[godelski]

> At the very least, tax payers need to stop bailing out student loan debt while simultaneously funding multiple annual week-long conferences in Hawaii and Europe for professors who scoff at their teaching assignments.

I think this is missing the forest for the trees. These aren't the reason schools cost so much and in turn why student debt is so high. Meeting with other scholars internationally has been happening for over a hundred years. European schools often travel to America a lot because conferences are often here, and their costs aren't what American universities are. Despite having similar levels of research output. The high cost is for other reasons. This also isn't why professors ignore their teaching requirements (find time to do both research, which is the higher priority, and teach. You sure can't in 40hrs)

As to the rest of the comment, I am in a lot more agreement with. I don't even think grad student pay needs to even be that high, it would just be nice enough if I didn't need to rely on internships for my cost of living. If I had enough money to pay off my undergrad loans instead of letting them rack up tens of thousands of dollars more.

But one thing I would highly argue, is that research is investing in your own country. Academia is a common place for innovation to be derived from. It is no surprise given you put a bunch of smart people together that are passionate about learning that they make new things. Especially considering how research is literal innovation. I think there's a large argument to be made about how this is a national security issue, and can be justification for diverting military budget for non-weapons based research. War is about economics after all. Really it is about a lot of things besides the actual fighting parts. Innovation has been a key element in America's (and many others) success. It is weird to think that we wouldn't place this as one of our highest strategic assets.

[logisticseh]

>> At the very least, tax payers need to stop bailing out student loan debt while simultaneously funding multiple annual week-long conferences in Hawaii and Europe for professors who scoff at their teaching assignments.

> I think this is missing the forest for the trees.

Not at all. People have a sense of right and wrong, and this fact offends them far more than the nebulous task of assess the effectiveness of research.

I have a PhD and spent a lot of time within and interfacing with academia. I think even the average science-skeptic congressperson massively over-estimates both the short-term and long-term value of the sort of research that happens in most of academia. But we're probably not going to agree on that.

So, see, we can go back and forth all day about the relative merits of academic research. And there's always cover because most congressional people -- let alone voters -- don't know enough to have a really informed opinion.

If I go to a congressional staffer and complain about the NSF or NIH, not much is going to change unless the candidate already agrees with me and is passionate about the issue. They know voters don't care.

But I can go to a congressional staffer and ask: why does your candidate support bailing out student loan debt while simultaneously funding multiple annual week-long conferences in Hawaii and Europe for professors who scoff at their teaching assignments?

And THAT question is going to be viewed very differently, because it's something that could anger voters who don't have the time and attention to vote on the basis of whatever useless crud the NSF is funding this year.