I have a PhD and I felt that I had to deprogram myself to fit in with BigTech. With a PhD, I would uncompromisingly pursue a single goal. Ideas were worth something. In Big Tech, ideas are in abundance but time is short, and I must compromise to follow through on my commitments. The only thing I really have an advantage over non-PhDs is that I get suspicious of good results
Edit: totally unrelated, but PhDs in the West basically seem to be immigration schemes, and universities are happy to play along.
Money brought in by foreign students is greater than money brought in by out of state students, which is greater than money brought in by local students. The way tuition is set up as a general concept will lead to this situation if your institution lasts long enough.
Many graduate students get tuition waivers, so this is largely irrelevant.
The difference is that in graduate school, there's little or no bias in favor of in-state candidates, whereas for state universities, it's basically their mission statement to make dedicated space for in-state undergraduates.
Keep in mind that graduate school admission is controlled by the individual academic departments, but individual academic departments don't directly get tuition money from its students. The professors on the admissions committee don't care how much tuition the students pay.
> The professors on the admissions committee don't care how much tuition the students pay.
I'm confident that all professors are aware of the revenue streams of their universities and are incentivized to maximize those revenue streams, even if only implicitly.
> I'm confident that all professors are aware of the revenue streams of their universities and are incentivized to maximize those revenue streams, even if only implicitly.
I'm confident that they aren't.
Furthermore, professors have to work personally with their grad students. Teach them, advise them, employ them, publish with them, recommend them for jobs. It's ridiculous to suggest that they're choosing their students based on in-state vs. out-state tuition. That's the very last thing they give a damn about. Do you have any first-hand knowledge of graduate school?
My girlfriend recently got her master's in Wildlife Conservation.
> Teach them, advise them
These two actions are required.
> employ them, publish with them, recommend them for jobs
These actions are not required, at least at the American state university my girlfriend attended.
> It's ridiculous to suggest that they're choosing their students based on in-state vs. out-state tuition.
It's not ridiculous when there's such an obvious institutional incentive, even if it makes their personal lives a little more difficult.
Also, you seem to be making an argument that out-of-state or international students are less capable than in-state students, enough that it would negate the incentive of different tuition rates.
I wasn't aware that there was such a program. Anyway, there's a huge difference between Masters and PhD.
> These two actions are required.
The first, anyway. ;-)
But you seem to be missing the point. Professors are required to teach the graduate students, but the graduate admissions committee isn't required to admit any specific person or type of person. The professors get to choose who they want to teach and advise.
> These actions are not required
What's your point? Professors generally want to do these things. They need teaching assistants, they need lab assistants, they need research assistants. Professors recommend their advisees for jobs, just like the professors' professors recommended them for jobs when they were advisees; that's what you do, and what you want to do to futher your own reputation as a professor.
> It's not ridiculous when there's such an obvious institutional incentive, even if it makes their personal lives a little more difficult.
Universities are not rigidly hierarchical. Academic departments and tenured professors have a lot of power and independence. They actually don't have to sacrifice their personal lives for the sake of some administrator's goal.
> Also, you seem to be making an argument that out-of-state or international students are less capable than in-state students
Not at all. In fact, admitting in-state students is not particularly common in elite PhD programs, even at state universities. The reason has nothing to do with tuition and everything to do with competition: the admissions committee is free to pick the best applicants from wherever. I already mentioned this in an earlier comment: "The difference is that in graduate school, there's little or no bias in favor of in-state candidates, whereas for state universities, it's basically their mission statement to make dedicated space for in-state undergraduates."
I also said, "Many graduate students get tuition waivers, so this [tuition] is largely irrelevant."
Google search results back up the accuracy of your claims for PhD students, especially regarding tuition waivers.
I focused on your use of the term "graduate student" and applied that to master students as well, which, in the context of the post that triggered this discussion, doesn't make a lot sense.
I apologize for that and appreciate your patience & clarification.
Edit: totally unrelated, but PhDs in the West basically seem to be immigration schemes, and universities are happy to play along.