phd cheap labour

Why doing a PhD is often a waste of time

The disposable academic.

The Economist

This article originally appeared in the 2010 Christmas double issue of The Economist.

On the evening before All Saints’ Day in 1517, Martin Luther nailed 95 theses to the door of a church in Wittenberg. In those days a thesis was simply a position one wanted to argue. Luther, an Augustinian friar, asserted that Christians could not buy their way to heaven. Today a doctoral thesis is both an idea and an account of a period of original research. Writing one is the aim of the hundreds of thousands of students who embark on a doctorate of philosophy (PhD) every year.

In most countries a PhD is a basic requirement for a career in academia. It is an introduction to the world of independent research — a kind of intellectual masterpiece, created by an apprentice in close collaboration with a supervisor. The requirements to complete one vary enormously between countries, universities and even subjects. Some students will first have to spend two years working on a master’s degree or diploma. Some will receive a stipend; others will pay their own way. Some PhDs involve only research, some require classes and examinations and some require the student to teach undergraduates. A thesis can be dozens of pages in mathematics, or many hundreds in history. As a result, newly minted PhDs can be as young as their early 20s or world-weary forty-somethings.

One thing many PhD students have in common is dissatisfaction. Some describe their work as “slave labour”. Seven-day weeks, ten-hour days, low pay and uncertain prospects are widespread. You know you are a graduate student, goes one quip, when your office is better decorated than your home and you have a favourite flavour of instant noodle. “It isn’t graduate school itself that is discouraging,” says one student, who confesses to rather enjoying the hunt for free pizza. “What’s discouraging is realising the end point has been yanked out of reach.”

Whining PhD students are nothing new, but there seem to be genuine problems with the system that produces research doctorates (the practical “professional doctorates” in fields such as law, business and medicine have a more obvious value). There is an oversupply of PhDs. Although a doctorate is designed as training for a job in academia, the number of PhD positions is unrelated to the number of job openings. Meanwhile, business leaders complain about shortages of high-level skills, suggesting PhDs are not teaching the right things. The fiercest critics compare research doctorates to Ponzi or pyramid schemes.

Rich pickings

For most of history even a first degree at a university was the privilege of a rich few, and many academic staff did not hold doctorates. But as higher education expanded after the second world war, so did the expectation that lecturers would hold advanced degrees. American universities geared up first: by 1970 America was producing just under a third of the world’s university students and half of its science and technology PhDs (at that time it had only 6% of the global population). Since then America’s annual output of PhDs has doubled, to 64,000.

Other countries are catching up. Between 1998 and 2006 the number of doctorates handed out in all OECD countries grew by 40%, compared with 22% for America. PhD production sped up most dramatically in Mexico, Portugal, Italy and Slovakia. Even Japan, where the number of young people is shrinking, churned out about 46% more PhDs. Part of that growth reflects the expansion of university education outside America. Richard Freeman, a labour economist at Harvard University, says that by 2006 America was enrolling just 12% of the world’s students.

But universities have discovered that PhD students are cheap, highly motivated and disposable labour. With more PhD students they can do more research, and in some countries more teaching, with less money. A graduate assistant at Yale might earn $20,000 a year for nine months of teaching. The average pay of full professors in America was $109,000 in 2009 — higher than the average for judges and magistrates.

Indeed, the production of PhDs has far outstripped demand for university lecturers. In a recent book, Andrew Hacker and Claudia Dreifus, an academic and a journalist, report that America produced more than 100,000 doctoral degrees between 2005 and 2009. In the same period there were just 16,000 new professorships. Using PhD students to do much of the undergraduate teaching cuts the number of full-time jobs. Even in Canada, where the output of PhD graduates has grown relatively modestly, universities conferred 4,800 doctorate degrees in 2007 but hired just 2,616 new full-time professors. Only a few fast-developing countries, such as Brazil and China, now seem short of PhDs.

A short course in supply and demand

In research the story is similar. PhD students and contract staff known as “postdocs”, described by one student as “the ugly underbelly of academia”, do much of the research these days. There is a glut of postdocs too. Dr Freeman concluded from pre-2000 data that if American faculty jobs in the life sciences were increasing at 5% a year, just 20% of students would land one. In Canada 80% of postdocs earn $38,600 or less per year before tax — the average salary of a construction worker. The rise of the postdoc has created another obstacle on the way to an academic post. In some areas five years as a postdoc is now a prerequisite for landing a secure full-time job.

These armies of low-paid PhD researchers and postdocs boost universities’, and therefore countries’, research capacity. Yet that is not always a good thing. Brilliant, well-trained minds can go to waste when fashions change. The post-Sputnik era drove the rapid growth in PhD physicists that came to an abrupt halt as the Vietnam war drained the science budget. Brian Schwartz, a professor of physics at the City University of New York, says that in the 1970s as many as 5,000 physicists had to find jobs in other areas.

In America the rise of PhD teachers’ unions reflects the breakdown of an implicit contract between universities and PhD students: crummy pay now for a good academic job later. Student teachers in public universities such as the University of Wisconsin-Madison formed unions as early as the 1960s, but the pace of unionisation has increased recently. Unions are now spreading to private universities; though Yale and Cornell, where university administrators and some faculty argue that PhD students who teach are not workers but apprentices, have resisted union drives. In 2002 New York University was the first private university to recognise a PhD teachers’ union, but stopped negotiating with it three years later.

In some countries, such as Britain and America, poor pay and job prospects are reflected in the number of foreign-born PhD students. Dr Freeman estimates that in 1966 only 23% of science and engineering PhDs in America were awarded to students born outside the country. By 2006 that proportion had increased to 48%. Foreign students tend to tolerate poorer working conditions, and the supply of cheap, brilliant, foreign labour also keeps wages down.

A PhD may offer no financial benefit over a master’s degree. It can even reduce earnings

Proponents of the PhD argue that it is worthwhile even if it does not lead to permanent academic employment. Not every student embarks on a PhD wanting a university career and many move successfully into private-sector jobs in, for instance, industrial research. That is true; but drop-out rates suggest that many students become dispirited. In America only 57% of doctoral students will have a PhD ten years after their first date of enrolment. In the humanities, where most students pay for their own PhDs, the figure is 49%. Worse still, whereas in other subject areas students tend to jump ship in the early years, in the humanities they cling like limpets before eventually falling off. And these students started out as the academic cream of the nation. Research at one American university found that those who finish are no cleverer than those who do not. Poor supervision, bad job prospects or lack of money cause them to run out of steam.

Even graduates who find work outside universities may not fare all that well. PhD courses are so specialised that university careers offices struggle to assist graduates looking for jobs, and supervisors tend to have little interest in students who are leaving academia. One OECD study shows that five years after receiving their degrees, more than 60% of PhDs in Slovakia and more than 45% in Belgium, the Czech Republic, Germany and Spain were still on temporary contracts. Many were postdocs. About one-third of Austria’s PhD graduates take jobs unrelated to their degrees. In Germany 13% of all PhD graduates end up in lowly occupations. In the Netherlands the proportion is 21%.

A very slim premium

PhD graduates do at least earn more than those with a bachelor’s degree. A study in the Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management by Bernard Casey shows that British men with a bachelor’s degree earn 14% more than those who could have gone to university but chose not to. The earnings premium for a PhD is 26%. But the premium for a master’s degree, which can be accomplished in as little as one year, is almost as high, at 23%. In some subjects the premium for a PhD vanishes entirely. PhDs in maths and computing, social sciences and languages earn no more than those with master’s degrees. The premium for a PhD is actually smaller than for a master’s degree in engineering and technology, architecture and education. Only in medicine, other sciences, and business and financial studies is it high enough to be worthwhile. Over all subjects, a PhD commands only a 3% premium over a master’s degree.

Dr Schwartz, the New York physicist, says the skills learned in the course of a PhD can be readily acquired through much shorter courses. Thirty years ago, he says, Wall Street firms realised that some physicists could work out differential equations and recruited them to become “quants”, analysts and traders. Today several short courses offer the advanced maths useful for finance. “A PhD physicist with one course on differential equations is not competitive,” says Dr Schwartz.

Many students say they are pursuing their subject out of love, and that education is an end in itself. Some give little thought to where the qualification might lead. In one study of British PhD graduates, about a third admitted that they were doing their doctorate partly to go on being a student, or put off job hunting. Nearly half of engineering students admitted to this. Scientists can easily get stipends, and therefore drift into doing a PhD. But there are penalties, as well as benefits, to staying at university. Workers with “surplus schooling” — more education than a job requires — are likely to be less satisfied, less productive and more likely to say they are going to leave their jobs.

Academics tend to regard asking whether a PhD is worthwhile as analogous to wondering whether there is too much art or culture in the world. They believe that knowledge spills from universities into society, making it more productive and healthier. That may well be true; but doing a PhD may still be a bad choice for an individual.

The interests of academics and universities on the one hand and PhD students on the other are not well aligned. The more bright students stay at universities, the better it is for academics. Postgraduate students bring in grants and beef up their supervisors’ publication records. Academics pick bright undergraduate students and groom them as potential graduate students. It isn’t in their interests to turn the smart kids away, at least at the beginning. One female student spoke of being told of glowing opportunities at the outset, but after seven years of hard slog she was fobbed off with a joke about finding a rich husband.

Monica Harris, a professor of psychology at the University of Kentucky, is a rare exception. She believes that too many PhDs are being produced, and has stopped admitting them. But such unilateral academic birth control is rare. One Ivy-League president, asked recently about PhD oversupply, said that if the top universities cut back others will step in to offer them instead.

Noble pursuits

Many of the drawbacks of doing a PhD are well known. Your correspondent was aware of them over a decade ago while she slogged through a largely pointless PhD in theoretical ecology. As Europeans try to harmonise higher education, some institutions are pushing the more structured learning that comes with an American PhD.

The organisations that pay for research have realised that many PhDs find it tough to transfer their skills into the job market. Writing lab reports, giving academic presentations and conducting six-month literature reviews can be surprisingly unhelpful in a world where technical knowledge has to be assimilated quickly and presented simply to a wide audience. Some universities are now offering their PhD students training in soft skills such as communication and teamwork that may be useful in the labour market. In Britain a four-year NewRoutePhD claims to develop just such skills in graduates.

The interests of universities and tenured academics are misaligned with those of PhD students

Measurements and incentives might be changed, too. Some university departments and academics regard numbers of PhD graduates as an indicator of success and compete to produce more. For the students, a measure of how quickly those students get a permanent job, and what they earn, would be more useful. Where penalties are levied on academics who allow PhDs to overrun, the number of students who complete rises abruptly, suggesting that students were previously allowed to fester.

Many of those who embark on a PhD are the smartest in their class and will have been the best at everything they have done. They will have amassed awards and prizes. As this year’s new crop of graduate students bounce into their research, few will be willing to accept that the system they are entering could be designed for the benefit of others, that even hard work and brilliance may well not be enough to succeed, and that they would be better off doing something else. They might use their research skills to look harder at the lot of the disposable academic. Someone should write a thesis about that.

Written by The Economist

Insight and opinion on international news, politics, business, finance, science, technology, books and arts.

More from The Economist and The Economist

Is The Economist left- or right-wing?

Neither. we consider ourselves to be in the “radical centre”.

Mistakes, we’ve drawn a few

Learning from our errors in data visualisation.

Rosamund Pearce

Why you sometimes need to break the rules in data viz

Best practices help us to avoid common pitfalls in data visualisation — but we shouldn’t follow them blindly.

Why are The Economist’s writers anonymous?

Enabling our writers to speak with a collective voice, recommended from medium.

Dr. Diana Leite

The art of quitting — lessons from my Ph.D. journey

Advice column for graduate students and applicants.

Annika Wappelhorst

The Expat Chronicles

How to Get a PhD Position in Sweden

…especially as an international.

How to Find a Mentor

Stories to Help You Live Better

Stories to Help You Level-Up at Work

Predictive Modeling w/ Python

Elizabeth Shaw

The Quiet Crisis of Loneliness

The intimate affliction of today’s disconnected world.

Hugh McGuire

Why can’t we read anymore?

Or, can books save us from what digital does to our brains.

Tirendaz AI

Level Up Coding

How to Use ChatGPT in Daily Life?

Save time and money using chatgpt.

Sufyan Maan, M.Eng

ILLUMINATION

What Happens When You Start Reading Every Day

Think before you speak. read before you think. — fran lebowitz.

Text to speech

• Skip to main content
• Keyboard shortcuts for audio player

A Glut Of Ph.D.s Means Long Odds Of Getting Jobs

From Hechinger Report

Brenda Iasevoli

Jorge Cham is the creator of PHD Comics and received his doctorate in mechanical engineering at Stanford University. PHD (Piled Higher and Deeper) is a comic strip about life (or the lack thereof) in academia. See more of his work at www.phdcomics.com . Jorge Cham/PHD Comics hide caption

This week marked National Adjunct Walkout Day, a protest to gain better working conditions for part-time college instructors. Why are college professors from San Jose State University to the City University of New York taking to the streets like fast-food workers?

They say they have something in common.

Adjuncts and other nontenured faculty now make up three-quarters of college and university teachers. As this shift has taken place, there have been growing complaints that they work for lower wages than their tenured counterparts, and and that they lack access to health care and other benefits. Colleges and universities control both the supply of college teachers and the demand for them. In many fields, from the humanities to the sciences, universities are accepting far more Ph.D. students than there are tenure-track openings. The universities get cheap labor in the form of graduate teaching and research assistants.

The research equivalent of adjuncts are the postdocs, who work in labs. The growing numbers of Ph.D.s end up fighting for a dwindling number of permanent jobs.

Gary McDowell spent four years working toward a Ph.D. in oncology after earning undergraduate and master's degrees in chemistry at the University of Cambridge. Since then, he's toiled for four years as a postdoctoral fellow in research labs, first at Harvard and Boston Children's Hospital, and now at Tufts.

Even with credentials such as these, however, McDowell and postdocs like him earn low salaries and face long odds that they'll ever get the jobs they really want.

Despite all the seeming demand for experts in the sciences, cuts in research spending and belt-tightening at universities mean that only one in five Ph.D.s in science, engineering and health end up with faculty teaching or research positions within five years of completing their degrees, according to the National Science Foundation .

Top Ph.D. graduates in some fields, like engineering, can be snapped up by private industry. But it varies by discipline.

In the case of biology Ph.D.s like McDowell, only 1 in 10 will snag an academic job. Many of the rest are drifting into other fields. And critics say the squeeze may be affecting the quality of scientific research and the nation's international economic competitiveness.

Yet universities have continued to churn out Ph.D.s who, as postdocs, provide cheap labor for the campus labs that draw much-needed research funding, but are given little help in moving on to jobs in which they can teach or run their own labs.

The result? Biomedical postdocs — according to the National Institutes of Health, there may be as many as 68,000 of them — are clogging a job market that almost certainly can't absorb them all.

"All we're expected to do is research," said McDowell. "We're not even trained properly to become academics. We're not taught how to manage a lab, or to mentor people. We have a whole lot of people who are trained for nothing, really, and they get so far, then they realize they have to look for jobs outside academia."

This backup comes at a time when China, India and other economic competitors are pouring money and people into science.

A new report issued by the National Academy of Sciences and other groups recommend that universities and other institutions address it by reducing the number of postdocs they produce, raising starting salaries to a minimum of $50,000 and limiting postdoctoral service to a maximum of five years.

The document also calls on universities to tell their graduate students about the state of the job market and help them train for, and enter, alternative careers in such areas as science writing, science policy and consulting.

For the second year in a row, the National Institutes of Health is providing grants of up to $250,000 to universities that agree to provide biomedical Ph.D.s with training in nonacademic fields. The University of Chicago, for example, used the money to run a conference on careers in science communication.

The existing postdoc system "has created expectations for academic career advancement that in many — perhaps most — cases cannot be met," said Gregory Petsko, professor of neurology and neuroscience at Weill Cornell Medical College, and chair of the committee that authored the National Academy of Sciences report.

"Competition is so high that many bright people may take more financially secure jobs," said Kristin Krukenberg, a postdoc at Harvard. "They may see the job numbers and decide to become a banker or go down an entirely different path."

Effects On Quality?

It may also be affecting the quality of postdocs' research, said McDowell, who cites a recent bioethics report from the United Kingdom that shows a significant number of scientists have considered changing research data to get published in the kind of journals that can help them land jobs.

"The number of papers being retracted is increasing every year," he said, "and the reason is that when you're applying in a hypercompetitive environment for a faculty job, you have to publish in high-impact journals like Nature or Science ."

Now some postdocs, including Krukenberg and McDowell, have taken matters into their own hands. They've formed an organization called Future of Research to pressure universities to tell grad students about their prospects for jobs and the track records of previous Ph.D.s, and to give them training in nonacademic careers.

Producing good scientists for academia as well as for industry is key to America's global competitiveness, said Petsko.

"We live in a complicated, technologically sophisticated, rapidly changing world, and I can't think of better preparation for that world than the kind of discipline in analysis, planning, and decision-making that you get from a good Ph.D. program," he said. "It's great preparation for just about any field — politics, policy — you name it."

But not just to work forever in another person's lab, McDowell said.

Had he known the job situation from the start, he still would have pursued a Ph.D. in science, he said, but might have used it for a career in science policy or another field.

As for Krukenberg, she still hopes for a permanent academic position, and started applying for the first time in the fall.

Fifty applications later, she's still awaiting her fate.

If she doesn't hear back soon, Krukenberg said, "I'll have to start thinking about what else I'm qualified to do."

This story was produced by The Hechinger Report , a nonprofit, independent news organization focused on inequality and innovation in education. Read more about higher education here .

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• CAREER FEATURE
• 23 May 2022

PhD students face cash crisis with wages that don’t cover living costs

• Chris Woolston 0

Chris Woolston is a freelance writer in Billings, Montana.

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Salaries for PhD students in the biological sciences fall well below the basic cost of living at almost every institution and department in the United States, according to data collected by two PhD students.

Access options

Access Nature and 54 other Nature Portfolio journals

Get Nature+, our best-value online-access subscription

24,99 € / 30 days

cancel any time

Subscribe to this journal

Receive 51 print issues and online access

185,98 € per year

only 3,65 € per issue

Rent or buy this article

Prices vary by article type

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Nature 605 , 775-777 (2022)

doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-022-01392-w

Related Articles

• Institutions

Shrouded in secrecy: how science is harmed by the bullying and harassment rumour mill

Career Feature 16 APR 24

‘Shrugging off failure is hard’: the $400-million grant setback that shaped the Smithsonian lead scientist’s career

Career Column 15 APR 24

Citizenship privilege harms science

Comment 15 APR 24

Exclusive: official investigation reveals how superconductivity physicist faked blockbuster results

News 06 APR 24

Larger or longer grants unlikely to push senior scientists towards high-risk, high-reward work

Nature Index 25 MAR 24

A fresh start for the African Academy of Sciences

Editorial 19 MAR 24

Female academics need more support — in China as elsewhere

Correspondence 16 APR 24

Brazil’s postgraduate funding model is about rectifying past inequalities

Correspondence 09 APR 24

Computational Postdoctoral Fellow with a Strong Background in Bioinformatics

Houston, Texas (US)

The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center

Locum Associate or Senior Editor (Immunology), Nature Communications

The Editor in Immunology at Nature Communications will handle original research papers and work on all aspects of the editorial process.

London, Beijing or Shanghai - Hybrid working model

Springer Nature Ltd

Assistant Professor - Cell Physiology & Molecular Biophysics

Opportunity in the Department of Cell Physiology and Molecular Biophysics (CPMB) at Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center (TTUHSC)

Lubbock, Texas

Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center, School of Medicine

Postdoctoral Associate- Curing Brain Tumors

Baylor College of Medicine (BCM)

Energy AI / Grid Modernization / Hydrogen Energy / Power Semiconductor Concentration / KENTECH College

21, Kentech-gil, Naju-si, Jeollanam-do, Republic of Korea(KR)

Korea Institute of Energy Technology

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

• International edition
• Australia edition
• Europe edition

We must stop universities exploiting the unpaid labour of PhD students

Many postgraduates who teach are paid less than the minimum wage, are on insecure contracts and have no representation

I n universities, it’s common for teaching, demonstrating, marking and other academic work to be done by postgraduate students studying towards their research degree. It’s a win-win: vital career experience and extra cash for students, and an important source of labour for universities. But what should be a mutually beneficial role too often takes the form of exploitative, casual and poorly paid work.

As an associate lecturer and PhD student, I have personally experienced some of these problems at my university, and heard worse from fellow students. Late or non-existent payment for teaching, delays in getting proper contracts, inadequate office facilities and a lack of formal training, induction and support for new staff are just some of the problems faced by PhD students teaching at my institution.

Across the country, when all work is properly accounted for, whether it be prep, marking or dealing with students’ enquiries, many PhD students are doing considerably more than they are paid for. It’s not unusual for PhD teaching assistants to earn around £5 an hour – below the minimum wage – when prep time is factored in.

This was confirmed by a 2012 National Union of Students report , [pdf] which stated that “almost one in three postgraduates who teach earn below minimum wage in real terms”. Almost half of respondents felt their pay was “unfair”, particularly given how many students are forced to teach as a condition for receiving funding.

Recent research by the University and College Union shows how much the university sector relies on this form of employment – on average more than a quarter of staff delivering teaching for universities (not just postgraduates) are on hourly paid contracts. The union also found that at least half of all academic staff have insecure employment.

Too often the response to these issues within academia is resigned acceptance: unpaid labour is necessary to climb up the academic career ladder. It is part and parcel of the broader marketisation process ravaging university campuses. But this is perhaps one of the more insidious manifestations of corporate culture: senior staff pay in the stratosphere while frontline staff toil for a meagre sum, often on insecure contracts.

This is compounded by the fact that many PhD students fall through the cracks of formal representation systems. Some students’ unions keep PhD student employment rights at arm’s length because they fear that campaigning on their behalf is not “in line with their charitable objectives” of campaigning only on student issues. Staff unions can feel their hands tied if these students are not formally employed by the university or a member of the union. There’s no specific national representation within the NUS either, though a motion was passed at its most recent conference calling for a review of postgraduate representation.

Postgraduate students need a coordinated campaign to challenge exploitative employment practices. This should be run by local activists and alliances, but led by the NUS and UCU nationally.

Universities should be ashamed of the appalling treatment of many postgraduate students. Sadly, they’re not – so it’s up to us to make them. The recent wave of activism on university campuses, kick-started by the USS pensions dispute, shows what can be achieved when students and staff work together. Postgraduate research students blur the lines between these two groups, and too often this means they are neglected by both. It’s time to foster a culture in which it is clear where they belong, and where they are defended and empowered by everyone.

Join the higher education network for more comment, analysis and job opportunities, direct to your inbox. Follow us on Twitter @gdnhighered . And if you have an idea for a story, please read our guidelines and email your pitch to us at [email protected]

Looking for a higher education job? Or perhaps you need to recruit university staff? Take a look at Guardian Jobs , the higher education specialist

• Universities
• Academics anonymous
• Higher education

Most viewed

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List

A fair deal for PhD students and postdocs

Henry r bourne.

Department of Cellular and Molecular Pharmacology, University of California at San Francisco, San Francisco, United States. He blogs about the challenges and opportunities associated with biomedical research at Biomedwatch.wordpress.com . His research was supported by the NIH from 1969 to 2008, and he served as a reviewer of grant applications at intervals during this period [email protected]

The relentless expansion that threatens the sustainability of biomedical research in the US takes a heavy toll on young researchers.

In a recent essay I drew attention to five axioms that have helped to make the biomedical research enterprise unsustainable in the US ( Bourne, 2013a ). This essay tackles, in detail, the dangerous consequences of one of these axioms: that the biomedical laboratory workforce should be largely made up of PhD students and postdoctoral researchers, mostly supported by research project grants, with a relatively small number of principal investigators leading ever larger research groups. This axiom—trainees equal research workforce—drives a powerful feedback loop that undermines the sustainability of both training and research. Indeed, unless biomedical scientists, research institutions and the National Institutes of Health (NIH) act boldly to reform the biomedical research enterprise in the US, it is likely to destroy itself ( Bourne, 2013b ).

Aside from the expected human resistance to any and all change, two main obstacles stand in the way of those looking to make the system more sustainable. The first is that scientists and administrators shy away from the problem’s sheer complexity. They fear that its myriad squeaky wheels and bewildering constraints make the present system too vast to understand and hence a hopeless target for reform. In 2011, for example, the NIH set up a blue ribbon working group to address various issues related to the biomedical workforce in the US: that group’s report identified some critical problems, but its recommendations ducked most of the challenging questions ( NIH, 2012 ). The second obstacle to change is that equating trainees and workforce exerts a strong emotional tug on investigators, who treasure memories of their mentors and derive great satisfaction from mentoring young scientists.

I believe, nonetheless, that the overall problem can be both understood and solved without requiring extra government investment. The gradual changes I propose will allow both funders and funded to adjust to the new reforms. These changes will also improve the quality of PhD training, and make it possible to accurately track the number and quality of PhD students and postdoctoral researchers funded from the public purse. Armed with this information, the US can increase or decrease the number of PhDs it produces to meet demand. The proposals below are also relevant to any country that is tempted to treat its PhD students and postdocs primarily as lab workers, rather than as stewards of science’s future.

Using trainees as the workforce for biomedical research made excellent sense in the early 1970s, when rapidly expanding research in academic and industrial labs provided plenty of permanent research positions for PhDs. However, as these jobs gradually became harder to find over subsequent decades, the rationale for a trainee workforce quietly changed: trainees were smart and they were cheap. Moreover, to feed the growing addiction to expansion, research centres became increasingly reliant on the indirect cost payments (also known as overheads) provided by more and bigger research labs ( Bourne, 2013b ). PhD training programmes expanded and lab chiefs hired more postdocs to produce the publications that attract grants and indirect cost payments.

Already established over decades of increasing NIH budgets, these trends accelerated even more between 1999 and 2003, when the NIH budget doubled. Now, a decade after annual NIH budgets stopped increasing, the damaging feedback loop described above still remains in force, as investigators and universities build bigger labs and take on more PhD students and postdocs in an effort to compete for scarcer grant money and indirect cost payments. The same relentless expansion has fostered the growth of a ‘holding tank’ of frustrated senior postdocs unable to find permanent positions as independent researchers. The oversupply of experienced postdocs also makes it easier for research centres to stipulate that new faculty researchers have to obtain their salaries almost entirely from grants, a practice that inevitably makes them less likely to risk novel approaches to hard questions. We can escape this whole predicament only by breaking the long-lasting assumption that the primary role of a PhD student is to furnish cheap labour for the lab.

Relentless expansion has fostered the growth of a ‘holding tank’ of frustrated senior postdocs unable to find permanent positions as independent researchers.

Too many PhD students taking too long to get a PhD

In the past three decades (1979–2009), the number of biomedical graduate students in the US doubled, with most of the increase funded by NIH research grants awarded to principal investigators (see Table 1 ). However, as many as 44% of these students fail to complete their training, and about one in three of those who do obtain PhDs leave research completely ( Table 2 ). This means that only 37%, or slightly more than a third, of the students who start PhDs eventually become researchers, even though the main purpose of a PhD programme is to teach students how to do research.

The total number of graduate students in the biomedical sciences in the US increased from about 30,000 in 1979 to 56,800 in 2009 (data from figure 2 of the Workforce report). The biggest increase was in the number of students supported from NIH research grants to academic investigators. Fellowships include both NIH and non-federal fellowships. The actual numbers are probably higher because the numbers in the table represent those subsets of the total graduate student population that can be easily tracked: for example, some estimates put the number of PhD students at 83,000 (see Table 2 ). However, I believe that the overall distribution between subsets, and also the relative changes between 1979 and 2009, are roughly correct.

This snapshot (data from Workforce report, p32) shows that 16,000 students started PhDs in 2009, but only 9,000 students received PhDs in 2009: this suggests a completion rate of just 56%. The table also shows that 66% of PhD graduates go on to pursue careers in research. This suggests that just over one-third (66% of 56% = 37%) of those students who start PhDs go on to become scientific researchers in government, academic or industrial laboratories. The Workforce report emphasizes that these data are only approximate; for instance, estimates of postdoc numbers vary between 37,000 and 68,000, and estimates for the number of PhD students vary between 83,000 (shown here) and 56,800 ( Table 1 ). Overall, however, it is clear to me that too many students start PhDs and that, on average, most PhD training programmes are strikingly inefficient at producing PhDs.

An efficient system, in my opinion, would produce enough high-quality PhD researchers to fulfil the nation’s research needs, plus a few more. Thus, 10 years after receiving their PhD, about 85% of graduates would directly engage in academic or industrial research, usually after a period as a postdoc; 10% would work in non-research activities related to science; and 5% would opt for careers unrelated to science. Some first-rate PhD programmes come close to the 85% target, but the average PhD programme produces new PhDs with scandalously low efficiency (see Box 1 and Table 3 ).

Making PhD programmes better and shorter

To explore how things might be done differently, let us compare two highly regarded PhD programmes—the Watson School of Biological Sciences at Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory (CSHL), and the ‘Tetrad’ program at my own institution, the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF)—with the average for all graduate programmes. Two points stand out. First, significantly more of the students entering the CSHL and UCSF programmes obtained PhDs, and significantly more also opted for a career in research, which suggests that a large majority of ‘average’ programmes recruit less able students and/or train them poorly. Second, the time taken to obtain a PhD was notably shorter at CSHL—just 4.6 years, compared with 6.5 years at UCSF and 6–7 years on average ( Table 3 ).

How does CSHL produce PhDs in an average of 4.6 years? When the Watson School was founded at the lab in 1999, the research faculty agreed to shorten the time taken to obtain a PhD. Each year the school typically admits 10 or fewer new students, which allows for more intensive mentoring of students than in the Tetrad programme at UCSF (which accepts 15–20 new PhD students per year). Students at the Watson School are also mentored by more members of the CSHL faculty compared with their opposite numbers at UCSF. Students also complete their mandatory coursework in a shorter time at CSHL than at UCSF. And perhaps most importantly, training dollars at the Watson School are clearly separated from research dollars: all PhD students are supported by fellowships from outside sources or by the School itself; they receive no funds from research grants obtained by principal investigators. (Students in the Tetrad programme are supported by training grants or other school funds for their first three years in the programme, and thereafter by fellowships from outside sources or research grants awarded to their supervisor.)

Does that two-year difference produce students who are less well qualified for postdoc positions? Alex Gann, dean of the Watson School, says that students do not receive a PhD without evidence of substantial research achievement, and that they have no difficulty competing for postdoc positions in excellent labs: for example, of the 52 PhD students who graduated between 1999 and 2008, 11 are in tenure-track positions.

Why does it take 6.5 years on average to obtain a PhD from UCSF? A colleague tells me that it takes this long for each student to produce at least one truly outstanding paper, which furnishes the necessary confidence (and the beginning of a striking publication record) for a successful research career. To the contrary, I suspect that my colleagues keep students in their labs for six years or longer, partly in order to get maximum possible output from a student once she or he has learned how to be a scientist. Thus it seems clear, at least to me, that other PhD programmes should emulate the Watson School’s reduction of the overall training period, to help young scientists obtain independent positions earlier in their careers.

A comparison between the Tetrad PhD programme at the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF), the Watson School at the Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory (CSHL) and an average for all PhD programmes shows differences in the proportion of students who obtain PhDs, the average time taken to obtain a PhD, and the proportion of PhDs who remain in research. Some of these differences might be explained by differences in sample sizes and the length of time that has passed since the PhD was obtained. The differences in the proportion of students remaining in research might also be partially explained by UCSF and CSHL recruiting better applicants and/or their reputations helping new PhDs to obtain research positions (rather than being solely due to better training at UCSF and CSHL). Data: UCSF Tetrad: 7 MD–PhD students who started PhDs in this period are not included due to a lack on information on their post-PhD career path. Watson School: Data available at http://www.cshl.edu/images/stories/wsbs/docs/WSBSstats.pdf . Of the ten students who did not obtain PhDs, seven obtained an MS degree. Data for ‘Post-PhD career path’ is for the 52 individuals who obtained PhDs 2002–2008. Average: data from Workforce report, p32.

Despite this inefficiency, the number of new PhDs still seems to exceed the need for researchers. The reasons, almost certainly, are that universities and principal investigators (PIs) recruit PhD students primarily as cheap labour, ignoring the question of how many PhDs the US needs. Many of my academic colleagues vigorously reject this inference, averring their deep commitment to training and promoting the careers of their PhD students. And despite the evidence, the Workforce working group set up by the NIH waffled on the question of whether the number of PhDs exceeds demand, saying that inadequate tracking prevents the NIH from knowing how many PhD students are supported by research grants and what these students do after they obtain their PhD ( NIH, 2012 ). Denial and pleas of ignorance are delaying tactics, not arguments, but those tactics have stymied attempts to change PhD education.

Universities and PIs recruit PhD students primarily as cheap labour, ignoring the question of how many PhDs the US needs.

The Workforce working group and some academics express concern that one third of biomedical PhDs are employed in non-research positions. However, rather than reduce the number of PhD students, they suggest that PhD training programmes should offer students opportunities to learn the rudiments of other science-related careers (such as biotech, scientific publishing or science policy). I disagree. Why must students be trained for other careers while they struggle to learn the skills that are essential for research? This half-baked notion tries to mask its obvious but unstated goal, which is to justify recruiting more PhD students to work in labs. The same notion, unfortunately, prevents construction of a sustainable biomedical research workforce.

Improving the overall quality of graduate education and selecting better students can remedy the shameful inefficiency of research training, increasing the proportion of PhD students who become scientific investigators. The protracted duration of graduate and postdoctoral training contributes to an equally shameful fact: academic researchers in 2010 received their first NIH grants at an average age of 42, four years older than in 1980 (Workforce report, p29): this means that young scientists are devoting their most creative years to questions posed by older scientists. On average it takes 6.5 years to complete a PhD in the US: however, students can obtain a PhD in just 4.6 years at the Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory (see Box 1 ). It should be possible for other institutions to match this and, at the same time, accomplish the even more important task of enhancing the quality of PhD training.

How to reform PhD training

The Workforce working group called for modest increases in training grants and for graduate students to be better informed about alternative career options early in their training. Much stronger actions are needed, however, on three fronts.

First, federal training grants should be awarded preferentially to institutions that reform their graduate training programmes and shorten the period required to earn a PhD. Such reforms should make supervision of graduate students a more communal responsibility, less dependent on the judgment of a single faculty member. Emphasizing quality of training and the need to complete it in less than five years, on average, faculty committees should carefully monitor student progress. With few exceptions, NIH funds should not support a PhD student after five years of training.

Second, the NIH should strongly encourage every graduate training programme it funds to institute Master of Science (MS) degrees for all students who satisfactorily complete two years of training, including at least one year of supervised research. Before entering PhD programs, all applicants should know that after the MS degree some students will go on to earn research-based PhDs, while others will choose (or be asked) to pursue a different course. The MS branch-point will allow each student to determine whether research is a desirable and realistic option for them; it will also help faculty to identify those students who are likely to learn enough in the next two years to pursue research careers.

If either the student or the faculty have doubts about the student’s suitability for a career in research, the MS branch-point furnishes a timely escape route. In such cases the university should do its best to help students find further training appropriate for a different career, and some may choose to allow students to switch into selected (non-biomedical) graduate programmes (such as journalism or business administration). Both the PhD programme and the NIH should recognize that re-directing students away from laboratory research can be advantageous for some students, is necessary for effective graduate training of good scientists, and is not a mark of a student’s ineptitude or a university’s callous disregard for students. Compared to a long Darwinian struggle plus a fruitless quest for a good job, taking an MS degree and shifting to another course of study can open avenues to a more satisfying outcome.

Third, the practice of producing PhDs in direct proportion to research grant funding will always be unsustainable, so we must tackle it head-on by completely separating NIH funding for PhD training from the funding for research grants. Here’s how to make a gradual transition: set a starting date, after which each new PhD student funded by a federal training grant will receive that support for a maximum of five years; every PhD student supported by a research grant who graduates or leaves graduate school frees up a ‘slot’, and funds for this slot are transferred from the PI’s research grant into an institutional PhD programme to provide five years of support for a new PhD student. Such a transition could be completed in less than eight years.

A number of problems will need to be overcome if these changes are made. First, it will be necessary to prevent investigators and institutions gaming the system. Second, some schools and departments don’t have existing training grants: as these schools shift funds from research grants to new training programmes, the latter will need to be subject to the same level of review as existing training programmes. Third, it will be necessary to persuade institutions, investigators, the NIH and Congress to transfer a substantial amount of money within the NIH from the budget for research to the budget for training. Although this will not change the overall NIH budget, it will make real costs of PhD training more obvious and reduce the average size of much-loved R01 grants to individual principal investigators. Also, students will have greater autonomy in choosing labs, and investigators less autonomy in hiring workers, so some senior investigators will surely complain ( Bourne, 2012 ; Price, 2013 ).

Nonetheless, shifting money from research grants to training grants will make the biomedical research enterprise more sustainable in several ways: (i) it will improve the quality of training by making all NIH-funded PhD training subject to rigorous peer review, and it will signal the crucial importance of excellent training to both faculty and students; (ii) it will promote student autonomy and responsibility by freeing students from direct financial support by research supervisors; (iii) it will insulate investigators and institutions from conflicts of interest that tempt them to bend training policy and standards in order to retain cheap workers in their labs: if they do not pay student stipends from their research grants, PIs will not be so motivated to keep students in the lab after they learn how to do research; (iv) it will help to insulate graduate training and new PhDs from future versions of the boom-and-bust cycle of the overall research budget; (v) it will provide better information about the quality and number of PhD students being trained, and allow the NIH to increase or decrease that number in accord with national needs. This last advantage is key. Indeed, a year after the Workforce working group called attention to the number mystery, the NIH is still scrambling to get a better handle on it.

Draining the postdoc holding tank

Postdocs bear the heaviest burden of the unsustainable biomedical research enterprise. Over the past three decades, the number of postdocs increased about threefold (see Table 4 ), but jobs in industry and academic research did not keep pace with this increase, so senior postdocs have collected in an ever-deeper ‘holding tank’. Much of the increase in postdoc numbers was driven by researchers from outside the US. The skills and energy of these non-US researchers have been welcomed across the US, but their presence also helps to keep postdoc salaries at relatively low levels, for both US and non-US researchers. The bottleneck between the holding tank and the small number of permanent research positions also shifted the age profile of NIH-funded investigators: in 1980 18% of NIH-funded investigators were under 36 years old, and only 1% were over 65; by 2009 just 3% were under 36 and 7% were over 65 ( NIH, 2012 ).

The number of postdocs supported by federal (NIH) research grants increased significantly between 1980 and 2009, while the number supported by federal training grants and fellowships remained constant (data from Workforce report, pp19–23). The number supported by non-federal grants (such as the American Heart Association and the American Cancer Society) also increased significantly. The number of non-US postdocs also increased dramatically during this period. Note that these numbers differ (in some cases substantially) from other data on postdocs in the Workforce report: while these differences reflect inadequate tracking and enumeration of postdocs, the relative trends are almost certainly correct.

The postdoc holding tank parallels a broader problem—the fact that the US produces twice as many STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) graduates as are needed for STEM-based positions in industry. In other words, the claim that there is a shortage of graduates in these areas in the US is a myth, perpetuated in part by employers who can profit by keeping the salaries of their STEM employees low and by persuading Congress to provide more visas for STEM graduates from other countries ( Salzman, 2013 ).

The related problems of too many postdoctoral researchers and the shifting age profiles of individuals who eventually find permanent positions require decisive action on four fronts.

First, the roles and pay of postdocs need to be changed. Postdocs in institutions that receive research or training grants from the NIH should be called ‘postdoctoral researchers’, not ‘trainees’, and institutions should be obliged to treat them as fully-fledged employees. To signal the demise of the postdoc holding tank, with a few carefully defined exceptions (for instance, career breaks to raise young children), only postdocs who received their PhD (or MD) in the previous five years should be eligible for support on NIH research grants. Staff scientists and faculty researchers would remain eligible for salary support on NIH research grants, but ‘visiting scientists’ and long-term postdocs with other ambiguous job titles would not be eligible. The Workforce working group also suggested increasing pay levels for postdocs supported by NIH research grants, especially in their later years of service. For this excellent recommendation to make a real impact on the size of the holding tank, actual salary increases need to be substantially larger than those the working group proposed.

Second, to plan for its future, the biomedical research enterprise must know how many postdocs it employs and the course of their later careers. (Estimates of the number of postdocs in the US range from 37,000 to 68,000, and the real number may be higher; Workforce report, p 32.) So, the NIH should award grants to help pay administrative costs for monitoring progress and career destinations of postdocs ( Rockey, 2012 ). These grants could also be used to teach skills essential for a career in research, such as scientific writing and communication.

Third, the number of ‘staff scientists’ supported by the NIH should increase. The definition of a staff scientist could be as follows: she/he must have an MS or PhD degree, be able to perform and analyse experimental results with unusual skill in at least one area of special interest to the lab, and be able to teach and help supervise postdocs and PhD students. Universities should create a special staff scientist classification (e.g., salaries higher than postdocs, lower than faculty; benefits like those of other employees; able to apply for grants, but only to support their own salary). Institutions and the NIH should create incentives for bright PhDs to become staff scientists, and for faculty to hire them. Even a modest increase in the number of staff scientists will enhance continuity and the level of research skills in the laboratory workforce. It would also provide academic jobs for young scientists who choose not to compete for research grants, and stabilize research efforts if Congress or NIH decides to decrease the number of PhD students.

Fourth, the US must deal with the growing number of non-US citizens who enter the postdoc population with PhDs earned in the US or elsewhere ( Table 4 ). At present these researchers can be funded by their home country or by an NIH research grant: PhD students from outside the US can also be funded by NIH research grants but not by NIH training grants. Scientists from outside the US bring enormous benefits to the US, but they also swell the postdoc holding tank and depress the market for US citizen scientists because they are often more willing to risk the low pay, long training and fierce competition that deter US citizens from careers in biomedical research (see appendix D of the Workforce report for further details). Moreover, Congress may soon make it easier for non-US-citizen postdocs to obtain visas or citizenship, which will make it even more difficult to achieve a sustainable research enterprise. At the same time, there is evidence that most researchers who enter the US on visas are never sponsored by their employers for citizenship ( Salzman, 2013 ).

The solution, I think, is to use economic incentives to make sure that only the very best non-US citizens are hired to work in research labs, and to increase the likelihood that these researchers will eventually receive citizenship. First, universities should persuade Congress to allow non-US citizen PhD students to be supported by NIH training grants, providing they agree to undertake a subsequent ‘payback’ period of working as a scientist in the US. This would promote more rigorous screening of non-US citizen students entering PhD programmes, and would also enhance the quality of PhD training. For prospective postdocs, it would be useful to require academic institutions (and companies) to pay a modest ‘tax’ (e.g., $7,500) for every non-US postdoc who enters their labs. (Increased postdoc salaries would have a similar effect, but this ‘tax’ would be more effective.) The money raised this way could be used to train PhD students and to keep track of the numbers and career destinations of postdocs.

Perspective

The changes proposed in this essay will, I believe, improve the quality of PhD training, drain the postdoc holding tank and reduce the age at which researchers get permanent positions and start independent research programmes. Moreover, by breaking the damaging feedback loop that promotes the enlistment of PhD students and postdocs as cheap labour in academic research labs, a clear separation between training programmes and research programmes will help to make the biomedical research enterprise more sustainable.

A clear separation between training programmes and research programmes will help to make the biomedical research enterprise more sustainable.

In practical terms, can these proposals be converted into real changes? The answer depends on whether the key stakeholders in biomedical research and training—investigators, academic institutions, NIH, Congress and so on—learn to cooperate effectively with one another. Each stakeholder group includes vocal sub-groups who either deny existence of any sustainability problem or imagine that the problem will go away as a result of market forces.

Among all the opponents, I worry most about sincere, thoughtful investigators who know from their own experience that mentoring young scientists is a powerful way to meld mature knowledge and youthful creativity into innovation and discovery (see Bourne, 2009 , especially chapter 12). Instead of viscerally rejecting this essay’s arguments and proposals, I urge such opponents to consider the following: (i) reducing the numbers of PhD students and postdocs does not mean abolishing them. More likely, the reduction in numbers is likely to be less than 15–20%, so your labs are unlikely to become populated solely by staff scientists and robots. Conversely, however, blocking the reforms proposed above will gravely endanger teaching, mentoring and the sustainability of the entire biomedical research enterprise. Moreover, the changes proposed here are quantitative and reversible: in the event of an economic boom, the NIH budget can grow again and the system can easily produce more PhDs, postdocs and independent scientists. However, if changes are not enacted to make the whole biomedical research enterprise more sustainable, it will struggle to benefit from any growth in budgets.

Finally, let me answer those stakeholders whose oppose change on some or all of the following grounds: the present system has produced what is still the very best national biomedical research effort in the world; the available data are not good enough to support far-reaching change; dramatic actions often produce unwanted consequences. They are saying that we don’t even know for sure that the patient—the biomedical research enterprise—is sick, and in any case treatments may cause harm, so no treatment is justified. Instead, I urge readers to recognize that our patient suffers from a debilitating, potentially fatal disease, with symptoms that already afflict every academic biomedical scientist in the US ( Bourne 2013a ). We must treat and study the disease simultaneously, beginning now! Critical treatments should be applied in gradual increments, and adjusted in accord with careful monitoring of the patient’s progress. I recommend such gradual approaches to handling PhD training and postdocs (above), and also for addressing the problem of soft-money salaries for faculty researchers ( Bourne, 2013b ). For decades we missed the diagnosis, which can be denied no longer. Continued dithering will constitute grave malpractice.

Acknowledgements

The author thanks Alex Gann of the Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory for providing useful information on the PhD training programme at the Watson School of Biological Sciences.

Competing interests: The author declares that no competing interests exist.

• Bourne HR. Ambition and delight: A life in experimental biology. Bloomington, Indiana: Xlibris; 2009. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bourne HR. NIH support for PhD training. 2012. http://biomedwatch.wordpress.com/2012/08/13/nih-support-for-phd-training-trr-iv/ [ Google Scholar ]
• Bourne HR. A recipe for mediocrity and disaster, in five axioms. eLife. 2013a; 2 :e01138. doi: 10.7554/eLife.01138. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bourne HR. The writing on the wall. eLife. 2013b; 2 :e00642. doi: 10.7554/eLife.00642. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• NIH . Biomedical research workforce working group report. 2012. http://acd.od.nih.gov/biomedical_research_wgreport.pdf [ Google Scholar ]
• Price M. Excessive supply, uncertain demand. Science Careers. 2013 doi: 10.1126/science.caredit.a1300199. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rockey S. Following up on ACD recommendations, and paving the road to continued future success. 2012. http://nexus.od.nih.gov/all/2012/12/07/following-up-on-acd-recommendations [ Google Scholar ]
• Salzman H. What shortages? The real evidence about the STEM workforce. Issues Sci Technol. 2013; 29 :58–67. http://www.issues.org/29.4/hal.html [ Google Scholar ]

• Share on twitter
• Share on facebook

Labour rights are not the solution to PhD exploitation

The doctorate must remain an apprenticeship. better to cut phd students’ teaching load by hiring more teaching staff, says ruth machen.

• Share on linkedin
• Share on mail

Mounting concern about exploitation is changing students’ understanding of what a doctorate is. Traditionally, PhD students have been seen as akin to apprentices, sacrificing higher pay for the opportunity to master a craft. Increasingly, however, there are moves to reconceptualise the doctorate as a job, to which equitable labour rights should apply.

This position is clearly articulated in a recent article on the Tribune blog by Ansh Bhatnagar, a PhD researcher in theoretical physics at Durham University , titled “ Postgrad researchers are the cheap labour of Britain’s universities ”. In an important and well-articulated contribution to the debate, he highlights that seeing PhD students as the future of academia (apprentices) obscures the very real present value of their teaching labour, which receives minimal wage renumeration. He calls for this PhD teaching to be recognised through labour contracts.

Whereas 20 years ago, UK PhD students used to be encouraged to undertake small amounts of complementary teaching to gain valuable work experience, today they are expected to shoulder large amounts of marking and deliver numerous undergraduate seminars and tutorials. Many accept these responsibilities because the competitive job market incentivises demonstration of teaching experience on CVs and because increasing tuition fees and spiralling living costs are making additional earning a necessity – especially for international and self-financing students but increasingly also for those on fixed stipends.

PhD students’ calls for their work to be recognised as academic labour are being (inadvertently) reinforced by supervisors and mental-health initiatives that encourage them to see their work as a “job”, with regular working hours (to combat poor mental health).

While sympathetic to all these pressures, I caution that such thinking is both symptomatic of and instrumental in the neoliberalisation of higher education. It jeopardises investment in the academic self that lies at the heart of the PhD process.

Student teaching can be mutually beneficial for institutions and PhD students. The problem arises when PhD labour becomes integral, not additional, to teaching delivery. When departments struggle to deliver their required teaching without PhD labour, the institution, rather than the PhD student, becomes the primary beneficiary.

Teaching experience that is about delivering teaching rather than learning how to teach differs little from “on-the-job training” – common in other professions and postdoctoral positions. It may also change the type of teaching undertaken, for while shadowing experienced academics (often called “demonstrating”) offers high pedagogical value, it offers little immediate institutional gain. In contrast, large volumes of repetitive small-group teaching and marking offer large institutional benefits with diminishing pedagogical value.

When the emphasis regarding teaching shifts from learning to delivery, the PhD student is no longer an apprentice, and paying apprentice-level rates of pay undeniably becomes exploitative. However, seeking labour rights for PhD students elevates the institutional value of delivery above the pedagogical value of learning even further. It encourages departments to see their PhD cohorts as a transient, ready supply of teaching labour to meet the pressures imposed by increasing student numbers rather than as an apprentice academic community to invest in – which, longer term, encourages retention.

It is precisely the escape from workplace-style labour demands that allows for investment in the academic self during a PhD. Experienced academics offer an analytical clarity that comes from their depth of expertise and breadth of contextual understanding of their research in social and political terms. These characteristics are built during the PhD years. It is a formative period that establishes intellectual freedom and the habit of reading widely and deeply, fostering the lengthy and deeply reflexive work of figuring out who you are as a researcher – the results of which drive whole academic careers.

It is these characteristics that mark out academics, providing foundations for their teaching as well as their intellectual nourishment of students, fellow academics and the wider world. As such, preserving the PhD as a space for learning and self-investment is vital to the future of academia. And while it won’t address the financial pressures they face, the solution to PhD students’ exploitation is not to view the doctorate in labour terms but to adequately staff higher education to meet teaching demands – a responsibility that universities and the UK government need to recognise.

Of course, the traditional apprentice model has its own problems, including instances of disrespect, exploitation and infantilisation. But re-expressing the master-apprentice relation in neoliberal terms will only encourage PhD students to see themselves as delivery agents rather than owners of their own intellectual capital.

Such internalisation and individualisation of neoliberal rationalities will only accelerate the corporatisation of higher education. It will create an academia that risks losing its craft.

Ruth Machen is a research fellow in the School of Architecture, Planning and Landscape at Newcastle University .

Register to continue

Why register?

• Registration is free and only takes a moment
• Once registered, you can read 3 articles a month
• Sign up for our newsletter

Or subscribe for unlimited access to:

• Unlimited access to news, views, insights & reviews
• Digital editions
• Digital access to THE’s university and college rankings analysis

Already registered or a current subscriber? Login

Related articles

Spain’s ‘crazy’ squeeze on precarity ‘impossible’ without funding

Critics say plans to lower the  limit on temporary staff from 40 per cent to 8 per cent are unworkable and could lock in under-qualified lecturers

Simone Buitendijk: ending precarious working

The University of Leeds vice-chancellor discusses why UK higher education should go Dutch and the national scandal that drew her to academia

Precarity means top students quitting academia, warns OECD expert

Report author says increasing funding would only lead to more insecurity, and culture shift is needed instead

Reader's comments (4)

You might also like.

How to win the citation game without becoming a cynic

Boosting your publication metrics need not come at the expense of your integrity if you bear in mind these 10 tips, says Adrian Furnham

Black vice-chancellor eyes new generation of minority researchers

David Mba creates fully funded PhD studentships after taking reins at Birmingham City University

Research time at risk as nine in 10 post-92 universities cut jobs

A quarter of modern institutions looking to shed upwards of 50 roles, with agreements on teaching loads and promotion also under threat, UCU survey finds

Goldsmiths faces marking boycott as Kent staff vote to strike

Further industrial action planned as union members try to resist wave of university cost-cutting

Featured jobs

Accessibility Links

PhD students ‘cheap labour’ for universities

PhD students have accused universities of using them as cheap labour to cover up staff shortages caused by the funding crisis.

Third Level Workplace Watch, a group that monitors the use of casual staff in teaching roles, said that many students were paid €20 an hour for running tutorials but were often not paid for mandatory office hours during which they must be available to students. The students have also reported being paid as little as €1 per paper they correct.

Aline Courtois, who works with the group, said that first-year students on some courses could spend as few as one in ten hours with permanent staff.

She said that the use of PhD students to do work previously done by senior staff was widespread

• Facebook Icon
• Twitter Icon

Postgrad Researchers Are the Cheap Labour of Britain’s Universities

• Back Issues

Your support keeps us publishing. Follow this link to subscribe to our print magazine.

Postgraduate researchers do the same work as university staff, but without the same employment rights, protections, or pay – exploitation that keeps academia closed to anyone but the wealthy few.

PGRs who are not awarded a stipend are self-funded, and have to pay tuition fees for the privilege of doing free research work for the university. (elenaleonova / Getty Images)

It is often said with good intention that postgraduate researchers, or PGRs, are the future of academia. But this isn’t the entire truth. We are also the present of academia. The former framing minimises the work that we are doing right now , by treating us as a subcategory of student, without regard for what our day to day work actually involves.

This work includes publishing papers, speaking at conferences, and collaborating with other academics. Many of us also teach undergraduates in seminars, workshops, and labs. We engage with outreach work that is paid time for senior academic staff, but is considered voluntary for PGRs. Yes, we are also at the very start of our research careers, and are still learning how to be effective researchers, but this learning doesn’t stop after graduating from a PhD; it is a continuous process. Nobody would argue that a postdoctoral academic is not performing labour just because they are still gaining experience and improving how they work.

What about all those who choose not to continue in academia after graduating from a PhD or research masters? Can we really say that they wasted their time and contributed nothing to our collective knowledge, just because they were considered to be ‘in training’ for the entirety of their time in academia?

There needs to be a shift in the way we understand postgraduate research. It is research, and research is labour. It is this framing that underpins the UCU policy on recognising PGRs as staff , a policy that the trade union has been campaigning for since 2020. With this understanding, we begin to grasp the extent of exploitation that is going on in higher education.

Legally, PGRs are classed as students, and thus have no employment rights when it comes to their research. This research is separated from the teaching that many PGRs deliver, which tends to be treated as employment (with exceptions—some PhD scholarships require unpaid teaching). However, most university departments employ postgraduate teaching assistants (PGTAs) on a casual basis, often using zero hours and short-term contracts. Casual workers are generally treated as non-employees, thus being ineligible for university policies that apply to most other staff.

As PhD students are without a salary, many are instead funded by a stipend that is provided either by UKRI or an alternative funder. The UKRI stipend is standard, currently set at £15,609. Many funders set their scholarship award at the same level, but exceptions are common with some being more or less generous than this. This stipend has seen a real terms cut since 2004 of £4,600, and will experience a further cut this year as UKRI have announced they will not be adjust it by the current inflation rate despite the cost of living crisis.

Those who are not awarded a stipend are self-funded, and have to pay tuition fees for the privilege of doing free research work for the university. The vast majority of these PGRs are forced into second and third jobs on top of their research as many do not have the wealth to keep them fed throughout their degree.

The government says it wants the UK to be a world leader in research and innovation. Yet when compared to our immediate neighbourhood, western Europe, we are found to be severely lagging behind when it comes to PGR conditions. Countries that employ PGRs as staff include France, Germany, Switzerland, and Denmark, to name a few. With staff status they get full employment rights and protections: sick pay, a pension scheme, parental leave, and so on.

While exceptions to this staff status exist in some of these countries, with a minority of PGRs being funded in alternative ways due to immigration status or other factors, the fact remains that the overall picture is far less bleak than it is here. Why then would prospective PGRs choose to stay in, or come to, the UK? Here they are paid less, their labour is not recognised, conditions are poor, and they are more likely to depend on precarious work to get through their research degree.

Earlier this year, I experienced first-hand the consequences of being on a casual contract. I had caught Covid and was in isolation for the required ten days, missing out on six hours of teaching work. I informed my line manager of my illness, expecting that the process for getting sick pay, two years into a pandemic, would be straightforward. I could not have been more wrong. I was told that, as a casual worker, I was not entitled to any sick pay at all.

I contacted my local UCU branch. After a lot of back and forth with HR, my union representative managed to get a concession that not only are casual workers entitled to statutory sick pay, but also that PGTAs in our department should be on employment contracts in line with an existing agreement to minimise the use of casual work. As a result, PGTAs in my department received employment contracts backdated to the start of their teaching, and were finally eligible for the same terms and conditions as other staff, including the more generous university policy on sick pay.

Unfortunately, far too many PGRs across the UK are still teaching on casual contracts, with some people being driven into insecure housing. One particularly egregious example of this was a PhD student who had to live in a tent for two years while employed as a lecturer. Nobody should have to live in such conditions, and it is appalling that the higher education sector and the government are allowing such widespread use of these exploitative contracts.

My sick pay dispute would never have happened if teaching work was already included as part of an employment contract for our research work. Researchers wouldn’t have to live in tents if they were paid a living wage and the entirety of their labour was recognised by employers. That PGRs are not eligible for statutory employment rights by default is a labour issue—and one that is preserving academia as an interest for a wealthy few that can afford it. With full employment rights and a living wage, we can start to break down the barriers that stand in the way of working-class and disabled researchers.

UCU’s PGRs as Staff manifesto is a source of hope and inspiration for us PGRs. It paints a massively improved future, one where our labour is finally respected and our contributions to universities recognised. Nobody should have to pay to work, or do unpaid labour, or work multiple jobs to sustain themselves. Nobody should have to worry about finding funding and putting food on the table. We are not asking for the Earth—we are asking for basic rights, protections, and respect.

While UKRI have signalled that they are open to considering a change in status for PGRs , this won’t happen without strong demand. The consultation closes on 17 May. It is vitally important for PGRs, past, present, and prospective, to submit responses in support of the UCU position. Any supervisors are also welcome to submit a response.

But we can do more than just responding to government consultations. In order to build a lasting movement for improving our own conditions, PGRs must unionise and join the UCU . From the PGRs as Staff campaign to anti-casualisation, the UCU have continually worked to advance our interests despite low membership among PGRs. While this would naturally improve once PGRs are staff and are more aware of their employment rights, including the right to organise in a trade union, we cannot wait until then. It is up to us to find strength in numbers and organise for the PGR future we want to see.

FACULTY OF SOCIAL SCIENCES

School of Labour Studies

• Undergraduate Programs
• Graduate Programs
• Certificate Programs

PhD in Labour Studies

The only Labour Studies PhD degree in North America. Our program engages closely and critically with the issues of work and labour in contemporary and historical perspective. We aim to develop a new generation of scholars who are prepared to contribute to research leadership in the academy, the community, policy arenas and organizations representing working people.

We are a small, tight-knit interdisciplinary program. Students will enjoy active mentorship from leading scholars in the field and benefit from the strong union and community connections of faculty. This program is offered in-person at McMaster University in Hamilton, Ontario.

About the Program

Requirements and Timelines

The program, which normally takes four years of full-time study, consists of course work, comprehensive examinations and a Dissertation. Students are required to take four courses, of which Methods and Advanced Labour Studies Theory are required. Additional courses are chosen from a list of core Labour Studies courses as well as from disciplines such as Sociology, Political Science, Geography, Social Work, History, etc.

Course Requirements

Normally, candidates for the PhD will complete 12 units (4 courses) of course work at the graduate level which include:

• LABRST 715 or an equivalent methods course approved by the program; Students entering the PhD program who have already taken LABRST 715 are exempt from this requirement and may take another elective.
• LABRST 793 Advanced Labour Studies Theory.
• Two elective courses offered by the School of Labour Studies or by another department or academic unit.

Supervisors and Supervisory Committees Successful applicants will be assigned a temporary supervisor of studies upon admission. Not later than eight months following arrival, a supervisory committee for each PhD student will be appointed by the Graduate Committee, on the recommendation of the student and their dissertation supervisor.

This committee will consist of at least three members: a dissertation supervisor, normally a full-time faculty member in the School of Labour Studies, and two other members, at least one of whom is a faculty member from outside of the School of Labour Studies, whose scholarly interests include the area of the student’s main interest.

Comprehensive Examination

After finishing their course work, normally in Term 1 of their second year in the program, students will complete a comprehensive exam. The purpose of the exam is to ensure that the student has sufficient knowledge of the relevant scholarly literature in the field of Labour Studies and that they are able to synthesize and communicate this literature in a critically insightful way. The comprehensive exam will consist of a written and an oral component. The examination committee for the comprehensive exam shall normally consist of the members of the supervisory committee.

Dissertation Proposal

Following the completion of the comprehensive exam requirement, students will publicly present their dissertation proposal outlining their research question, methodology and how their project will contribute to academic knowledge.

Dissertation

Candidates for the PhD degree are required to write a dissertation with a maximum length of 300 double spaced pages that demonstrates competence in original research following School of Graduate Studies guidelines. Students will be required to defend their dissertation in an oral examination.

This program is offered in-person at McMaster University in Hamilton, Ontario. Detailed program information is available in the PhD Handbook .

Admissions and Applications

Admission Requirements for PhD Degree

• Master’s degree or equivalent in any discipline with a minimum A- average from an accredited university.
• A demonstrated interest in studying work, employment or worker organizations from a Labour Studies perspective.
• Select candidates may be admitted with a B+ average from a Master’s degree if they have a minimum of five years of work or volunteer experience in labour or work-related community organizations and can provide evidence that they have strong writing and critical thinking skills.
• Applicants are evaluated based on their qualifications and the alignment of their interests with the research interests and faculty availability.
• While supervisors are not appointed before successful admission, applicants are encouraged to contact faculty members in the Department regarding potential PhD supervision and the PhD program. You have the opportunity to list three potential supervisors in your application. If admission is offered, a supervisor is then assigned

Applications for 2023 entry will open October 1, 2023. Priority given to applications received on or before January 8; however, applicants will be accepted on an ongoing basis until programs have filled.

Applications will be reviewed after the January deadline. Admission decisions will be communicated in March. Incomplete applications will not be reviewed.

Required Application Documents:

Graduate Studies Online Application

• Each applicant must complete the Graduate Studies Online Application, which opens in October each year.
• In addition to the online application, applicants must also submit the required documents listed below. Note that some required application documents must be submitted through your online application.

Academic Transcripts

• Scanned/unofficial/student-generated transcripts for ALL post-secondary studies completed or in-progress are required at the time of application.
• Transcripts from institutions where you completed courses on Letter of Permission and/or as part of Student Exchange Programs must also be included.
• Official transcripts must be submitted if an offer of admission is made:

Electronic:

• Select this option instead of paper if the issuing institution produces official, electronic transcripts sent directly to other institutions.
• The issuing institution must send the official, electronic transcript to [email protected].
• This official, electronic transcript from the institution does NOT replace the scanned, electronic transcripts that the applicant must upload through their online application.
• Official transcripts in a sealed envelope signed/stamped by the issuing institution and sent from the issuing institution directly to the School of Labour Studies (mailing address below).

McMaster University transcripts:

• If you are submitting a transcript from McMaster University, submit the transcript in Electronic format ONLY. You do NOT need to request a paper transcript to be sent to the School of Labour Studies if the transcript is from McMaster University.

Note: The status of your transcripts and application in the School of Graduate Studies McMaster University Application will not be updated to ‘complete’ until you have sent an official electronic or paper transcript. Please ensure you upload transcripts from all institutions attended at the time of application for evaluation purposes.

Academic References:

• Two (2) confidential reference reports from instructors most familiar with your academic work.
• In cases of mature applicants (more than two years since last enrolled in a post-secondary education institution), one (1) work-related reference is acceptable.
• McMaster University uses an Electronic Referencing System (e-Reference). By entering the email address of your referee through your online application, the system will automatically send an e-Reference request on your behalf
• Referees may require 3-4 weeks to complete a reference report.
• If you are unable to use the Electronic Referencing System, you can download the Reference Form to send to your referees for completion.
• Downloaded reference forms must be sent by the reference directly by email to [email protected] or to the mailing address below.

Statement of Interest:

• Must be uploaded as a PDF document through your online application.
• 3-4 pages (750 – 1000 words), double-spaced.
• References page(s) should be single-spaced and do not count towards the maximum 3-4-page limit.

An effective statement includes:

• A clear research question.
• Rationale for your research question.
• A clear research plan and methodology.
• How your background (including education and work/volunteer experience) prepares you to do the research.
• Why the School of Labour Studies at McMaster is the right place for you to pursue the above research question.

English Language Proficiency (if applicable)

• If English is not your native language, an official copy of your English Language Proficiency score or other evidence of competency in English is required. Applicants whose university studies were completed at an institution where English is deemed the official language of instruction may be exempt from this requirement (an official letter from the institution is required)
• The English Language Proficiency exam must have been completed within two years of the application due date
• The most common English Language Proficiency exams:
• TOEFL: minimum score of 92 (internet-based), 237 (computer-based) or 580 (paper-based), minimum of 20 per band. Please use TOEFL department code 080 (Other Social Sciences).
• IELTS (Academic): minimum overall score of 6.5, with at least 5.5 in each section
• Other English Language Proficiency exams may be accepted. Please visit the School of Graduate Studies: How to Apply website and click ‘Language Requirements’ for more information.
• Submit English Language Proficiency exam results as a scanned document uploaded through your online application.

Application Deadline:

• Priority given to applications received on or before January 8; however, applicants will be accepted on an ongoing basis until programs have filled.

Please send all (hard copy) supporting documents to:

c/o Megan Stokes

Kenneth Taylor Hall 716

McMaster University

1280 Main Street West

Hamilton, ON L8S 4M4

Tips for successful applications:

Review the PhD Handbook and Application Guide.

• Contact a potential supervisor in Labour Studies prior to submitting an application to ensure that they are taking students and to gauge their interest in your proposed project. Eligible supervisors include all core Labour Studies faculty members (not including associate members).
• While supervisors are not appointed before successful admission, applicants are encouraged to contact faculty members in the Department. You have the opportunity to list three potential supervisors in your application. If admission is offered, a supervisor is then assigned.
• A clear research question
• Rationale for the research question
• A clear research plan and methodology
• If you need further advice, seek advice from a mentor from your previous school/program, since they know you best.

International Applicants are encouraged to review the information on our prospective International Student site .

Financial Information, Scholarships and Awards

All full-time PhD candidates will be offered a minimum level of funding, currently set at an annual minimum value equal to full-time tuition plus $13,500.00 for 4 years, from a combination of sources that may include teaching assistantships, graduate scholarships, and external scholarships/bursaries.

For information about major scholarships and awards competitions, please visit the School of Graduate Studies website.

International applicants, please see EduCanada website for Scholarships and Awards.

Scholarships

Internal Scholarships

• Competitive scholarship funding is offered to full-time graduate students in the School of Labour Studies. Internal scholarships, which include Graduate Scholarships, are intended to help students devote their time and energy to the successful completion of their studies.

External Scholarship

• Many of our current and incoming students receive notable scholarships from external funding agencies such as OGS, SSHRC, etc. Applicants are highly encouraged to apply to external funding agencies. Once admitted, students will be required to apply for the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC) Doctoral Fellowship annually, if not already an award recipient.

Teaching Assistant (TA)/Research Assistant (RA) in lieu Positions

Each PhD student and many Master’s students are offered a TA or RA in lieu of TA valued at approximately $12,900 for a full year and $6,450.00 for a half year for 10 hours per week.

Apply to a PhD in Labour Studies

School of Labour Studies Courses

There are no course outlines.

{course_name} {instructor}

Instructor: Instructor Name

Contact Info

Course Link(s)

GRADUATE SUPERVISORS

Find a graduate supervisor in your area of interest.

• Program Handbook
• Thesis Defence
• Graduate Calendar
• School of Graduate Studies Graduate Resources
• Graduate Studies Program Information
• Career & Professional Development
• Graduate Association

UPCOMING EVENTS

No upcoming events.

Global Capitalism and Cheap Labor: The Case of Indenture

• Living reference work entry
• First Online: 26 February 2019
• Cite this living reference work entry

• Brinsley Samaroo 2  

520 Accesses

7 Altmetric

The system of indentureship, utilizing mainly Chinese and Indian labor in the post-slavery period, was a continuation of the capitalist desire of sourcing cheap labor under the aegis of the plantation system. That system, originating in Brazil from the sixteenth century, provided a model which was effectively used by the other Western European countries to create a plantation society. This was a rigidly stratified polity using race as a major determinant of one’s place in the pyramid. The model was transferred from Portuguese Brazil under the auspices of Dutch entrepreneurs, to the Caribbean colonies transforming them from poverty into prosperity. Its success in the Caribbean led to its transference to the Indian Ocean by the same European powers which had established parallel patterns of trading in the East, complementing their Western, Atlantic enterprises. In this continuance of labor exploitation, China and India were major sources of “coolie” labor under less brutal conditions than in slavery. For both peoples, however, this bondage was not the end of their world. Most of them survived using new opportunities provided by new situations, discarding some of the old traditions selectively. Both Chinese and Indians came from ancient societies guided by beliefs and traditions sanctified by time. As they adapted to their adopted societies, they used their ancestral moorings as enablers in new homelands in the Atlantic and Pacific worlds. Through the complex interaction of sugar, slavery-bonded labor, and European capitalism, the international economy was transformed leading to the industrialized world of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Institutional subscriptions

Allen R (2016) New perspectives on the origins of the new system of slavery. In: Hassan-Khan et al (eds) The legacy of Indian indenture. Manohar, Delhi

Google Scholar  

Aykroyd WR (1967) Sweet malefactor: sugar, slavery and human society. Heinemann Press, London

Bahadur G (2014) Coolie woman. University of Chicago Press, Chicago

Beall J (1990) Women under indenture in Natal. In: Bhana S (ed) Essays on indentured Indians in Natal. Peepal Tree Press, Leeds

Carter M (2006) Mauritius. In: Lal BV (ed) Encyclopedia of the Indian diaspora. University of Hawaii Press, Honolulu

Cuba Commission (1876) Chinese emigration: report of the commission sent by China to ascertain the condition of Chinese Coolies in Cuba. Imperial Maritime Customs Press, Shanghai

Davis R (1973) The rise of the Atlantic economies. Cornell University Press, New York

Glasstone R (2007) The story of Dai Ailian. Dance books, London

Helly D (1993) Introduction to the Cuba Commission Report (1876). In: A hidden history of the Chinese Cuba. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore

Lal BV (ed) (2006) Encyclopedia of the Indian diaspora. University of Hawaii Press, Honolulu

Lal BV (2012) The odyssey of indenture. Australian National University, Canberra

Laurence KO (2011) The importation of labour and the contract system. In: Laurence KO (ed)General history of the Caribbean, vol IV. UNESCO Publishing, Paris

Looklai W (1993) Indentured labour, Caribbean sugar. John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore

Mahase R (2007) Indian indentured labour in Trinidad. PhD thesis. University of the West Indies, Trinidad

Northrup D (1995) Indentured labour in the age of imperialism. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

Pan L (1966) Sons of the yellow emperor: the story of the Chinese overseas. Mandarin paperback, London

Seecharan C (2005) Sweetening bitter sugar. Ian Randle, Jamaica

Stuart A (2012) Sugar in the blood. Portobello Books, London

Teelock V (1998) Bitter sugar: sugar and slavery in 19th century Mauritius. Mahatma Gandhi Instituted, Moka

Teelock V (2009) Mauritian history. Mahatma Gandhi Institute, Moka

Tinker H (1974) A new system of slavery. Oxford University Press, London

Walvin J (1997) Fruits of empire: exotic produce and British trade. New York University Press, New York

Book   Google Scholar  

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

History Department, University of the West Indies, St. Augustine, Trinidad and Tobago

Brinsley Samaroo

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Brinsley Samaroo .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

Dept of Socio & Anthro, Rm 309, Univ of Canterbury Dept of Socio & Anthro, Rm 309, Christchurch, New Zealand

Steven Ratuva

Section Editor information

No affiliation provided

Lyndon Fraser

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.

About this entry

Cite this entry.

Samaroo, B. (2019). Global Capitalism and Cheap Labor: The Case of Indenture. In: Ratuva, S. (eds) The Palgrave Handbook of Ethnicity. Palgrave Macmillan, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-0242-8_102-1

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-0242-8_102-1

Received : 30 January 2019

Accepted : 30 January 2019

Published : 26 February 2019

Publisher Name : Palgrave Macmillan, Singapore

Print ISBN : 978-981-13-0242-8

Online ISBN : 978-981-13-0242-8

eBook Packages : Springer Reference Political Science and International Studies Reference Module Humanities and Social Sciences Reference Module Business, Economics and Social Sciences

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

Why is the best essay writing service?

On the Internet, you can find a lot of services that offer customers to write huge articles in the shortest possible time at a low price. It's up to you to agree or not, but we recommend that you do not rush to make a choice. Many of these sites will take your money and disappear without getting the job done. Some low-skilled writers will still send you an essay file, but the text will not meet the required parameters.

is the best essay writing service because we provide guarantees at all stages of cooperation. Our polite managers will answer all your questions and help you determine the details. We will sign a contract with you so that you can be sure of our good faith.

The team employs only professionals with higher education. They will write you a high-quality essay that will pass all anti-plagiarism checks, since we do not steal other people's thoughts and ideas, but create new ones.

You can always contact us and make corrections, and we will be happy to help you.

Finished Papers

Will You Write Me an Essay?

Students turn to us not only with the request, "Please, write my essay for me." From the moment we hear your call, homework is no longer an issue. You can count on our instant assistance with all essay writing stages. Just to let you know, our essay writers do all the work related to writing, starting with researching a topic and ending with formatting and editing the completed paper. We can help you choose the right topic, do in-depth research, choose the best up-to-date sources, and finally compose a brilliant piece to your instructions. Choose the formatting style for your paper (MLA, APA, Chicago/Turabian, or Harvard), and we will make all of your footnotes, running heads, and quotations shine.

Our professional essay writer can help you with any type of assignment, whether it is an essay, research paper, term paper, biography, dissertation, review, course work, or any other kind of writing. Besides, there is an option to get help with your homework assignments. We help complete tasks on Biology, Chemistry, Engineering, Geography, Maths, Physics, and other disciplines. Our authors produce all types of papers for all degree levels.

Can I pay after you write my essay for me?

Check your email for notifications. Once your essay is complete, double-check it to see if it falls under your expectations and if satisfied-release the funds to your writer. Keep in mind that our essay writing service has a free revisions policy.

Write My Essay Service - Working to Help You

Do you want to have more free time for personal development and fun? Or are you confused with your professor's directions? Whatever your reason for coming to us is, you are welcome! We are a legitimate professional writing service with student-friendly prices and with an aim to help you achieve academic excellence. To get an A on your next assignment simply place an order or contact our 24/7 support team.

• RTL Lëtzebuerg

Moscow metro to train first female drivers

A Moscow city hall statement said "expectations are very high" of female drivers in training, and noted that women had already driven metro trains during World War II / © AFP/File

The Moscow subway system will train women to run trains next year, following labour law changes that opens up several professions to them.

The sprawling metro system, built in the Soviet era as a Communist showpiece, has "formed the first group of female driver trainees" who are to begin training in February, the Moscow city hall said in a statement.

Metro drivers have historically been men because the activity has been on the government's list of jobs deemed harmful for women's health.

The justification that it is dangerous to be underground for long periods has been criticised as hypocritical however, because the metro employs women as cleaners, cashiers and escalator monitors who earn much smaller salaries while also being stuck underground.

In September, a Labour Ministry decree slashed the number of exclusively male professions from 456 to around 100.

The current list was approved in 2000 and bans women from mining and metalworking jobs, but also from positions as a bus driver, sailor, parachutist, auto mechanic, and even maker of wind instruments.

A new list that is to take effect in 2021 opens many of these to females.

The city hall statement said "expectations are very high" of female drivers in training, and noted that women had already driven metro trains during World War II, when they took on many traditionally male jobs.

Russian Railways, the country's railway monopoly, said it will also begin employing female train drivers in 2021.

• Macron recalls dark side of French WWII history in resistance tribute 16.04.2024 Macron recalls dark side of French WWII history in resistance tribute
• Dubai airport diverts flights as 'exceptional weather' hits city 16.04.2024 Dubai airport diverts flights as 'exceptional weather' hits city
• Balancing act Scholz urges China to use Russia 'influence' to end Ukraine war 16.04.2024 Scholz urges China to use Russia 'influence' to end Ukraine war
• 'Narco-state' Amsterdam mayor wants to regulate cocaine: AFP interview 16.04.2024 Amsterdam mayor wants to regulate cocaine: AFP interview
• 'Critical' situation UN says $1bn in aid urgently needed for crisis-hit Ethiopia 16.04.2024 UN says $1bn in aid urgently needed for crisis-hit Ethiopia
• No truce in sight Middle East on edge after Israel vows 'response' to Iran attack 16.04.2024 Middle East on edge after Israel vows 'response' to Iran attack
• 54-metre spire destroyed Fire at Copenhagen landmark 'under control' 16.04.2024 Fire at Copenhagen landmark 'under control'
• Maintaining communication US, China defense chiefs hold first talks in nearly 18 months 16.04.2024 US, China defense chiefs hold first talks in nearly 18 months

America is divided over major efforts to rewrite child labor laws

At least 16 states have one or more bills to weaken their child labor laws, while 13 are seeking to strengthen them.

As child labor violations soar across the country , dozens of states are ramping up efforts to update child labor laws — with widespread efforts to weaken laws, but some to bolster them as well.

The push for changes to those laws arrives as employers — particularly in restaurants and other service-providing industries — have grappled with labor shortages since the beginning of the pandemic, and hired more teenagers , whose wages are typically lower than adults’.

Labor experts attribute the spike in child labor violations — which, a Post analysis shows, have tripled in 10 years — to a tight labor market that has prompted employers to hire more teens, as well as migrant children arriving from Latin America. In 2023, teens ages 16 to 19 were working or looking for work at the highest annual rate since 2009, according to Labor Department data.

That has led to the largest effort in years to change the patchwork of state laws that regulate child labor, with major implications for the country’s youths and the labor market. At least 16 states have one or more bills that would weaken their child labor laws and at least 13 are seeking to strengthen them, according to a report from the Economic Policy Institute and other sources. Among these states, there are 43 bill proposals.

Since 2022, 14 states have passed or enacted new child labor laws.

Federal law forbids all minors from working in jobs deemed hazardous, including those in manufacturing, roofing, meatpacking and demolition. Fourteen- and 15-year-olds are not allowed to work past 7 p.m. on school nights or 9 p.m. on weekends.

Most states have laws that are tougher than federal rules, although an effort is underway, led by Republican lawmakers, to undo those restrictions, which is supported by restaurant associations, liquor associations and home builders associations.

A Florida-based lobbying group, the Foundation for Government Accountability, which has fought to promote conservative interests such as restricting access to anti-poverty programs, drafted or lobbied for recent bills to strip child labor protections in at least six states.

Among them is Indiana’s new law enacted in March, repealing all work-hour restrictions for 16- and 17-year-olds, who previously couldn’t work past 10 p.m. or before 6 a.m. on school days. The law also extends legal work hours for 14- and 15-year-olds.

Indiana legislators sparred over the bill, with state Sen. Mike Gaskill (R) saying at a hearing in March, “Do not for a second think that this is about the evil employers trying to manipulate and take advantage of kids.” But state Sen. Andrea Hunley (D) called the bill an “irresponsible and dystopian” way of “responding to our workforce shortage.”

In Florida, Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) signed into law changes that allow 16- and 17-year-olds to work seven days in a row . It also removes all hour restrictions for teens in online school or home-school, effectively permitting them to work overnight shifts.

Some states have reported soaring numbers of child-labor violations over the past year, with investigators uncovering violations in fast-food restaurants , but also in dangerous jobs in meatpacking , manufacturing and construction, where federal law prohibits minors from working. The Labor Department alleged in a lawsuit in February that a sanitation company, Fayette Janitorial Service, employed children as young as 13 to clean head splitters and other kill-floor equipment at slaughterhouses on overnight shifts in Virginia and Iowa.

Despite such findings, an Iowa law signed last year by Gov. Kim Reynolds (R) allows minors in that state to work in jobs previously deemed too hazardous, including in industrial laundries, light manufacturing, demolition, roofing and excavation, but not slaughterhouses. Separately, West Virginia enacted a law this month that allows 16- and 17-year-olds to work some roofing jobs as part of an apprenticeship program.

Six more states are evaluating bills to lift restrictions preventing minors from working jobs considered dangerous. A Georgia bill would allow 14-year-olds to work in landscaping on factory grounds and other prohibited work sites. Florida’s legislature has passed a law, drafted by the state’s construction industry association, that would allow teens to work certain jobs in residential construction. It is awaiting approval from DeSantis.

Carol Bowen, chief lobbyist for the Associated Builders and Contractors of Florida, testified in February that the state “has one of the largest skilled-work shortages in recent history” and that the construction industry needs to identify the “next generation.”

Bowen said the bill limits work for 16- and 17-year-olds to home construction projects, adding that teens wouldn’t be able to work on anything higher than six feet.

In Kentucky, the House has passed a bill that prevents the state from having child labor laws that are stricter than federal protections, in effect removing all limitations on when 16- and 17-year-olds can work.

Meanwhile, Alabama, West Virginia, Missouri and Georgia are considering bills this year that would eliminate work permit requirements for minors, verifying age or parental or school permission to work. Most states require these permits. Arkansas Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders (R) signed a similar bill into law last year.

Republican lawmakers often say they are trying to increase opportunities or bring requirements in line with federal standards when they push to loosen child labor laws. They say that lowering restrictions helps employers fill labor shortages, while improving teenagers’ work ethic and reducing their screen time. Another common refrain is that permitting later work hours allows high school students opportunities similar to those for varsity athletes whose games often go later than state law allows teens to work.

“These are youth workers that are driving automobiles. They are not children,” said state Rep. Linda Chaney (R), sponsor of the Florida bill expanding work hours for 16- and 17-year-olds, during a hearing in December.

Indiana state Sen. Andy Zay (R), who supported the state’s new law extending work hours for 14- and 15-year-olds, told The Washington Post that as a father of five children, including a son who plays high school basketball, he felt saddened by criticism that teens could be exploited into working later hours under this law.

“I don’t see that, and I don’t feel that. And certainly they would have the freedom to move on,” Zay said.

But the spike in child labor violations and the recent deaths of minors illegally employed in dangerous jobs have also prompted a push by labor advocates to strengthen state laws.

The Virginia legislature unanimously approved a bill in recent weeks that would increase employer penalties for child labor violations from $1,000 to $2,500 for routine violations. Gov. Glenn Youngkin (R) approved the measure Wednesday.

The bill’s sponsor, Del. Holly M. Seibold (D-Fairfax), told The Post that she was “shocked and horrified” to read recently about poultry plants in Virginia illegally employing migrant children and wrote legislation to raise the penalties.

Michigan, Pennsylvania, Iowa, Nebraska and Colorado also are pushing to raise employer penalties for child labor violations, with lawmakers calling them outdated and not substantial enough to deter employers from breaking the law. For example, Iowa fines employers $2,500 for a serious but nonfatal injury of a minor illegally working in a hazardous industry and $500 if there is no serious injury. The new bill proposes an additional $5,000 penalty for an injury that leads to a workers’ compensation case.

Terri Gerstein, director of the Wagner Labor Initiative at New York University, said that the focus on increasing penalties is “good, but, alone, is not good enough,” given that many states have very minimal resources dedicated to enforcing laws.

This year, Colorado legislators have introduced the strongest package to crack down on employers that break child labor laws. The legislation would raise fines for violations and deposit them into a fund for enforcement. Lawmakers are also seeking to make information on companies that violate child labor laws publicly available; in many states, such information is off-limits to the public. Colorado would also legally protect parents of minors who are employed illegally, as some have faced criminal charges for child abuse.

Colorado state Rep. Sheila Lieder (D), who introduced the bill, told The Post that Colorado’s child labor laws aren’t punitive enough to dissuade employers from violating the laws, with just a $20 penalty per offense.

“The fine in Colorado is like a couple cups of coffee at a brand-name coffee store,” Lieder said. “I was just, like, there’s something more that has to be done.”

Jacqueline Aguilar, a 21-year-old college student in Alamosa, Colo., who supports the bill, worked in the lettuce and potato fields on Colorado’s Eastern Plains from the time she was 13, alongside her immigrant parents, to buy school clothes.

“Laws have to be stricter because a lot of people don’t report” violations, said Aguilar, who worked 12-hour shifts in the fields starting at 4:30 a.m. growing up. She said she had no knowledge of her labor rights at the time. “Once I started getting older and my mom became disabled because of the job, it changed my perspective on children working.”

In Kentucky, the House-passed bill that prevents the state from enacting child labor laws stricter than federal protections but does not also repeal requirements for meal and rest breaks for minors. A previous version said that the bill would repeal breaks for minors.

Museum of Labor Glory - All You Need to Know BEFORE You Go (2024)

• (1.31 km) Elektrostal Hotel
• (1.71 km) Hotel Djaz
• (1.97 km) MTM Hostel Elektrostal
• (1.99 km) Yakor Hotel
• (2.00 km) Mini Hotel Banifatsiy
• (0.00 km) McDonald's
• (0.00 km) Kroshka Kartoshka
• (0.00 km) Tashir Pizza
• (0.42 km) Teremok
• (0.68 km) Mazhor