It's harder to recruit PhD students and it's harder to fund them. NSF budget was cut 55% in the first year. The administration is doing everything possible to make it clear that no foreigners are welcome here. America is stabbing itself directly in the brain.
There is an other thing that should make America worry.
Research grants have been cut everywhere in the US. That cuts deep and terminated many scientific collaborations between USA and the EU Horizons projects in many STEMs research fields.
That created a void.... and sciences is like nature: it hates void (and the lack of money...)
My perception in the domain is that the resulting void is been fulfilled everywhere by new collaborations with China. Because China has the money, the infrastructures, the will to progress and a shit ton of smart engineers/PhDs.
There is today 10x more conferences in China... more exchange with China... more common projects with China than 10y ago.
So congratulations to the Trump team: your stupidity and your hate for intellectualism is directly fueling new technologies to the country you consider 'your enemy'.
You being an outside observer of my country, what do you think the mid-term (next ~decade) looks like if the US is somehow able to flush the toilet and do a complete 180 from a policy and administration perspective? I imagine even if people we need are welcomed back with open arms, they're not going to want to come. I sure wouldn't want to go back to a bar where the bouncer kicked the shit out of me!
Just curious, it's hard to see things clearly from inside the carnival.
Hi, I looked into joint collaborations between many countries and EU, but honestly I didn't really find anything EU-China that was interesting, most funding agencies do not fund collaborative projects EU-China, or maybe I'm missing something, in any cases it didn't strike me. If you have some examples I would be curious.
There are way more opportunities with other countries that I'm aware of, mostly EU-EU.
I certainly believe you, but you're missing the point of the
current administration goals. Trump wont be around in 10 years
when the consequences of their actions become clear. In fact, he is gone in 3 years, and the admin is only concerned
within that timeframe. Their strategy is quite
clear: please their base while simultaneously positioning the
family for influence on a global scale.
> So congratulations to the Trump team: your stupidity and your hate for intellectualism is directly fueling new technologies to the country you consider 'your enemy'.
Do we have any evidence that they actually consider China (or Russia) to be "the enemy"? They are fellow authoritarians, with a shared goal of normalizing domestic political suppression.
Unpopular opinion: there has been a steady decline of standards in the research community in the past decade or two. First reproducibility crisis. Then, some topics becoming political taboo where the unorthodox opinion would get you fired and canceled. The credibility of the science in the West has been falling, and the recent change of administration is predictably axing something that has a perceived strong bias in the opposite direction.
An optimist in me hopes that we can get back to unbiased science, where it doesn't have to agree with the current side, but both sides perceive it as fair and agree to leave it alone for common good. A realist thinks that it will happen in China, and the West has just run out of steam.
> It's harder to recruit PhD students and it's harder to fund them
If it’s harder to fund them then it should be easier to recruit them. I don’t think both can be true at the same time, unless you’re saying it’s harder to fund foreign PhD’s with US tax dollars in which case I think you’ll find limited sympathy for your cause.
Maybe I’m missing something, but why can’t it be true? If I’m a PhD deciding what to do with the next few years of my life, the fact that government jobs currently seem very unstable might make PhDs hesitant to choose this path. There’s probably also at least some PhDs (given the overwhelmingly left leaning politics of grad students) that don’t want to be involved with this administration. So maybe more PhDs are going into the private sector.
On the other side, budget cuts might mean that you have less money to spend on the PhDs that are interested.
So it doesn’t seem inherently contradictory to me.
STEM people in science (used to) populate places like NIH, NSF and other granting agencies. Theh were project managers responsible for funding decisions, or actual researchers. Remember that people used think that pharma just did marketing with all the new drug ideas coming from academia or government labs? Well, these people were either the ones paying the academic labs or actually generating what pharma marketed.
They also were the project managers and researchers in places like NRL and ARL, the premier research labs in the Navy and Army. Guiding weapon development along with the blue/green suits. They staffed DOE labs doing funding and research for things that went bump in the night, cleanup, energy development, etc.
PhD's are the psychologists on staff in the VA helping glue veterans back together. They're also the -ologists (immune, endocrine, ...) who work with the MD's to diagnose and treat people. They also review new drug proposals to make sure they're tested for safety and effectiveness.
There's probably some salted through the other departments doing things like agronomy, geology, ... Things that help food and energy production. There's more than you think in the various security agencies - people were surprised why the government was hiring for computational linguistics back in the 80's. They also handle funding for things that turned into that Net/Web thingie you're using to read this.
Is it useful to have these kind of people on the public purse? Depends on whether you think funding research, regulating drugs, weapon research and cleanup, treating patients, ... are important. They're cheaper than the corresponding private individuals would be if they were contractors or being paid externally.
I think, for the VA specifically at least, this isn't accurate. I'm sure they have some phd psychologists around for other things but the bulk of the work you mentioned will be done by counselors with masters degrees and some psychiatrists overseeing them. Psychiatrists, as well as "the -ologists" you mentioned, are specialized medical doctors. They all get the same schooling and then specialize through the residency system.
An MD is a doctorate-level degree and MD + residency is generally considered enough education for even research within a speciality, certainly patient care within it. MD/PhDs are rare, usually doing policy/leadership or extremely specific technical R&D. Almost never see them doing patient care, when you do it's normally because they misunderstood their own career interests in their 20s and now have to live with it.
This thing is real bad but psych treatment at the VA isn't why.
There have been a huge amount of cuts to the Veteran's Administration disguised. Hiring has been frozen, then people leave and their positions can't be filled, then they cut that position saying "it wasn't filled so wasn't needed".
I believe the opposite is happening in China. I saw an article the other day ( https://fortune.com/2026/01/14/china-graduates-1-3-million-e... ) that showed how the amount of engineers being produced there is orders of magnitude greater than the US. Way above what you'd expect given the different sizes of population. Now, i realize an engineer isn't the same as a PhD but i think we're seeing a dramatic brain drain happening in the west.
I’m not a PhD, just an engineer and I moved out of The Netherlands. It was no longer economical feasible to live there. I am very pessimistic about the future Western Europe. Right now it offers the one of the best QoL in the world for the average worker but who knows for how long. With the current brain and wealth drain there will no longer be enough people to support the social system.
There was an interesting Freakonomics podcast a few months back that pointed out an interesting divide in how the US and China thinks about its leaders[0].
> China is a country that is run by engineers, while the U.S. is a country run by lawyers. Engineers, he explains, are driven to build while lawyers are driven to argue, and obstruct.
Even Trump:
> And even though Donald Trump is not a lawyer by any means, I think he is still a product of the lawyerly society, because lawsuits have been completely central to his business career. He has sued absolutely everyone. He has sued business partners, he has sued political opponents, he has sued his former lawyers as well. And there is, I think, something still very lawyerly about Donald Trump in which he is flinging accusations left and right, he’s trying to intimidate people, trying to establish guilt in the court of public opinion
Very interesting take and I think insightful on why the US is the way it is today and sidesteps the democracy vs autocracy debate.
The problem with these threads is everyone wants to complain but support drops drastically when you talk about policies that actually help buffer against the far-right. Eg implementing robust safety nets and low inequality, to reduce status anxiety and grievance. How many of you software engineers want to sign up for high taxes? It's basically tragedy of the commons.
Economics on its own is probably not sufficient either. You probably also need widespread unionization, a Cordon Sanitaire, and probably German-style intelligence surveillance of the far-right too.
This isn't a taxes issue. The assault on higher education and the sciences by this administration is inseparable from the assault on minorities and free speech. This is the authoritarian playbook 101. Mao went as far as locking up all the PhD's and sending them to work camps.
Yes it's a taxes issue, because that's how you pay for European-style safety nets. And again that's probably not enough either, cause Denmark/Netherlands are having issues with housing causing the far-right to surge. So you probably need Vienna-style public housing too. The US is so far from the correct solutions you're not even on the same planet.
And this is only the beginning. Once the U.S. fully transforms into a China-like totalitarian state, complete with a social rating system and cameras for automatic payments everywhere, we will witness the collapse of educational institutions, the downfall of innovative companies, and an inability to address external multi-trillion dollar debt.
Because we don’t need to focus on getting people into government who we can trust to represent our interests as their prime duty. No, what we really want to focus on is finding MORE PEOPLE WITH DOCTORATES. Yes.
The implicit assumption that this is a bad thing is grounded in the assumption that anyone who is a STEM PhD is automatically someone the US government should want to employ, which I don't think is true. Academia is a badly broken system, and many people with formal credentials like PhDs have wasted huge amounts of time and effort on producing what is ultimately low-quality scientific work. This is a pretty uncontroversial statement among people I know in academia - or who were in academia but left - and this should absolutely affect the degree to which federal government agencies are willing to hire people who have formal credentials like a STEM PhD.
It sounds like you're saying that this is a step in the direction of "fixing" academia. I don't see any evidence of that, all i see is fewer scientists receiving decreasing funding in a state where weve already been slashing basic research investment for generations. Also, there is no evidence that the ones that are leaving are the least productive. Intuitively it's likely the opposite: the ones who have the most potential will find work elsewhere and will be the first to leave.
EDIT: I would also like to say that i have never seen evidence that we can measure the performance of 10k PhDs in a single dimension at all. So a claim that this could be good for scientific research and development seems unprovable at best.
I'm not claiming that this is a step in the direction of fixing academia; I'm claiming that, because academia is currently broken, we shouldn't assume that the ~10k people who got PhDs under the current system are people doing actually-valuable work for the federal government and ultimately the American people.
You are assuming there is meaningful work for them in the federal government. There might be more productive work for them in industry. Their contribution to the workforce could put pressure on inflated salaries, if that is the case.
If their credentials exceed their defacto responsibilities in the government, they might be blocking someone else from being promoted or otherwise "growing" or whatever.
Why do you feel like you can state this like its fact?
Just to save you energy, state that you are conservative first before writing fan fiction fantasy like that, because it will save people a lot of time assuming that you are speaking some sort of facts.
The tail of the distribution justifies the entire distribution. I agree that a large percentage of PhD research is inconsequential, but a small percentage is massively consequential. It’s ok to whiff on a thousand STEM PhDs if you pick up one Andrej Karpathy (for example).
The number of people capable of identifying potentially consequential research is smaller than the number of people performing consequential research. And they’re all busy with their own projects.
Maybe this is true for academic institutions granting the PhDs (although even this I am skeptical of, training a PhD costs a lot in terms of time, money, and human effort). But that doesn't mean it implies that the federal government needs to employ a thousand STEM PhDs just to get someone like Karpathy - indeed, Andrej Karpathy does not work for the federal government! He made his name working in the private sector!
Maybe, let's see if AI overall is a net positive or net negative to the US overall. If AI turns out to be a net negative (which seems likely) maybe we don't want this type of AI research being funded by taxpayers.
Can we agree academia is the worst system, except for all the others?
In the last century, the US led so many tech fields because of both academic and corporate research and the people to do it. Let's fix that system if needed and keep it well stocked.
The alternative is ignorance, leading to unskilled industries and an easily misled electorate.
10k PhDs lost isn't a step in the direction of fixing anything, though. There is little to no evidence that the people leaving aren't the top performers, let alone the bottom.
Why wouldn't stem PhDs follow some bell curve of quality? I'm sure many PhDs that are leaving don't contribute but some of them do. I personally don't see a reason for it to be skewed for only PhDs which don't contribute to leave.
> The implicit assumption that this is a bad thing is grounded in the assumption that anyone who is a STEM PhD is automatically someone the US government should want to employ,
No, you're making a completely illogical jump there, that is absolutely not assumed in any way.
The assumption, if there is one, is that the position that the work PhD was doing in the government served the public good, more than they were being paid.
US Government science positions are not academia, so your second sentence does not even apply to this! Unless your assumption is that if the person was trained with science that did little then their training can not be applied to anything that is worthwhile, which is an obviously false assumption.
Arguments with these sorts of gaping logical holes are the only defenses I ever see of cutting these positions. I have searched hard, but never found a defense that bothered to even base itself in relevant facts, and connect through with a logically sound argument.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but it sure is damning when in a democracy there's not even a fig leaf of an intellectually sound argument backing a drastic and massive change in policy.
Most PhDs don't move the needle because the point of a PhD is to learn how to do research, not to produce ground-breakingly original work that reinvents the entire scientific order.
That's orthogonal to domain expertise and general ability.
If you can survive a PhD there's an adequate chance you know more about your subject than an undergrad and are more capable of focused independent work.
That's what employers are buying. Which is why STEM PhDs still get more attention from the private sector than generic mass-produced undergrads.
People have tabulated the value of the academic pipeline, from grant to paper to patent to stock valuation. It is overall very valuable, even if you grant the very real issues with our hyper-competitive grant system.
This intellectual capital is valuable, despite whatever the latest populist memes about professors claim.
You may be right in the general sentiment that not everyone with a PhD is a desirable candidate, but even if half of them were, that would be 5,000 fewer and that isn’t insignificant, especially in STEM fields.
I have yet to hear a criticism of academia where it sounds like we're better disproportionately losing people with PhDs than without them, particularly since most of those people got their PhDs quite a while ago.
PhDs seem to be quite employable by private industry, where competency is still valued.
You don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. Just because some PhD students make "low quality science" doesn't mean we end academia. After all, who is going to do the high quality science if you get rid of all the scientists?
Lots of scientists work in industry. Look at AI, rocketry, semiconductors, drug design, robotics, anything related to manufacturing. Academics are in the minority in these fields. You could eliminate all such jobs and there'd be plenty of science being done.
> The implicit assumption that this is a bad thing is grounded in the assumption that anyone who is a STEM PhD is automatically someone the US government should want to employ
No, not really? That would be true if we were talking about hiring anyone with a STEM PhD. Or 1 random person.
In this case we have people leaving, and it's a group. So it's more like: The assumption that 10k PhD's, that we saw fit to hire in the first place, as a collective, are worth the cost.
Seems likely that they are: The cost is low, let's say $2 billion per year? For reference, Trumps Big Bill includes $300 billion in new defense spending and "over a ten-year period is estimated to add roughly $3 trillion to the national debt and to cut approximately $4.46 trillion in tax revenue".
Also, let's say there were too many, and you should get rid of 10 000 of them. I doubt the guy who keeps rambling for 1 and a half hour [1] and keeps getting "Greenland" and "Iceland" mixed up, is going to do a good job with it.
hmm, I was thinking
>The implicit assumption that this is a bad thing is grounded in the assumption
that in a large enough set of something there should be considered to be a normal distribution of high quality, medium quality and lower quality members in the set, unless one can show the distribution is biased in some way.
You're kind of throwing the baby out with the bathwater here. Sure, some PhDs are in underwater basket weaving and barely warranting the title. However, most PhDs are extremely valuable. They are pushing the boundaries of our knowledge to improve society.
Some part of the hatred for the current academic system stems from legitimate concerns about how it operates. However, I think this hate is mostly driven by rampant anti-intellectualism. Fueled in part by pseudo scientific scammers trying to sell you supplements on TikTok and religious demagogues.
The problem with this framing is that it treats a mass exodus as if it were selective pruning. Losing 10,000+ STEM PhDs in weeks isn’t a quality filter. We’re hemorrhaging institutional capacity. We lose researchers who understand decade-long datasets, technical experts who can evaluate contractor claims, and people who can actually critique scientific literature when making policy decisions.
Where’s the evidence these specific 10k were the low performers? The more likely scenario is that better performers left because they have options, while weaker performers stayed. If the issue is quality, you’d want systematic performance review, not mass departure driven by factors unrelated to competence.
That’s a straw man argument. Losing 10 people becomes a question of their individual qualifications, losing 10,000 people and this is no longer about individuals.
Some of the people who left where underperforming but a significant percentage where extremely underpaid while providing extreme value to average Americans.
The number seems arbitrary. Maybe we should be subsidizing until we have 100,000 more.
I'm always skeptical when something is presumed to be a universal good in a way that's unfalsifiable. What metrics would you expect to see if we had too many STEM PhDs? What metrics can we expect to improve if we had more of them?
One would also have to consider the calibre of the individuals hired to replace them, or not, and whether functions such as the National Science Foundation add more or less value to the government than functions the government has chosen to increase its spending on...
What's the correct level of STEM PhD employment in the government? Maybe those levels were way too high. But on a different note, we can't tell from the article what normal fluctuations look like. It only shows 2024 as the baseline, but ideally we'd look at a larger window than that as well as look at the percentage rather than nominal figures.
10k PhDs would mean 10k dissertations. I thought the popular narrative is that finding new knowledge has become too hard or much harder than in the past, so how are these grad students finding stuff that is new? Are these dissertations extremely incremental or just repackaging/regurgitating stuff?
In my experience legitimately talented people are staying, and the guy whose impressive education credentials seem to train him mostly how to write very wordy excuses for his shortage of actual work product is going back home. Maybe you have a different experience, but my experience is something that seems to be echoed among a lot of people in my social circle.
My experience is that people with talent are both driven and valued. Someone who might disagree with the current administration politically but is doing exactly what they want to do with their life in a role that generates measurable utility for the taxpayer is not packing up and leaving, nor losing their job. But many pieces of gristle are getting trimmed off the American government.
That exodus was only 3% of the 335,192 federal workers who exited last year but represents 14% of the total number of Ph.D.s in science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) or health fields employed at the end of 2024 as then-President Joe Biden prepared to leave office.
Would be interesting to see the age of these STEM or health fields employees. What if they were all over the age of 70? Would that still bother everyone?
Do you think this article was framed to cause outrage and frustration?
Well - I would not want to work under the orange king either. The
guy kind of tries to have some revival of the 1930s era with the
hipster TechBros. I think they need to compensate everyone else
with their wealth - just redistribute their wealth at once,
equally. Many people will be happy. Few superrich oligarchs will
not be happy. That's the way to go. Everything else just a weak
distraction.
I came here to see if the comments could explain to my why this obviously bad thing is actually good. Its somewhat comforting to see others worried about the implication. The fact is that governments (aka public funding) is really what drives the biggest most impactful sorts of scientific breakthroughs. Think: NASA spinoffs, the internet, rocketry, MRNA, etc.
I know that the US has been failing to fund important things like Fusion for more than 40 years now but its sad and scary to see it halting.
Not everyone agress that those things are necessarily good. I think the Apollo program for example was a massive waste of money that didn't improve anything for the average person. It was mostly just a dick-swinging contest with the USSR to see who had the biggest rocket and could get people to the moon first.
In the current social climate I would absolutely not trust public media to understand general consensus. Ask specific people you trust or seek out their opinions.
It is good for EU but I belive he was pointing to these hurr durr emigrants bad people. Usually the same people which conveniently always forget that they probalby come as much poorer people than these ones.
There's a good chance they'd have been put to use strengthening the advertisement-dopamine-corporate control cycle that humanity is currently suffering under.
> Science’s analysis found that reductions in force, or RIFs, accounted for relatively few departures in 2025. Only at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, where 16% of the 519 STEM Ph.D.s who left last year got pink RIF slips, did the percentage exceed 6%, and some agencies reported no STEM Ph.D. RIFs in 2025.
> At most agencies, the most common reasons for departures were retirements and quitting. Although OPM classifies many of these as voluntary, outside forces including the fear of being fired, the lure of buyout offers, or a profound disagreement with Trump policies, likely influenced many decisions to leave.
So similar to most of the other federal agency reductions, around 5-10% were formally let go but the majority left voluntarily.
- "departing Ph.D.s took with them a wealth of subject matter expertise and knowledge about how the agencies operate".
Whether such "expertise and knowledge" is worthwhile or exclusive to these Ph.D.s, or even useful at all, remains to be seen.
Every time I've seen a PhD enter a private organization they've gummed up the works and left only after bollixing things up. While possibly excellent for hard science research, PhDs can have a POV incompatible with solving problems quickly.
What this means is that even MORE than the usual STEM PhDs will be entering the private sector, possibly further gumming up the works, as bosses try to fit PnDs (round pegs) into private jobs (square holes).
This is a tale as old as time. Anyone who's followed AI research has seen this happen.
Take Geoffrey Hinton and his students, for one example. Moved from the USA to Canada in the Regan era. Hinton (and Canada in general) saw an influx of otherwise USA-bound students from 2016 on. And it's just happening again.
I was a PhD student in deep learning ("AI") in the US from 2018 through 2022. The "Muslim ban" at the time saw so many students who had their eyes set on the United States look elsewhere. During the 2020 election cycle, a fellow PhD student of mine (I was the only English student in an all-Chinese lab) thought Trump would win the election, and expressed that as, "I am so so so so so sad". (Anyone who has tried expressing their feelings in a language new to them will recognize this pattern of using intensifiers like this.)
But the Project 2025 changes we saw were unique. In my perspective as a former academic, I don't think people outside academia generally appreciate the extent to which the reputation the United States had for research has been damaged.
> But the Project 2025 changes we saw were unique.
I'm not sure what you're saying. Until the last paragraph, you seem to say that it's just the same thing continuing.
As an academic you know that such claims are irrelevant without quantifying them. For example, the US has had inflation continuously for decades; does that mean recent inflation is not significant? How about 1980 compared with 1960? If my town is washed away by a flood, I don't say, 'we've always had rain'.
If 14% of the PhDs employed by the U.S. Government was 10,109, then there were about 72,207 total. That's about 3.2% of the civilian government, compared to 2.1% in the public workforce (and 1.3% of population).
So, the government tends to employ PhDs at a substantially higher (~50%) rate than the public workforce.
Edit: Yeah, oops, people generally use public / private the other way around.
There's a big difference between cutting off all foreign-born talent—and addressing the serious issue of graduate school turning into an immigration racket; the current issue with graduate degrees is a very close mirror to the issue with H1b worker visas. The abuse of both systems has harmed Americans—and to some extent the long-term health of the tech industry and the academy.
I think for any proposal to change policy that has serious impacts on the economics of the country, we should really be very clear on what problem we see, how we plan to solve it, and what specific trade-offs we're making with our solutions.
Presumably: AI automates the person-to-pseudonym connection, the searching of small bits of biographical data that accounts leak over long periods of time, across all accounts over the internet. Dedicated sleuths could do this in the past, but now it's fast and easy and at the touch of a button.
So people that are at risk, say, by having a government job, or doing publicly funded research that produces science for the common good, can now be automatically identified, blacklisted, fired, etc. etc. etc. en masse. This would have taken too many person-hours to be worthwhile for a newly installed political manager at NSF or NIH. But that list is now an easy purchase from a government contractor, named after a nefarious communication device from an SF novel, and grants are currently being cancelled on far flimsier political grounds than that.
Based on the public comments available from the HackerNews user dewey, here is an overview of their opinions and perspectives related to government, politics, and the US:
Political Leanings and Philosophy
* Skepticism of the "Left/Right" Binary: The user has expressed a critical view of the partisan divide, suggesting that both sides are equally prone to tribalism. They noted that "it's no different on either side with how willing they are to believe something horrendous about the other side," which they believe interferes with objective interpretation.
* Systemic Cynicism: In some discussions, the user has characterized Western democracy as a "sham," arguing that the citizenry does not make significant choices. They have suggested that elections are subject to large-scale manipulation through mass media and that "the range of acceptable opinions... are determined by the real rulers—presumably the billionaire class."
* Pragmatic Localism: Despite their cynicism toward national politics, the user has advocated for local engagement. They argue that a citizen can effectively advocate for tangible improvements at the local level (e.g., public parks, youth programs) more effectively than through large-scale political movements.
Views on the US Government and Public Policy
* Efficiency and Technology: The user views government software and infrastructure through an investment lens. They have argued that if people want a cost-efficient government, they should "treat the software landscape as an investment opportunity," suggesting that public software could be treated as a "public utility" to save money in the long run.
* Regulatory Complexity: In discussions about the Library of Congress and state laws, they noted that the density of classifications/laws is "nonuniform," pointing out that states like New York and California have highly complex legal structures compared to others.
* Skepticism of "Big Tech" Collaboration: The user expressed frustration with the relationship between government-mandated security and private software, comparing some "security audits" and "box-checking" processes to the "silliest parts of the TSA process," which they feel provide little actual security value.
Other Relevant Topics (as per your request)
* Income/Wealth: While their personal income is not stated, they frequently critique "concentrated corporate power" and the "billionaire class," expressing concern that AI and LLMs may exacerbate this concentration.
* Religion/Philosophy: They have referenced an interest in philosophy (specifically the "Analytic-Continental divide" and philosophers like Richard Rorty) and have discussed the spread of "subversive beliefs" like Christianity in a historical context, viewing religion as a subject of sociological and philosophical study.
* Personal Life: The user has mentioned being a father with a mortgage, which they cite as a reason for their increased interest in local politics and wanting to "leave it better than I found it."
In summary, the user does not clearly identify as "left-wing" or "right-wing" in a traditional sense. Their views lean toward populist-skepticism and pragmatic localism, combined with a critique of both corporate power and partisan political "teams."
> Visa applicants are required to list all social media usernames or handles of every platform they have used from the last 5 years on the DS-160 visa application form.
good thing i can talk myself in a circle to pretend everything bad is good. yes, in years past i touted the fact that all the best minds in the world want to come to america as a reason america no. 1, but now thst that doesn't seem to be the case as much, america still no. 1 somehow. see how i'm moving around electons on the internet? i'm really thinking, aren't i?
It's harder to recruit PhD students and it's harder to fund them. NSF budget was cut 55% in the first year. The administration is doing everything possible to make it clear that no foreigners are welcome here. America is stabbing itself directly in the brain.
European researcher here.
There is an other thing that should make America worry.
Research grants have been cut everywhere in the US. That cuts deep and terminated many scientific collaborations between USA and the EU Horizons projects in many STEMs research fields.
That created a void.... and sciences is like nature: it hates void (and the lack of money...)
My perception in the domain is that the resulting void is been fulfilled everywhere by new collaborations with China. Because China has the money, the infrastructures, the will to progress and a shit ton of smart engineers/PhDs.
There is today 10x more conferences in China... more exchange with China... more common projects with China than 10y ago.
So congratulations to the Trump team: your stupidity and your hate for intellectualism is directly fueling new technologies to the country you consider 'your enemy'.
You being an outside observer of my country, what do you think the mid-term (next ~decade) looks like if the US is somehow able to flush the toilet and do a complete 180 from a policy and administration perspective? I imagine even if people we need are welcomed back with open arms, they're not going to want to come. I sure wouldn't want to go back to a bar where the bouncer kicked the shit out of me!
Just curious, it's hard to see things clearly from inside the carnival.
1 reply →
Hi, I looked into joint collaborations between many countries and EU, but honestly I didn't really find anything EU-China that was interesting, most funding agencies do not fund collaborative projects EU-China, or maybe I'm missing something, in any cases it didn't strike me. If you have some examples I would be curious.
There are way more opportunities with other countries that I'm aware of, mostly EU-EU.
I certainly believe you, but you're missing the point of the current administration goals. Trump wont be around in 10 years when the consequences of their actions become clear. In fact, he is gone in 3 years, and the admin is only concerned within that timeframe. Their strategy is quite clear: please their base while simultaneously positioning the family for influence on a global scale.
> So congratulations to the Trump team: your stupidity and your hate for intellectualism is directly fueling new technologies to the country you consider 'your enemy'.
Do we have any evidence that they actually consider China (or Russia) to be "the enemy"? They are fellow authoritarians, with a shared goal of normalizing domestic political suppression.
Unpopular opinion: there has been a steady decline of standards in the research community in the past decade or two. First reproducibility crisis. Then, some topics becoming political taboo where the unorthodox opinion would get you fired and canceled. The credibility of the science in the West has been falling, and the recent change of administration is predictably axing something that has a perceived strong bias in the opposite direction.
An optimist in me hopes that we can get back to unbiased science, where it doesn't have to agree with the current side, but both sides perceive it as fair and agree to leave it alone for common good. A realist thinks that it will happen in China, and the West has just run out of steam.
[dead]
> It's harder to recruit PhD students and it's harder to fund them
If it’s harder to fund them then it should be easier to recruit them. I don’t think both can be true at the same time, unless you’re saying it’s harder to fund foreign PhD’s with US tax dollars in which case I think you’ll find limited sympathy for your cause.
> unless you’re saying it’s harder to fund foreign PhD’s with US tax dollars in which case I think you’ll find limited sympathy for your cause.
As your sibling pointed out, the end result is China benefiting from that void.
Maybe I’m missing something, but why can’t it be true? If I’m a PhD deciding what to do with the next few years of my life, the fact that government jobs currently seem very unstable might make PhDs hesitant to choose this path. There’s probably also at least some PhDs (given the overwhelmingly left leaning politics of grad students) that don’t want to be involved with this administration. So maybe more PhDs are going into the private sector.
On the other side, budget cuts might mean that you have less money to spend on the PhDs that are interested.
So it doesn’t seem inherently contradictory to me.
STEM people in science (used to) populate places like NIH, NSF and other granting agencies. Theh were project managers responsible for funding decisions, or actual researchers. Remember that people used think that pharma just did marketing with all the new drug ideas coming from academia or government labs? Well, these people were either the ones paying the academic labs or actually generating what pharma marketed.
They also were the project managers and researchers in places like NRL and ARL, the premier research labs in the Navy and Army. Guiding weapon development along with the blue/green suits. They staffed DOE labs doing funding and research for things that went bump in the night, cleanup, energy development, etc.
PhD's are the psychologists on staff in the VA helping glue veterans back together. They're also the -ologists (immune, endocrine, ...) who work with the MD's to diagnose and treat people. They also review new drug proposals to make sure they're tested for safety and effectiveness.
There's probably some salted through the other departments doing things like agronomy, geology, ... Things that help food and energy production. There's more than you think in the various security agencies - people were surprised why the government was hiring for computational linguistics back in the 80's. They also handle funding for things that turned into that Net/Web thingie you're using to read this.
Is it useful to have these kind of people on the public purse? Depends on whether you think funding research, regulating drugs, weapon research and cleanup, treating patients, ... are important. They're cheaper than the corresponding private individuals would be if they were contractors or being paid externally.
NRL et al do a lot more than just weapons research too.
I think, for the VA specifically at least, this isn't accurate. I'm sure they have some phd psychologists around for other things but the bulk of the work you mentioned will be done by counselors with masters degrees and some psychiatrists overseeing them. Psychiatrists, as well as "the -ologists" you mentioned, are specialized medical doctors. They all get the same schooling and then specialize through the residency system.
An MD is a doctorate-level degree and MD + residency is generally considered enough education for even research within a speciality, certainly patient care within it. MD/PhDs are rare, usually doing policy/leadership or extremely specific technical R&D. Almost never see them doing patient care, when you do it's normally because they misunderstood their own career interests in their 20s and now have to live with it.
This thing is real bad but psych treatment at the VA isn't why.
There have been a huge amount of cuts to the Veteran's Administration disguised. Hiring has been frozen, then people leave and their positions can't be filled, then they cut that position saying "it wasn't filled so wasn't needed".
[flagged]
We are seeing the same in The Netherlands:
https://delta.tudelft.nl/en/article/fewer-phd-positions-and-...
https://www.sciencelink.net/features/its-not-just-about-mone...
I believe the opposite is happening in China. I saw an article the other day ( https://fortune.com/2026/01/14/china-graduates-1-3-million-e... ) that showed how the amount of engineers being produced there is orders of magnitude greater than the US. Way above what you'd expect given the different sizes of population. Now, i realize an engineer isn't the same as a PhD but i think we're seeing a dramatic brain drain happening in the west.
I’m not a PhD, just an engineer and I moved out of The Netherlands. It was no longer economical feasible to live there. I am very pessimistic about the future Western Europe. Right now it offers the one of the best QoL in the world for the average worker but who knows for how long. With the current brain and wealth drain there will no longer be enough people to support the social system.
31 replies →
There was an interesting Freakonomics podcast a few months back that pointed out an interesting divide in how the US and China thinks about its leaders[0].
Even Trump:
Very interesting take and I think insightful on why the US is the way it is today and sidesteps the democracy vs autocracy debate.
[0] https://freakonomics.com/podcast/china-is-run-by-engineers-a...
3 replies →
And since China cracked down on the tech industry there aren't enough jobs for those new STEM graduates, so many are stuck doing gig work: https://asiasociety.org/policy-institute/19-percent-revisite... .
It is because China has a meritocratic system.
2 replies →
The problem with these threads is everyone wants to complain but support drops drastically when you talk about policies that actually help buffer against the far-right. Eg implementing robust safety nets and low inequality, to reduce status anxiety and grievance. How many of you software engineers want to sign up for high taxes? It's basically tragedy of the commons.
Economics on its own is probably not sufficient either. You probably also need widespread unionization, a Cordon Sanitaire, and probably German-style intelligence surveillance of the far-right too.
This isn't a taxes issue. The assault on higher education and the sciences by this administration is inseparable from the assault on minorities and free speech. This is the authoritarian playbook 101. Mao went as far as locking up all the PhD's and sending them to work camps.
Not taxes. Authoritarianism.
Yes it's a taxes issue, because that's how you pay for European-style safety nets. And again that's probably not enough either, cause Denmark/Netherlands are having issues with housing causing the far-right to surge. So you probably need Vienna-style public housing too. The US is so far from the correct solutions you're not even on the same planet.
> departures outnumbered new hires last year [2025] by a ratio of 11 to one, resulting in a net loss of 4224 STEM Ph.D.s
Competency holds less regard than sycophancy and loyalty. Who can kiss ass the best? who is least likely to question the Führerprinzip?
It is no coincidence that these kinds of personality-based dictatorships often devolve into dysfunction as time goes on.
And this is only the beginning. Once the U.S. fully transforms into a China-like totalitarian state, complete with a social rating system and cameras for automatic payments everywhere, we will witness the collapse of educational institutions, the downfall of innovative companies, and an inability to address external multi-trillion dollar debt.
China-like is too complimentary to the intelligence of US leadership at the moment.
My heavens!
Because we don’t need to focus on getting people into government who we can trust to represent our interests as their prime duty. No, what we really want to focus on is finding MORE PEOPLE WITH DOCTORATES. Yes.
Would you say that the number of people you can trust to represent our interests as their prime duty has gone up recently?
The implicit assumption that this is a bad thing is grounded in the assumption that anyone who is a STEM PhD is automatically someone the US government should want to employ, which I don't think is true. Academia is a badly broken system, and many people with formal credentials like PhDs have wasted huge amounts of time and effort on producing what is ultimately low-quality scientific work. This is a pretty uncontroversial statement among people I know in academia - or who were in academia but left - and this should absolutely affect the degree to which federal government agencies are willing to hire people who have formal credentials like a STEM PhD.
It sounds like you're saying that this is a step in the direction of "fixing" academia. I don't see any evidence of that, all i see is fewer scientists receiving decreasing funding in a state where weve already been slashing basic research investment for generations. Also, there is no evidence that the ones that are leaving are the least productive. Intuitively it's likely the opposite: the ones who have the most potential will find work elsewhere and will be the first to leave.
EDIT: I would also like to say that i have never seen evidence that we can measure the performance of 10k PhDs in a single dimension at all. So a claim that this could be good for scientific research and development seems unprovable at best.
I'm not claiming that this is a step in the direction of fixing academia; I'm claiming that, because academia is currently broken, we shouldn't assume that the ~10k people who got PhDs under the current system are people doing actually-valuable work for the federal government and ultimately the American people.
9 replies →
It also flies in the face of China's currently accelerating pace of research and breakthroughs by producing insane numbers of STEM majors and PhDs
16 replies →
You are assuming there is meaningful work for them in the federal government. There might be more productive work for them in industry. Their contribution to the workforce could put pressure on inflated salaries, if that is the case.
If their credentials exceed their defacto responsibilities in the government, they might be blocking someone else from being promoted or otherwise "growing" or whatever.
People start being inventive when tight on resources, so a bit of evolutionary pressure is not a bad thing.
>Academia is a badly broken system,
Why do you feel like you can state this like its fact?
Just to save you energy, state that you are conservative first before writing fan fiction fantasy like that, because it will save people a lot of time assuming that you are speaking some sort of facts.
The tail of the distribution justifies the entire distribution. I agree that a large percentage of PhD research is inconsequential, but a small percentage is massively consequential. It’s ok to whiff on a thousand STEM PhDs if you pick up one Andrej Karpathy (for example).
The number of people capable of identifying potentially consequential research is smaller than the number of people performing consequential research. And they’re all busy with their own projects.
People have really messed up views about hiring in general. I wish more people understood what you are saying here.
Maybe this is true for academic institutions granting the PhDs (although even this I am skeptical of, training a PhD costs a lot in terms of time, money, and human effort). But that doesn't mean it implies that the federal government needs to employ a thousand STEM PhDs just to get someone like Karpathy - indeed, Andrej Karpathy does not work for the federal government! He made his name working in the private sector!
Maybe, let's see if AI overall is a net positive or net negative to the US overall. If AI turns out to be a net negative (which seems likely) maybe we don't want this type of AI research being funded by taxpayers.
Picking only the tail ends of the distribution also tells me you don't understand how the bulk of progress is made.
It isn't always Eureka moments but also a slow grinding away at assumptions to confirmations.
The US doesn’t have enough money to fund the entire distribution
And as a tax payer I prefer discretionary spending for high performers.
1 reply →
Can we agree academia is the worst system, except for all the others?
In the last century, the US led so many tech fields because of both academic and corporate research and the people to do it. Let's fix that system if needed and keep it well stocked.
The alternative is ignorance, leading to unskilled industries and an easily misled electorate.
10k PhDs lost isn't a step in the direction of fixing anything, though. There is little to no evidence that the people leaving aren't the top performers, let alone the bottom.
2 replies →
Academia critics usually think it was pretty great until the last 3-5 decades.
Wouldn't an easily misled electorate benefit the political party that lies the most?
2 replies →
Why wouldn't stem PhDs follow some bell curve of quality? I'm sure many PhDs that are leaving don't contribute but some of them do. I personally don't see a reason for it to be skewed for only PhDs which don't contribute to leave.
These things are not in conflict. It's possible that PhD quality has a regular distribution, and that most of them aren't contributing much.
1 reply →
> The implicit assumption that this is a bad thing is grounded in the assumption that anyone who is a STEM PhD is automatically someone the US government should want to employ,
No, you're making a completely illogical jump there, that is absolutely not assumed in any way.
The assumption, if there is one, is that the position that the work PhD was doing in the government served the public good, more than they were being paid.
US Government science positions are not academia, so your second sentence does not even apply to this! Unless your assumption is that if the person was trained with science that did little then their training can not be applied to anything that is worthwhile, which is an obviously false assumption.
Arguments with these sorts of gaping logical holes are the only defenses I ever see of cutting these positions. I have searched hard, but never found a defense that bothered to even base itself in relevant facts, and connect through with a logically sound argument.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but it sure is damning when in a democracy there's not even a fig leaf of an intellectually sound argument backing a drastic and massive change in policy.
Saying "oh these are just the bad STEM PhDs" seems like a ridiculous exercise in sour graping.
Most PhDs don't move the needle because the point of a PhD is to learn how to do research, not to produce ground-breakingly original work that reinvents the entire scientific order.
That's orthogonal to domain expertise and general ability.
If you can survive a PhD there's an adequate chance you know more about your subject than an undergrad and are more capable of focused independent work.
That's what employers are buying. Which is why STEM PhDs still get more attention from the private sector than generic mass-produced undergrads.
People have tabulated the value of the academic pipeline, from grant to paper to patent to stock valuation. It is overall very valuable, even if you grant the very real issues with our hyper-competitive grant system.
This intellectual capital is valuable, despite whatever the latest populist memes about professors claim.
You may be right in the general sentiment that not everyone with a PhD is a desirable candidate, but even if half of them were, that would be 5,000 fewer and that isn’t insignificant, especially in STEM fields.
Academia may be broken, but a lot of bright students still pursue PhDs and it's better to have them in your pool of candidates rather than not.
I have yet to hear a criticism of academia where it sounds like we're better disproportionately losing people with PhDs than without them, particularly since most of those people got their PhDs quite a while ago.
PhDs seem to be quite employable by private industry, where competency is still valued.
No, the implicit assumption is that losing these 10k PhDs is worse than not losing them.
You don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. Just because some PhD students make "low quality science" doesn't mean we end academia. After all, who is going to do the high quality science if you get rid of all the scientists?
Lots of scientists work in industry. Look at AI, rocketry, semiconductors, drug design, robotics, anything related to manufacturing. Academics are in the minority in these fields. You could eliminate all such jobs and there'd be plenty of science being done.
> The implicit assumption that this is a bad thing is grounded in the assumption that anyone who is a STEM PhD is automatically someone the US government should want to employ
No, not really? That would be true if we were talking about hiring anyone with a STEM PhD. Or 1 random person.
In this case we have people leaving, and it's a group. So it's more like: The assumption that 10k PhD's, that we saw fit to hire in the first place, as a collective, are worth the cost.
Seems likely that they are: The cost is low, let's say $2 billion per year? For reference, Trumps Big Bill includes $300 billion in new defense spending and "over a ten-year period is estimated to add roughly $3 trillion to the national debt and to cut approximately $4.46 trillion in tax revenue".
Also, let's say there were too many, and you should get rid of 10 000 of them. I doubt the guy who keeps rambling for 1 and a half hour [1] and keeps getting "Greenland" and "Iceland" mixed up, is going to do a good job with it.
1: Seriously, I dare you to try to watch it, I tried. At least hes "draining the swamp" /s https://www.youtube.com/live/qo2-q4AFh_g?si=Hwu3MSXouOfEfJCa...
I fail to see how any of that is relevant to what the article is about, which is people who were already employed by the government leaving.
hmm, I was thinking >The implicit assumption that this is a bad thing is grounded in the assumption
that in a large enough set of something there should be considered to be a normal distribution of high quality, medium quality and lower quality members in the set, unless one can show the distribution is biased in some way.
You're kind of throwing the baby out with the bathwater here. Sure, some PhDs are in underwater basket weaving and barely warranting the title. However, most PhDs are extremely valuable. They are pushing the boundaries of our knowledge to improve society.
Some part of the hatred for the current academic system stems from legitimate concerns about how it operates. However, I think this hate is mostly driven by rampant anti-intellectualism. Fueled in part by pseudo scientific scammers trying to sell you supplements on TikTok and religious demagogues.
foxyv says "most PhDs are extremely valuable"
Can you defend this statement?
The problem with this framing is that it treats a mass exodus as if it were selective pruning. Losing 10,000+ STEM PhDs in weeks isn’t a quality filter. We’re hemorrhaging institutional capacity. We lose researchers who understand decade-long datasets, technical experts who can evaluate contractor claims, and people who can actually critique scientific literature when making policy decisions.
Where’s the evidence these specific 10k were the low performers? The more likely scenario is that better performers left because they have options, while weaker performers stayed. If the issue is quality, you’d want systematic performance review, not mass departure driven by factors unrelated to competence.
That’s a straw man argument. Losing 10 people becomes a question of their individual qualifications, losing 10,000 people and this is no longer about individuals.
Some of the people who left where underperforming but a significant percentage where extremely underpaid while providing extreme value to average Americans.
The number seems arbitrary. Maybe we should be subsidizing until we have 100,000 more.
I'm always skeptical when something is presumed to be a universal good in a way that's unfalsifiable. What metrics would you expect to see if we had too many STEM PhDs? What metrics can we expect to improve if we had more of them?
7 replies →
One would also have to consider the calibre of the individuals hired to replace them, or not, and whether functions such as the National Science Foundation add more or less value to the government than functions the government has chosen to increase its spending on...
What's the correct level of STEM PhD employment in the government? Maybe those levels were way too high. But on a different note, we can't tell from the article what normal fluctuations look like. It only shows 2024 as the baseline, but ideally we'd look at a larger window than that as well as look at the percentage rather than nominal figures.
2 replies →
10k PhDs would mean 10k dissertations. I thought the popular narrative is that finding new knowledge has become too hard or much harder than in the past, so how are these grad students finding stuff that is new? Are these dissertations extremely incremental or just repackaging/regurgitating stuff?
Do you believe that 100% of the people who left were useless?
Do you think that's what is going on here?
In my experience legitimately talented people are staying, and the guy whose impressive education credentials seem to train him mostly how to write very wordy excuses for his shortage of actual work product is going back home. Maybe you have a different experience, but my experience is something that seems to be echoed among a lot of people in my social circle.
My experience is that people with talent are both driven and valued. Someone who might disagree with the current administration politically but is doing exactly what they want to do with their life in a role that generates measurable utility for the taxpayer is not packing up and leaving, nor losing their job. But many pieces of gristle are getting trimmed off the American government.
9 replies →
Usually, when a system is broken, the correct course of action is to fix it. Not destroy it utterly.
Ahh yes, clearly any government would greatly benefit by having way fewer highly educated conscientious people working for them /s
We should round up and reeducate people with glasses. /s
[dead]
Peter Gregory reincarnated.
[flagged]
US Academia will struggle to keep their current PhDs in administrative positions. If it quacks like a Ponzi...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higher_education_bubble_in_the...
https://students.bowdoin.edu/bowdoin-review/features/death-b...
https://www.reddit.com/r/highereducation/comments/13rno6w/wh...
These are the wages of nationalism. A stupid but powerfully attractive idea.
That exodus was only 3% of the 335,192 federal workers who exited last year but represents 14% of the total number of Ph.D.s in science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) or health fields employed at the end of 2024 as then-President Joe Biden prepared to leave office.
Would be interesting to see the age of these STEM or health fields employees. What if they were all over the age of 70? Would that still bother everyone?
Do you think this article was framed to cause outrage and frustration?
> What if they were all over the age of 70? Would that still bother everyone?
Why should anyone consider this hypothetical? Are you advocating for an age limit of 70 for working for the government?
> Do you think this article was framed to cause outrage and frustration?
No.
Unless a comparable number of younger PhDs were hired to compensate, it’s a reduction of PhD-level federal workers in either case.
Well - I would not want to work under the orange king either. The guy kind of tries to have some revival of the 1930s era with the hipster TechBros. I think they need to compensate everyone else with their wealth - just redistribute their wealth at once, equally. Many people will be happy. Few superrich oligarchs will not be happy. That's the way to go. Everything else just a weak distraction.
The scarier part is that a lot of people will see this as good news.
I came here to see if the comments could explain to my why this obviously bad thing is actually good. Its somewhat comforting to see others worried about the implication. The fact is that governments (aka public funding) is really what drives the biggest most impactful sorts of scientific breakthroughs. Think: NASA spinoffs, the internet, rocketry, MRNA, etc.
I know that the US has been failing to fund important things like Fusion for more than 40 years now but its sad and scary to see it halting.
Is it not a good thing that these folks could do something more productive in the private sector?
Just on your Fusion example alone: https://techcrunch.com/2025/12/31/every-fusion-startup-that-...
Wouldn't it be better if companies like these had a larger pool of PhDs to pull from?
Private sector does some things better, see Rocket Lab, Blue Origin, SpaceX, et al.
This _is_ a good thing.
10 replies →
Not everyone agress that those things are necessarily good. I think the Apollo program for example was a massive waste of money that didn't improve anything for the average person. It was mostly just a dick-swinging contest with the USSR to see who had the biggest rocket and could get people to the moon first.
2 replies →
In the current social climate I would absolutely not trust public media to understand general consensus. Ask specific people you trust or seek out their opinions.
3 replies →
Why? If they instead move to EU, that's a win for EU.
Scientists tell people things they don't want to hear
2 replies →
It is good for EU but I belive he was pointing to these hurr durr emigrants bad people. Usually the same people which conveniently always forget that they probalby come as much poorer people than these ones.
You know he means some US citizens who are anti- intellectual due to a combination of insecurities and propaganda by the Republican party
GP’s point is that because being anti-science is on the rise.
Because academia and University research is broken at best and leftist breeding ground at worst /s
[flagged]
There's a good chance they'd have been put to use strengthening the advertisement-dopamine-corporate control cycle that humanity is currently suffering under.
> Science’s analysis found that reductions in force, or RIFs, accounted for relatively few departures in 2025. Only at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, where 16% of the 519 STEM Ph.D.s who left last year got pink RIF slips, did the percentage exceed 6%, and some agencies reported no STEM Ph.D. RIFs in 2025.
> At most agencies, the most common reasons for departures were retirements and quitting. Although OPM classifies many of these as voluntary, outside forces including the fear of being fired, the lure of buyout offers, or a profound disagreement with Trump policies, likely influenced many decisions to leave.
So similar to most of the other federal agency reductions, around 5-10% were formally let go but the majority left voluntarily.
anyone else think the infographic is absolutely awful? why put number of employed instead of number of people hired?
seems like it was made to fit a specific narrative...
tl;dr summary:
- "a net loss of 4224 STEM Ph.D.s"
Far less than the headline "10k"
- "departing Ph.D.s took with them a wealth of subject matter expertise and knowledge about how the agencies operate".
Whether such "expertise and knowledge" is worthwhile or exclusive to these Ph.D.s, or even useful at all, remains to be seen.
Every time I've seen a PhD enter a private organization they've gummed up the works and left only after bollixing things up. While possibly excellent for hard science research, PhDs can have a POV incompatible with solving problems quickly.
What this means is that even MORE than the usual STEM PhDs will be entering the private sector, possibly further gumming up the works, as bosses try to fit PnDs (round pegs) into private jobs (square holes).
This is a tale as old as time. Anyone who's followed AI research has seen this happen.
Take Geoffrey Hinton and his students, for one example. Moved from the USA to Canada in the Regan era. Hinton (and Canada in general) saw an influx of otherwise USA-bound students from 2016 on. And it's just happening again.
I was a PhD student in deep learning ("AI") in the US from 2018 through 2022. The "Muslim ban" at the time saw so many students who had their eyes set on the United States look elsewhere. During the 2020 election cycle, a fellow PhD student of mine (I was the only English student in an all-Chinese lab) thought Trump would win the election, and expressed that as, "I am so so so so so sad". (Anyone who has tried expressing their feelings in a language new to them will recognize this pattern of using intensifiers like this.)
But the Project 2025 changes we saw were unique. In my perspective as a former academic, I don't think people outside academia generally appreciate the extent to which the reputation the United States had for research has been damaged.
> This is a tale as old as time.
> But the Project 2025 changes we saw were unique.
I'm not sure what you're saying. Until the last paragraph, you seem to say that it's just the same thing continuing.
As an academic you know that such claims are irrelevant without quantifying them. For example, the US has had inflation continuously for decades; does that mean recent inflation is not significant? How about 1980 compared with 1960? If my town is washed away by a flood, I don't say, 'we've always had rain'.
If 14% of the PhDs employed by the U.S. Government was 10,109, then there were about 72,207 total. That's about 3.2% of the civilian government, compared to 2.1% in the public workforce (and 1.3% of population).
So, the government tends to employ PhDs at a substantially higher (~50%) rate than the public workforce.
Edit: Yeah, oops, people generally use public / private the other way around.
[dead]
[dead]
[flagged]
Yup, so that we can loose our innovation edge and loose the next Apple, Google or Nvidia. Amazing plan.
There's a big difference between cutting off all foreign-born talent—and addressing the serious issue of graduate school turning into an immigration racket; the current issue with graduate degrees is a very close mirror to the issue with H1b worker visas. The abuse of both systems has harmed Americans—and to some extent the long-term health of the tech industry and the academy.
13 replies →
They already lost their innovation edge with TikTok but they were able to steal it back with brute force. They must be counting on doing that again.
A simple house in the South Bay is $2 million or more. Is this a win for humanity?
7 replies →
Could be the biggest own goal in human history.
4 replies →
What problem are you hoping to fix by doing this?
I think for any proposal to change policy that has serious impacts on the economics of the country, we should really be very clear on what problem we see, how we plan to solve it, and what specific trade-offs we're making with our solutions.
> What problem are you hoping to fix by doing this?
He/she is saying the quiet part out loud. It was never about illegal immigration. Illegal immigration is just the start.
The underlying theme is xenophobia, racism and bigotry.
3 replies →
The account was created 2 hours ago. Everything is dead internet theory.
Indeed -- it's just bots talking to bots.
[flagged]
Sir, this is a Wendy's (restaurant)
It's a tech news site.
[flagged]
What does AI have to do with that?
Presumably: AI automates the person-to-pseudonym connection, the searching of small bits of biographical data that accounts leak over long periods of time, across all accounts over the internet. Dedicated sleuths could do this in the past, but now it's fast and easy and at the touch of a button.
So people that are at risk, say, by having a government job, or doing publicly funded research that produces science for the common good, can now be automatically identified, blacklisted, fired, etc. etc. etc. en masse. This would have taken too many person-hours to be worthwhile for a newly installed political manager at NSF or NIH. But that list is now an easy purchase from a government contractor, named after a nefarious communication device from an SF novel, and grants are currently being cancelled on far flimsier political grounds than that.
This is all public information about you easily accessible
What are this user of HackerNews a left wing or right wing? What are his opinions on the current US government Please justify in topics
https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=dewey
---
Based on the public comments available from the HackerNews user dewey, here is an overview of their opinions and perspectives related to government, politics, and the US: Political Leanings and Philosophy * Skepticism of the "Left/Right" Binary: The user has expressed a critical view of the partisan divide, suggesting that both sides are equally prone to tribalism. They noted that "it's no different on either side with how willing they are to believe something horrendous about the other side," which they believe interferes with objective interpretation. * Systemic Cynicism: In some discussions, the user has characterized Western democracy as a "sham," arguing that the citizenry does not make significant choices. They have suggested that elections are subject to large-scale manipulation through mass media and that "the range of acceptable opinions... are determined by the real rulers—presumably the billionaire class." * Pragmatic Localism: Despite their cynicism toward national politics, the user has advocated for local engagement. They argue that a citizen can effectively advocate for tangible improvements at the local level (e.g., public parks, youth programs) more effectively than through large-scale political movements. Views on the US Government and Public Policy * Efficiency and Technology: The user views government software and infrastructure through an investment lens. They have argued that if people want a cost-efficient government, they should "treat the software landscape as an investment opportunity," suggesting that public software could be treated as a "public utility" to save money in the long run. * Regulatory Complexity: In discussions about the Library of Congress and state laws, they noted that the density of classifications/laws is "nonuniform," pointing out that states like New York and California have highly complex legal structures compared to others. * Skepticism of "Big Tech" Collaboration: The user expressed frustration with the relationship between government-mandated security and private software, comparing some "security audits" and "box-checking" processes to the "silliest parts of the TSA process," which they feel provide little actual security value. Other Relevant Topics (as per your request) * Income/Wealth: While their personal income is not stated, they frequently critique "concentrated corporate power" and the "billionaire class," expressing concern that AI and LLMs may exacerbate this concentration. * Religion/Philosophy: They have referenced an interest in philosophy (specifically the "Analytic-Continental divide" and philosophers like Richard Rorty) and have discussed the spread of "subversive beliefs" like Christianity in a historical context, viewing religion as a subject of sociological and philosophical study. * Personal Life: The user has mentioned being a father with a mortgage, which they cite as a reason for their increased interest in local politics and wanting to "leave it better than I found it." In summary, the user does not clearly identify as "left-wing" or "right-wing" in a traditional sense. Their views lean toward populist-skepticism and pragmatic localism, combined with a critique of both corporate power and partisan political "teams."
3 replies →
And? Are usernames not anonymous? Is ICE checking your HN comments at the border?
> Visa applicants are required to list all social media usernames or handles of every platform they have used from the last 5 years on the DS-160 visa application form.
https://ml.usembassy.gov/u-s-requires-public-social-media-se...
1 reply →
Yeah, it's a good strategy to tell people to be afraid and shut up whilst the AI learns from the most ignorant among us.
This is worth saying to protect those who are currently doing good things, but at risk of losing their job or funding if they say something.
Those who have nothing to lose: post away, please. Those most affected by this are the least able to speak up.
Freedom of speech rarely protected people's jobs, even in the best of times, but we are in the very worst of times right now for free speech.
[flagged]
That's the same link as OP? I don't think flagging prevents you from clicking it, only hides it from the front page.
It's easier to reference.
good thing i can talk myself in a circle to pretend everything bad is good. yes, in years past i touted the fact that all the best minds in the world want to come to america as a reason america no. 1, but now thst that doesn't seem to be the case as much, america still no. 1 somehow. see how i'm moving around electons on the internet? i'm really thinking, aren't i?