<p>All of the NSF proposals have detailed budgets, that list the number of people, % effort (or months) devoted to the project for scientists in each category, with post docs and grad students listed separately. Tuition is a separate line item. The budget has to be approved by the program office and the grant office. As far as I know, NSF does not have set figures, unlike NIH.</p>
<p>University of Denver is going to build a new 110,000-square-foot STEM building on campus.</p>
<p>I think that most people are in agreement.</p>
<p>Many PostDocs get salaries from federal grants. Their salaries reflect the taxpayers support. IF US born Ph.D. don’t want to accept this salary, foreigners do.</p>
<p>I personally had J1 visa and H1B visa. No practical difference (for academia). No, I don’t have to leave US after my J visa had expired. Exceptions - when fellowship specifically mentions that it should be used “for training of an international student who would return to home country to disseminate knowledge”. Such grants are rare in STEM, but often in political sciences, for example.</p>
<p>I really don’t think that the number of H1B visas change anything in PostDocs salaries in academia. </p>
<p>Remember the late 90s? The quota for H1B visa was so high, that anyone could get H1B within a month. Yet, the salaries of postdocs were the same as today. And entry-position salaries in industry were much higher than today.</p>
<p>Quant, could you enlighten me on something that I would have a hard time asking someone in person? My D is a undergrad CS major taking upper division classes. The pure undergrad classes are comprised of US kids (based on appearances), but the classes that have both grad and undergrad have grad students who are mostly foreign born Asians and Indians. What visa are they here on, I wonder? Are they here to stay, or just to get a grad degree?</p>
<p>"Post doc funding guidelines at NIH starting in October of this year show 43,933 "</p>
<p>Yet, many labs pay less than the recommended amount. They can’t pay more, they just don’t have money!</p>
<p>Big name universities (Stanford-Harvard) pay less to PostDocs than some unknown ones. Why? Because PostDocs would accept a pay cut for an opportunity to work in a famous lab.</p>
<p>Most PostDoc positions are for 2 years (with a possibility of renewal). Why 6 years? PostDocs are not slaves, they can leave lab at any moment, if they find a better job. </p>
<p>PostDoc position offers nice benefits and flexibility. Often PostDocs get housing on campus, really cheap. Daycare is also often subsidized.</p>
<p>Treetopleaf, grad student visas are comparatively easy to get. Offhand, I forget the designation of the student visas. </p>
<p>With regard to the J1 visas, post-PhD, I have had three post docs who would not take a J1, because they would have to return to their home countries for a period after the J1 expired. This may have changed, but I feel as though I read this on the J1 information sheet. I don’t think it was just local advice. There are ways to get around the requirement for return, perhaps–a J1 might be convertible into an H1B before it expires?</p>
<p>Treetopleaf </p>
<p>Most grad students are here to stay, convert their J visas into H1B visas, and get green cards. </p>
<p>I wrote in a different thread, that many labs have problems to find good US grad students for Ph.D. programs. IMHO, the problem is that adcoms are selecting undergrads that are leaders-athletes-visionaries-whatever else … but labs need just normal, hardworking students. Since adcoms select against normal, (plain, boring) hardworking students, foreigners are filling Ph.D. programs.</p>
<p>I didnt think schools had enough housing on campus for freshmen, let alone for post docs.
But I suppose that varies with school popularity.
There is only so much land available to build dorms.</p>
<p>Personally, I don’t know that any NIH post docs are paid less than the recommended amount. Post docs supported on grants from other agencies may be paid less than the amount that the NIH recommends.</p>
<p>I don’t think we offer on-campus housing to post docs. We very rarely offer on campus housing to grad students.</p>
<p>Certain classes of J-1 “Exchange Visitors” require that the alien return to his/her home country or country of last permanent residence for a period of two (2) years upon completion of their J-1 status. The alien must spend the two-year period in country they resided in at the time they received the J-1 visa. Such classes include: </p>
<p>Individuals who have obtained their J-1 status through programs financed either in whole or in part by the U.S. government or individual’s home country government; </p>
<p>Individuals who at the time of admission or acquisition of status was engaged in a field which was on the Department of State Exchange Visitor Skills List; or, </p>
<p>Individuals who have received medical training within the U.S. as interns or residents. </p>
<p>Not all persons of J-1 status are required to return to their home country.</p>
<p>Thanks for the clarification, californiaaa. My post-docs would all have fallen into the category of individuals “financed either in whole or in part by the U.S. government,” through grants.</p>
<p>I don’t believe they change the salary at NIH. Even high school and college students automatically get paid what are expected to or work for free. I don’t believe there is an in between.</p>
<p>"Personally, I don’t know that any NIH post docs are paid less than the recommended amount. "</p>
<p>I know that some PostDocs are getting less than $50,000 in the labs that rely heavily on NIH grants. I don’t know how it is done.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It could also be that American students have a relatively easy job finding a well paying job within the US compared to non-citizens. So, those students see a PhD or MS done at a US school as a pathway to employment within the US.</p>
<p>I also don’t believe that at the graduate level the people doing admissions are looking for student athletes or leaders. They’re looking for the most effective researchers that will get the job done in their lab.</p>
<p>Right, RacinReaver. californiaaa’s argument has been that the emphasis on leadership and sports in undergrad admissions at “top” places reduces the number of students at “top” schools who are likely to continue for graduate work. You will not see this among the undergrads at Caltech, where I think you still are.</p>
<p>I think that the connection between undergrad admissions criteria and the number of American citizens in US grad programs is actually quite complicated. I am not sure that if the “top” schools admitted on academics and work ethic only, we would get more American citizens going to STEM grad school. But that might happen–the admissions criteria at the top schools do tend to affect the time-allotment choices made by strong students, even if they are not admitted to a “top” school, or even planning to apply. But a change in the admissions criteria at the top schools could paradoxically result in fewer US citizens going to grad school in STEM fields. It’s hard to say without running the experiment.</p>
<p>californiaaa, post #54–did you mean “less than $50,000” or “less than $40,000”? Less than $50,000 is still consistent with NIH guidelines.</p>
<p>PIs with multiple sources of research funding could appoint post-docs at NIH rates while the post-docs are NIH supported (for a period of months), and at lower rates when they are supported on a grant from a different source, I suppose.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The corporate parallel is one that I have observed - they prefer to hire ‘leaders’ - maybe because they feel few can question the wisdom of hiring a wonderboy - and then watch them leave after a few years to greener pastures where they can actually get promoted and lead. It takes exceptional company management to properly mentor and manage room fulls of wonderboys, and - rarer still - to offer them adequate advancement opportunities. A majority of solid worker bee hires would be preferable, IMO, in heavy tech fields anyway.</p>