Even though the author and his colleagues are part of a major research university, they agonize, in meeting after meeting, over the 5 to 10-percent yearly cuts they need to make in their chemistry department's budget. By and large, those end up coming from education, not research, especially in faculty replacements and teaching assistants. The same decisions are being made at most other universities. The research budget they can't touch, for it is federal money that flows through their university but is not under their control. No rules dictate, however, how many teaching positions they can cut. The consequences are that the education of undergraduates will suffer--by their own standards, in the experience of their students, and in the perception of their bill-paying parents. Something's got to give, and the author thinks that change should be in the organization of graduate education and research. The faculty gives the young people who work with them a work ethic, approaches to wisdom, sound professional training, and the joy of taking part in exploring the universe. But the current system exploits them--to work off their addiction to research, they must write proposal after proposal to find the means of supporting their students. The author would propose that government granting agencies eliminate research-assistant salaries from research budgets. Instead, those funds, which are substantial, should be used for a system of competitive fellowships, to be carried by the graduate students to the schools of their choice. Those fellowships should, of course, have a tuition component as well as a living allowance. Universities should charge science graduate students tuition and not pay them stipends, except for teaching services. If government can resist industry lobbying to expand immigration, the changes could lead in the long run to an increase in pay for American science Ph.D.'s. That economic incentive would be a powerful draw to the profession.