General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: This, my friends, is far too typical for my generation. [View all]n2doc
(47,953 posts)For 50 years the higher ed system was predicated on a model where professors at universities were expected to raise a lot of money through grants, and in turn train a bunch of new scientists. The 'best' would have tens of postdocs, dozens of students, and lots of new Ph.D.'s per year. In the beginning, we started from a small base and so this was relatively easy and the new scientists found jobs in the growing Universitys. But beginning in the 80's, and steadily getting worse, the sources of federal and state research funding failed to keep up with the steady growth in new students/professors. At the same time the Universities were squeezed by state funding cuts so they stopped growing permanent faculty much, if at all. Yet the model of churning out newly minted Ph. D.s after using them for cheap labor still wasn't changed. Now we have reached the point where Professors in science specialties (and bio, biotech, etc)spend large amounts of their time writing grant proposals that only have a small chance of being funded. And their students see very few job opportunities because the slots just aren't there. And the focus of research has shifted to more immediate gratification topics that require fewer people, or can be outsourced.
It used to be (pre wwII) that the science system in this country was small, with professors doing much of their own research. We may end up going back to that model. But the profession needs to stop imagining that we are still in the 'glory days' where funding was easy and building an empire that churned out lots of new Ph. D.'s was the ideal goal.
Or we could pull our collective heads out and actually fund science and research at a higher priority than death. I won't hold my breath on that one.