I have recently had to consider similar issues as well in regards to a top up scholarships related to a CRC.

The IP agreements for CRC's often have a clause similar to this:

Subject to clause x all Intellectual Property developed as a result of the conduct of the Project is owned by the CRC. Where the Student prepares material for examination as part of that Student's examination regime, copyright of that material will be owned by the Student but all rights in relation to CRC Intellectual Property comprised in that thesis will continue to be owned by the CRC and such thesis or any part thereof may not be published without the prior written permission of the Research Manager.

Such IP clause are highly burdensome on the student. A PhD is a period of 3 years of research where you the student are relatively likely to discover something of potential value compared to other periods in your life. So many students end up forfeiting the opportunity to own IP of value for something in the range of ~45k if getting a top up (~15k x 3 years), or 105K for a PhD scholarship (~35K x 3 years).

Just to clarify how bad of a deal this is, a full AGRTP scholarship of ~35k per year is already quite low (in my opinion) for the work done by a PhD student, but you the student own the IP. Now consider the CRC version were you get the same very low wage for the work done but on top of that you lose the ownership of IP, one of the potential options for a career path and significant financial upside from a PhD, and you have quite a terrible deal.

For some students with absolutely no ambition of entrepreneurship it might be ok. But often I don't think students know where they want to go after their PhD and don't quite understand the IP agreements and requirements so they end up losing a significant pathway available, before they know it.

On a societal level I actually think it is quite tragic, as Australia would be well served to have more PhD students trying to turn their research into startups.

I have recently had to consider similar issues as well in regards to a top up scholarships related to a CRC.

The IP agreements for CRC's often have a clause similar to this:

Subject to clause x all Intellectual Property developed as a result of the conduct of the Project is owned by the CRC.

Such IP clause are highly burdensome on the student. A PhD is a period of 3 years of research where you the student are relatively likely to discover something of potential value compared to other periods in your life. So many students end up forfeiting the opportunity to own IP of value for something in the range of ~45k if getting a top up (~15k x 3 years), or 105K for a PhD scholarship (~35K x 3 years).

Just to clarify how bad of a deal this is, a full AGRTP scholarship of ~35k per year is already quite low (in my opinion) for the work done by a PhD student, but you the student own the IP. Now consider the CRC version were you get the same very low wage for the work done but on top of that you lose the ownership of IP, one of the potential options for a career path and significant financial upside from a PhD, and you have quite a terrible deal.

For some students with absolutely no ambition of entrepreneurship it might be ok. But often I don't think students know where they want to go after their PhD and don't quite understand the IP agreements and requirements so they end up losing a significant pathway available, before they know it.

On a societal level I actually think it is quite tragic, as Australia would be well served to have more PhD students trying to turn their research into startups.

I have recently had to consider similar issues as well in regards to a top up scholarships related to a CRC.

The IP agreements for CRC's often have a clause similar to this:

Subject to clause x all Intellectual Property developed as a result of the conduct of the Project is owned by the CRC. Where the Student prepares material for examination as part of that Student's examination regime, copyright of that material will be owned by the > Student but all rights in relation to CRC Intellectual Property comprised in that thesis will continue to be owned by the CRC and such thesis or any part thereof may not be published without the prior written permission of the Research Manager.

Such IP clause are highly burdensome on the student. A PhD is a period of 3 years of research where you the student are relatively likely to discover something of potential value compared to other periods in your life. So many students end up forfeiting the opportunity to own IP of value for something in the range of ~45k if getting a top up (~15k x 3 years), or 105K for a PhD scholarship (~35K x 3 years).

Just to clarify how bad of a deal this is, a full AGRTP scholarship of ~35k per year is already quite low (in my opinion) for the work done by a PhD student, but you the student own the IP. Now consider the CRC version were you get the same very low wage for the work done but on top of that you lose the ownership of IP, one of the potential options for a career path and significant financial upside from a PhD, and you have quite a terrible deal.

For some students with absolutely no ambition of entrepreneurship it might be ok. But often I don't think students know where they want to go after their PhD and don't quite understand the IP agreements and requirements so they end up losing a significant pathway available, before they know it.

On a societal level I actually think it is quite tragic, as Australia would be well served to have more PhD students trying to turn their research into startups.

I have recently had to consider similar issues as well in regards to a top up scholarships related to a CRC.

The IP agreements for CRC's often have a clause similar to this:

Subject to clause x all Intellectual Property developed as a result of the conduct of the Project is owned by the CRC. Where the Student prepares material for examination as part of that Student's examination regime, copyright of that material will be owned by the Student but all rights in relation to CRC Intellectual Property comprised in that thesis will continue to be owned by the CRC and such thesis or any part thereof may not be published without the prior written permission of the Research Manager.

Such IP clause are highly burdensome on the student. A PhD is a period of 3 years of research where you the student are relatively likely to discover something of potential value compared to other periods in your life. So many students end up forfeiting the opportunity to own IP of value for something in the range of ~45k if getting a top up (~15k x 3 years), or 105K for a PhD scholarship (~35K x 3 years).

Just to clarify how bad of a deal this is, a full AGRTP scholarship of ~35k per year is already quite low (in my opinion) for the work done by a PhD student, but you the student own the IP. Now consider the CRC version were you get the same very low wage for the work done but on top of that you lose the ownership of IP, one of the potential options for a career path and significant financial upside from a PhD, and you have quite a terrible deal.

For some students with absolutely no ambition of entrepreneurship it might be ok. But often I don't think students know where they want to go after their PhD and don't quite understand the IP agreements and requirements so they end up losing a significant pathway available, before they know it.

On a societal level I actually think it is quite tragic, as Australia would be well served to have more PhD students trying to turn their research into startups.