I’m not afraid to admit it, graduate school isn’t perfect. Specifically in the sciences, it is not only based on your scientific knowledge and skill, but also your individual relationship to your advisor and your lab. So, when a fellow lab mate of mine pointed out an Op-Ed in this week’s New York Times that discussed the fallbacks of graduate education and possible solutions to these faults, I was intrigued.

The article, written by Columbia professor Mark C. Taylor, discusses how universities are incorrectly training graduate students to think and do research in small subfields when, in actuality, the academic positions available to highly specialized students are too few to provide jobs for all those trained. Additionally, Taylor also discusses that even though universities are well aware of this contradiction, they continue to train far too many graduate students because the work for little pay, which is critical to keeping universities a float. In a sense, graduate students are the sweatshop workers of academia. Taylor also provides six steps to restructuring higher education, which he thinks will help to improve the system for everyone.

1. Restructure the graduate curriculum.

2. Abolish departments and create problem-focused programs.

3. Increase collaboration among institutions.

4. Transform the traditional dissertation.

5. Expand the range of professional options for graduate students.

6. Impose mandatory retirement and abolish tenure.

I don’t think I’ve read an article to which I so strongly agree and disagree with in a long time. In the context of graduate education, many of Taylor’s points are right on. He points out obvious flaws and proposes straightforward solutions to these problems. For example, it seems that scientists are well aware that there are simply not enough academic jobs for all graduate students to obtain tenure-track faculty positions. Thus, I agree with Taylor’s point that students should be encouraged to prepare for work in fields other than higher education. I also agree with Taylor’s point that graduate curriculum should become more interdisciplinary, especially since scientific research requires a broad knowledge base that spans many of the classic scientific disciplines. Students should be encouraged to take courses outside of their discipline if they feel it would benefit their training. I think the NIH realizes this as well, particularly in their efforts to promote translational research education (for more information, see the CTSA website).

However, some of Taylor’s views are a bit too radical. For example, I don’t think it is a good idea to abolish permanent departments. He discusses that it would be better to make academia problem-based rather than discipline- based, with the rationale that academics in many disciplines could then come together with a common goal. While I think this idea is good in theory, I feel that rigorous training in a specific discipline is really the only way for one to become an expert in their field. Rather than abolish academic departments, why not train students to think accurately and critically at the graduate level and encourage them to pursue a postdoc in a different field after they have been appropriately trained as a graduate student. My fear is that is if we make graduate education too broad, we will loose the ability to really call ourselves an expert in a particular field. On the university level, why not give professors secondary appointments in interdisciplinary institutes and encourage problem-based research in that manner? That way, professors are able to apply their particular expertise to a common problem without sacrificing their training and research interests.

While you may agree or disagree with Taylor’s opinions, you should also recognize the importance of voicing your opinion on this topic. If we don’t share our views on graduate education, how can we ever expect to improve it? So the question remains. How would you restructure graduate education if it were up to you? Your thoughts and comments are welcome, so please share. I am curious to see what other members of the Nature Network community think.