Re: Australia's PhD Brain-Drain

PhD deficit to hit Australian economic boom (The Australian, Nov. 12 2007)

The leaders of Australia's G8 universities, although well-meaning, are grossly mistaken if they think that simply introducing more PhD scholarships jointly sponsored by Government and industry will absolve Australia of its so-called PhD 'brain-drain' ("PhD deficit to hit Australian economic boom", The Australian, Nov. 12 2007). University VCs have all completed PhDs in the not-so-distant past, yet they have obviously forgotten what it is like to be a (prospective) PhD student.

Simply throwing money at students is not going to entice graduates to pursue careers in research and/or academia; the 'brain-drain' problem has has much deeper roots than that. Mind you, why are research and academia thrown together in the same boat in the first place (which sounds suspiciously like two jobs for the pay of one)? Note that academics are more likely hired for their research qualities and not teaching skills (which of the two brings in money?), which speaks very little for the quality of tertiary teaching in Australia. With poor teaching at the undergraduate level, why would students want to stay for a postgraduate PhD program? In fact, doesn't it seem a little strange to you that a teaching degree is required for primary and secondary-level education, but not for tertiary teaching where a PhD research degree is sufficient?

Sure, it can't hurt to offer more scholarships to prospective PhD students. But why the focus on industry funding? Perhaps the Government should recognise the importance of research and innovation in the form of economic commitments to the future of Australian research: PhD students and research funding grants. Furthermore, industry partners are unlikely to invest in PhDs and research that do not produce tangible outcomes and economic returns. With a focus on industry funding, what will happen to 'high risk' research that may not produce commercialable outcomes, but lay the foundation for future 'applied' research? Who will drive the ideas for the research: industry needs, or 'blue sky' academic innovation? This question can easily be answered by observing the inequality of funding and research resources allocated to the various faculties at Universities. It is not surprising to see money oozing out of engineering, IT, science, finance, and health, compared to the less industry-friendly (but equally essential to society) areas of history, politics, philosophy, and creative arts. Is this where university research is destined under the proposed industry-sponsored scholarships plan of the G8 universities?

Jointly funding PhD scholarships between Government and industry may sound appetising to universities and prospective PhD students (who wouldn't want the best of both worlds?), but in practice such arrangements can be more trouble than they're worth. In reality, IP is a money-making business, but who owns the IP generated from jointly funded research? In addition, the Government measures university research by counting academic publications and citations, and the delay in having publications approved by the IP layers of industry can be enough to miss crucial deadlines. Having industry and academic supervisors agree on research direction for a PhD can also be a challenge when both parties have different goals and timelines; such split agendas can greatly affect how much say a PhD student has on the topic, direction, and future of their own PhD.

Scholarships should indeed match industry salaries to attract more PhD students, but matching industry conditions must extend beyond just economic equality. Here, universities have a large role to play in attracting and keeping PhD students. No company would allocate office space to employees with furniture reminiscent of the days of wooden veneer, chairs that would make any chiropractor cringe, hand-me-down computers or an equally abysmal situation: computers shared between students. Not to mention Internet and email quotas that do not reflect the needs of online research and communication: would you settle for a university email account one-hundredth the size of a Gmail account? So why would students want to study PhDs and be subject to such (lack of) facilities, spend at least three years in the forgotten, non air-conditioned, windowless dark corners and basements of universities, when jobs in industry command so much more, economically and beyond?

The intentions of the G8 universities are noble: if there are downward trends in PhD student enrolments and young academics in Australia, then perhaps scholarships will increase numbers in PhD programs. But have PhD student dropout rates been considered: are prospective students signing up to PhDs and then moving onto greener pastures? The G8 universities are naive to propose that students can simply be wooed with money, when the problems of dwindling PhD student numbers and research and innovation (or lack thereof) in Australia are heavily influenced by industry interest in research, universities recognising the contributions and importance of PhD students, and the Government supporting research (quality not quantity) and tertiary education in Australia.