As a longtime writer and health care educator, I am sometimes approached by media reporters to discuss multiple fields. Despite the breadth of my publications in U.S. and Canadian health care, my original academic degrees (45 years ago) were in engineering subjects. Among my other hobbies, I have at times contributed as a peer reviewer in advanced science and technology journals.
Thus, it came as no surprise when I received the following inquiry from a reporter:
“As many institutions struggle with enrollment, what is the status of their scholarships for graduate school? Do you have plenty of applicants and could you award more if you had the funds? Or are you struggling to get enough scholarship applicants? [I am] looking for quotes from university leaders … about whether they are having trouble getting enough applicants for graduate scholarships. Why do they think students aren’t applying?
Is there a difference between scholarship application numbers for on-campus or online graduate programs? What myths about graduate scholarships might the students believe? What are they doing to get more applicants and award more funds? How do scholarship application percentages compare to enrollment?”
When I responded, I never heard back from this reporter. That came as no surprise, as the following was a part of my response to his questions:
I completed both my graduate degrees in the 1960s and 70s in electrical and systems engineering. However, the situation in U.S. universities is not greatly different today from what it was then. And it is highly unlikely that “university leaders” will give you an honest answer concerning why this is true.
University leaders are part of the problem.
A core issue concerning enrollment and scholarship applications is that many students have figured out that almost nobody needs a PhD in non-technical fields. Many don’t even need a master’s degree. Widespread availability of advanced search engines has allowed people with a baccalaureate degree background to do highly credible graduate-level research quickly and with focus, while they earn substantially more in U.S. industry than they would as university employees.
Moreover, students are aware that about half of all graduate school attendees who complete their course requirements do not go on to complete a thesis or dissertation. Finding a project that one student can do alone that actually contributes to the state of current knowledge in their field is extremely difficult. Most meaningful advanced research is being done by corporate teams or under corporate and federal grants to universities. Very few universities permit multiple degree candidates to collaborate on shared research, and then only under rigid controls.
Thus, perhaps a majority of grad students fail to graduate with the degrees they have paid hundreds of thousands of dollars in tuition, living expenses, and deferred income to obtain. At the PhD level, many are also aware that even if they do complete a graduate degree, university demand for people outside the fields of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics is at best low.
The university tenure system effectively locks out the majority of PhDs from university employment as full professors. New PhD applicants are forced to take multiple jobs as contract employees in poorly paid “adjunct professor” positions, just to keep roofs over their heads and food on their tables. They never break even on their educational expenses. Some escape academia for positions in industry. Others leave their previous academic fields entirely, bitterly disillusioned.
This is one of the dirty little secrets of American education, even in medical fields. Almost nobody “needs” a PhD these days. Moreover, such education is increasingly out of reach for even our best and brightest. From 2005 to 2025, tuition and fees at private U.S. national universities jumped about 126 percent before inflation adjustment.
Arguably, this situation is sharply exacerbated by policies of the current U.S. political administration. By reducing public funds for U.S. university research grant programs and discouraging foreign students from applying, administration policies effectively place even more financial pressure on our schools.
As the immortal comic book character Pogo once suggested, “We have met the enemy … and he is us!”
Richard A. Lawhern is a nationally recognized health care educator and patient advocate who has spent nearly three decades researching pain management and addiction policy. His extensive body of work, including over 300 published papers and interviews, reflects a deep critique of U.S. health care agencies and their approaches to chronic pain treatment. Now retired from formal academic and hospital affiliations, Richard continues to engage with professional and public audiences through platforms such as LinkedIn, Facebook, and his contributions to KevinMD. His advocacy extends to online communities like Protect People in Pain, where he works to elevate the voices of patients navigating restrictive opioid policies. Among his many publications is a guideline on opioid use for chronic non-cancer pain, reflecting his commitment to evidence-based reform in pain medicine.
