Tag: Ph.D

  • U Rochester Ph.D. Students Strike for a Non-NLRB Election

    U Rochester Ph.D. Students Strike for a Non-NLRB Election

    University of Rochester Ph.D. student workers began striking this week to pressure the institution to agree to what they call a “fair union election.” And for the process to be fair, they say, it can’t be handled by the Trump-era National Labor Relations Board.

    “We don’t see any kind of path through the NLRB at present,” said George Elkind, a Ph.D. student on the proposed UR Graduate Labor Union’s organizing committee.

    The strike began Monday and continued Tuesday. Elkind said it’s unclear how many of the more than 1,400 students who would likely be represented by the union are withholding their labor. The walkout is another example of labor agitation continuing into the Trump era.

    Roughly a year ago, university officials and the union organizers began discussing plans for a private election, which both parties were amenable to. If they had reached an agreement, the NLRB—which usually handles unionization votes at private nonprofit institutions such as UR—wouldn’t have been involved.

    However, in February, after Donald Trump retook the presidency and fired a Democratic NLRB member and the agency’s general counsel, a university lawyer told student organizers that UR no longer wanted a private election, according to a document union members provided Inside Higher Ed. Instead, the lawyer wrote that they could pursue an election with the Trump-era NLRB.

    Scott Phillipson, president of SEIU 200United, a multi-university union that’s helping to organize the students, said UR officials “simply do not want these employees to have a union. That is what is going on here.”

    Phillipson said university officials were being disingenuous in suggesting the students use the NLRB.

    “They know it’s not an option,” he said. “But it’s a better public messaging, frankly, than ‘Just go away.’”

    An NLRB spokesperson told Inside Higher Ed Tuesday that the agency’s “regional offices are functioning as normal” and can run elections. But any appeals of election results would go to the actual board for which the agency is named. And since Trump ousted the Democratic board member, Gwynne Wilcox, and has left previous vacancies unfilled, the panel now doesn’t have the minimum required number of members to make decisions.

    If Trump eventually does appoint his own members to the board, allowing it to operate again, some union supporters worry the NLRB might use a grad student unionization case such as Rochester’s to overturn the 2016 Columbia University case precedent establishing that private nonprofit university grad workers can unionize through the NLRB.

    Student workers could continue to unionize at public universities in the states that allow such action, but those at private institutions would be left with no other path than to seek voluntary recognition from their universities.

    Elkind said UR officials know that the NLRB “is defunct—and would be hostile if it weren’t.” He said they want grad workers to go to the NLRB and risk a ruling decertifying grad unions at private universities nationwide. He called this “an extreme anti-labor position.”

    ‘Unprecedented Times’

    In an email, William A. Herbert, executive director of the National Center for the Study of Collective Bargaining in Higher Education and the Professions, said the strike “to compel the university to agree to a non-NLRB election is a sign of these unprecedented times.

    “There is a growing distrust and frustration among unions and their members with NLRB procedures and remedies, both of which are also under constitutional attacks by employers like SpaceX, Amazon, and the University of Southern California,” said Herbert, whose center is at Hunter College. “The firing of NLRB Board member Gwynne Wilcox and the reported removal of sensitive labor data from the NLRB by Department of Government Efficiency [DOGE] staff has further undermined confidence in the agency.”

    The university, which didn’t provide an interview Tuesday, hasn’t said it abandoned the move toward a private election because it thinks grad workers would lose in front of the Trump-era NLRB. UR has cited other reasons, including a December court decision involving Vanderbilt University grad workers’ attempt to unionize.

    NLRB policy required Vanderbilt to reveal names, job classifications and other information about student workers whom the union might represent. But more than 100 students objected to sharing that, and Vanderbilt sued the NLRB and one of its regional directors, arguing that requiring students to turn over the information would violate their privacy under the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA).

    A judge in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee ruled that Vanderbilt was likely right and granted a preliminary injunction blocking the NLRB requirements. A UR lawyer wrote that this made the university concerned about being “seen as facilitating the dissemination of potentially protected student data to a third party” if it went forward with the private election.

    But the lawyer went beyond the Vanderbilt case, saying that not requiring a prospective union to go through the NLRB would be a “significant deviation from the university’s typical practice.” He also noted the recent “sweeping and still unclear changes in the federal government’s support for the university’s missions,” adding that the Trump administration’s upheaval “includes a likely reduction in federal funding.”

    In an emailed statement Tuesday, a university spokesperson said “contingency plans are in place to ensure minimal disruption to our academic mission— including teaching and research activities—during a strike. In the event of prolonged strike activity, University officials are confident that the academic enterprise will continue as normal without interruption.”

    The spokesperson said “we are steadfast in the belief that entering into a private election agreement at this time is not in the best interests of the University community.”

    Source link

  • How a Drop in Ph.D. Students Could Affect Colleges

    How a Drop in Ph.D. Students Could Affect Colleges

    Under mounting financial and political pressures, universities have paused or rescinded graduate student admissions on an unprecedented scale, which could create cross-campus ripple effects next fall and beyond.

    The extent of the cuts to the graduate student workforce remains unclear and will vary from institution to institution. But if and when those losses come to pass, experts say that employing fewer graduate students—particularly Ph.D. students, who typically hold years-long research and teaching assistantships—will undermine universities’ broader operations, including undergraduate education, faculty support and the future of academic research, which is reliant on training the next generation of scholars.

    “First and foremost, a reduction in the number of graduate students may threaten that individualized, close attention for undergraduates,” said Julia Kent, vice president of best practices and strategic initiatives at the Council of Graduate Schools.

    That’s because many doctoral students work as teaching assistants, particularly for large introductory undergraduate courses, where they assist with grading, lead discussion sections, help students with assignments and supervise labs.

    “While a professor may be doing the lectures for those courses, they may not seem as approachable or accessible to undergraduates. In those cases, the graduate teaching assistant is the first point of contact for that student. They may go to them for questions or feel more comfortable asking for help with assignment,” said Kent, who added that graduate students also support universities’ learning missions in other ways, too. “They may also help staff in the writing center and support undergraduates writing essays for their classes and provide informal mentoring.”

    ‘Not Sustainable’

    Although colleges and universities haven’t felt the effects of losing a number of those roles yet, Kent said the uncertainty surrounding graduate admissions poses a “real risk” to undergraduate learning.

    If universities do want to maintain smaller class sizes with fewer graduate students, they may rely even more heavily on low-paid contingent faculty, said Rosemary Perez, an associate professor at the Center for the Study of Higher and Postsecondary Education at the University of Michigan.

    “That’s not sustainable for those instructors, who may be teaching five or six classes at multiple campuses and still not making enough to live,” she said. And with fewer graduate students in the pipeline, “we’ll also have fewer people who are trained to be faculty. People are going to retire. Who’s going to teach these college classes that have experience working with college students?”

    Nothing concrete has to happen for people weighing their futures to decide to take a different path where it seems like there may be more stability. Rational humans may decide that’s not the direction they want to go in anymore, and that’s going to be an immediate loss to the field.”

    —Marcel Agüeros, astronomy professor at Columbia University

    And with fewer spots available to prospective graduate students, Perez fears students who don’t attend top-ranked institutions will be the first to disappear from the academic pipeline. That’s because when resources are scarce, “the tendency is to rely on markers of prestige or GRE scores as predictors of success,” she said. “But those aren’t great predictors of what people are capable of doing in their careers.”

    Fewer graduate students will also likely mean a heavier workload for faculty, who in addition to teaching, also rely on them to help with research by assisting in running labs and research groups and co-authoring papers.

    “They help universities’ reputation, but they also help faculty funding prospects by making the faculty more productive, because funding agencies like to see productive faculty. A lot of that labor is happening through graduate students,” said Julie Posselt, a higher education professor at the University of Southern California, which last month revoked outstanding offers for numerous Ph.D. programs, including sociology, chemistry, sociology, molecular biology and religion. “Meanwhile, there’s also plenty of evidence that Ph.D. students are contributing to universities’ research output and are independently advancing knowledge in their respective fields.”

    Impact Will Reach All Fields

    Already, numerous universities across the country have said they’re reducing the number of Ph.D. students in the biomedical sciences as a result of drastic cuts to the National Institutes of Health, which each year sends universities billions of dollars in grants that indirectly and directly support graduate education.

    But it won’t just be those in the biomedical sciences that feel those cuts, especially as colleges downsize their budgets in light of the NIH’s plan to cap the amount of money it gives institutions for indirect research costs, which covers facilities maintenance, compliance with patient safety protocols and hazardous biowaste removal. Although a federal judge has blocked those cuts for now, the Department of Health and Human Services filed an appeal Monday; if the plan takes effect, it will force universities to find other areas they can cut from their budgets to make up the difference.

    “Even if you’re in the humanities, what’s happening right now in federal granting agencies that are far from the humanities has an impact on the humanities, because the overall budget for a university to do things like keep up their infrastructure and keep the lights on will go down,” said Jody Greene, associate campus provost and literature professor at the University of California, Santa Cruz. “And if we also don’t have international students, that’s also going to be a significant budget hit at institutions like ours.”

    International Students at Play

    In addition to drastic cuts in grant funding from the NIH, the National Endowment for the Humanities and the Department of Education, the government has also revoked scores of international graduate students’ visas and detained several others.

    U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has characterized, with little concrete evidence, those students as “lunatics” who came to the United States “not just to study but to participate in movements that vandalize universities, harass students, take over buildings and cause chaos.” The administration is also considering a travel ban affecting 43 countries. (After Trump issued a travel ban for seven countries during his first term, the number of international applicants to U.S. colleges fell 5.5 percent for graduate students, though applications have been on the rebound post-pandemic.)

    But universities worry that targeting international students—who made up nearly one in four incoming graduate students in 2022—will create a chilling effect, cause international student enrollment to plunge and strip institutions of yet another vital revenue source. According to data from the Institute of International Education, 81 percent of international undergraduate students and 61 percent of graduate students completely fund their own tuition.

    Would-Be Ph.D.s Wary

    All this politically driven chaos and financial uncertainty is making graduate school—and a career as a faculty member—a harder sell for students interested in research careers.

    “Up until this year, we’ve been able to tell prospective graduate students that the university will cover the costs of their Ph.D.,” said Marcel Agüeros, an astronomy professor at Columbia University, where the Trump administration has frozen some $650 million in NIH funding. “We want to stay true to that commitment, but we’d be lying if we said that’s going to be 100 percent possible.”

    And even though his department is currently only expecting to offer one fewer Ph.D. slot, Agüeros said the uncertainty over the future of federal funding—and even what areas of research academics are allowed to pursue—is enough to push people out of academia.

    “Nothing concrete has to happen for people weighing their futures to decide to take a different path where it seems like there may be more stability,” he said. “Rational humans may decide that’s not the direction they want to go in anymore, and that’s going to be an immediate loss to the field.”

    And those are the questions would-be graduate students all over the country are asking themselves right now.

    “We don’t have any data yet, but anecdotally, I’m hearing that there are a ton of students who are choosing not to even try to go to graduate school this year and next year because they’re perceiving less funding and support,” said Bethany Usher, immediate past president of the Council on Undergraduate Research and provost at Radford University in Virginia.

    “Those Ph.D. students are the ones who push the boundaries of research,” she added. “They have the newest ideas, and if we reduce those, it will have a generational impact on higher education, industries and communities.”

    Source link

  • Career coaches fill critical gaps in Ph.D. training

    Career coaches fill critical gaps in Ph.D. training

    To the editor:

    In “The Doctoral Dilemma” (Feb. 3, 2025), Inside Higher Ed reporter Johanna Alonso describes career coaching as a “cottage industry” of “gurus” that emerged to fill critical gaps in graduate training. As a career coach cited in the article, I was disappointed to see such an inaccurate and biased portrayal of my work. 

    Coaching is a professional industry with proven methods, tools, and credentialing provided by the International Coaching Federation (ICF). Coaching is distinct from “consulting,” and it’s an intentional, strategic step for anyone seeking to change careers. This is why Johns Hopkins University employs coaches as part of its Doctoral Life Design Studio. Yet, the article portrays these university-led coaching initiatives as legitimate, structured and holistic, while describing coaching outside of the university as an opportunistic “cottage industry.” Why frame the same service in two very different ways?

    From our wide-ranging, 20-minute interview, Alonso only highlighted my hourly rate—$250/hour for a single one-to-one meeting—without any context. There is no mention of the benefits of career coaching, or whether universities like Johns Hopkins pay their coaches a similar rate. The monetary cost, presented in isolation, suggests exploitation. The reality? As a neurodivergent person, I find one-to-one meetings draining, so I’ve priced them to limit bookings. Instead, I direct Ph.D.s toward my free library of online content, my lower-cost group programs and my discounted coaching packages, all of which have helped Ph.D.s secure industry roles that double or triple their academic salaries. The article doesn’t include these details.

    The most telling sign of the article’s bias is the use of the word “guru.” Why use a loaded term like “guru” instead of “expert” to describe career coaches? As I frequently remind my clients, language shapes perception. Ph.D.s are more likely to be seen as industry-ready professionals if they use terms like “multi-year research project” instead of “dissertation” or “stakeholders” instead of “academic advisers.” The same logic applies here—calling career coaches “gurus” trivializes our work, implying we are self-appointed influencers rather than qualified professionals. I’ll never forget the professor who once tweeted, “If life outside of academia is so great, why do alt-ac gurus spend so much time talking about it? Don’t they have better things to do?”

    My response? “I wouldn’t have to do this if professors provided ANY professional development for non-academic careers.”

    Because contrary to what the article claims, I didn’t start my coaching business because I wished there were more resources available to me. I started it because, after I quit my postdoctoral fellowship for an industry career, I spent untold hours providing uncompensated career support to Ph.D.s. For nearly two years, I responded to thousands of messages, created online resources, reviewed résumés and met one-to-one with hundreds of Ph.D. students, postdocs and even tenured professors—all for free, in my leisure time. Eventually, I burned out from the incessant demand. I realized that, if I was going to continue pouring my time into helping Ph.D.s, I needed to be compensated. That’s when I started my business.

    Academia conditions us to see for-profit businesses as unethical, while “nonprofit” universities push students into a lifetime of high-interest debt. It convinces us that charging for expertise is predatory, while asking Ph.D.s to work for poverty wages is somehow noble. It forces us to internalize the idea that, if you truly care about something, you should sacrifice your well-being and life for it. But our time is valuable. Our skills are valuable. We deserve to be fairly compensated for our labor, inside and outside of academia.

    Career coaching isn’t the problem. The real problem is that academia still refuses to take a critical look in the mirror.

    Ashley Ruba is the founder of After Academia.

    Source link