Does Canada Really "Need" More Graduate Students?
Last week, the C.D. Howe Institute released a study saying that "Canada Needs More Graduate Students." I usually agree with the results of the research done under the auspices of the C.D. Howe Institute, but I have two very sizable nits to pick with this one.
In fact, we should even consider closing down all our graduate schools and letting all the highly paid professors go wherever the market might take them. For every one of those profs who leaves, we can probably hire at least two assistant professors. We tell 'em we expect them to do research and keep current, but they won't have graduate courses to teach, and they won't have graduate students to be research assistants. I really doubt that undergrad education in Canada would suffer as a result. We would have more professors, albeit on average likely to be of lower research quality, but they would have a much lower student-faculty ratio.
Perhaps Canadians would be better off if Canada let others subsidize post-graduate education. We could then free-ride off their efforts and use our scarce resources to concentrate on something else.
There is one possible exception to this plan: Given that Alberta seems determined to plough a truckload of its oil revenues into research and post-graduate education (see this), perhaps the rest of Canada should try to free ride on Alberta (and the rest of the world). Even so, there is still no compelling evidence that the rest of Canada "needs" more graduate students.
- First, I abhor seeing things cast as "needs". Anytime I read or hear about someone using the word "need", I figure they're trying to put their hands in someone else's pocket. They are, in reality, trying to get taxpayers to pony up for something that will benefit only a few. And in this case (surprise!) academicians think taxpayers ought to cough up more for graduate students, schools, research, etc. No vested interest there... No rent-seeking there, nosiree Bob!
- Second, In the increasingly global economy, or even with increased mobility within Canada, it is not at all clear to me that Canada, especially Eastern Canada, has or should try to develop, a comparative advantage in the production of graduate education. Instead, we should ship our good undergraduate students to the U.S. and elsewhere (including Alberta? see below), let the taxpayers of those jurisdictions foot the majority of the bill for the education, and then hire all the people we want (not need!) from those places.
In fact, we should even consider closing down all our graduate schools and letting all the highly paid professors go wherever the market might take them. For every one of those profs who leaves, we can probably hire at least two assistant professors. We tell 'em we expect them to do research and keep current, but they won't have graduate courses to teach, and they won't have graduate students to be research assistants. I really doubt that undergrad education in Canada would suffer as a result. We would have more professors, albeit on average likely to be of lower research quality, but they would have a much lower student-faculty ratio.
Perhaps Canadians would be better off if Canada let others subsidize post-graduate education. We could then free-ride off their efforts and use our scarce resources to concentrate on something else.
There is one possible exception to this plan: Given that Alberta seems determined to plough a truckload of its oil revenues into research and post-graduate education (see this), perhaps the rest of Canada should try to free ride on Alberta (and the rest of the world). Even so, there is still no compelling evidence that the rest of Canada "needs" more graduate students.
Category: Economics, Education Posted on
Tuesday, February 20, 2007 at 11:21am
<< main
British Columbia did much the same thing for years with physician education, importing most of their docs from other provinces. Some regression in policy recently under fed pressure and national shortage.
I have read recently - sorry, don't have the specific reference - about the coming glut of postgraduates in academia c/o the passing of the 'echo' generation through the system and the subsequent small cohorts entering university. Hardly the time to beef up production , but then, when was it ever a rationalized effort!
The indenturing of non tenured faculty has already been well documented. This should be well served by over production.
J
Teaching, in some fields, is more and more about self-replication: people are taught to take over the chairs of their teachers. Less resources go to other objectives.
Since government is involved, research is too political. In a minimal state, who would hire and who would pay to be taught most of the Econ. graduate curriculum? What type of productivity is enhanced by those skills? -- What would we expect it to negotiate on a free market.
Similarly, about the many "white collar welfare" academic career tracks.
In a world with less government I expect we'd see technical colleges, business schools, a lot of short courses and certification programs and maybe a handful of high-minded research places (no feminist propaganda, or majors like literature, musicology and sociology).
In Romania even personal assistants usually are university graduates. People are simply expected to forfeit 3-5 years of their lives, learning things they'll never use, just to get interviews. It's a bad social outcome/equilibrium.