zzzzzzzzzz Posted March 3, 2018 Share Posted March 3, 2018 Dear prospective graduate students, congratulations! Now here's a word of warning as you decide which offer to accept and which to turn down. Programs may go out of their way in order to make their offers look more competitive than they are. One way they may do this is by describing the highest possible level of funding available and allowing prospective students to interpret this level of funding as "normal". A real-life example, vaguely described: At one ("top ten") program last year, official financial offers - in which the reality of the funding situation was finally brought to light - were not distributed until well after the deadline of April 15. In this case, some of the prospective students asked for the official offer before committing and were told that there was no need to pursue that formality. The students were told that everything discussed in person and by unofficial email was "binding". When this cohort finally got its letters they learned they were actually going to make $5k less per year than they had thought, since they hadn't been alert to what was effectively a loophole in what was discussed in person and by email. And since these letters weren't distributed until well into May, it was too late for anyone to change his or her decision. So in short, get your OFFICIAL financial offers in writing before committing anywhere and then read through them carefully. Programs are competing for the top students, and some are willing to go so far as to mislead prospectives in order to get them to commit. downwardabsolute, Eigen, sabrono and 6 others 1 8 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glasperlenspieler Posted March 3, 2018 Share Posted March 3, 2018 Yikes! This sounds like it at least goes against the spirit of the April 15th agreement if not the letter. If you or others have hard evidence, it might be something worth contacting Leiter and/or the Daily Nous about. I have mixed feelings about public shaming, but this seems like a situation where it could be helpful, if only to alert potential graduate students. Aqua1818 and downwardabsolute 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thehegeldialectic Posted March 3, 2018 Share Posted March 3, 2018 If true, could you please provide the name of the program responsible? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prose Posted March 3, 2018 Share Posted March 3, 2018 I'd just name the program lol that's straight up scummy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThePeon Posted March 3, 2018 Share Posted March 3, 2018 36 minutes ago, Glasperlenspieler said: Yikes! This sounds like it at least goes against the spirit of the April 15th agreement if not the letter. If you or others have hard evidence, it might be something worth contacting Leiter and/or the Daily Nous about. I have mixed feelings about public shaming, but this seems like a situation where it could be helpful, if only to alert potential graduate students. I second this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thehegeldialectic Posted March 3, 2018 Share Posted March 3, 2018 (edited) 39 minutes ago, Glasperlenspieler said: contacting Leiter Probably best to contact someone with a better ethical track record. Or maybe he will mail them poop! Edited March 3, 2018 by iunoionnis sidebysondheim, downwardabsolute and Vivec 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duns Eith Posted March 3, 2018 Share Posted March 3, 2018 (edited) I would also warn: make sure you know how long your funding is guaranteed for (4, 5, 6 years?), how long grad students typically get funded (even if 5 is guaranteed, 6 might be common), and whether the scholarship matches the length of the base funding (perhaps 5 years, when the dept funds for 6, say). This might not be perfectly clear on their website. For example, I was given an offer "renewable up to 4 years", which meant a total of 4 years, not renewed 4 years for a total of 5. While this might be clear, on my scholarship it used the same verbiage "renewable up to 3 years, for a total of 4 years." Hence the ambiguity. Also, what PhD program only funds for 4 years? Moral of the story: When in doubt, ask. Don't get burned. Edited March 3, 2018 by Duns Eith Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thehegeldialectic Posted March 3, 2018 Share Posted March 3, 2018 5 minutes ago, Duns Eith said: Also, what PhD program only funds for 4 years? A ton of them ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duns Eith Posted March 3, 2018 Share Posted March 3, 2018 (edited) 4 minutes ago, iunoionnis said: A ton of them ... Of the 18 schools I applied to last year, all of them said 5 or more years funding, except one which didn't say one way or another. And that one was what I got surprised by. Could you give me some examples? Are they ranked on PGR? Edited March 3, 2018 by Duns Eith Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thehegeldialectic Posted March 3, 2018 Share Posted March 3, 2018 3 minutes ago, Duns Eith said: Of the 18 schools I applied to last year, all of them said 5 or more years funding, except one which didn't say one way or another. And that one was what I got surprised by. Some give you four years, but usually give you teaching during years five and six. Not all universities have a ton of funding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duns Eith Posted March 6, 2018 Share Posted March 6, 2018 On 3/3/2018 at 5:20 PM, iunoionnis said: Some give you four years, but usually give you teaching during years five and six. Not all universities have a ton of funding. Any you applied to? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now