[oefrha]

> effective compensation well above 75k per year

What are you even talking about? Are you counting the bullshit known as “tuition” in the compensation? PhD candidates are really employees, not students.

Even a Princeton postdoc’s comp doesn’t reach 75k. A bit more than 50k actually in the physics department (might have risen a bit in the past few years, not sure).

[uberman]

Of course tuition should be counted as part of compensation just as health care should be counted. You can be mad at the cost of tuition or healthcare if you like, but that is a separate issue.

Waved tuition is a benefit and it was a hairs breath from being a taxable benefit in the USA several years ago. It is still the case that if your employer pays more than about 5k of your tuition then that is taxable so clearly tuition waved or paid by your employer is a benefit at least in the US.

There are compelling arguments and union movements supporting the notion that graduate and PhD students should be classed as employees and I certainly don't have a big issue with that. That is also a separate issue though.

[colinmhayes]

Universities aren't actually providing a service to the phd candidates though. The candidates are providing a service to the university. No one would get a phd if they had to pay tuition.

[uberman]

As a university employee with a spouse who is tenured faculty I can assure you that phd candidates are not a net positive work wise from an institutional perspective. The good part is that you can usually rely on a phd candidate to produce the work they have been assigned. Masters candidates, you have a 50/50 shot of being assigned someone who will produce anything of value.

All you need to do to verify this is to look at the large number of candidates that languish after even a little of their institutional support goes away. Look at the percentage of candidates who can't get even to, let alone through their proposal then add on all the candidates who make it through their proposal but can't make and progress to a defense.

Everyone pays to get a phd. Like many others you are confusing a salary with compensation and in this case opportunity cost. Take 3 or 4 years to get a phd and that can be half a million in opportunity cost alone. Institutions certainly charge tuition and fees but your compensation as a candidate exceeds those benefits. The excess is what a candidate sees as their paycheck.

I know you don't want this to be the reality and I am sympathetic. I once worked as a camp counselor for an entire summer only to find my paycheck at the end of 3 months was a total of $100. I technically got paid a lot more but apparently the camp charged us for food and lodging and $100 was the net. It was a rude shock to be sure, but as an adult you need to understand how things work and why they work that way.

[colinmhayes]

> Everyone pays to get a phd.

The question is only how much. Universities would be paying $0 if they could. Turns out they can't. If candidates tax bill goes up $10k universities would have to increase the stipend by that much. No one works for free. People pay for undergrad because it increases earning potential by huge amounts, a phd isn't really the same. Those candidates could easily get jobs if they wanted.

[oefrha]

I know for a fact that I wasn’t taking regular courses beyond my first year, even though I was still charged “tuition”.

[gs17]

I finished coursework and tuition (half of which was for "non-candidate research" "courses" that seem to only really exist to collect tuition on) is no longer being included. I would not say my compensation just went down by half.