From: maniattb@cs.rpi.edu (Bill Maniatty)
Subject: Re: Bleak news from the academic job market
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 05:16:13 GMT

In article <1992Nov21.044832.5114@tc.cornell.edu>, bai@msiadmin.cit.cornell.edu (Dov Bai-MSI Visitor) writes:
|> In article <1992Nov21.002534.5154@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> andersmh@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (ANDERSON  MIKE HOWARD) writes:
|> >In article <1992Nov20.222750.25504@tc.cornell.edu> bai@msiadmin.cit.cornell.edu (Dov Bai-MSI Visitor) writes:
|> >>
|> >>I think that you are wrong on two accounts:
|> >>
|> >>(1) I would hate to see univeristies being engaged in "social engineering".
|> >>    They do exist to educate and do research. If they can get the work
|> >>    done cheaply, why should they pay more ? Resources are limited,
|> >>    and the burden will be on the tax-payer. Why should the tax-payer
|> >>    spend his/her hard earned money to pay more for the same work ?

Any action performed by the University to make it harder/easier to get training
in a discipline is going to affect student's motivation to pursue training in
a given area.  I don't see how Universities can avoid participating in
``social engineering'', as part of their function is to select research
directions.  The side effects of these actions may not be anticipated by the
University system.

	[Stuff deleted]
|> >Instead, we should hire say 3 graduate students for every 10 that
|> >we do now, and create 3 permanent postions to replace the 7 grad
|> >students.

I'm not sure how we would do this.  There was a time in the recent past when
American Industry was active in research, but this is greatly diminished in
the current economic climate.

|> If the amount of work done by 3 permanent is less than the
|> work done by 7 grads, the tax-payer or the tuition paying student
|> is getting less for his money.

Furious activity is no substitute for understanding.  Perhaps fewer good
researchers would be the answer.

|> >
|> >Agreed.  But we all know damn well that the universities are playing
|> >on the naivety of prospective students to get them in.  While they should
|> >be informed, I don't think it will make a big difference.
|> >
|> >If we're not willing to limit the supply of PHDs then we are not willing
|> >to solve the problem of employment opportunity.
|> 
|> Who is going to decide how much is enough ? I suggest that the current job
|> situation should be explained to prospective students. If they decide
|> they want to go for it, its is their decision and responsibility, like
|> many other decisions one makes in life.
|> 
|> >Mike
|> 
|> Dov

What is very disappointing is that in the current economic climate, people
in general are having trouble finding work, not just at the PhD. level.
So often, people with decent undergrad training cannot find suitable employment,
and must either resign themselves to un/underemployment at the bachelors level,
or go on to grad school. This makes the graduate school alternative look a whole
lot better.  However the catch-22 is that decent jobs are just too scarce in
general, and more training does not necessarily equate with career advancement.
I just hope that I will be able to find suitable work when I'm finished.

Bill

-- 
|
|	maniattb@cs.rpi.edu - in real life Bill Maniatty
|
Xref: sparky sci.research:1287 sci.research.careers:1428