When I read this, all I could think was: "we need fewer graduate students".
Want to know why American students don't enter PhD programs? Ask one: to get a PhD in this country, you must forgo five or more years of income and savings, live like a pauper, and lose many opportunities for early career development. Meanwhile, you get to watch your undergraduate classmates buy cars and houses, take authority roles in their companies, and accumulate significant retirement savings.
And what do you get in exchange? The obligation to work long hours for 3-5 more years, in a $40k/year post-doc (usually in an expensive city), with the long-shot possibility of finding a professorship somewhere (hopefully, somewhere near your spouse!) There, you'll work your ass off for six more years, in the hopes of not being permanently fired from the only job that you're qualified to do. And as an extra-special bonus, your job security rests largely on your ability to beg for money from the government...here's hoping that the NIH/NSF/DOE/DOJ grant budgets don't decline!
Is it really any wonder that Americans don't want these gigs? The economics of the professorship don't make sense for people from an affluent society. If you want more American students to take an interest in academia, you've got to stop flooding the market with cheap labor.
"Is it really any wonder that Americans don't want these gigs? The economics of the professorship don't make sense for people from an affluent society. If you want more American students to take an interest in academia, you've got to stop flooding the market with cheap labor."
I agree with you the problem is demand and supply mismatching. But the current system is built on the demand of cold war. After cold war, most of the demand disappear.
It is another good lesson of governments have absolutely power to distort demand and supply of market.
So one way to solve the problem is to increase demands for graduate students. But I think so far no one has idea how to do that. The money and time lost in graduate school is almost the same as running start ups. But the payout for startup maybe better than graduate school.
So of the increasingly fragmented population, one Chinese University has slightly more phD candidates than any other university.
Can't say that it really surprises me. What does surprise me is that the economist picked this up; generally their more 'internationally neutral' than blatantly pro-US.
Well, if U.S. has an advantage in an overlooked area by general public and someone in the Economist points out, then the author is "blatantly pro-US"?
At the other hand. A better question to ask to anyone from Europe is: if there are good universities in England, France and Germany, then why students from these 2 top universities in China are not going there?
Is it because language barrier? Is it the economic prospect of Europe not viewed as good as U.S.? Are immigration regulations more restricted in Europe when they finish school and decide to stay instead of going back to China? Or do universities in those countries not accept more foreign students than local students? Do in general those countries have problems with immigrants and those student feel unwanted or discriminated? Or do universities in those countries forge good relationships with the two universities in China?
U.S. is not perfect in every aspect. But I don't like the idea when anyone points out its advantages then he/she should be labeled as "blatantly pro-US".
I used to live in Sweden (I'm American). Sweden is supposedly one of the most immigrant-friendly nations in Europe and even they are getting worn down by the non-integrated immigrant population (1 million out of 9 million total population). Swedes speak English exceptionally well which is the only foreign language most foreigners know (no one comes in knowing Swedish). The extra layer of language barrier is an issue (for Swedes and immigrants).
For a highly trained (grad school+) immigrant, being limited to one small nation was a big limitation (this was before the common EU passport).
As far as preparation for world business, I can't see why any Chinese student would want to learn anything but English.
No idea how immigration status changes post-graduation. Universities were free (or if you prefer, included in everyone's taxes).
"Economist.com blogs are lightly moderated debates in which journalists from The Economist Newspaper, Economist.com and the Economist Intelligence Unit post their thoughts and observations, and which are open to comment and argument from anybody who cares to intervene."
Want to know why American students don't enter PhD programs? Ask one: to get a PhD in this country, you must forgo five or more years of income and savings, live like a pauper, and lose many opportunities for early career development. Meanwhile, you get to watch your undergraduate classmates buy cars and houses, take authority roles in their companies, and accumulate significant retirement savings.
And what do you get in exchange? The obligation to work long hours for 3-5 more years, in a $40k/year post-doc (usually in an expensive city), with the long-shot possibility of finding a professorship somewhere (hopefully, somewhere near your spouse!) There, you'll work your ass off for six more years, in the hopes of not being permanently fired from the only job that you're qualified to do. And as an extra-special bonus, your job security rests largely on your ability to beg for money from the government...here's hoping that the NIH/NSF/DOE/DOJ grant budgets don't decline!
Is it really any wonder that Americans don't want these gigs? The economics of the professorship don't make sense for people from an affluent society. If you want more American students to take an interest in academia, you've got to stop flooding the market with cheap labor.