend to be much more expensive due to need to cover extended benefits package.

[mleok]

As in Mleok's example, why pay for a grad student who needs to be trained and then will leave after a couple of years, if for the same rate, you could hire a post-doc, or even better, a full-time research associate who will stay indefinitely?

Actually, it is very hard for grad students to leave professor ahead of originally planned schedule without forfeiting all the sunken costs that went into pursuing their degree. In contrast, actual employees can easily leave on short notice if better opportunity presents itself.
So, paying for grad student may be viewed as a way of insurance.

Usually, the beneficiary of a policy pays for the insurance, what's the benefit to the PI here?

PI is getting a near guarantee that
1) the labour needed to complete the project (grad student) will stick around long enough to prevent interruptions during the project
2) the budget needed to pay for such labour will not change during this period
In contrast, "normal" employee (post-doc / lab tech) can easily leave on a two-weeks notice or leverage an outside offer for a raise - jeopardizing the schedule or budget of the project and leaving PI to deal with consequences.
I think many academic PIs underestimate the value of such "near guarantee" that is even higher in the tight labour market conditions.

At least in the UC's, the tuition is a huge cost, which makes it much harder to pay a graduate student a competitive amount. Funding a research scientist or postdoc is much more cost-effective because we do not have to pay tuition. They are also around longer inasmuch as their productive years are concerned. Not to mention that the issue of jeopardizing the budget because of unexpected cost increases is precisely what is at play at the moment with the graduate student strike, where they are asking for a 125% increase in wages.

[quasihumanist]

There is no easy way to make things livable there without a reduction (expenses) or increase (wages). My choice (not dismalist's for sure) is to increase what the Feds/State contribute to this in some meaningful way. We as a country reap the benefits of what these public R1s create but have not kept up our share of funding the increases in the cost of what they produce since the late 60s early 70s.

I simply don't understand why this is not part of every discussion about grad students/TAs/GAs, tuition remission, scholarships or fellowships or what-have-you. 

We all stand to gain a great deal from these peoples' work. 

Some people, some of them posters on this thread, seem to treat these researchers-in-the-making, whose training will pay off for decades, as if they are freeloaders or wish to low-ball them as if they are Walmart workers who should know better than to take a job as greeter.

Particularly true of academics, all our careers are built on the work of graduate students and the scholars they become.

Look - I think our society ought to give much more support to academia in general, and in particular to the humanities.

But I only have one vote, and I don't have the kind of wealth that could hand out funding myself.  I also respect democracy.  I might personally think more funding is beneficial and advocate for it, but if most folks don't want it, I respect that.  And my experience is that most folks don't care about 'culture' as much as most of us do, and most folks are more selfish about wanting government spending to be on things that benefit them and their communities more directly.

[Wahoo Redux]

Please reread, quasi.  I posted nothing about "the humanities."

And, actually, I more or less agree: if people do not want the humanities in their colleges, so be it.  It's tax payer dollars in the UC system, let taxpayers decide how those are spent. I think you posted the obvious anyway.

I was thinking of graduate researchers across the universities-----engineering, medicine, biology, political science, etc.----not just the humanities.  People do not appreciate what university research gives them, and academia has been terrible about explaining its mission and benefits.

Most specifically, there are two themes in this particular thread.  Some posters are discussing the practicalities of grad student wages; others are waxing with predictable curmudgeonly conservativism which paints the strikes as spoiled brats who simply want more than they deserve.  I was talking to the latter group (really a pair of posters).

[marshwiggle]

How many researchers just want someone for a "project"? The ideal employee is one who will be with them indefinitely. Yes, a paid employee can leave with two weeks' notice, but a grad student will leave when they graduate or otherwise leave the program. A grad student will be around for, at best, a couple of years, whereas an employee has no implicit end date.

It may be field-dependent, but I have rarely seen professors whose funding is stable enough to maintain the same number people (grad students / techs / postdocs) over long periods. Even for positions that were maintained throughout, techs actually had shorter tenures than grad students (gained experience => got better jobs elsewhere).

When I was a grad student in STEM, our lab had 1 post-doc, 1 PhD student, and 3 or 4 Master's students. When the post-doc left, another was hired. When a student graduated, another was hired. Even the office and lab space more or less followed the same pattern; the new person would fil the place vacated by the person who just left.

So in STEM, especially in larger labs, a steady complement of people is pretty common. (Techs are often hired by the faculty or a research group, since there's often not enough full-time work in one lab. But the positions are also ongoing.)

Even though I don't do research, I hire lots of TAs. While most of them are fine, and I enjoy helping, mentoring, etc., my life would be a lot easier if I could hire a full-time person to replace most if not all of them. Grading would be much more consistent if a single person did all of it, and I wouldn't need to retrain every year, wouldn't have to recruit, wouldn't have to provide HR with contract information, etc.

(And full-time employees and post-docs don't have coursework and exams of their own to work around; their productivity can be consistent throughout the term.)

The benefit to hiring grad students is primarily that they cost less than full-time employees with the same level of qualifications. This makes it worth dealing with the turnover, need for training, etc. If they start to cost as much as full-time employees, there are very few ways in which they represent a better deal, and several in which they represent a worse one.

[mleok]

The benefit to hiring grad students is primarily that they cost less than full-time employees with the same level of qualifications. This makes it worth dealing with the turnover, need for training, etc. If they start to cost as much as full-time employees, there are very few ways in which they represent a better deal, and several in which they represent a worse one.

I agree that at least part of the appeal of graduate students is that they often cost less. That might mean in fields like mathematics that they are primarily supported by teaching assistantships, where the cost of supporting them is externalized to the department instead of the individual professor. But, as you say, when they start costing as much as a full-time employee, they make much less sense. In the UCs, the high cost of graduate tuition means that the graduate student receives only a small fraction of the cost of supporting them in the form of a stipend. In my most recent grant proposal, a student would receive a total of $40.5K in stipend, out of the $111.5K=($40.5K stipend+2.25% benefits + $29K tuition) + 58% overheads, or about 36% of what gets charged to the grant.