Yes i've agreed with you that there is an issue being addressed over contract research. However, with limited resources, the logical outcome of this will be probably fewer better paid more secure academic jobs. This is hardly great news for those doing a PhD who have even less opportunities to prove themselves in an academic career with fewer posts available on PhD graduation. HE pay has been bad but the pay settlement last year was a good move in the right direction - certainly if academics complained again now they wouldn't get much of a hearing. HE spending is going to be tight over the next few years. The government can hardly be expected to invest more in HE when they can't afford to give pay inflation equivalent pay rises to key public sector workers.

Perhaps if the PhD was more a nationally organised qualification like GCSEs and A levels it would be possible to let all PhD students know the reality of job vacancies at the end of their PhD, but at the moment it probably still does rely on the PhD student making a professional judgement about how likely they are to get different kinds of jobs at the end. I don't think though that it is a very liberal approach to prevent extra people doing a PhD beyond the number of academic posts available either because they want the opportunity to learn for longer or because they want to use their PhD more imaginatively than the traditional academic career trajectory. So I definitely don't think there should be a restriction on PhD numbers.

I wish I'd written as many words on my lit review as Commonsense has managed on this thread today...

"Perhaps if the PhD was more a organised qualification"

But its not.

Its an idiosyncratic training to be an academic, is of dubious value to employers and requires you to discard lots if you leave academia.

" it does rely on making a judgement about how likely they are to get jobs"

How is a PhD student (often only 21) in any way equiped to make such a complex decision? Ask the supervisor (who is likely to be extolling the virtues)? Or the equally clueless students already in the system?

"I don't think there should be a restriction on PhD numbers."

That attitude means we all suffer. The limitless supply of PhD graduates means the qualification is devalued for ALL . Professions retain their value by limiting entry, which is why they keep their salaries high,(remember doctors are publically funded too and are on 100k, but they limit their intake of students).

"I wish I'd written as many words on my lit review as Commonsense has managed on this thread today..."

The main thing my PhD taught me- How to type lots in a very short time.

"...and why aren't others joining in?"

Sadly, I find myself in full agreement with BHC Matt. Said person appears to be the voice of 'common sense' in this thread, for me anyway.

btw, i recommend that anyone who is genuinely interested in the value of academic titles (and the change over time), and the functioning of the educational system within society (allocating and legitimising status positions within society), should read some bourdieu. for example the book "social reproduction".

in a nutshell, bourdieu argues that it is only logical that at the same time that a certain educational title becomes genuinely available to large segments of society, based on (more or less) merit, rather than social background, it loses its function of providing status and income.

"That attitude means we all suffer. The limitless supply of PhD graduates means the qualification is devalued for ALL . Professions retain their value by limiting entry, which is why they keep their salaries high,(remember doctors are publically funded too and are on 100k, but they limit their intake of students)."

Your attitude basically is the same as the old fashioned, economically illiterate argument that only a small number of people should be able to do an undergraduate degree otherwise it becomes devalued. But in fact lots of people deserve the opportunity to do an undergraduate degree, and a small minority (beyond the number of academics jobs available) are capable of doing a PhD and getting benefit from it.

It's great to retain priveleges for those actually who would have a PhD under your restrictive illiberal policy suggestion, but the economy would suffer and those who wanted to learn and develop would suffer who you would not be able to do a PhD under restricted numbers.

Boudieu makes my contribution to this board today seem succinct. He uses 100 words where one would be necessary. He fails to collect evidence to support his point, and while his writing may be elegant to some, his writing is often evasive and unnecessarily difficult to understandd.

Be aware that while many doctors may earn 100K, they still find plenty to moan about their lot, and still feel incredibly hard done by just as you lot here seem to be. Their union is too strong and should be smashed in the interest of patients.

"Sadly, I find myself in full agreement with BHC Matt. Said person appears to be the voice of 'common sense' in this thread, for me anyway". -- That's a fine assessment given that myself and BHC have kept to our (very similar) position from the outset

You arguments are all fine if you wish to treat academic research like a self interested hobby. But public money should not be spent to create an elite of PhD graduates, which would give universities no choice over who they wish to appoint as lecturers and would not serve the needs of the broader society. I can quite accept your arguments serve some academics self interest very well but they are not really credible, hence why public policy doesn't back up your case.

Commonsense you do an injustice to your username when you talk about all and sundry being allowed access to postgraduate programmes! Millions of people aspire to be professional footballers, for example, but they know from the outset only the very best will make it (there have been exceptions!). So, pray tell, how does one gauge whether one is an average, good, excellent, or @ a Norbert-Elias level sociologist? Who decides? Where is the structure that tells us this? I think I'm really good, but am I? Maybe I'm rubbish. How will I find out? Do I get a rank stamped on my doctoral certificate or should I just up the teaching on a college somewhere and brush up my Excel skills? Hmmm.

"old fashioned, economically illiterate argument that only a small number of people should be able to do an undergraduate degree otherwise it becomes devalued."

There are lots that say the expansion of higher education HAS devalued the degree. That almost all jobs require a degree, that used to require just A levels. Another argument for another thread.

"It's great to retain priveleges for those actually who would have a PhD... but the economy would suffer"

How?

On the contrary, those bright and talented people in the workforce quicker, earning immediately and paying higher taxes would probably be better for the economy.

Also how are those Phd drop outs or the 3 out of 10 full-time PhD students that do not complete their doctorates after seven years beneficial to our economy.