As faithful readers of this blog know, I found the statement that Harvard Chemistry and Chemical Biology was cutting its Fall 2026 entering class by ~80% to be quite notable. I think it is worth thinking about the possibility that this is more widespread than simply Harvard CCB:
- I believe that the Trump Administration's actions have resulted in significant financial pressure on R1 universities
- I believe that some of the largest chemistry PhD producing universities are responding by cutting available slots for Fall 2026
For supposition 2, I think I have some speculative data that I am not yet willing to share. Nevertheless, I will ask the question this way: does anyone believe that class sizes for Fall 2026 will be higher than Fall 2025? I don’t. If so, what does that mean?
I believe it means this - for students other than the very strongest senior undergraduates (strong letters of recommendations, significant research contributions*), I would think very seriously about a plan B, C or D regarding What To Do if you do not get into the graduate program of your choice. I don’t know what those potential plans might be, but they include going to a somewhat less desirable university, taking a position in a laboratory as a post-baccalaureate student** or going into industry.
If this indeed is the beginning of a lengthy system-wide slowdown in the number of chemistry PhDs in the United States, while, yes, it will be theoretically good for incumbent PhDs, I believe this is very bad for the American chemical research enterprise, as fewer workers per year is going to ultimately result in less research production as opposed to more. But this is all very speculatory, and the known immediate impact will be much more keenly felt by the senior undergraduate (those graduating class of 2026.)
Finally, a biology professor made an interesting counter-argument. If you believe (as I speculate) that there will be fewer entering international students into American science graduate schools in Fall 2026, is it possible that fewer international students mean that the classes will shrink but the number of domestic students will stay the same? I am skeptical about this, but I think it really depends on the individual dynamics within each chemistry department.
I can’t see how this is good news for anyone, but I am particularly struck by the negative consequences for next year’s graduates. I wish this were not so, and I am not quite sure what to do about my knowledge, other than warn people. Sorry.
UPDATE (11/10/25, 3 PM Eastern): added a second link to my previous predictions from April, which were incorrect about who was impacted the most.
*I'm not a R1 professor of chemistry, just a random guy. Ask your professors if they agree with me.
**Is this a thing in chemistry? I saw a professor suggesting this on social media, and I have to say I’m not quite sure of its value, i.e. it seems to me a very expensive (compared to an industry job) means of securing a position in a future entering class.
Re: postbacc, can’t speak broadly in chem. The ones I’m aware of for chem (& several biomed options) are short term (1 yr) & paid positions (not highly but not zero). I was always under the impression that the postbacc programs where the grad paid the institution were really targeted to the med school hopeful.
ReplyDeleteI was coming to comment something similar. I was aware of several postbacc students while at the NIH (most were more bio/bio engineering but a few chem) but the majority seemed to be headed towards a medical field. I can't say any of the postbacc positions I'm aware of were meant as stepping stones into the same grad lab or more long-term position.
DeleteWe are a decently sized R1 and our enrollment "cap" will be the same as last year which was slightly lower than normal. Looking at 35 incoming students instead of our regular ~42.
ReplyDeleteA quick calculation indicates if the top 40% producers of US chemistry PhDs (2020) take a 17% cut, that will ultimately result in 189 students needing to find a new home.
DeleteBut that's already a 17% decrease :(
DeleteMy department (mid-tier R1) had a higher yield this year for our grad admissions than typical, likely because higher ranked chemistry departments already cut back on admissions. As a result we are likely to cut back on admissions this coming cycle. It certainly looks like this coming year will be tougher for admissions than any year since 2020/2021.
ReplyDeleteThough unfortunate, at least we might be able to go back to enforcing standards for grad admissions and performance. I have witnessed so many absurd examples of students who lack even the most basic competencies needed to be PhD level researchers. The policies over the last 5 - 10 years of holding different groups of students to wildly different standards has caused as much damage to the profession as the funding uncertainties we're now facing.
Adding to the data, R1 mid-tier: We are targeting roughly a 25-30% decrease in yield this year. This is partially due to funding concerns, but also course correction for higher than typical yields the past 3 years. I've talked to a couple of colleagues about this and they all seem to be in similar boats.
ReplyDeleteTough, tough, tough. I am really curious what the trend and impact of international applicants is. I.e. do we get similar numbers of domestic students going for PhDs, but the enrolment drop from international compensates for the funding? Especially curious at the large sized public powerhouse schools (Illinois/UT-Austin/berkley etc.) how many international applicants they are even getting.
ReplyDeleteI'm not in our chem department, but I have heard from faculty that due to the large number of deferrals from last year, this year's class will be severely cut, if we even recruit at all.
ReplyDeleteCanadian schools Will likely be holding flat. Strong us students would be competitive for positions as the bulk of our students are international in chemistry.
ReplyDeleteI wonder if we're going to see departments let in more students than they can afford in order to keep undergrad courses staffed with enough TA's, then push a large chunk of them to master out once they're no longer needed.
ReplyDeleteIsn't undergrad enrollment in decline, with the exception of large state schools?
DeleteLarge state schools are the ones most likely to need the TA labor force. Although with grants being thinner they may have more need for senior TAs anyways.
Delete