[pjlegato]

The root problem is shown in this graph[1]. Simply put, since the 1960s, expanded funding for higher education in the US has vastly increased the supply of PhDs, while the number of job positions open for professors has not significantly increased.

"PhDs issued" grows exponentially (since each professor can issue PhDs to multiple students), but "job offers" grows only linearly.

This supply and demand imbalance tilts the power balance almost 100% in favor of the professor in any interaction with grad students. Professors have acquired essentially unlimited and arbitrary power to dictate conditions, and grad students have no choice but to comply or leave academia -- throwing away a lifetime of work and preparation.

More at http://www.nature.com/nbt/journal/v31/n10/full/nbt.2706.html

[1] http://www.nature.com/nbt/journal/v31/n10/images/nbt.2706-F1...

[benwr]

I agree with your first paragraph, but the second one doesn't make sense: Only professors with jobs can be PhD advisors, therefore the jobless PhD's don't increase the rate of PhD granting.

[anbende]

True, it's merely a much faster rate, rather that a compounding effect.

[abecedarius]

I don't know, but I wonder if having so many students here on a visa and hoping to immigrate is one of the main factors. (I'm not against immigration, I'm saying the visa can create a nasty power imbalance against the worker.)

After all, a near-steady-state academic job market is not new these last decades, labor markets should equilibrate unless there's some kind of barrier, grad students are heavily foreign-born https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_born_scientists_and_en..., and many of them hope to immigrate (same source). What changes to the rules would improve the bargaining position of both native and foreign-born workers? (At the expense of employers like this one.)

An alternative factor is people gambling they'll make it big, like musicians and athletes. This must be part of it, though professors aren't rock stars or drug dealers.