ron_swanson

Had lunch with Neil Degrasse Tyson.  Also, several months later, I went to a party with NDT and Bill Nye amongst the attendees.
 
I've had dinner with several Nobel laureates.  Not to mention random celebrities about NYC.

Takeruk I understand where you're coming from.  It is sad stipends are considerably lower in certain fields than others.  But it seems equal pay across the board for every graduate student is not justified in the sense that it should reflect the value and significance of the student's work/field.  For example, students researching cures to vast numbers of diseases should be given preferential treatment (in terms of funding and support) over students studying dead languages or poetry of the middle ages, which I believe is the focus of many government and private funding grants, fellowships, etc.  There's a lot of application to human advancement in the sciences and engineering sectors, possibly a factor for such a vast wage gap.  I support this imbalance in that it makes such areas of focus more attractive to future generations (this may just reflect the selfish, narcissistic idiot I really am).
 
 
When I say I can't fathom anyone living on such an income, I mean it with regards to my current, modern lifestyle.  I was actually raised in a household hovering just at the poverty line, so I know the hardships, not just as a student, but as a lifestyle.  It is my belief that academia is in fact not just for the upper middle class, but for those whose career is a major priority.  Not the only one, but major.  It was my understanding early on (first and second year as an undergraduate) that if I wanted to advance myself in any capacity with my education, I had to finance it on my own and maintain this single, seemingly selfish, lifestyle.  In addition, there is no safety net under me and no one was going to help me get loans or assist me in paying them off.  I acted accordingly.
 
 
There are a lot of funding opportunties that are need-based in certain fields, they are ubiquitous in STEM fields. I agree, pregnancy and other health (physical and mental) concerns should be allowed a "stop" in their push through the academic pipeline with no bias or damage to their progress and reputation.  I feel biases and other unforeseen issues will be, or is, prevalent in this scenario. I believe this is done already (at least in my field).  It should be left to the student to allow work to coincide with the academic environment, it is up to the student to take the initiative to maybe tutor or get work as a researcher.  I had to tutor basic math courses for four years, worked unpaid in research for a year before receiving a grant to complete my project and publish. Again many fields do this already.  I believe most graduate programs mean it when they say they treat the applications holistically.  If they don't, then maybe that graduate program isn't for you.

Haha my plans exactly 

Takeruk I understand where you're coming from.  It is sad stipends are considerably lower in certain fields than others.  But it seems equal pay across the board for every graduate student is not justified in the sense that it should reflect the value and significance of the student's work/field.  For example, students researching cures to vast numbers of diseases should be given preferential treatment (in terms of funding and support) over students studying dead languages or poetry of the middle ages, which I believe is the focus of many government and private funding grants, fellowships, etc.  There's a lot of application to human advancement in the sciences and engineering sectors, possibly a factor for such a vast wage gap.  I support this imbalance in that it makes such areas of focus more attractive to future generations (this may just reflect the selfish, narcissistic idiot I really am).
 
 
When I say I can't fathom anyone living on such an income, I mean it with regards to my current, modern lifestyle.  I was actually raised in a household hovering just at the poverty line, so I know the hardships, not just as a student, but as a lifestyle.  It is my belief that academia is in fact not just for the upper middle class, but for those whose career is a major priority.  Not the only one, but major.  It was my understanding early on (first and second year as an undergraduate) that if I wanted to advance myself in any capacity with my education, I had to finance it on my own and maintain this single, seemingly selfish, lifestyle.  In addition, there is no safety net under me and no one was going to help me get loans or assist me in paying them off.  I acted accordingly.
 
 
There are a lot of funding opportunties that are need-based in certain fields, they are ubiquitous in STEM fields. I agree, pregnancy and other health (physical and mental) concerns should be allowed a "stop" in their push through the academic pipeline with no bias or damage to their progress and reputation.  I feel biases and other unforeseen issues will be, or is, prevalent in this scenario. I believe this is done already (at least in my field).  It should be left to the student to allow work to coincide with the academic environment, it is up to the student to take the initiative to maybe tutor or get work as a researcher.  I had to tutor basic math courses for four years, worked unpaid in research for a year before receiving a grant to complete my project and publish. Again many fields do this already.  I believe most graduate programs mean it when they say they treat the applications holistically.  If they don't, then maybe that graduate program isn't for you.

Takeruk I understand where you're coming from.  It is sad stipends are considerably lower in certain fields than others.  But it seems equal pay across the board for every graduate student is not justified in the sense that it should reflect the value and significance of the student's work/field.  For example, students researching cures to vast numbers of diseases should be given preferential treatment (in terms of funding and support) over students studying dead languages or poetry of the middle ages, which I believe is the focus of many government and private funding grants, fellowships, etc.  There's a lot of application to human advancement in the sciences and engineering sectors, possibly a factor for such a vast wage gap.  I support this imbalance in that it makes such areas of focus more attractive to future generations (this may just reflect the selfish, narcissistic idiot I really am).
 
 
When I say I can't fathom anyone living on such an income, I mean it with regards to my current, modern lifestyle.  I was actually raised in a household hovering just at the poverty line, so I know the hardships, not just as a student, but as a lifestyle.  It is my belief that academia is in fact not just for the upper middle class, but for those whose career is a major priority.  Not the only one, but major.  It was my understanding early on (first and second year as an undergraduate) that if I wanted to advance myself in any capacity with my education, I had to finance it on my own and maintain this single, seemingly selfish, lifestyle.  In addition, there is no safety net under me and no one was going to help me get loans or assist me in paying them off.  I acted accordingly.
 
 
There are a lot of funding opportunties that are need-based in certain fields, they are ubiquitous in STEM fields. I agree, pregnancy and other health (physical and mental) concerns should be allowed a "stop" in their push through the academic pipeline with no bias or damage to their progress and reputation.  I feel biases and other unforeseen issues will be, or is, prevalent in this scenario. I believe this is done already (at least in my field).  It should be left to the student to allow work to coincide with the academic environment, it is up to the student to take the initiative to maybe tutor or get work as a researcher.  I had to tutor basic math courses for four years, worked unpaid in research for a year before receiving a grant to complete my project and publish. Again many fields do this already.  I believe most graduate programs mean it when they say they treat the applications holistically.  If they don't, then maybe that graduate program isn't for you.

Takeruk I understand where you're coming from.  It is sad stipends are considerably lower in certain fields than others.  But it seems equal pay across the board for every graduate student is not justified in the sense that it should reflect the value and significance of the student's work/field.  For example, students researching cures to vast numbers of diseases should be given preferential treatment (in terms of funding and support) over students studying dead languages or poetry of the middle ages, which I believe is the focus of many government and private funding grants, fellowships, etc.  There's a lot of application to human advancement in the sciences and engineering sectors, possibly a factor for such a vast wage gap.  I support this imbalance in that it makes such areas of focus more attractive to future generations (this may just reflect the selfish, narcissistic idiot I really am).
 
 
When I say I can't fathom anyone living on such an income, I mean it with regards to my current, modern lifestyle.  I was actually raised in a household hovering just at the poverty line, so I know the hardships, not just as a student, but as a lifestyle.  It is my belief that academia is in fact not just for the upper middle class, but for those whose career is a major priority.  Not the only one, but major.  It was my understanding early on (first and second year as an undergraduate) that if I wanted to advance myself in any capacity with my education, I had to finance it on my own and maintain this single, seemingly selfish, lifestyle.  In addition, there is no safety net under me and no one was going to help me get loans or assist me in paying them off.  I acted accordingly.
 
 
There are a lot of funding opportunties that are need-based in certain fields, they are ubiquitous in STEM fields. I agree, pregnancy and other health (physical and mental) concerns should be allowed a "stop" in their push through the academic pipeline with no bias or damage to their progress and reputation.  I feel biases and other unforeseen issues will be, or is, prevalent in this scenario. I believe this is done already (at least in my field).  It should be left to the student to allow work to coincide with the academic environment, it is up to the student to take the initiative to maybe tutor or get work as a researcher.  I had to tutor basic math courses for four years, worked unpaid in research for a year before receiving a grant to complete my project and publish. Again many fields do this already.  I believe most graduate programs mean it when they say they treat the applications holistically.  If they don't, then maybe that graduate program isn't for you.

Putting aside stipend levels for now I'll just say that having a kid during graduate school isn't bad or wrong, but in some sense just naive and premature in one's chosen career path.  If the kid came before, then I'm also not sure if the parent(s) should get an additional stipend.  Yes this is a barrier in the academic pipeline, but the choice of grad school and having a kid is exactly what it is... a choice.  Taking a year on leave during grad school by possibly working lesser hours, or with less demanding work (i.e., not requiring you to churn out proposals/papers in one week), would also be harmful.  Especially later in the PhD or Masters program, since this would hamper one's publication record and likely cause one to fall out of the loop at conferences, etc.  Overall, the same number of hours per week should be worked (nothing less), albeit with more flexibility in schedule.  Although, such practice may portray these students as unfavorable to a PI since one's presence would be seen as uncertain and erratic (most likely a current bias).  I do agree with having grants (federal or private) designed for parents during their travels for grad students, post docs, and faculty.  But we're all adults, decisions like grad school (and kids, marriage(s), etc) are what we must face by weighing the odds and taking chances.
 
Also, Takeruk mentioned the issue with university/department reimbursements moving at a snail's pace.  They are the bane of my existence (I'm not even a grad student yet, I'm just a lonely research staff member... but still).
 
As for the original topic of discussion, the grad student wage gap... I'm sorry to say that I stand at a privileged position (see note below).  I cannot fathom spending several years at around $15k a year.  But I do enjoy reading this.
 
Personal note: As a B.S. degree holder my current research staff position offers me a modest annual pay (this is in the "hard" sciences at a more selective university) with a small research allowance.  My current fellowships will likely meet or exceed my stipend offer from the grad school I'll be attending (possibly maximizing to $40k/yr for five years if I can properly leverage the three fellowships I received).  In all honesty, I am not ashamed of where I stand.  My push for grad school was well planned and very calculated, I even turned down offers from financial firms and start-ups to put me in the best possible position for success.  My choice was because I wanted to build a stronger foundation in my education to qualify me for positions that'll, once I get a PhD, pay up to three times the amount offered by these same companies.

Dinosaur handler/trainer/hunter (been training my whole life) Tenured faculty member at prestigious university in my field (after I finish my PhD and have a couple post-docs I'll make a push for this) Researcher/analyst at Google or Bloomberg (not qualified for the position I'd like, but I'm sure I'd be able to work my way in) Quantitative analyst and risk assessment at financial firm (I've turned down a couple jobs with financial firms so far)

Putting aside stipend levels for now I'll just say that having a kid during graduate school isn't bad or wrong, but in some sense just naive and premature in one's chosen career path.  If the kid came before, then I'm also not sure if the parent(s) should get an additional stipend.  Yes this is a barrier in the academic pipeline, but the choice of grad school and having a kid is exactly what it is... a choice.  Taking a year on leave during grad school by possibly working lesser hours, or with less demanding work (i.e., not requiring you to churn out proposals/papers in one week), would also be harmful.  Especially later in the PhD or Masters program, since this would hamper one's publication record and likely cause one to fall out of the loop at conferences, etc.  Overall, the same number of hours per week should be worked (nothing less), albeit with more flexibility in schedule.  Although, such practice may portray these students as unfavorable to a PI since one's presence would be seen as uncertain and erratic (most likely a current bias).  I do agree with having grants (federal or private) designed for parents during their travels for grad students, post docs, and faculty.  But we're all adults, decisions like grad school (and kids, marriage(s), etc) are what we must face by weighing the odds and taking chances.
 
Also, Takeruk mentioned the issue with university/department reimbursements moving at a snail's pace.  They are the bane of my existence (I'm not even a grad student yet, I'm just a lonely research staff member... but still).
 
As for the original topic of discussion, the grad student wage gap... I'm sorry to say that I stand at a privileged position (see note below).  I cannot fathom spending several years at around $15k a year.  But I do enjoy reading this.
 
Personal note: As a B.S. degree holder my current research staff position offers me a modest annual pay (this is in the "hard" sciences at a more selective university) with a small research allowance.  My current fellowships will likely meet or exceed my stipend offer from the grad school I'll be attending (possibly maximizing to $40k/yr for five years if I can properly leverage the three fellowships I received).  In all honesty, I am not ashamed of where I stand.  My push for grad school was well planned and very calculated, I even turned down offers from financial firms and start-ups to put me in the best possible position for success.  My choice was because I wanted to build a stronger foundation in my education to qualify me for positions that'll, once I get a PhD, pay up to three times the amount offered by these same companies.

Dinosaur handler/trainer/hunter (been training my whole life) Tenured faculty member at prestigious university in my field (after I finish my PhD and have a couple post-docs I'll make a push for this) Researcher/analyst at Google or Bloomberg (not qualified for the position I'd like, but I'm sure I'd be able to work my way in) Quantitative analyst and risk assessment at financial firm (I've turned down a couple jobs with financial firms so far)

I'm working to open a new field of astronomy that is no longer restricted to electromagnetic radiation.  From the infrared, to the visibile spectrum, and to the ultraviolet, our understanding of the universe came from building instruments to detect various forms of radiation, electromagnetic radiation in this case.  My work is ushering in a new field, known as gravitational wave astronomy.  In short, gravitational waves are produced by accelerating massive objects, which cause rapid distortions in what we call spacetime, and these propagating deformations are what we call gravitational radiation, or gravitational waves.

I'm working to open a new field of astronomy that is no longer restricted to electromagnetic radiation.  From the infrared, to the visibile spectrum, and to the ultraviolet, our understanding of the universe came from building instruments to detect various forms of radiation, electromagnetic radiation in this case.  My work is ushering in a new field, known as gravitational wave astronomy.  In short, gravitational waves are produced by accelerating massive objects, which cause rapid distortions in what we call spacetime, and these propagating deformations are what we call gravitational radiation, or gravitational waves.

I'm working to open a new field of astronomy that is no longer restricted to electromagnetic radiation.  From the infrared, to the visibile spectrum, and to the ultraviolet, our understanding of the universe came from building instruments to detect various forms of radiation, electromagnetic radiation in this case.  My work is ushering in a new field, known as gravitational wave astronomy.  In short, gravitational waves are produced by accelerating massive objects, which cause rapid distortions in what we call spacetime, and these propagating deformations are what we call gravitational radiation, or gravitational waves.