But the claim that "a PhD is a necessary step to _specific_ well-paying and fulfilling careers" isn't incompatible with the GP comment's claim that intrinsic motivation makes people shoulder these crappy conditions, just like (eg) actors. It's pretty well-known that PhDs are, on average, _terrible_ career moves from a self-interest and financial perspective. This is common knowledge among literally everybody I've ever met who has any exposure to academia. Hell, Piled Higher and Deeper has been around for more than _20 years_; my university's paper syndicated it.
Just like struggling actors, PhDs put up with low pay and bad conditions to take a shot at something they want to do, with the additional wrinkle that they're (nominally) increasing their human capital in a way that a failing actor isn't. Nothing about your comment rebuts the GP comment's claim that there's nothing unique about academia in this respect.
From Princeton's policies, particularly the last sentence:
"Graduate study at Princeton, at both the doctoral and, in most cases, the master’s level, requires full-time commitment to study and research on the part of students. The Graduate School’s financial support structure, which extends throughout the length of the student’s program and ordinarily includes summers, is one indication of that requirement. Accordingly, the Graduate School considers employment beyond full fellowship, teaching or research support or its equivalent to be incompatible with full-time graduate study."[0]
It's even worse for international students. Under F1 visa, you can't work more than 20 hours on campus. However, all TA positions are deemed 20 hours of work. So you can't even work at the campus gym if you want.
This is not true at Princeton. Unless they are without funding, PhD students there commonly only work 10 hours per week (nominally) as TAs. The regular stipend is also generous compared to many other programs.
"This means that international students on a full AI or full AR appointment are not eligible for additional on-campus work, even if the Graduate School employment policy would otherwise allow it."
How can they say this, and then also ask their graduate students to teach? They're contradicting themselves.
Your comment is unrealistic and even absurd to the majority of those going through the PhD threadmill.
It's like saying you can dunk a basketball if you'd want to. Sure, show me LeBron James and how easy it is for him, but for those of us who aren't benefitting from abnormal competitive advantages then it's not that realistic.
How many people are lucky enough to be able to not only work a full-time job that pays the bills and is close enough to grad school and also be able to be in a field where literally part-time amateurs can do all the required academic work to write papers, a whole dissertation and defend a decent thesis? And in the end do well enough to aspire to have a career in your field of research?
You have a better chance of dunking on LeBron James.
"Let them eat cake."
Research is already a full time job.
Lots of folks trying to sell you a path to success.
It's like if you want to be a General, you are going to have to be a Private first. There is a progression in the sciences.
That's not how the military works at all. A Private is an enlisted rank, and their career path typically tops out at a level like Warrant Officer.
If you want to be a General, you're going to have to start as a Lieutenant (the lowest commissioned officer).
What proportion of officers in the US Armed Forces graduates from the military academies? A third? I very much doubt graduating from one is required to become a general. Being a great political operator is but it’s not like only military academy graduates can do that.
That's not entirely true, though as I understand it is becoming more true; there are definitely places that will promote to positions for which the normal route is a post-graduate degree based on a lesser degree plus experience (including publications under the rubric of experience).
Now, university faculty positions, degree standards tend to be ironclad, though.
There’s a way that academics come off which I don’t think they intend to - which is somehow their path is special and their trials are unique.
They’re not.
Yes, it is sold as such. But the appeal is fading fast.
Academia nowadays is something between a Beauty Pageant and the Hunger Games where people struggle with underpayment for years for maybe one day getting the famed tenured position.
But then the disappointing part is that the system in place is designed to exploit newcomers and place them in an abuse relationship where they are forced to go through the ringer as indentured servants hoping that their ultimate goal is just around the corner.
You may quote simplistic cliches regarding economy and career choices, but the truth of the matter is that the grad school system is designed to be a monopoly where grad students have absolutely no power or influence over their career other than quitting, which ultimately results in total and definite exclusion from the industry, and thus are forced to endure years of indentured servitude. As a grad student you don't have the freedom to switch schools, negotiate your salary, or even be recognized as an employee.
This example demonstrates the absolute lack of power or influence that grad students have: if you disagree with your supervisor then say goodbye to your whole career.