
University of Chicago Graduate Students Vote to Unionize - photoJ
https://www.chicagomaroon.com/article/2017/10/19/graduate-student-unionization-uchicago-nlrb/
======
aresant
In higher ED this seems like a long time coming.

Grad students essentially work as slaves for the Uni's & professors with
triple-duty in lab time for professor + teaching + self-research.

Their reward comes in notoriety & bi-lines on research that helps them become
professors in their own right in higher ed.

The cost is minimized rights to IP they've been crucial in inventing,
outrageously low wages, and an average of $100k (1) in debt.

The brutality is sold as a right of passage, but the reality is the incentives
are completely out of whack - uni's have an inverse incentive to admit Phd /
grad students to benefit from the wage-slave / revenue generating aspect.

And it shows in the data - there are now a "glut" of PhD's that are far
outpacing the very limited # of academic positions.

The system needs fixing and if unionization exerts some pressure on correcting
the macro problem I am all for it.

(1) [https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2014/03/25/how-much-
out...](https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2014/03/25/how-much-outstanding-
loan-debt-is-from-grad-students-more-than-you-think)

(2) [https://www.jamesgmartin.center/2016/10/academic-job-
market-...](https://www.jamesgmartin.center/2016/10/academic-job-market-
tottering-nobodys-telling-graduate-students/)

~~~
programmarchy
It's baffling to me that academia, which is predominantly progressive, would
treat its workers so poorly.

~~~
Nomentatus
Camouflage. I well remember a real Chinese Marxist dropped into a supposedly
Marxist-dominated academic department here a few decades ago who was
astounded. How they could reconcile all being wine collectors and snobs with
their trumpeted socialist views he asked me? The answer is that their
progressive views masked very regressive and antisocial behavior in general,
and that was quite purposeful.

~~~
UncleMeat
Marxism as an analysis technique and as a political philosophy are totally
different. This is not surprising.

~~~
gt_
Please cite something or elaborate. This is a fair statement, but it's hardly
an excuse in this context. I think you are stretching the meaning here.
Marxism is not an ambiguous term.

~~~
TillE
Marx was first and foremost an analyst of class in history, and capitalism.
That's Marxist analysis, which can be largely divorced from specific communist
implications.

~~~
gt_
That makes sense. I question assuming that self-identified "marxists" are
merely analysts of class and capitalism.

These things are necessarily correlated and I'm not sure the necessity of
drawing the line. Why not just use another term?

It seems to me we are making a rhetorical space for bourjois marxists. Why?

~~~
spaceseaman
> It seems to me we are making a rhetorical space for bourjois marxists. Why?

??? Academically they're interesting questions to ask? Have you ever taken a
class on Marxist critical theory or Marxist feminism or ...

A "marxist" is someone who uses Marx's method of analyzing class and
capitalism to talk about whatever they want. One specific example is a Marxist
critical theorist I know who likes to discuss the way class and capitalism as
Marx discussed them arise in philosophical interpretations of modern
literature.

Marxism is a political _philosophy_ \- one that has a lot of negative
connotation in the United States due to its ties to communism, but Marxism is
just philosophy so of course we'd want a space where academics can talk
philosophy.

See this comment for a better explanation
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15512846](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15512846)

~~~
gt_
I think you're explaining yourself clearly, and of I know this is a common way
of treating marxism in academia. I know you were taught it this way, as was I.
But, I think it is suspicious nonetheless. Reading Marx makes me wonder why we
arrived at objectifying and extermalizing his work like this. If we are
thinking of Marx's work and his 'philosophy', we are critiquing class and
capitalism. If we are critiquing class and capitalism, we are foolish to think
our critiques are only worthy when applied to _others_. Of course, this point
could hardly be more apparent than in the faculty's current predicaments.
Marxist theory would have illuminated the trajectory many years ago had they
the wits to apply the thought to their own situation. I don't feel very sorry
for them myself. I've got my student loans to pay off and my university
faculty members could never seem to care much less. When I was in school,
talking about my student loan problems was looked down on as 'showing my
class.'

~~~
spaceseaman
> Marxist theory would have illuminated the trajectory many years ago had they
> the wits to apply the thought to their own situation.

Faculty members are not in control of their own situation. I'm sorry to sound
a bit rude here, but you're being a bit oblivious. Faculty are under the rule
of law of the administration. That is who their boss is and that is whose
rules they follow. They don't get to choose the class hierarchy and power
dynamics of their job same as you or I. If it were that easy to disrupt a
power imbalance, then Marxism would be a lot more than just a theoretical
framework. More importantly, academics are the very definition of the type of
people who "get their head stuck in the clouds". They care about their work at
the expense of every other aspect of their lives, expecting them to apply the
same critical lens to their lives (which they are likely somewhat comfortable
in) is very naive. Even Marx goes out of his way to emphasize that the means
of production must be "seized" \- there has to be great motivation to change
the power dynamic. For professors, it can be hard to get them to care about
anything that doesn't directly affect their research.

> When I was in school, talking about my student loan problems was looked down
> on as 'showing my class.'

The faculty have no control over your student loans. They are not the ones who
charge you. And in my own experience, my professors were very enthusiastic
about me talking about my issues with student loan debt. Are you sure it
wasn't just in the wrong class / awkward timing? I brought this stuff up in a
course on class dynamics and got plenty of positive feedback - where you say
something is just as important as what you say after all.

You should redirect some of your frustration at the University's
administration. Professors and faculty are getting screwed in a lot of the
same ways as you, so why do you choose to get upset at them and their talk
about "Marxism". They're academics whose heads are up in the clouds, what do
you expect?

~~~
gt_
_> Faculty members are not in control of their own situation._

Yes, they are. They are in so much as a police officer. They too, can leave
their positions any time they please. They can discuss and protest, by all
means. Teaching and research can and might should be done elsewhere.

The growth of administration is dispicable but not authoritarian. I will argue
the administration bloat is of the same sensibilities as the oversocialized
culture of academic careerism. I say with much disappointment 'Flush them
both!'

We would be insulting to conclude hypocrisy excusable because of a little
"head in the clouds." I will defend with you the value of submersion, of
passion and obsessiveness to inspire study and discovery. Anecdotally, I find
this freedom abounds more outside of academia than within.

Nonetheless, I understand your reasoning; more generously in some disciplines
than others. Political theorists may visit "the clouds" but if they hang out
too long, they would be oblivious to the very specimin of their research!

I am young and cannot claim to have known these mythical "genuine marxists"
who amandoned Academia some decades back, but conceptually they are relatable.
I would have liked a shot at an academic career but lacked the quite obvious
requirements: monetary entry fee, cultural decoration, marketing/social
skills.

My work has involved many ties with Academia and I've even been published in
some academic journals. I want to believe, but I just find Academia and its'
self-obsessive traditions, processes, and increasingly oversocialized culture
to be terribly distracting. The necessity of these things is a worthwhile
debate, but with so many bright minds enmeshed, anything less than greatness
would be near impossible. But, my observations and personal experiences
suggest that the "clouds" in which the academics' tend to place their heads
are so rarely a result of curiosity and exploration as you imply. They often
more resemble a narrow path down which they will chase the next carrot.

I understand you to be defending those few who place their research practice
above all else. I implore you to question what might be if they were not
constrained by this path. Admittedly, I'm not offering any more a solution to
this than I am to the problem of pay: Leave the path or speak up/protest.
These rhetorical frameworks for distancing sake is a losing proposition, and
has become commonplace. These practice of prioritizing the carrot path favors
a survival of the shmooziest. This is bad for research, bad for education, bad
for faculty, bad for business. We can probably agree the administration does
not represent bygone Academia, but I assert instead it is a bureaucratic creep
that will feed on academic careerism like a virus. I suggest it is a symptom,
not a cause.

Sorry for the length. My battery is soon to die or I would try to edit.

------
politician
> An e-mail from Executive Vice Provost David Nirenberg on Sunday cautioned
> that unionization would introduce a “third party” that could interfere with
> graduate students’ relationships with the University.

That, of course, being the point.

~~~
sjg007
It's funny that the liberal ivory tower academics in charge don't want
unions...... Oh the... I'd say irony but it is really hypocrisy.

~~~
justinpombrio
The students and professors tend to be in favor, but they aren't the
_university_. It's the administration that tends to hate the idea.

EDIT: speaking from my limited experience with the unionization effort at
Brown. My main point is that faculty are not the university.

~~~
Cyph0n
Why would professors be in favor of a move that would likely make it harder to
get the cheap labor needed to churn out publications?

~~~
toomuchtodo
The university pays for the graduate student salary, not the faculty.

Edit: My knowledge of funding comes from a sample size of 1 (wife's cousin
doing genetic engineering out of St Louis) so it's possible I've made a
mistake extrapolating too widely.

~~~
Cyph0n
I'm a grad student myself, so I'm speaking from experience.

As far as I know, in virtually all US public universities, faculty members
have to pay for research assistants from their own grant money. The university
I am at helps the faculty by charging less for the student's tuition (out-of-
state to in-state).

Maybe you are confusing RA funding with TA funding?

~~~
newen
It depends on the universities. Yeah for most public universities, the grad
students are directly funded by the professor's research. In many other
universities, grad students are funded through the department, as in they are
guaranteed a salary; the salary would come from the professor (or other
fellowships the student got themselves) if they a research assistant, and it
would come from the university if they are a teaching assistant. They are
guaranteed funding because if the student doesn't get research funding, then
the department sticks them in a TA position so that they get a salary.

------
djsumdog
I'm excited about this. I had the advantage of working full-time while in grad
school, and my company paid for most of it, but I missed out on being a TA and
getting classroom experience.

I watched a lot of fellow grad students struggle, constantly worrying about
grants and funding. Some just took loans, others rushing so they could get
through before their fellowships ended.

Meanwhile you watch new buildings, dorms and student centers go up as
undergrad tuition goes up. Most professors I know who are my age are all
adjunct or part time, but it's their full time gig.

Adjuncts positions were meant for professionals in the field who wanted to
teach a class or two. The position is really being abused to keep from paying
hard working professors a full-time wage and keeping them from a tenure track.

So where the hell is all the money going. Yes there are cuts, but we still see
new buildings and programs. I realize these are different budgets a lot of
times, but it's still getting really ridiculous.

If universities want to do something real, they need to stop worrying about
unions and start tackling the student debt situation. They draw students
deeper into debt than they've ever been in history to fund their institutions.
You can no longer work a part time job and pay for many state schools. And
what if those kids graduate and decide they really hate engineering or
business or whatever they got. Now they feel like slaves, working jobs they
hate to pay off that debt.

We desperately need student debt forgiveness. It has to happen. The bubble
needs to burst, the system needs to collapse and schools need to scrap and
rebuild programs that are affordable, that work and that are significantly
better and different than their shitty for profit counterparts, which they're
becoming more like everyday.

~~~
sjg007
Administration is like a giant vacuum.

------
dmitrygr
A PhD student at UChicago whom I know well told me that they significantly
limited who was allowed to vote to make this happen.

Not allowed to vote if:

* Not currently onsite (field work or pre-grad research elsewhere for a year)

* If you were not onsite in the previous year (anyone who did field work last year)

* Anyone who took a year break from teaching was not allowed to vote even if returning to teaching this year

* Anyone in 1st or 2nd year not allowed to vote (despite most years left to live under this union)

~~~
vkou
This seems to contradict the criteria in a child post, citing. [1]

Is there any citation for your claims?

From the cited list, it seems that anyone who got paid on a regular basis by
the university over the past two years could vote.

[1] [http://knowthefacts.uchicago.edu/](http://knowthefacts.uchicago.edu/)

~~~
HarryHirsch
_Know the Facts is provided by the University of Chicago._

Ah. Good to know. No further questions, your honour.

------
huac
The graduate students at Penn have been trying to unionize for a while
([http://www.thedp.com/article/2017/08/update-grad-students-
un...](http://www.thedp.com/article/2017/08/update-grad-students-union-upenn-
philly)). For the most part, the divide is between engineering students (who
are well-funded) and the rest (who are not).

------
earksiinni
I wonder how many of the responses here are from folks who went through
CS/STEM graduate programs and who have no idea what their current/former
colleagues in the humanities go through. One person alluded to how privileged
a grad student is to have their tuition paid while being afforded the
opportunity to become a "domain expert" in their field. Tell that to the
average history Ph.D. in the US who takes 7-9 years to complete her degree,
spending the prime of her youth to end up working 4/4 course loads as an
adjunct in some godforsaken community college with no health insurance. And
yet that individual carries with her the collective knowledge of thousands of
years of human intellectual endeavor.

As for the news from UChicago, I congratulate my former colleagues, and yet I
also know that it's not enough. I started a Ph.D. in the humanities at
Illinois and left after 2.5 years. Our union was great, but no union is
enough. We were fighting to prevent the administration from docking our meager
$17k/year pay for frivolous BS reasons, and while I'm grateful for what the
union did for us, in another way it was so shortsighted. Why were the stewards
of civilization making $17k/year in the first place? Why couldn't we make far,
far more, worthy of the years of specialized knowledge that we had developed
at great cost?

The union could never answer these questions. Actually, most people thought I
was crazy for even asking them. We spent all day denouncing capitalism, and
yet we were enthralled to the myth of the Protestant work ethic, that
compensation is somehow tied to our self-worth. And that misguided albeit
well-meaning hypocrisy why I left academia and joined Silicon Valley.

~~~
chasely
I responded to another comment along this line of thought. I took a relatively
common "STEM" view until I joined a fellowship cohort with some students in
humanities. Their teaching loads were completely ridiculous as grad students
and they seemed to have a nearly abusive relationships with their departments
because of it.

------
ptero
I got my PhD a while ago, but I think unionizing is a terrible idea. First,
while the hours are long, tuition is usually paid for / waived and we got a
small stipend and OK health insurance for 2-4 hours of teaching a week. I
graduated with no debt.

Much more important though is that most unions make work _predictable_. Hours,
duties, etc. However, most PhD research is highly unpredictable. If I want to
set up the test while the conditions are good, I may want to work NOW; hearing
that I'm out of hours and need to do it tomorrow is the last thing I need. If
I got my test set up (in shared lab) and going great I may want to go as long
as I can stand it -- it may be broken tomorrow.

At least last 2 years of grad school my #1 desire was to finish and go use my
new PhD in real world for real money. If union imposed policies add 1-2 years
to the process I would not want them.

~~~
chasely
I am at a university (Michigan) where the union is primarily for graduate
students that teach. I could not tell from the writeup, but it sounds like
this is for _all_ graduate students at UChicago.

Being in an engineering department, I never had an issue with having to teach
a heavy load of classes. But, some of my friends in humanities departments had
a teaching load of - 6+ hours of classroom time + discussions + grading long
papers - for classes of 50+ students. Being part of the union allowed them to
put pressure on their departments that they needed to hire other TAs so that
they could focus on their research and not spend additional years writing
their dissertation.

I don't think being part of a union is going to stop any motivated student
from doing their own research. And part of joining the union is to ensure that
their members do receive a good stipend and have their health insurance paid
for while maintaining a reasonable teaching load.

~~~
ptero
It is definitely possible that my worries are overblown. However I did see a
lab where researchers would close doors before moving a desk to a new location
because they are not supposed to as moving furniture was a union job (and
requesting this via official channels takes days instead of minutes).

When I saw it first I thought it was a joke and laughed, but the folks working
there were serious and asked me to shut up lest I get them in trouble. Maybe
this is an edge case, but this still worries me when I hear about unionizing
-- formalization of duties is extremely inefficient in most research
environments and is often a flip side of unionization.

Again, I admit that my fears might be overblown.

------
gravypod
Why do a group of people need permission to start a union? Can a group of
people unionize without permission of their employer? Does the employer need
to sign a form or something?

I thought unions were just groups of people who bargained with collective
power. Why don't all researchers at these universities just use their
abilities as leverage? Most people in universities are hired because they're
one of a few thousand people in the world who are up to speed on a specific
topic. That makes them very difficult to replace, one would think.

~~~
cfqycwz
Under US law, the only way to gain recognition as the bargaining
representative of a unit of employees—and the only way an employer is legally
allowed to recognize you as the sole bargaining agent—is by demonstrating that
you have the support of a majority of the bargaining unit, usually through a
union certification election.

I don't think there's anything legally preventing a subset of employees from
banding together and withholding work until just that subset gets what they
want, if that's what you're asking. It's just not a terribly effective tactic,
and obviously doesn't leave the benefits in place for future employees the way
that a NLRB-sanctioned collective bargaining agreement does.

------
snomad
I wonder if this will spark student athletes in major football and basketball
programs to follow suit.

~~~
chris_7
Do they get to take advantage of labor laws protecting organizing since
they're not actually, like, employed? Obviously the minimum wage doesn't apply
to them...

If they don't have the protection, doing that could jeopardize any chance they
have of going to the NFL (not that most of them make it anyways).

~~~
cfqycwz
Student athletes' biggest protection from retaliation is probably their
incredible power over the institution and high level of visibility, as
demonstrated by the actions of the Mizzou players during
#concernedstudent1950.

Football players, at least in D1, have also been determined to at least have
some of the rights to concerted action protected under the NLRA:

[https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2017/02/02/nlrb-
general-...](https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2017/02/02/nlrb-general-
counsel-says-private-college-football-players-are-employees)

Of course, while that does protect them from their current employer (the
school), I don't think it can protect them against the reluctance of a
potential future employer (like the NFL).

------
wheaties
The sad thing that they will learn which my wife's school learnt was that, as
a union employee, you are no longer a student. That is, all the tax breaks,
ability to not pay SS, etc. all those fees come right back. In the end, they
raised student wages but the take home pay was cut. Then they paid union
dues...

~~~
throwawayjava
This is either hyperbole or an example of the university punishing
unionization, because I know of at least a half dozen unionized universities
where grad students do get those benefits.

------
YesonID
~1600 students participated in the vote, but on wikipedia the school has 10k
postgrads. How does this work?

~~~
dmitrygr
They limited who could vote to mostly those who support the idea (source: a
PhD there). I posted details a comment above

~~~
YesonID
Thanks for the reply - I appreciate the information. I read your other comment
and it shed some light.

------
Halladie7
This is very interesting. Having been a graduate student who threw off the
reins to do basically the same work in industry at 6-7x the compensation with
better benefits I support them.

------
Aardwolf
The comments here are giving me more questions than answers...

I genuinely don't know what it's about. At my university, the work to do (5
years in my case) existed out of studying for exams, sometimes group projects
to build something (not something usable outside of a presentation for
points), and in the last year a thesis (not at all as publish-worthy as a phd
paper). This spanned "bachelor" and "master" but those names were actually
retrofitted to an older system.

The article and comments talk about labor by students in university.

My university was in Europe. Please enlighten me, do students do actual labor
in US universities? I'd love to understand what this is about. Thanks!

~~~
mason55
In the US graduate students typically do "grunt work" as part of their
program. For example, you might be a research assistant, where you help out
with your professor's research. Or a teaching assistant, where you help a
professor teach a low-level/intro class (things like grading or preparation of
class materials). For this you receive a small stipend.

The original idea was that a professor takes you under his or her wing to
teach you and help you with your research and in exchange you help out the
professor with what they are doing. Nowadays graduate students feel like
they're just being treated as cheap labor without the professor/university
holding up their end of the bargain.

~~~
Aardwolf
As far as I understand the terminology, "bachelor" matches "undergrad student"
and "master" matches "grad student". Is that right?

So this bachelor and master was just combined in one single 5-year program in
my case.

Research, being teaching assistant, and writing papers was done by those who
went for a PhD at my university, that is, after those 5 years, those who chose
to do a PhD after receiving your master diploma.

Do you think it says something about the quality of the university, when
master students were not teaching/writing papers/doing research, but simply
doing exams as usual...? (Ok there was the thesis in the last year, but that
was really more like a larger final project)

Most _top_ universities in the world are indeed not in Europe, but in my
country at least is was considered a good one.

~~~
alistairSH
See my sibling comment. But, yes, undergraduate = bachleors, graduate =
masters or professional, post-graduate = PhD.

Typically, these labor issues revolve around post-graduate students who expect
to be at school for many years. And not students who are just pursuing a
Masters program, which only lasts a year or two.

~~~
newen
No...undergrad = bachelors. But graduate means both master's and phd. No one
says graduate to mean solely master's. And post-graduate might be a vague term
(no one uses it) but generally it means the same as just graduate.

------
photoJ
Of the 2,457 students in the bargaining unit, 1,103 students voted in favor,
479 students voted against, two ballots could not be counted and 873 did not
vote.

------
santaclaus
University of Chicago is private, right? So this falls under Federal purview
(unionization issues at state schools are under state jurisdiction). With the
NLRB in the current administration, I can't imagine a friendly ruling towards
the graduate students when the university administration's inevitable appeal
boils up.

------
interloper13
Several things to note in this issue.

1\. Regarding huge number of grads and few people voting - wiki and other
aggregate sources of info will only tell you the total number of students
listed as "enrolled" at the school. Not all of them taught in the previous
five quarters. That actually reduces the number of grads eligible to vote
drastically.

2\. Regarding the comments linking union to money. It is by no means
guaranteed that a union can increase the salaries paid to grad students. And
in fact most grad students (at least at the PhD level) survive off the stipend
not the TA/RA salary. As far as I understand the union has no bearing in the
stipend amount. There is also the thing that UChicago is cash strapped. It
doesn't have the liquid assets to increase anyone's salaries. (Look up the
aggressive campaign to sell UChicago owned buildings in HP if you are curios).

3\. A union, as an organization of people, by definition caters to the average
contributor. In a factory where the workers provide similar enough service
that 'an average' is still a meaningful concept, a union can do some good. In
my opinion, in a union of all grad students across all departments, 'average
demand' is meaningless. Each department can't even agree internally on what
their students need, so I'm not sure how a union will find common ground among
all the departments. On the one hand limiting the number of hours in a work
day sounds good, no? But ask a science grad - they will likely complain that
they no longer have time to finish their experiment in time. Giving students a
choice in which class they want to TA sounds good, no? But ask a student in
humanities - they will tell you that seventeen of them apply for the same spot
that only one person can have so they would prefer assigned positions not
chosen ones. Etc, etc, etc.

~~~
mathperson
I'm not sure the uchicago sell off is because they are cash strapped. probably
because uchicago feels like it no longer has to ensure that hyde park
experiences urban decay (aka why they bought the buildings) and to shift those
funds it into something with a better rate of return.

~~~
mathperson
-no longer has to ensure hyde park DOESNT experience urban decay

------
losteverything
Grad students aren't grad students forever, right? So it must be darn hard to
have union membership turn over.

Grads today in the union will leave in a few years and not stay decades.

Unions i know work when lives in the same job are represented. And contracts
last 4-6 yrs.

Not sure i see a chance for long term benefit.

------
kiliantics
Awesome news! I hope this rapidly growing network of graduate unions somehow
jumps over to infect the tech world. Strong unions in tech could really make
big changes in US politics.

------
gcb0
ucla grad student anecdote: we have a union. but a few students are not part
of it. they do accept benefits for being quiet about work issues or outright
siding with the faculty.

just to set a level of the workers issue I am talking about, recently they cut
in half the salary of a category, to double the number of people. from 3 to 6.
while each teaches a class in full, to 20+ undergrads each. pay is now tuition
plus enough to be 2 grand a year above CA poverty line.

------
Y_Y
This is a fantastic idea. Graduate students have to compete for so little
funding (or even just unfunded slots) that the wage and conditions are at a
bare minimum. Just a shot at those sweet professor jobs (whether or not they
exist) or just adding to the world's knowledge send to be so desirable that
people will work ridiculous hours with no benefits for pitiful pay. But why
should the grads compete with each other?

What's next should be academia uniting to distribute funding internally,
rather than stock with the farcical lotteries that are grant proposals.

~~~
aaron-lebo
Not every project is deserving of funding. Grants provide at least one filter,
and at least in my experience have some correlation to merit. There's just not
enough money, spreading it out doesn't help.

Attaching funding to academic politics sounds like the death of innovation,
but that may be an exaggeration.

~~~
Y_Y
Knowing what projects "deserve" funding before they're funded is a harder
problem than any funding body would like to admit. I'm not proposing all
available money is divided up equally, in saying that the application should
be done in an efficient way by a union of academics.

------
photoJ
A significant change in how graduate studies may occur.

------
rosstex
Princeton did this last year as well.

------
mesozoic
This will end well...

~~~
rflrob
I went to grad school at a unionized school (UC Berkeley), and was generally
fine with the union. I never directly took advantage of the union protections,
but it's nice knowing that you won't just be at the mercy of your advisor
should something go wrong (though having an advisor you can trust in the first
place is obviously preferable). I know people who took advantage of maternity
leave, and I felt that the benefits we were provided were a cut above those at
Stanford (who only recently got dental/vision coverage).

~~~
s3r3nity
Curious: did unionization reduce the # of graduate students UC Berkeley was
able to allow in?

This has been a common criticism I've heard, and would have potential
ramifications on the long-term research pipeline if it were true + spread
nationally.

~~~
rflrob
Not obviously, though most people I knew were in reasonably well funded
departments/programs, and at any rate they were unionized well before I got
there, so I wasn't around to observe any changes.

For what it's worth, I'm not convinced that the research pipeline isn't
already overfull. The tenure track shouldn't be the goal of all incoming
graduate students, but I think the increasing length of postdoc positions, the
massive oversupply of adjunct professors, and historically low rates of grant
funding are hints that there's something wrong.

------
bedhead
Abolish tenure. Problem solved.

------
RickJWag
Seems unlikely to drive the cost of education lower.

The value of a degree will continue to lose ground against the cost. This is
not good.

~~~
ThrustVectoring
This is a direct consequence of rising enrollment rates in college. A degree
is a largely a positional good - it only helps your employment prospects by
making the limited number of open positions more likely to be filled by you
rather than someone without a degree. In other words, the marginal extra law
degree results in nearer to zero additional employed lawyers, rather than one.

