It was recently suggested by the Swedish Association of University Teachers that external scholarships as a means to finance PhD studies should be disallowed and that all PhD students in Sweden should be employed by the university they are studying at. The reason – to protect students paid by foreign institutions from not being included in the the social security system as well as occasionally making a lot less than those employed by Swedish universities. My morning paper was fast on the uptake and commented that since the doctorate is an education and not “really a job” (hmmph) one shouldn’t hinder students the chance of that education. Further, my paper stated, since the doctorate was an education, it wasn’t like anyone would systematically “import cheap labor” just because they could have some for free, but rather they would educate the double amount of students.
I think it’s a bit more complicated than that. I do think that people should be allowed to make there own choices – if you think that working for a lousy salary doing your PhD in Sweden is going to be worth your while, then of course you should be allowed to make that economical sacrifice – that’s your call. And I think most supervisors would accept both the conventional paid student and the free one, if having the opportunity. But to say that a doctorate is not work at all but purely education, and making it into a situation where the only one to benefit is the student and not the supervisor, that is taking it too far – in many research groups the students are the bulk of the “work force”, so of course there is a demand for them. Again – it’s great to have an international environment and possibilities should be left open, but there may be other ways of improving the situation for externally paid students then either preventing them to come or dismissing them as “being lucky to be here in the first place”.
I completely agree with all of your points. For one, it is a job. We don’t spend all our days in classes, for example. I sometimes wish the title was PhD research associate or something, instead of PhD student, because the latter gives the wrong impression. PhD candidates (and post-docs) tend to be the most productive group members, and many PIs rely on them for quick and high quality results (mostly because that is a time of research-only life-style, and they are not burdened with hefty teaching or committee requirements).
Maybe you are right that the term “student” is a bit misgiving. I sometimes get comments from non-science friends along the lines of “lucky you who are still a student and can show up for work when you feel like and don’t have to work that hard”….Excuse me?
Although I’m not familiar with the Swedish system, I think I’m with your SAUT to some extent. Whoever wrote that opinion in your morning paper needs their tie straightening. I’ve touched on this theme previously from a UK perspective; and a not dissimilar angle from the US was discussed here.
In the Swedish system the PhD position is actually more like a job than (as I understand it) in many other places – we do get a salary and we sure do pay tax. Which is good for us, but makes the threshold higher to employ people – the fact that we have a “real” employment also means that our bosses have to pay employment fees (or whatever that is called) which makes us somewhere close to twice as expensive as the money we get in the end (or even more, Sweden being famous for its high taxes). So “naturally” many PIs are happy for some free students. The real drawback for these students (apart from making less) is that they are not included in social security (no money if they go on sick-leave or parental leave). My thought was that maybe there could be some kind of fund or something helping with these expenses for those (relatively few) who end up on sick-leave, while still keeping down the cost for the PI. But maybe that is purely unnecessary and we should do as you suggested in your post – Instead, give them a job – and end up with less PhD students. I agree with your post that there are too many of us to fit the positions at the top
I understand sort of what you mean Anna, I think. However, many of the PhD students when I did my PhD at least, did start the first two years with the “utbildningsbidrag”, which in my opinion makes it less of a job and more as a student. you also have some classes to take. Maybe a student the first year or two and then “research trainee” as the last ones?
Anyway, that might be different anyway with the new system that is going to start soon. The one where there will be less courses for the PhD student and more 3 years long “education”, which does sound more as an internship to learn the trade/research/lab work?
I would think my main beef with the saying if you think that working for a lousy salary doing your PhD in Sweden is going to be worth your while, then of course you should be allowed to make that economical sacrifice is that I am think it will lead to two types of people going for the PhD; the rich ones who doesn’t care too much about lousy salary since they have other money, and the people who come from another place where any salary in Sweden is better than what you have back home… which leaves the last group as very vonurable and the greater group in the middle who never will go into research with the short stick.
But most of all, it is still based on the assumption that if you truly like the thing you do, it shouldn’t matter to you that you will be underpaid and underinsured since this is your calling. Part of it may be true anyway, considering the work hours we are talking about… but more of that thinking imho is adding insult to injury.
You are right, we too get “utbildningsbidrag” in the beginning but you pay tax on that as well, it’s just less money (and no fees for the boss). I don’t know about the three-year-thing – I’ve also heard some rumors, but at least at KI they recently decided that to get a PhD you have to have worked for four years, and I get no feeling that this will change any time soon. Maybe there are differences at different universities? I agree that there is a risk that you use people in a vulnerable situation if you let them come with scholarships from their home countries/institutions, but I still think that is their call. But then again, maybe we should just aim for less students on a whole, and in that case there may be positions for all of us. Which of course would be the very best thing.
Well, the “utbildningsbidrag” is taxed (on your end, i.e. the receiving end) but not fully since there are no “social fees” attached to it, and more importantly the “utbildningsbidrag” makes some kind of deductible for the departments finances if I remember correctly.
I do think that the PhD and the harmonizing to the Bologna process will make all universities in Sweden the same, then again, I might be wrong and KI wanting to opt out!? (I don’t like the new system so I should probably stop here but the main argument of three years has been that the students have already completed their course work and then it is 3 years now too…)
I do think the idea of having PhD students at the same department, doing the same training, having very different means/salary is a bad idea. Then again, I might be too old fashioned and thinking that everyone should get “the same salary for the same position when it is a learning position in order to get a degree in the end”? There are pros and cons to lots but to segregate PhD students into “who ever wants to get the badly paid job can” is something I think will lead to a vunerable system and people.
The impression I’m getting about the Bologna process being implemented is that the PhD education part of it isn’t going to happen any time soon – but we may get there eventually, of course.
I agree that it feels wrong to pay people different amounts for the same job – your first reaction is that it’s totally unfair. Still, I know several people who would not be here if they weren’t paid from their home countries, who mean that they can just as well work in Sweden for those money as working for the same money back home, which is also a reasonable point of view. Maybe a solution could be some kind or introduction/research school financed in some other (external?) way, and then those with the most potential would get a position at the same conditions as “regularly” hired students.