More or less graduate applicants because of the bad economy?

<p>I read the article tenisghs linked to. (a) Let's overlook that the author was just trying to kick up dirt with extreme generalizations to see (b) all the points were basically the same one point: don't go to grad school if that wasn't your original intention and you're not studying for the profession for which the degree is meant. Grad school only "pointlessly delays adulthood" for those who say "There are a lot of possibilities with a JD; I'll get one and see where it takes me" or "My parents say I can't do anything with a Bio BS besides wash beakers unless I go into medicine, and my grades are good, so medical school isn't a bad idea." (Variations: my brother finished his law/medical/business degree and he's happy as a clam now, I kinda like school and it won't be too out of my way to do the same thing I am now for the next few years if I can't get a job anyway, etc.)</p>

<p>@ my state U application numbers are up (because there really isn't anywhere to go work) and admissions will be decreasing (because there is a severe budget deficit in the U).</p>

<p>This page was linked in the article tenisghs linked to: Women</a> in Science</p>

<p>Well that's discouraging. I guess if those were my priorities I would've done engineering or business. I think he missed the point about Condoleeza Rice in his example though, the fact that she followed her interests rather than let people tell her what to do / is practical led her to whatever she has achieved in life.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Summers was deservedly castigated, but not for the right reasons. He claimed to be giving a comprehensive list of reasons why there weren't more women reaching the top jobs in the sciences. Yet Summers, an economist, left one out: Adjusted for IQ, quantitative skills, and working hours, jobs in science are the lowest paid in the United States.</p>

<p>This article explores this fourth possible explanation for the dearth of women in science: They found better jobs.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Very interesting. My friend's mother is a math genius. She got her PhD in math at a prestigious university. She never did the academia/research-track gig. What is her occupation today? She has her own business now. Makes good money too. </p>

<p>I think more women than ever realize that owning a (small) business is the best path to financial stability and personal happiness.</p>

<p>Yeah, I honestly think that's why a lot of people I know in real life are getting PhD's... to move up in the business world. That's why I was kind of shocked by how many graduate students I meet who say they're aiming for professorship someday. (But maybe that's just because I know a good number of people in biotech or who intend to go into biotech)</p>

<p>Also, one generation of my family were all business women with varying degrees of success. I think that running your own business is the way to make the most money and potentially have the most financial stability. However, like working in small start-ups, it can be high risk, high gain... It also depends on your business sense. Some people are smart but have no business sense whatsoever.</p>

<p>I think the idea is too "one size fits all". In the end, being successful is more about knowing yourself and what makes you happy, and matching your skill set to the right career.</p>

<p>I agree with a lot of people here that adcom will be able to tell people who have been prepping for PhD for a while now, from the others. At least in life sciences, you most likely need years of research and a few publications if you can help it - not to mention establishing close mentors who can then be your recommenders and supporters.</p>

<p>There's nothing that can be done about decreased funding/ number of slots though... it's a tough time for everyone, for sure.</p>