Crafter

I don't think it will just be for the upper middle class.  I feel like someone who is used to making less money may find it easier to figure out how to live on the stipend they give us better than someone who is used to privilege. 
 
But I do think the "prioritize your career over everything else" is unhealthy.  When you are old and grey and on your deathbed, you won't want to be surrounded by your academic articles, you will want to be surrounded by family.  People with good relationships tend to outperform and be more mentally healthy than those without them.  But we act like they are ancillary.

I understand where this is coming from and do agree a little bit that it makes sense for the government to set priorities and allocate funding accordingly**. I am actually not advocating for exact equal pay, I am advocating for removing inequalities. For example, if all graduate students made at least the minimum for a decent lifestyle, and then those in fields with more funding made more on top of that, then that is fine. But currently, we have some fields being paid well below the minimum for a decent lifestyle and this means that certain people with certain needs are going to be removed from academia. 
 
(**A different topic is that I wish the government and the public would place higher priority on things that don't have direct medical or economical impact. Part of this is selfish, since astronomy research has little practical uses, other than expanding human knowledge, like the example you gave. However, I am lucky that astronomy is very accessible and captures a lot of people's imagination).
 
 
I think the current funding structure does drive people from working class families away from academia. I think if we keep things up, it might be just for the upper middle class.
 
I don't agree that academia should be for those whose career is a major priority, at least not in the sense that you seem to define "major priority". Of course, as in many careers, you have to care about and prioritize your job in order to succeed, but the current culture is that academics are expected to prioritize their career above all else, and that's not what I want to see academia become. Our career should be one of our priorities, but arguments like "if you have children, then your career is obviously not enough of a priority" is harmful to academia.
 
By "major priority", I would mean things like not just doing the minimum, taking care to do good work, and being able to be flexible and plan personal stuff around work stuff when you have to. For example, an important part of my research is to use telescopes to gather data, and these nights are assigned by an allocation committee. Because my career is a "major priority", I plan my life around these important nights, even if they happen on weekends or during time where I'd rather be on vacation or with my family (birthdays, anniversaries, etc.). I also plan my availability around major conferences and other deadlines. If I have to choose between taking a vacation when I want it vs. a major academic deadline, I prioritize my career. I think this is the level of commitment we should expect from academics, not things like reproductive choices.

First of all, to all of you suggesting this person CHANGE his/her NAME to suit the American systems....FU!! And, by that I do _not_ mean "first unknown". It is this kind of insensitivity and lack of inclusiveness that stifles the system.  Do you tell your black friends to whiten their skin to avoid racism? Tell your female friends to get a sex change to earn equal pay in their job? Tell your gay friends to act straight so as not to be discriminated against? Seriously, the frick, people. 
 
A person's name is a strong part of their identify, their culture, their heritage.  Just because the American systems are retarded (meant in the truest literal way), doesn't mean everyone else should be.  
 
There are hundreds of thousands of people in the USA with mononyms. Florida DMV once told me how many in Florida -- if I recall, it was more than 60,000.
 
Here's the deal: It is a ridiculously SIMPLE problem to solve in a database-driven system.  
1.) Don't require both a "first name" and "last name" field.  Just as a middle name is not required. Or:
2.) At the very least, allow a hyphen character -- which is a common character of American last names -- to serve as a field spaceholder. In fact, both a hyphen character and an apostrophe are common characters in surnames, so even if only that field were less restrictive to allow it. Names (even given names) often include a space, so that should be allowed, too.  In practical terms, it seems universally using a hyphen as placeholder is best, as it avoids all the different systems doing something different. It also isn't mistaken as an actual name to be pronounced.  Also, on forms, it is recognized construct to put a hyphen/dash to indicate no answer for a field. 
 
So, rather than suggest that a person change who they are for a broken system, how about we all advocate for an inclusive system based on what is legal rather than what is common (also read: white privilege)!!   'Merica...land of the common.
 
As a mononymous person (US native), I will tell the poster what I have encountered as to how US systems handle this, based on today's date [mostly for archival purposes, as the thread is old]:
 
1. US Social Security Administration: Their data-entry system has a checkbox indicating the person is mononymous. When the data entry person checks this box, the 'first name' field is disabled.  Your social security card will print with the single-word name only. However, the back-end database is populated with "UNK" (apparently to mean "unknown") as placeholder.  And, as a result, other agencies (such as insurance companies) who pull from this database, will receive the information as it is in the back-end system. The "UNK" (or "unknown") is completely stupid, as the name isn't unknown, it doesn't exist. But, at least they recognize and have designed the system to accommodate the variance.
 
2. At least one US state Division Of Motor Vehicles likewise had a system with a checkbox for single-name, but in this case it disabled the 'last name' field. So, it would never verify with the social security administration database. #smh
 
3. Florida DMV uses "NFN" (No First Name) as placeholder for the back-end system. However, with much complaining, they can print the driver's license with only the mononym. Florida auto registration had no problem with the single-word name.
 
4. My university (if I recall), used "NFN" as do other DMVs that I have encountered.
 
5. The US Passport Agency had a meltdown. In my case, they just assigned some completely random name to my account, and I had great difficulty even verifying my identity on the phone to try to find out what it was.  My passport card did display correctly with the mononym, but the back-end system was totally random.  I had to contact my congressman when they were unresponsive to my requests to address the matter.  Eventually (a year later!), I got someone on the phone who claimed it was resolved.  Not sure if it is or not.
 
5. The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) doesn't care. Those b*st*rds will find you no matter what names you use! 
 
6. The credit bureaus will never get your credit straight, for anything reported in the single-word name. When a business, for example, electronically reports your credit information, the credit bureaus systems look at the name field first, then address, and SSN only way down the list. When they can't match on the name field, their system ignores the report!  One reason that people with same names (like fathers and sons, for example) have their credit information cross-populated erroneously all the time.  The credit bureaus are horrible! And, they are a monopoly, so good luck with them. 
 
7. Employers, banks, credit card companies, businesses, etc. will all have problems with it. You'll have to insist that they sort it out. They rarely can do this at the data entry point, but the IT team certainly can override the field to leave it null. [Note: American Express never had a problem with it. They said it was because they are an international company and recognize that not all are the same.]
 
TIP: Some businesses can enter your name as a business name as a workaround. That works reasonably well as long as they aren't charging more for their service because of the designation.
 
Ironically, Google -- a giant international player -- has decided that they know best what constitutes a proper name. So, good luck getting even a Google+ account with a single-word name. In fact, it won't even let you enter a name less than a certain number of characters (and it has to be like at least 3 or more, as I recall). So, a big FU to Asians for sure, who often have 2-letter names.   8. E-Verify: Many/most employers now do what is called E-Verify, wherein a search is done of various systems to verify your citizenship (and other?).  Employers also do background checks.  These will be a nightmare too. You'll have to stay on top of them with these.   
Bottom line: If you want a convenient life, do what you want. Have your name legally changed to be common and like every one else to fit in. Split your name to fill 2 fields. Whatever you do, keep a cheat-sheet for yourself showing how each entity enters it in their database.
 
Or, better IMO, insist that the company/university/agency accommodate it.  If they don't, they are discriminating along the lines of ethnic or religious discrimination. 
 
The United States of America has been the so-called melting pot for hundreds of years.  It is time that electronic systems reflect that. I will say that they are getting better. At least database designers are. I find that I can much more often enter my single-word name in forms without problem.
 
 
 
 
 

I think if you think graduate school isn't 100% analogous to a job you are in a rude awakening.... you would never tell a grade school teacher never to have a child because she/he only makes 30k a year.
 
The thought that anyone is special for going to graduate school is special, or that graduate school is special just because its graduate school is really arrogant and misinformed. Its up to the individuals to make that time special, just like anything else. There is a reason why graduate students don't walk around in black and white robes like nuns. 

Good for you.

I don't think judging other people's reproductive choices is a good life decision.

They can however take on more TA jobs, RA positions, or apply for more grants (both external and internal) if they need to so I don't see how it is that relevant. 
 
The thing is that I don't feel like individuals who decide to have children despite the inability to really provide for them should be supported any more than someone who decides not to have children. If an individual is incapable of working due to disability or whatever, then fine, but that's not the case here. I don't think having children while being in grad school is a good life decision. It can be done and if they can make it work all the power to them but that doesn't mean they should be supported anymore than someone who doesn't make that decision.

I don't really care about graduate stipends. I currently live on 13K a year and have an independent income/passive income. Granted, I live in Latin America so costs are much cheaper, but I also travel a lot. I see no reason why I would ever hit above 20K in the USA. 
 
If you cannot live on 25-30K a year then that's a problem. Most jobs pay around 30-40K, there is no reason that a student should make that much.

I don't agree. I have my needs met and I don't personally care about other people's needs for the most part. The argument that students should have some kind of automatic collective sense of connection or community is absurd to me.  

I think one of the reasons is diversity of skills. It's similar to the marketplace where if you have more skills at your disposal, and the more technical they are, the higher you are likely to be compensated.
 
Simplified way of looking at it: someone who is able to do literature reviews and analysis (English) is less skilled than someone who is able to do the same things + statistical/quantitative analysis (political science) is less skilled than someone who is able to do the same thing + design experiments and be a lab technician (hard science). 
 
Another reason is the demand of the discipline. Using English vs. political science as an example...political science as a field is more in demand as a field, which means that political science departments get better funding from universities, hire more professors, bring in more research grants, and often bring in more tuition because of more students wanting to study it. It then goes without saying that these departments are going to have a lot more fluidity to pay graduate students more because of their resources than say an English department. Even further, natural science departments often have large labs that bring in a lot of money, making it easier for those departments to pay grad students more in order to get more competitive students to enter the program. 
 
Most top political science programs pay their students ~$25K in base stipends. Whereas chemistry students of the same universities often bring in $30K+. I don't have a problem with this personally because I understand the greater learning curve and time that goes into learning the skills required to work in a lab and conduct experiments. 
 
Now, that doesn't mean any political science or natural science major can come in and do an English person's work easily. But I do recognize that there is a whole slew of technical skill sets that the former two have to learn to be successful in their field while the English major doesn't. 

(emphasis added).
 
Here's the way I see it. We are part of academia and when we see something wrong with our system, we should take action to fix it. For example, the "leaky pipeline" (one random example: http://www.socialsciencespace.com/2015/02/fixing-the-leaky-pipeline-of-women-in-science-and-math/)is one problem that many science fields are facing. We observe that certain groups (e.g. women who choose to have children) are marginalized and under-represented. I chose to say "women" here explicitly because this is the under-represented group (male graduate students are far more likely to be parents and they usually have spouses that stay at home to take care of the family). This is from data form a survey at my school (90% of student parents identified as male). 
 
So, we see there is a problem and one group is being disadvantaged. To me, it is a no-brainer that if we want this group to be better represented in our field, we should do something to help them. They should be supported more. Whether this means childcare grants, stopping the quals/candidacy/defense/tenure clock, increased stipend, availability in childcare centers (our school's waitlist is 2-3 years long), something else etc. we should do something. In the interest of equity and to improve the community for all of us, we should not treat everyone equally. We should support people so that the outcome is equitable for all. 
 
 
(emphasis added). I agree with you that it is a choice but that does not mean we should do nothing for those who make the choice to have a family. Again, I believe policies in academia should reflect the values we want to see in our community. If we want academia to be a place where you can be successful whether or not you have kids, then we should do something about it. Of course, many people have the opinion that we shouldn't do anything about it because they don't think it's important to make academia accessible  and I suppose that is their right to think that way, but I obviously disagree with that.
 
A person with a family is capable of working 40-50 hours per week and attending conferences and all of the other things academics must do to succeed in their career. If we set up the system so that you have to survive on poverty level incomes, and you have to work 80-90 hours per week, and you have to never take time off, then you are going to marginalize a lot of people--not just parents but people with less savings and financial stability. If you are going to this route, then you might as well say what you're really doing (consciously or not) and proclaim that academia is only for the upper middle class who value career over other priorities. 
 
This is why there are proposed changes to evaluate people differently based on their background so that we reach an equitable playing field. Some ideas are:
 
1. Make part of the stipend needs-based
2. For job/promotion decisions, "stop" the clock for people who take leaves of absences for family, health, etc.
3. Evaluate GPAs differently based on how much time the person was able to put into their studies (e.g. I would say that a student with a 3.8 GPA and did not have to work during college is not  the same as a student with a 3.8 GPA but also worked 20 hours/week to support themselves through college)
4. Evaluate research records differently based on where they went to school and what opportunities were available to them (e.g. a physics student from a small liberal arts college winning a summer research placement is more impressive than a physics student from MIT doing the same)
 
These are just ideas. Exactly how to implement them (and to what extent) so that we actually reach an equitable solution is hard. But I don't think we're even there yet. Right now, at most places, the conversation is mostly on "should we do something?". I am sure that the answer should be yes. But the next question "how do we do it?", is something I think we need to work on.
 
(By "we", I mean the community of my field as a whole)

I don't think family planning is what was hated about the comment, it was the assessment of a parental choice as "right" or "wrong".
 
I am pro family planning. Actually, I planned so much that I ended up having my baby very "late" and now I don't think I will have another one, although my husband and I wanted to have more. Mainly because I will start a PhD program this fall and by the time I will be done I will be "too old" to be running after a 2 year old.
 
You become a grad student with kids because either you got pregnant (or your partner did) while in grad school or because you started grad school after you got kids. Either case I don't think there is a reason for considering a parent not suitable for academia. Nobody knows why this person is either having a kid or enrolling in school after having children. Whatever the reason, it is entirely up to the individual and I believe that in most cases grad students are not 18 year olds who "oooopss! got pregnat while in school" and if they become grad students and parents is because they wanted to do so and can do it. And who said that we will be living off my  stipend only?
 
So, if a parent express an interest about intending to go to grad school I will encourage the idea instead of saying "that is a bad choice". If a grad student gets pregnant I would not say "you are making a bad choice by having that baby". Many have done it and have succeeded in getting their degrees, even many have had very understanding PIs who are parents themselves and know what the sacrifices are and are willing to offer flexible hours (note that I am not saying "less work and more money for the parent" I am talking about being flexible, as in not working this  morning because child is sick, but working the weekend) and so on.
 
I am married and have a child and I never considered not enrolling in a PhD program because of that. I don't consider that being a grad student and a mom is a "bad choice". And that is why I consider vicotrydance's comment out of place. I am also a female who has not bought the idea of being either a mom OR a successful professional. I am already a professional with much success and a very caring an dedicated mom as well.
 
In another related topic: I see how the school benefits from TAs and RAs as much as we benefit from getting degrees. And while it holds true that we are students and it is awesome that we will get an advanced degree without having to pay for tuition, I think that as skilled professional workers we are kind entitled to certain benefits, like a decent pay and medical insurance, at least.

Funding was definitely one of the factors when I applied to Grad School. I have nobody to pay for my bills, so I need a decent stipend. Debt is also not an option for me because I am an international applicant from a country where no "student loans" are available and have no guarantee that I will get a well paid job after I graduate.
 
As for having kids as a graduate student, that is entirely up to the individual (or the couple, actually) and nobody should judge if it is a "good choice" or a "bad choice" based on ignorance on the specific circumstances of the couple in question. Stating that parents have no place in grad school is bad for society, for democracy and for human rights in general. Let alone for women's rights! We tend to have the bigger load when it comes to parenting, even with a good partner, and making any woman to decided between career and maternity is discriminatory. Judging others for choosing to have kids is as wrong as judging those who decided NOT to have kids. Too bad that other students, who are supposed to be smart make generalizations and judge the same way less educated people do. Anyway, as Cheshire_Cat said, maybe more money is not the answer to support parents in grad school, but there are things that can be done, like subsidized child care, only that can mean a MAJOR support, and keep everybody making the same stipend while still supporting parents.
 
Regarding the abuses to the system: I don't even think those are statistically relevant to shut down programs or to be a real concern. Having a kid is expensive by itself and tiresome. We have to talk about some serious increment in your income to even considering using a child to make money. I mean, as a single person o even a couple with no kids, a regular 25K- 27k stipend can get a decent life financially and would manege time more effectively for school purposes. For the sake of argument, let's say that you get a 5K bonus for your spouse and child. Do you really think that there will be much left after paying for diapers, all the extra food, health care (in kids that is a major expense) and other necessities??? Not really, and considering "getting unintended dependents" (how you do that?? get married to someone you don't care about just to make an extra buck?? Have a child you don't want just for the extra money that will likely go away in taking care of that child anyway), that is a very bad money making strategy and should be reconsidered, and I am not even talking about the effort and time it takes to live with a spouse and a kid. Of course, I am talking about grad school students, who are the source of this topic, I am not referring to someone living off unemployment and other state benefits because it is comfortable.
 
Moreover, as TakeruK mentioned, the amount of people who really benefit are more in numbers and by benefiting those who need it the general outcome for the rest is always for the better. We all benefit from a society (or school) where more individuals don't struggle to survive. Even those who are not directly recipients of such programs. Selfish attitudes like the ones posted here,  have been the root of social injustice throughout the world, which in turn lead to war, violence and discrimination. I know, I am going as far as I could from the topic, but coming from a developing nation where I see everyday how people who think indolently about other people's disadvantage is really bothering, we have to live with so much violence and other problems directly derived from  "I am doing fine, so f**ck others!" or "let's do X even if that will be bad for most, it will be good for me, so I don't care".

If you read your previous posts about that and this one, there is a big difference in your attitude.
 
I must say that this last post of yours makes all the sense in the world and I completely agree.
 
Remember we were discussing grad students, stipends and (at some point) parenting during grad school. We are not talking about a person working on the minimum wage who is a single parent and wants to have five kids and is very unlikely to make twice his/her current salary any time soon. That is an entirely different world. We are discussing people who already got a degree and will take 5 years making about 25K a year to get a PhD because that, even as a postdoc will put this person in a better financial situation after completion of the program (job provided). Having kids is not being doomed for life and finding academia shut down forever (unless they get rid of those pesky children). Many grad students, postdocs and faculty have children and don't die of starvation or get kicked out because of that.

I would like to add that those sweet memories of your Dante's readings while a very passionate discussion evolved is what you remember from that particular class. But sometimes, not all professors are as good as that one we remember the most. I have been through 2 degrees before and the "same" class in a different school and a different professor were soooooo far away from each other that I remembering not liking a particular subject that now I am passionate about.
 
So, enrolling and paying for a complete program based on your previous experiences during class may not be a good choice because it may end up a bit disappointing. Check out and try to attend only classes that match your expectations and interests.

I'm not sure what field you're in, but in biology: after completing undergrad at age 22, a PhD typically takes ~6 years.  A postdoc is required for a tenure track assitant professor position... postdocs are variable but can be 4-5 years. So you're saying you wouldn't suggest biologists to have a kid before age 32.  To start trying for a first child at 32 isn't a realistic option for many women that want children, especially if they want multiple children.  And this doesn't account for people who do a year or 2 after undergrad to boost their PhD application.  I'm trying to point out that your ideal plan is not possible for many people.

I don't think family planning is what was hated about the comment, it was the assessment of a parental choice as "right" or "wrong".
 
I am pro family planning. Actually, I planned so much that I ended up having my baby very "late" and now I don't think I will have another one, although my husband and I wanted to have more. Mainly because I will start a PhD program this fall and by the time I will be done I will be "too old" to be running after a 2 year old.
 
You become a grad student with kids because either you got pregnant (or your partner did) while in grad school or because you started grad school after you got kids. Either case I don't think there is a reason for considering a parent not suitable for academia. Nobody knows why this person is either having a kid or enrolling in school after having children. Whatever the reason, it is entirely up to the individual and I believe that in most cases grad students are not 18 year olds who "oooopss! got pregnat while in school" and if they become grad students and parents is because they wanted to do so and can do it. And who said that we will be living off my  stipend only?
 
So, if a parent express an interest about intending to go to grad school I will encourage the idea instead of saying "that is a bad choice". If a grad student gets pregnant I would not say "you are making a bad choice by having that baby". Many have done it and have succeeded in getting their degrees, even many have had very understanding PIs who are parents themselves and know what the sacrifices are and are willing to offer flexible hours (note that I am not saying "less work and more money for the parent" I am talking about being flexible, as in not working this  morning because child is sick, but working the weekend) and so on.
 
I am married and have a child and I never considered not enrolling in a PhD program because of that. I don't consider that being a grad student and a mom is a "bad choice". And that is why I consider vicotrydance's comment out of place. I am also a female who has not bought the idea of being either a mom OR a successful professional. I am already a professional with much success and a very caring an dedicated mom as well.
 
In another related topic: I see how the school benefits from TAs and RAs as much as we benefit from getting degrees. And while it holds true that we are students and it is awesome that we will get an advanced degree without having to pay for tuition, I think that as skilled professional workers we are kind entitled to certain benefits, like a decent pay and medical insurance, at least.

Funding was definitely one of the factors when I applied to Grad School. I have nobody to pay for my bills, so I need a decent stipend. Debt is also not an option for me because I am an international applicant from a country where no "student loans" are available and have no guarantee that I will get a well paid job after I graduate.
 
As for having kids as a graduate student, that is entirely up to the individual (or the couple, actually) and nobody should judge if it is a "good choice" or a "bad choice" based on ignorance on the specific circumstances of the couple in question. Stating that parents have no place in grad school is bad for society, for democracy and for human rights in general. Let alone for women's rights! We tend to have the bigger load when it comes to parenting, even with a good partner, and making any woman to decided between career and maternity is discriminatory. Judging others for choosing to have kids is as wrong as judging those who decided NOT to have kids. Too bad that other students, who are supposed to be smart make generalizations and judge the same way less educated people do. Anyway, as Cheshire_Cat said, maybe more money is not the answer to support parents in grad school, but there are things that can be done, like subsidized child care, only that can mean a MAJOR support, and keep everybody making the same stipend while still supporting parents.
 
Regarding the abuses to the system: I don't even think those are statistically relevant to shut down programs or to be a real concern. Having a kid is expensive by itself and tiresome. We have to talk about some serious increment in your income to even considering using a child to make money. I mean, as a single person o even a couple with no kids, a regular 25K- 27k stipend can get a decent life financially and would manege time more effectively for school purposes. For the sake of argument, let's say that you get a 5K bonus for your spouse and child. Do you really think that there will be much left after paying for diapers, all the extra food, health care (in kids that is a major expense) and other necessities??? Not really, and considering "getting unintended dependents" (how you do that?? get married to someone you don't care about just to make an extra buck?? Have a child you don't want just for the extra money that will likely go away in taking care of that child anyway), that is a very bad money making strategy and should be reconsidered, and I am not even talking about the effort and time it takes to live with a spouse and a kid. Of course, I am talking about grad school students, who are the source of this topic, I am not referring to someone living off unemployment and other state benefits because it is comfortable.
 
Moreover, as TakeruK mentioned, the amount of people who really benefit are more in numbers and by benefiting those who need it the general outcome for the rest is always for the better. We all benefit from a society (or school) where more individuals don't struggle to survive. Even those who are not directly recipients of such programs. Selfish attitudes like the ones posted here,  have been the root of social injustice throughout the world, which in turn lead to war, violence and discrimination. I know, I am going as far as I could from the topic, but coming from a developing nation where I see everyday how people who think indolently about other people's disadvantage is really bothering, we have to live with so much violence and other problems directly derived from  "I am doing fine, so f**ck others!" or "let's do X even if that will be bad for most, it will be good for me, so I don't care".

Funding was definitely one of the factors when I applied to Grad School. I have nobody to pay for my bills, so I need a decent stipend. Debt is also not an option for me because I am an international applicant from a country where no "student loans" are available and have no guarantee that I will get a well paid job after I graduate.
 
As for having kids as a graduate student, that is entirely up to the individual (or the couple, actually) and nobody should judge if it is a "good choice" or a "bad choice" based on ignorance on the specific circumstances of the couple in question. Stating that parents have no place in grad school is bad for society, for democracy and for human rights in general. Let alone for women's rights! We tend to have the bigger load when it comes to parenting, even with a good partner, and making any woman to decided between career and maternity is discriminatory. Judging others for choosing to have kids is as wrong as judging those who decided NOT to have kids. Too bad that other students, who are supposed to be smart make generalizations and judge the same way less educated people do. Anyway, as Cheshire_Cat said, maybe more money is not the answer to support parents in grad school, but there are things that can be done, like subsidized child care, only that can mean a MAJOR support, and keep everybody making the same stipend while still supporting parents.
 
Regarding the abuses to the system: I don't even think those are statistically relevant to shut down programs or to be a real concern. Having a kid is expensive by itself and tiresome. We have to talk about some serious increment in your income to even considering using a child to make money. I mean, as a single person o even a couple with no kids, a regular 25K- 27k stipend can get a decent life financially and would manege time more effectively for school purposes. For the sake of argument, let's say that you get a 5K bonus for your spouse and child. Do you really think that there will be much left after paying for diapers, all the extra food, health care (in kids that is a major expense) and other necessities??? Not really, and considering "getting unintended dependents" (how you do that?? get married to someone you don't care about just to make an extra buck?? Have a child you don't want just for the extra money that will likely go away in taking care of that child anyway), that is a very bad money making strategy and should be reconsidered, and I am not even talking about the effort and time it takes to live with a spouse and a kid. Of course, I am talking about grad school students, who are the source of this topic, I am not referring to someone living off unemployment and other state benefits because it is comfortable.
 
Moreover, as TakeruK mentioned, the amount of people who really benefit are more in numbers and by benefiting those who need it the general outcome for the rest is always for the better. We all benefit from a society (or school) where more individuals don't struggle to survive. Even those who are not directly recipients of such programs. Selfish attitudes like the ones posted here,  have been the root of social injustice throughout the world, which in turn lead to war, violence and discrimination. I know, I am going as far as I could from the topic, but coming from a developing nation where I see everyday how people who think indolently about other people's disadvantage is really bothering, we have to live with so much violence and other problems directly derived from  "I am doing fine, so f**ck others!" or "let's do X even if that will be bad for most, it will be good for me, so I don't care".

Funding was definitely one of the factors when I applied to Grad School. I have nobody to pay for my bills, so I need a decent stipend. Debt is also not an option for me because I am an international applicant from a country where no "student loans" are available and have no guarantee that I will get a well paid job after I graduate.
 
As for having kids as a graduate student, that is entirely up to the individual (or the couple, actually) and nobody should judge if it is a "good choice" or a "bad choice" based on ignorance on the specific circumstances of the couple in question. Stating that parents have no place in grad school is bad for society, for democracy and for human rights in general. Let alone for women's rights! We tend to have the bigger load when it comes to parenting, even with a good partner, and making any woman to decided between career and maternity is discriminatory. Judging others for choosing to have kids is as wrong as judging those who decided NOT to have kids. Too bad that other students, who are supposed to be smart make generalizations and judge the same way less educated people do. Anyway, as Cheshire_Cat said, maybe more money is not the answer to support parents in grad school, but there are things that can be done, like subsidized child care, only that can mean a MAJOR support, and keep everybody making the same stipend while still supporting parents.
 
Regarding the abuses to the system: I don't even think those are statistically relevant to shut down programs or to be a real concern. Having a kid is expensive by itself and tiresome. We have to talk about some serious increment in your income to even considering using a child to make money. I mean, as a single person o even a couple with no kids, a regular 25K- 27k stipend can get a decent life financially and would manege time more effectively for school purposes. For the sake of argument, let's say that you get a 5K bonus for your spouse and child. Do you really think that there will be much left after paying for diapers, all the extra food, health care (in kids that is a major expense) and other necessities??? Not really, and considering "getting unintended dependents" (how you do that?? get married to someone you don't care about just to make an extra buck?? Have a child you don't want just for the extra money that will likely go away in taking care of that child anyway), that is a very bad money making strategy and should be reconsidered, and I am not even talking about the effort and time it takes to live with a spouse and a kid. Of course, I am talking about grad school students, who are the source of this topic, I am not referring to someone living off unemployment and other state benefits because it is comfortable.
 
Moreover, as TakeruK mentioned, the amount of people who really benefit are more in numbers and by benefiting those who need it the general outcome for the rest is always for the better. We all benefit from a society (or school) where more individuals don't struggle to survive. Even those who are not directly recipients of such programs. Selfish attitudes like the ones posted here,  have been the root of social injustice throughout the world, which in turn lead to war, violence and discrimination. I know, I am going as far as I could from the topic, but coming from a developing nation where I see everyday how people who think indolently about other people's disadvantage is really bothering, we have to live with so much violence and other problems directly derived from  "I am doing fine, so f**ck others!" or "let's do X even if that will be bad for most, it will be good for me, so I don't care".

Funding was definitely one of the factors when I applied to Grad School. I have nobody to pay for my bills, so I need a decent stipend. Debt is also not an option for me because I am an international applicant from a country where no "student loans" are available and have no guarantee that I will get a well paid job after I graduate.
 
As for having kids as a graduate student, that is entirely up to the individual (or the couple, actually) and nobody should judge if it is a "good choice" or a "bad choice" based on ignorance on the specific circumstances of the couple in question. Stating that parents have no place in grad school is bad for society, for democracy and for human rights in general. Let alone for women's rights! We tend to have the bigger load when it comes to parenting, even with a good partner, and making any woman to decided between career and maternity is discriminatory. Judging others for choosing to have kids is as wrong as judging those who decided NOT to have kids. Too bad that other students, who are supposed to be smart make generalizations and judge the same way less educated people do. Anyway, as Cheshire_Cat said, maybe more money is not the answer to support parents in grad school, but there are things that can be done, like subsidized child care, only that can mean a MAJOR support, and keep everybody making the same stipend while still supporting parents.
 
Regarding the abuses to the system: I don't even think those are statistically relevant to shut down programs or to be a real concern. Having a kid is expensive by itself and tiresome. We have to talk about some serious increment in your income to even considering using a child to make money. I mean, as a single person o even a couple with no kids, a regular 25K- 27k stipend can get a decent life financially and would manege time more effectively for school purposes. For the sake of argument, let's say that you get a 5K bonus for your spouse and child. Do you really think that there will be much left after paying for diapers, all the extra food, health care (in kids that is a major expense) and other necessities??? Not really, and considering "getting unintended dependents" (how you do that?? get married to someone you don't care about just to make an extra buck?? Have a child you don't want just for the extra money that will likely go away in taking care of that child anyway), that is a very bad money making strategy and should be reconsidered, and I am not even talking about the effort and time it takes to live with a spouse and a kid. Of course, I am talking about grad school students, who are the source of this topic, I am not referring to someone living off unemployment and other state benefits because it is comfortable.
 
Moreover, as TakeruK mentioned, the amount of people who really benefit are more in numbers and by benefiting those who need it the general outcome for the rest is always for the better. We all benefit from a society (or school) where more individuals don't struggle to survive. Even those who are not directly recipients of such programs. Selfish attitudes like the ones posted here,  have been the root of social injustice throughout the world, which in turn lead to war, violence and discrimination. I know, I am going as far as I could from the topic, but coming from a developing nation where I see everyday how people who think indolently about other people's disadvantage is really bothering, we have to live with so much violence and other problems directly derived from  "I am doing fine, so f**ck others!" or "let's do X even if that will be bad for most, it will be good for me, so I don't care".

Note: Unionization is much more common in Canada (where my MSc school was). Universities are used to working with unions because there can be as many as 6-10 different union locals/chapters on campus (representing students, postdocs, administrative staff, plant ops/custodial staff, construction, professors, researchers, etc. although sometimes they are combined). Graduate students are also generally considered public service employees because we work for provincially funded public schools and provide services to the public (e.g. teaching). So, grad student unions are the norm, not the exception in Canada.
 
My work with the union was the Physics representative to the Union. At first, I was the one of two representatives from the STEM fields (almost all of the other disciplines that were doing well didn't even want to participate). A large part of my time was spent simply convincing other physics students that unions are a good thing for graduate students. This was a relatively new union (on the other hand, all other major Canadian schools have been unionized for many many more years). There was a lot of misconception that the students in the social sciences/humanities are trying to lower science students' stipends so that they can get an increase. 
 
I think a union (or other collective action) can still benefit those who have their needs met. Prior to unionization, the science students have good stipends and working conditions through the grace of the department (and potentially through market forces--if they don't pay well, students can do other things). However, collective bargaining make these good conditions into contractual obligations that are independent of market forces. Once they are signed into the contract, if the University wants to take them back, it will cost them. Also, while perhaps 90% of the STEM grad students had benefits like proper sick leave and vacation time due to having reasonable supervisors, there are still some who did not. Without a contract, a student is subject to the whims of their supervisor and/or their own charisma/ability to stand up to their supervisor. And since the number of marginalized students (by definition) is small, little action is taken to help them.
 
Overall, yes, the idea behind collective action will not help the few who are both currently well off and have the ability to negotiate for their own benefits and protection. Usually, these are people who generally have more influence in academia. But, if you have this privilege, then why not use your position of power and privilege to help those who have less? In general, I believe that those with more should help those with less. Especially since those without these privileges are going to have to spend more time on other things just to catch up--they might not have the resources to speak up for themselves. For example, if a PhD student is making $16k/year and working a part time job to support themselves, they might not have time to organize students or arrange meetings to discuss raising student stipends, even if the administration is open to such discussions. Or, a student with a less-than-ideal advisor-advisee relationship might be afraid of backlash if they tried to lobby the department for better sick leave policies.
 
If we want to be responsible members of our community, then, when we have privilege, we should speak up for those who cannot. Otherwise, we risk creating a community where there will only be people like us. In some industries, this might not be a big deal, but in academia, where the diversity of ideas/experiences is supposedly critical (e.g. all the worry about doing all your degrees in one place), I think we're hurting ourselves when we make academia more exclusive/restrictive.

I think we need to make a distinction between skill, inherent value of an occupation, and market value of an occupation.  My BFF is English, and she is just as brilliant as I am, but the market value for someone who is in English is less than the market value for an accountant.  Does that mean the person or job is really less valuable?  No.  I'd say that the most important job in the world is being a parent, and you get paid diddly squat for that.
 
A trash mans job is way more important than mine, but he gets paid less because there are more people who can do his job than can do mine.  He is less "skilled" than I am.
 
An artist may be incredibly skilled at art, but since a lot of people don't pay for art, they don't make as much.  IMO, art adds a lot more inherent value to the world than my job, but it doesn't add value in the marketplace.
But really, accountants get paid as much as they do partially because no one else wants to stare at a spreadsheet all day.  It is boring.  The people who do accounting value the money it will provide over the other things they could be doing.  You have to pay them more money than you have to pay a teacher because the job is less internally fulfilling.
 
Really, skill and need, as well as a lot of other factors play into how much you get paid.  But it all comes down to how much the market thinks the service you provide is worth.  Not how much you are worth as a person, or the inherent value of what you do.

Also, we need to stop talking about having children as an individual choice or sacrifice. Sure, it is, but the wellbeing of children is also a collective community concern. We pay for subsidized preschool, public education, and Pell Grants through our taxes, even if we don't have kids, because of the belief that our society will be better off if our next generation is an educated one. We also pay for free meals at school and health care for children through taxes because of the belief that society will be better off if our next generation has been fed and cared for. The children today become the voters, doctors, teachers, social workers, and politicians of tomorrow, so yes, we should all care about the wellbeing of children. And sometimes that means supporting parents. Like I said before, no one is actually arguing for an increased stipend for parents. But I would love to see heavily subsidized childcare and better paid family leave. And that family leave should be for everyone, because it's disgusting that a grad student can get diagnosed with cancer and not continue to receive her stipend or her benefits. Or that a grad student caring for a sick parent can't take time off without hurting his time-to-degree. But most importantly, we grad students should be supporting each other, fighting for each other's needs and concerns because administrations sure won't.

Another argument for making allowances for children-  children with better educated parents are more likely to be successful in their own lives.  Yes, it may be bad timing to have kids in grad school, but there never really is a good time to have kids.  Currently, people who are less educated and less successful are having a lot more kids than those who are successful, because by the time we are settled enough to consider children, we are past prime child-bearing years.  As the system is right now, you have to put your family aside for career stability in the workplace or academia.  Wouldn't it be better if that wasn't the case?  It doesn't happen in industry, but people in industry don't get tenure either.
 
I see the abuses, I audit government programs for a living.  But I feel like there should be some way to increase the work/life balance of a graduate student so they don't always have to make the choice between career or children.  I'm not sure if more money is the answer, but I think it is something to be considered.