[dntbnmpls]

Agreed. There are a fixed number of PhD spots. What sense is there to give that spot to a 66 year old senior rather than someone younger who will actually do something productive with the expertise and credentials?

I'm all for continued learning but can't that be done in a non-credentialed manner that doesn't disadvantage young people?

[marceloabsousa]

- There are a fixed number of funded PhD spots but there's really no limit to the number of PhD spots in a faculty. I don't know if this was the case but if you can fund your own PhD, very few universities will refuse your admission. Anyway, PhDs are extremely cheap labor - most of the research money is spent on materials/hardware and travel expenses for PIs.

- The vast majority of PhDs don't do anything productive with their research topic or work in their research field later on. Doing a PhD is about advancing human knowledge and a lot of personal growth - it has very little to do with productivity. The current trend is that you get burned out and sick of your research area and decide to do something totally different. There are very few areas where you do a PhD for credentials or to advance in your career.

[Mediterraneo10]

The amount of possible PhD positions in a department is limited by the number of faculty, because each student needs a supervisor. A supervisor can only supervise so many students at once before he or she feels overworked, and each PhD student to supervise may distract from that scholar's own research.

[marceloabsousa]

Sure it's a finite number but it's not uncommon for a faculty member to have 5+ PhD students. It all depends on the number of post-docs or senior PhDs they have in the group. The major limiting factor is really money - if a faculty member gets a $5M grant, they will hire as many PhDs as they want or even get some faculty hire for the project.

[jimbokun]

> There are a fixed number of PhD spots.

In what sense? I'm quite positive the number of PhDs being produced has grown by leaps and bounds over the years.

[bananamerica]

Are we in an alternate reality where 67 year olds immediately drop dead? Is this an episode of Twilight Zone?

[dntbnmpls]

No. We are in a world where people don't bother reading comments rationally and jump to conclusions and get upset over nothing.

> Are we in an alternate reality where 67 year olds immediately drop dead?

This is called a straw man. Where did I say this? Reread my comment calmly and rationally and you'll see I never wrote that.

"I'm all for continued learning but can't that be done in a non-credentialed manner that doesn't disadvantage young people?"

I'm all for old people living their best lives except when it directly and negatively affects young people for no reason other than pure vanity.

[bananamerica]

Irony is not conducive to good conversations.

[bloodorange]

Mate, most people live to grow old. What fulfillment in life would one have if many productive and/or desierable tasks were reserved for the young? Wouldn't it make the later years even harder for them?