Faculty and graduate students at Johns Hopkins University, an elite private research institution that costs undergrads $61,000 per year, are up in arms about a new strategic plan that proposes sweeping changes (and cuts) to its Ph.D. programs. Some 275 graduate students, concerned about the viability of their departments, have petitioned the university to reconsider, arguing to Inside Higher Ed that such downsizing could be emulated around the country if it takes effect. But these grad students should be more concerned about their viability after the Ph.D.—which is grim. Johns Hopkins knows this, and is taking drastic but needed measures. I’m all for it, and I’d be delighted, not dismayed, if other universities emulated this strategy.
Here’s the plan, which faculty and students have demanded the administration reconsider: Over the course of the next five years, Hopkins would like to cut its graduate enrollment by 25 percent, and use those savings to raise the remaining grad-student stipends (what “nonemployees” get instead of a salary) to $30,000 per year.
This reduction would result in fewer graduate seminars. More importantly, though, instead of roughly one-half the instruction in the university being done by graduate students, only one-fourth would be, and this will put senior faculty in more contact with the undergraduate hoi polloi than they have been in decades. (The fact that Hopkins plans to fire no tenured faculty—merely to force them into contact with undergrads—is why these reductions seem much more reasonable than the ones at, say, Minnesota State University–Moorhead.) Meanwhile, the grad students that do remain will be paid well: that $30,000 is straight-up baller cash in the grad-school world—current stipends at JHU are around $20,000, and I received around $16,000 at UC–Irvine.
There are certainly reasons to be apprehensive about this plan. What good is a research university if its faculty and graduate students don’t do enough research? Pushing the boundaries of what is known—creating new knowledge—is a tremendously important job, in all disciplines, from medicine to the sciences to the humanities. There’s legitimate cause to worry that with all that pesky undergrad teaching, Hopkins—and after it every Research I level university in the country—will turn into a mere “teaching school,” those liberal-arts colleges and regional institutions that are looked upon with great scorn by the academically powerful.
And Hopkins’ potential new hiring strategies could be a minefield if they don’t do it right: They want to “lean junior” and replace some of the university’s few remaining highly-paid superstars with junior faculty. And that’s great on the surface, but how many of those new faculty will be off the tenure track, subject to dismissal for no reason, afraid to speak freely about important issues because an angry mob could get them fired? They also want to replace graduate TAs with “professional TAs.” Red flag: That means adjuncts, and unless they’re paid a full-time salary with benefits, that extortionate Hopkins tuition will be a blatant rip-off.
Nonetheless, the likely shortcomings of the strategic plan pale in comparison to its benefits. First of all, as important as research is, the way it is currently conducted in American universities helps faculty do nothing except head to an early grave. Whereas even a decade ago a single well-received book and a handful of articles were sufficient to secure tenure, nowadays there are many Ph.D.s with those credentials who cannot even land a tenure-track job. And for the lucky ones who do get hired, sometimes nothing is good enough to get tenure, no matter what they do.