I am currently in graduate school at an R1 institution. My program normally comes with guaranteed tuition remission. Most graduate school programs at research institutions do this. PhD students are treated as employees, and the universities make them teach/do research for their funding.
Even though the school I currently attend is sending out acceptancd letters for next year’s admits, they cannot promise funding of any kind. Doesn’t matter if you’re in a STEM program or the humanities; the pool has closed.
I see this being a good thing on multiple fronts.
First, the university I attend probably lost its funding for research that suspiciously sounded like GoF testing. Win.
Second, the reciprocal relationship between Big Pharma and R1 schools is likely to be cut off now due to research funding running dry.
Third, the DEI BS I’m constantly forced to deal with in the humanities is losing all financial support. Maybe art can go back to being fulfilling and worthwhile now.
Fourth, professors will actually have to teach. I haven’t been out of undergraduate that long, but the undergrad students I deal with on a regular basis are, by and large, not very intelligent. I think part of this has to do with the mess of the K-12 system. But a lot of graduate students are made to teach courses that professors don’t want to handle. This leaves students to either learn in their own, or learn nothing but get their degrees anyway because everyone grades on a curve so no one fails. We need better professors in academia if innovation is going to continue. Maybe the removal of graduate students who aren’t yet qualified to teach but must do so will help improve the quality of teaching at universities nationwide.
Tl;dr: universities are getting their funding streams cut at the federal level. They can’t offer tuition remission to new graduate school admits. They also can’t sustain themselves on inflated tuition costs for paying students. I’m excited to see the course correction this will cause in academia.
It’s interesting that you are very pro-specialization.
Each day, I have to deal with PhDs who luxuriate in being hyper specific to the point they are useless outside of academia. I actually think that’s the downside of PhDs, and why I likely will not be pursuing one after my MA; you are only accepted to programs if you can find a unique angle on an established topic or something new to “research” that is not likely to be broadly useful to the rest of society. Despite claiming to be interdisciplinary, I often can’t have conversations with these professors because they’re so invested in niche topics that they can’t comprehend discussions that draw on other paradigms and vocabularies.
Except for rare disease and procedures, I don’t think hyper specificity is particularly attractive for building back America. But that’s just my opinion, based on my experience that the “experts” aren’t actually all that intelligent or wise.
I’m not necessarily pro-specialization. More so I believe that particularly in more technical fields. IE Tech, Engineering etc. That’s generally the direction things are moving. As we have an abundance of generalists. And likely will undoubtedly have influxes of more of them. Further depressing the need for schools to produce more.
Especially as the announced National strategy and intentions of Trump thus far. Seem to indicate he intends on poaching foreign talent. Particularly ones attending American Universities. To rebuild Americas lead in industry and tech.
Granted we may also be laboring under two different definitions of “Hyper niche Specialized”. As I was referring to it in more a generic idea of someone whose focus is on AI. As an example. Having their education primarily focused around things immediately relevant to AI. With less focus on generic IT that may not be immediately relevant to AI.
Not necessarily PHD with Autistic fixation on an obscure or niche topic/subject to the point they can’t talk about anything else. Even if it’s field relevant
As my personal experience has been there’s a tendency to load degree programs with an unnecessary amount of classes. That aren’t necessarily going to readily applicable or useful in a professional setting that the vast majority of graduates would encounter. Even if the classes are technically considered a part of the field.
Granted I admit it. It was very poor word choice on my part. Apologies for any confusion
Kek. Nice wording.
Don’t worry about any poor word choice, it prompted a good conversation.
There is likely both room and need for both generalists and specialists. Just don’t let the specialists institutionalize myopia again.
“This IS the Truth, and it will not be challenged.”
I can’t say much more without accidentally running afoul of the recent “don’t talk about that here”, but suffice it to say that in spite of the value of having an orthodoxy, being able to challenge the orthodoxy is also critical for progress in the case that the orthodoxy isn’t 100% correct or is overlooking something, which is likely always.
The primary reason this war is happening at all is because the “liberals” abuse that reality to weaponize their adherents and the opponents of any form of orthodoxy against everyone but themselves through effective advocacy of chaotic immorality.
I’m still not sure how to guard against that, or to attack it, but am immensely thankful that someone clearly does.