Some PhD programs are suspending admissions, as advocated by many for years because of the lousy academic job market. The @chronicle says this will “help the programs devote funding to their current students.” But it depends where funding comes from. 1/6 https://www.chronicle.com/article/more-doctoral-programs-suspend-admissions-that-could-have-lasting-effects-on-graduate-education

Most public PhD programs don’t have a fixed pot of $ that they then divvy up to whoever is there. Funding formulas vary, but at many institutions, including my own, public funds are tied to student #s. Fewer PhDs = less money for PhDs (+ less tuition $ direct from PhDs). 2/6

In contrast, private institutions, especially the richest, may draw more from fixed endowments, regardless of # of students. And look: the @chronicle list shows the comprehensive closings are at private universities; public unis are only shutting select programs. 3/6

And internally, both public and private universities have widely adopted activity-based or RCM budget models that are again basically # of students=$. Cut your intake=cut your own budget.
4/6

I can only speculate on the mechanics behind all these different program suspensions, but I’d be interested in their budget models and whether units have negotiated ‘no harm’ to their funding. And if so, who in the university is covering the cost. 5/6

This is an example of the complexity behind PhD programs and any attempts to change them. @JLisaYoung @loleen_berdahl and I recently surveyed faculty and found support for “reducing PhD numbers”. But the idea that reducing # s means more funding for the rest is suspect. 6/6 https://twitter.com/apsatweets/status/1312029590358036482