The names of jury members in England are not published, so no one is 'calling them names'. 🙄

Unis recoup some of the cost immediately (by benefiting from research work done by PhD students) and some in the long term (by benefiting from the skills of people with PhDs). But if unis choose not to encourage PhD students to stay, that seems like a failing on the unis' part.

Plenty of workers leave organisations that have paid to train them, that’s hardly a unique issue. Employers are typically expected to deal with that by making it attractive for workers to stay.

(Also, please do me – and others who have made similar points in other replies – the favour of not assuming my argument is disingenuous just because you disagree with it.)

Most professional jobs don’t charge workers for training – when I’m required to do training courses at work, I’m not expected to pay for them because me having those skills benefits the organisation I’m doing the work for. Why should it be different for PhD students?

PhD students learn things about their craft while they’re doing that work. But lots of jobs involve skills development, being supervised, mentored, etc. I learn lots when I do research, but that doesn’t mean I don’t deserve to be paid for my labour.

I think you’re completely wrong to say research by a PhD student isn’t work. A PhD student analysing data or conducting experiments is generating (and usually publishing) new knowledge. They’re in a completely different position to (eg) undergrads analysing toy data for practice.

Is AI use always cheating in your view, or are there ways in which students could use AI that you would not consider to be cheating?

Open access doesn’t have to cost anything: @CrimRxiv is free!

What do those calculations look like if you count the time PhD students spend doing research as work?

Greater collaboration between police forces has been talked about for more than a decade as a means of delivering efficiencies, but there are rather few examples of it working in practice.

If it's your proposed alternative to mergers, what will be different now?

No, that’s not what I said. Read my previous post again. It says that if there isn’t enough evidence for a case to go before a jury then the judge must throw it out. But once the case has gone to the jury for a verdict, judges do not have the power to overturn the jury’s verdict.

In the Colston case, the judge didn’t throw out the case but the jury found the defendants not guilty.

A judge throwing out a case means the judge ending a case because the evidence is so weak that no reasonable jury could be sure the defendant was guilty. It doesn’t mean a judge overruling a jury verdict (judges have no power to do that).

I see lots of people mentioning class (or school as a proxy for class). I’d be very surprised if even one in a hundred UK employers cared about that outside jobs where you’re working for the aristocracy.

Yes, lots of job applications ask for details of your educational qualifications and where you got them from. That doesn’t always include school, but it’s especially likely to for entry-level jobs where the people applying are likely to have left school more recently.

Across a large sample of cities (🇺🇸), police agencies introducing degree requirements for new officers didn’t lead to any drop in the gender or ethnic diversity of recruits, as some critics of degree requirements had claimed it would.

doi.org/10.21428/cb6ab…

The jury who heard all the evidence decided there was. And if the judge didn’t think that was a reasonable conclusion for the jury to come to based on the evidence, the jury wouldn’t have had the option to convict because the judge would have had to throw the case out.

I’m not suggesting the jury system is perfect. I’m simply pointing out that a decision made by a jury is founded on a better picture of the evidence than opinions formed on social media.

That may not count as rape where you are, but in the law of England and Wales it does (Sexual Offences Act 2003, section 1).