I think we're talking about PhDs, not "teachers" ... right?
I'm just saying that except under times of exceptional growth, the future job prospects for PhD students has always been grim. You know, supply and demand. I'm just not buying the idea that PhD students are suddenly in a worse situation that they were, say, 30 years ago. Which I think the is generally accepted turning point away from post-war, right?
>> I agree: there ought to be subtle encouragement for students
>> to ultimately leave :-)
>
> Maybe so. But that's not why the change happened.
Wait, when did this change? I was at UCB in the 80s, and it was always made clear that slots at Berkeley were scarce: if you didn't graduate by the time you had 120 units (4 "normal" years), you got one semester to fix it or be dropped. And grad students had a hard time getting waivers if they overstayed. Yes, it was a lot cheaper back then, so it was less of a hardship. But the price changed, not the policy. The policy is: you can't just hang out here.
I would have to say that the majority of PhD students I've known overstayed.
> It's part of the policy to starve education until you can
> drown it in a bathtub. Or, better, until it's a gated community.
I think this thread might be drifting; that policy shift is true througout most of public education, but the idea that PhD students -- already kind of a cream-of-the-crop, and already hugely competitive -- are being impacted in the same way that, say, arts teachers in middle school are, is a little disingenuous.
It's getting harder to go to college; but what's the deal with looking at PhD students to try to make the point?
/jordan