##8 Graduate School Discussion

[Xenia Young <YOUNG () EMBL-Heidelberg DE>]

  In YSN #1305, Mark Raphaelian lists the duties of GRA's and GTA's and
what they receive in exchange for their stipends and tuition waivers.  I
believe he is overstating the fact that a tuition waver is $10,000+
since in many places there is a category of "reduced tuition" when
graduate students pass their courses and doctoral entrance exams.
Interestingly, this idea of "reduced tuition" is being phased out at
some places because it was believed to be a source of lost revenue for
the universities and also because it encouraged faculty to retain
graduate students longer.
  I am curious whether Mr. Raphaelian would consider technicians and all
other employees who get on the job training as "getting paid to learn." 
Perhaps I am missing something, but don't we all gain experience whether
we are doing something as graduate students, post-docs or employees?

[GRA=graduate research assistant; GTA=graduate teaching assistant.  ed.]

==========

From: chen () buphy bu edu (Stanley Chen)

[Summary - see also YSN #1307.  -ed.]
  I think Mr. Mark Raphaelian has a good idea about how a Ph.D. should
be produced. The following is my personal thought on this issue:  A very
limited number of scholarships should be created (by NSF?) for the
brightest students entering the Ph.D. programs. Students should not be
paid for whatever they are trained to do (RA/TA). All the TA jobs should
be done by professional lecturers and assistant lecturers. Ph.D. (or
M.S.) students would have an option to take a series of courses which
train them to teach. For those who want to continue their Ph.D. research
with a professor, they should write a proposal for a grant from, say
NSF. This is another kind of training for researchers.  Universities
should be banned from hiring graduate students to be TA's. Instead a
licensed lecturer should do the job. By doing so a lot of jobs will be
created for the benefit of young S&E's beginning their careers.
  By supporting RA's and TA's, the U.S. creates a false sense of demand
for scientists and engineers. A system of capitalism has been
interrupted in favor of employers. Thousands and thousands of scientists
and engineers are told that they are not needed after they get their
degrees. We, the young S&E, are the people alternately paying the price.

[NSF=National Science Foundation, S&E=scientists and engineers.  -ed.]

==========

From: LEFEVRE () ACFcluster NYU EDU (Oliver Lefevre)

[Summary - for the full text, see YSN #1308.  -ed.]
  In YSN #1305, Mark Raphaelian contends that the pay some graduate
students get in return for their TA or RA duties means that they are
basically being paid to learn, something to which he strongly objects. I
would like to second Xenia Young's rebuttal of this [YSN #1307]. 
  Indeed, while it is true that RA and TA positions were set up so that
students could concentrate on their studies, with such reasoning no
scientist or engineer would EVER get paid since they ALL presumably have
jobs with which they can broaden their knowledge. It is all the more
important not to give into this, as some of the more unscrupulous
employers are already moving in that direction. Indeed, I read about a
public relations firm with a one-year, full-time vacancy to fill. They
tried to fill it with an unpaid recent graduate, claiming that he/she
should consider it to be an integral part of his/her studies and should
be glad to have such an opportunity. My own position is that for _any_
work one does, one deserves to be paid, period. If one objects to
students being paid, then one might advocate the abolition of RA's and
TA's.  But to imply that it would be all right for some to work without
pay, while others get paid for the same duties, is simply odious.

-----------------------------