Previous years mean less these days. Salaries have recently jumped up but funding to labs has not. Same money coming in and much more money going out due to increased salaries and also inflation means that something has to give.
engineering students usually paid from grants. You budget personnel in grants. The lab running out of funding isnt from grad students being paid too much, its from not getting grants, and while funding is tight everywhere, theres a pretty clear line from grad students being able to afford to live and getting grants. Why punch down when you should punch up?
I wasn’t punching down or up… or at least I wasn’t trying to. That’s why I didn’t say the “S word.” Government grant funding hasn’t changed to account for the new salaries. Salaries are a big part of lab spending. People cost more. So until funding changes, fewer people can be supported. It’s just the new reality.
It is quite rare for UCLA to actually dismiss a PhD student. However, it is more common for a student to lose funding, usually this is not in the advisor's control. Remember that just because you lose funding doesn't mean you're fired. Many PhD students obtain their own funding. If you think you might lose your funding, then start looking at grant opportunities that graduate students can apply for directly, for example the NSF GFRP if you are in STEM. Ask your advisor to suggest other things you can apply for. Also see if you can become a TA.
As a last resort, you can always get a job off campus, or take out student loans.
You will have to pay for your tuition and living expenses out of pocket or else go in absentia or drop out, yes. Being a PhD is very precarious employment
Economic theory apparently still applies. Even though graduate students go on strike, disrupting the ability of other students to graduate, public universities depend on taxes to survive. UC is competing with California social programs for funding.
In a world where California stays preeminent, UC gets full funding. In a world where the legislature’s pet projects take priority, you have to go elsewhere.
Okay, a couple things to say. First and foremost, PI's always complain about how little money they have and usually this is not fully true - although it can perfectly be true. The strike that happened last year for an increase in wages resulted in many less positions available for research. I foresaw what was going to happen since I'm coming from a country where unions are a big thing ( Hence why I'm against unions, because I'm fully informed about how they trick workers and operate). A fixed budget for research was always going to lead to many less research opportunities available. Look at it this way, if you have 10 apples and give one to different people you can feed 10 people. If instead you still have 10 apples but you are forced to give 2 to each one you can only feed 5 people. This is somewhat what happened after the strike at Ucla. No increased funding is leading to PIs dropping students from their lab and has restricted access to a PhD program at Ucla for new incoming students. Back in the day when the strike was happening I predicted all this. Advocated for free housing instead where the school would have had to make an investment on its students and not the PI's.
I guarantee you that unions and labor protections are far better than the alternative. We already live in a terribly unequal society where the employer enjoys incredible power over the employee. You have drank the Kool aid of the corporate class and are anti worker if you truly believe unions are bad.
While you guarantee that Unions help, I’m not sure you have enough experience to say this. Labor protections are essential, no question. But unions cause labor cost imbalances.
I grew up in Michigan and watched the UAW destroy the automobile companies. It took bankruptcy in 2008 to cause a reset of the massively unfair labor contracts and work rules. UAW line workers made more than engineers. One reason I moved. Even so, only two of previous big four are still USA corporations.
There is a reason that most new USA auto plants are all in the South and nonunion. Even the remaining two unionized companies do as much work as possible in Mexico and other countries. Even Volvo built their new plant in South Carolina.
Do not get it twisted. Significant reforms made in the 80s and 90s lobbied heavily by said auto companies made it easier and cheaper to outsource labor to other countries rather than pay their workers properly. You have completely regurgitated the propaganda that said companies spread to justify what they did. From the 30s to the 50s when union membership was peaking, labor protections were at their strongest. Yes there is a reason they go south because they can exploit workers in the south. Doesn't take a genius to figure that out. They can also more readily lobby the Republican governors to further destroy what little labor protections remain.
There are going to be significant imbalances between workers and employers. Claiming unions imbalanced this dynamic in the favor of the worker is laughable at best and straight up corporate propaganda. If engineers are paid less than auto workers than maybe thy should have unionized too lest Mary Barra and the shareholders add another 0 to their bank accounts. Remember it is easier to punch down than punch up but punching down will leave you both on the floor with CEO laughing at you...
I do not believe unions are effective in academia. Have you ever thought how UAW stands for United Auto Workers? Maybe do some research on what unions actually are, they are literally the "corporate" you seem to hate so much. Unions can grant rights to underprivileged workers in precarious situations - although I still find them useless since why do you need a union to represent the workers of an institution, can't they represent themselves? However, they should dissapear as soon as a problem is solved because they grow fat, corrupt and ineffective, all this I've seen with my own eyes. You make it sound like not advocating for unions means I don't advocate for workers rights when I am literally a worker myself. To finish off, if you think pre-union graduate students at UCLA were under-priviliged and in a precarious situation I think you need to recalibrate your perspective. Traveling usually helps, reading history aswell.
I have a firm grasp of both and I am sure I have travelled significantly more than you. The problem of the power imbalance between workers and the employer will never be solved. I never claimed that there were no problems with unions. My claim is that the alternative of no union or the like is incredibly dangerous. See what happened in the late 19th century in America. Why do we enjoy any labor protections including the 8hour work day and the weekend? Unions. Companies and corporations want workers to be anti union because a divided workforce is easier to control. I also never claimed that graduate students were in any way underprivileged relative to the global average. Putting words into my mouth invalidates much of your argument. However just because people in other countries have it bad doesn't justify exploitation of graduate students or any other worker for that matter.
I'm sorry but I think you're wrong. Can you explain then what happened during the October Revolution and many subsequent proletariat revolutions during history? You're right when you say the dynamic never changes, however I think your analysis is too shallow. It's not about classes, it's about human nature, about power and how it switches between hands, humans long for power in unions and corporate. I essentially see them as the same but at least it's simple to distance yourself from corporate and see it for what it is while unions knowadays have just transformed into political lobbies. If you think unions such as UAW are still necessary today in America, your argument is essentially the same as those who argue weapons are necessary and the 2nd amendment should remain unchanged because it was useful once upon a time. Unions are outdated today, that's my opinion, I don't want a union to make decisions for me as a graduate student at UCLA. I respect that you think Unions are useful and you have some sound arguments, we just have different perspectives. About the traveling I respectfully don't think so - which doesn't mean you haven't traveled at all - you're just comparing yourself with the wrong person.
Permit me to observe that so far you’ve contributed absolutely nothing of value here to the original poster - - just shot off your mouth about your own political opinions.
Saying “I told you so” again and again to a complete stranger who didn’t have the benefit of your genius in the past, and which wouldn’t have aided him in his present plight even if he had, may be the most pointless and self-serving load I’ve seen online today.
How clever you are.
Depends on the program. For my PhD, my PI had to sign a pledge with my program's leadership that he could provide funding for years 2-6 of my PhD. I only know of one student in my program that had to be TAing frequently for funding reasons--everyone else just did their two required quarters and nothing else.
But fields with less grant support than the Biosciences probably have less stability.
I know two students that Mastered out, but it was not because of lack of funding for either of them. I don't personally know anyone that was fired/kicked out.
You'd need to find funding from any source you could get. In fact; many decisions on admissions were seemingly made, when I talked to my TA accordingly, depending on whether the applicant had a funding source secured to sponsor them. I mean like, fucking....it's a business and the PhD students work almost for free here.
I'm new to all of this. I know the PI has to pay the student's salary out of his lab funds, but how is tuition covered? Does the school waive it like they do for many undergrads, or does the PI have to pay UCLA tuition out of his lab funds?
The school only waives non-resident state tuition once you've passed your oral qualifying exams. Before that, the PI funds tuition. If you think about it, as a graduate student your stipend is on average about 30% of the total cost your PI has to face to hire you. The other 70% goes towards the school to pay for tuition when grad students usually only take classes the first year and a half or so of their PhD. If you think about it it's actually crazy.
Typically people are not "fired" but they may find themselves going without funding which is awful. Have you sought TAships outside of your dept? Are there any potential fellowships out there still? Is there a way you can take a leave of absence if you know for sure there's no chance you will get funding?
Can you try to switch to another advisor doing similar research?
its very hard, if I want to do it I still need TAing, the thing is there are not always TA positions every quarter
Previous years mean less these days. Salaries have recently jumped up but funding to labs has not. Same money coming in and much more money going out due to increased salaries and also inflation means that something has to give.
engineering students usually paid from grants. You budget personnel in grants. The lab running out of funding isnt from grad students being paid too much, its from not getting grants, and while funding is tight everywhere, theres a pretty clear line from grad students being able to afford to live and getting grants. Why punch down when you should punch up?
The money from grants has also not gone up
I wasn’t punching down or up… or at least I wasn’t trying to. That’s why I didn’t say the “S word.” Government grant funding hasn’t changed to account for the new salaries. Salaries are a big part of lab spending. People cost more. So until funding changes, fewer people can be supported. It’s just the new reality.
It is quite rare for UCLA to actually dismiss a PhD student. However, it is more common for a student to lose funding, usually this is not in the advisor's control. Remember that just because you lose funding doesn't mean you're fired. Many PhD students obtain their own funding. If you think you might lose your funding, then start looking at grant opportunities that graduate students can apply for directly, for example the NSF GFRP if you are in STEM. Ask your advisor to suggest other things you can apply for. Also see if you can become a TA. As a last resort, you can always get a job off campus, or take out student loans.
You will have to pay for your tuition and living expenses out of pocket or else go in absentia or drop out, yes. Being a PhD is very precarious employment
Which field are you in?
engineering department
Can you share which engineering?
In Civil and Environmental Engineering department, I don’t think the Professors are dismissing phD candidates. Which department are you in
i am in the electric engineering department, I am sorry but I just dont want to give out too much information
Economic theory apparently still applies. Even though graduate students go on strike, disrupting the ability of other students to graduate, public universities depend on taxes to survive. UC is competing with California social programs for funding. In a world where California stays preeminent, UC gets full funding. In a world where the legislature’s pet projects take priority, you have to go elsewhere.
Too many TA’s for ucla to employ. Too little for students to feel supported. Hmm…
Okay, a couple things to say. First and foremost, PI's always complain about how little money they have and usually this is not fully true - although it can perfectly be true. The strike that happened last year for an increase in wages resulted in many less positions available for research. I foresaw what was going to happen since I'm coming from a country where unions are a big thing ( Hence why I'm against unions, because I'm fully informed about how they trick workers and operate). A fixed budget for research was always going to lead to many less research opportunities available. Look at it this way, if you have 10 apples and give one to different people you can feed 10 people. If instead you still have 10 apples but you are forced to give 2 to each one you can only feed 5 people. This is somewhat what happened after the strike at Ucla. No increased funding is leading to PIs dropping students from their lab and has restricted access to a PhD program at Ucla for new incoming students. Back in the day when the strike was happening I predicted all this. Advocated for free housing instead where the school would have had to make an investment on its students and not the PI's.
I guarantee you that unions and labor protections are far better than the alternative. We already live in a terribly unequal society where the employer enjoys incredible power over the employee. You have drank the Kool aid of the corporate class and are anti worker if you truly believe unions are bad.
While you guarantee that Unions help, I’m not sure you have enough experience to say this. Labor protections are essential, no question. But unions cause labor cost imbalances. I grew up in Michigan and watched the UAW destroy the automobile companies. It took bankruptcy in 2008 to cause a reset of the massively unfair labor contracts and work rules. UAW line workers made more than engineers. One reason I moved. Even so, only two of previous big four are still USA corporations. There is a reason that most new USA auto plants are all in the South and nonunion. Even the remaining two unionized companies do as much work as possible in Mexico and other countries. Even Volvo built their new plant in South Carolina.
Do not get it twisted. Significant reforms made in the 80s and 90s lobbied heavily by said auto companies made it easier and cheaper to outsource labor to other countries rather than pay their workers properly. You have completely regurgitated the propaganda that said companies spread to justify what they did. From the 30s to the 50s when union membership was peaking, labor protections were at their strongest. Yes there is a reason they go south because they can exploit workers in the south. Doesn't take a genius to figure that out. They can also more readily lobby the Republican governors to further destroy what little labor protections remain. There are going to be significant imbalances between workers and employers. Claiming unions imbalanced this dynamic in the favor of the worker is laughable at best and straight up corporate propaganda. If engineers are paid less than auto workers than maybe thy should have unionized too lest Mary Barra and the shareholders add another 0 to their bank accounts. Remember it is easier to punch down than punch up but punching down will leave you both on the floor with CEO laughing at you...
I do not believe unions are effective in academia. Have you ever thought how UAW stands for United Auto Workers? Maybe do some research on what unions actually are, they are literally the "corporate" you seem to hate so much. Unions can grant rights to underprivileged workers in precarious situations - although I still find them useless since why do you need a union to represent the workers of an institution, can't they represent themselves? However, they should dissapear as soon as a problem is solved because they grow fat, corrupt and ineffective, all this I've seen with my own eyes. You make it sound like not advocating for unions means I don't advocate for workers rights when I am literally a worker myself. To finish off, if you think pre-union graduate students at UCLA were under-priviliged and in a precarious situation I think you need to recalibrate your perspective. Traveling usually helps, reading history aswell.
I have a firm grasp of both and I am sure I have travelled significantly more than you. The problem of the power imbalance between workers and the employer will never be solved. I never claimed that there were no problems with unions. My claim is that the alternative of no union or the like is incredibly dangerous. See what happened in the late 19th century in America. Why do we enjoy any labor protections including the 8hour work day and the weekend? Unions. Companies and corporations want workers to be anti union because a divided workforce is easier to control. I also never claimed that graduate students were in any way underprivileged relative to the global average. Putting words into my mouth invalidates much of your argument. However just because people in other countries have it bad doesn't justify exploitation of graduate students or any other worker for that matter.
I'm sorry but I think you're wrong. Can you explain then what happened during the October Revolution and many subsequent proletariat revolutions during history? You're right when you say the dynamic never changes, however I think your analysis is too shallow. It's not about classes, it's about human nature, about power and how it switches between hands, humans long for power in unions and corporate. I essentially see them as the same but at least it's simple to distance yourself from corporate and see it for what it is while unions knowadays have just transformed into political lobbies. If you think unions such as UAW are still necessary today in America, your argument is essentially the same as those who argue weapons are necessary and the 2nd amendment should remain unchanged because it was useful once upon a time. Unions are outdated today, that's my opinion, I don't want a union to make decisions for me as a graduate student at UCLA. I respect that you think Unions are useful and you have some sound arguments, we just have different perspectives. About the traveling I respectfully don't think so - which doesn't mean you haven't traveled at all - you're just comparing yourself with the wrong person.
Permit me to observe that so far you’ve contributed absolutely nothing of value here to the original poster - - just shot off your mouth about your own political opinions. Saying “I told you so” again and again to a complete stranger who didn’t have the benefit of your genius in the past, and which wouldn’t have aided him in his present plight even if he had, may be the most pointless and self-serving load I’ve seen online today. How clever you are.
Depends on the program. For my PhD, my PI had to sign a pledge with my program's leadership that he could provide funding for years 2-6 of my PhD. I only know of one student in my program that had to be TAing frequently for funding reasons--everyone else just did their two required quarters and nothing else. But fields with less grant support than the Biosciences probably have less stability. I know two students that Mastered out, but it was not because of lack of funding for either of them. I don't personally know anyone that was fired/kicked out.
You'd need to find funding from any source you could get. In fact; many decisions on admissions were seemingly made, when I talked to my TA accordingly, depending on whether the applicant had a funding source secured to sponsor them. I mean like, fucking....it's a business and the PhD students work almost for free here.
I'm new to all of this. I know the PI has to pay the student's salary out of his lab funds, but how is tuition covered? Does the school waive it like they do for many undergrads, or does the PI have to pay UCLA tuition out of his lab funds?
The PI typically pays that as well. That makes GSRs quite expensive to fund.
The school only waives non-resident state tuition once you've passed your oral qualifying exams. Before that, the PI funds tuition. If you think about it, as a graduate student your stipend is on average about 30% of the total cost your PI has to face to hire you. The other 70% goes towards the school to pay for tuition when grad students usually only take classes the first year and a half or so of their PhD. If you think about it it's actually crazy.
Typically people are not "fired" but they may find themselves going without funding which is awful. Have you sought TAships outside of your dept? Are there any potential fellowships out there still? Is there a way you can take a leave of absence if you know for sure there's no chance you will get funding?