Mind if I pull out my tiny violin and rant for just a sec?

[toxic_sci]

I got my first acceptance letter, but it is acceptance without departmental funding. They told me I could speak with professors to see if any of them have grants, but I've already done that and the one I wanted to work with doesn't.

Gosh, it just makes me feel so defeated, though. The app was due Feb 1 (a Tuesday), I got a call from the coordinator on Feb 7 (the following Monday) and she told me the committee met Friday and "they were very excited to accept me, meeting me in August..." blah blah. Why they would go to the trouble of calling me, emailing me a copy of the letter, etc. if they were accpeting me without funding? And so soon after the deadline, too. Like I wasn't even a last resort or something, I made the first cut.

When I hear of "acceptance without funding," I always think "they probably accept everyone and only give funding to the ones they really want." I just feel like total crap, though. This was my first of five decisions. I was thinking I was only going to get accepted into my undergrad school's program, then I got accepted in this other one, got all excited, only to be crushed again when I read the letter.

Acceptance without funding is like getting a D in a class which you need at least a C in for your degree-you're technically not failing, but it won't count anyway so you'll still have to retake the class. So facking annoying!

/end rant

[Fanciful Unicorn]

I'm sorry to hear that you did not get any funding. I would imagine it to be very frustrating! Although it isn't any consolation, funding at many universities has simply dried up. Even at the undergrad level, there is barely any money to go around. I wouldn't take it too hard, or as a judgement of your personal abilities.

[eklavya]

I got my first acceptance letter, but it is acceptance without departmental funding. They told me I could speak with professors to see if any of them have grants, but I've already done that and the one I wanted to work with doesn't.

ditto happened to me. their dept website was not clear about if i should contact the profs before, or after the application, or if i should contact them at all. it's partially my fault that i wasn't proactive enough, and didn't contact my PoIs. but c'mon. the dept should be very clear about the process too. not like we are oracles or gypsies! - how the hell do we know what the next step is.

anyway, i contacted a couple profs whose research interested me the most, but they weren't taking any students. dead end. they suggested that i transfer my application to a similar program in the same college, but i said no thank you. i also found out, very late, that i wasn't given funding because the head of the dept and the guy who is in charge of allocating funds for new grad students, are not in good speaking terms. i was like WHAAAAAT!? they are playing with our future man!

/end soapbox.

[nyrrac]

I know what you mean. An acceptance without funding is the same as a rejection letter. My first acceptance letter is to a top university but the university funding is highly competitive (7% of the applicants get it) and the department only funds ONE grad student a year. I think I would have better luck winning the lottery or finding gold hidden in my back yard

Keep your hopes up. This is admission season... you might get a better offer with funding!

Edited February 10, 2011 by nyrrac

[Vacuum]

Let's look on the bright side of things -- at least you got in!!! Think of how many applicants probably applied to the program and were rejected. At least you have been given the opportunity to futher your studies!

I know you need money to survive and all that, but seriously, take a moment to pat yourself on the back for getting in!!!

[Medievalmaniac]

Let's look on the bright side of things -- at least you got in!!! Think of how many applicants probably applied to the program and were rejected. At least you have been given the opportunity to futher your studies!

I know you need money to survive and all that, but seriously, take a moment to pat yourself on the back for getting in!!!

Yeeeeah...but even for a Master's degree, you're looking at double-digit thousands beginning with 20 or 30 and going up to 50 in student loan debt. It really is akin to a rejection in many respects.

I deeply regret doing a Master's degree on my dime, and will not have it paid off until 2025. I am NOT going to do a PhD in like vein...which meant that my unfunded acceptance last year might as well have been a rejection. Hoping for better this year - but I so understand where the first poster is coming from.

Hang in there, I really hope you can find a way to swing it!!

[Vacuum]

I know that the need is there for funding, but I think it just takes away from the glory of being accepted. I took two years off of school to specifically work full time and save for a possible future in grad school. Yeah, no funding sucks, but I don't think you should rely on being funded to begin with or else you are just setting yourself up for disapointment!

[socme123]

I know that the need is there for funding, but I think it just takes away from the glory of being accepted. I took two years off of school to specifically work full time and save for a possible future in grad school. Yeah, no funding sucks, but I don't think you should rely on being funded to begin with or else you are just setting yourself up for disapointment!

Hmm yeah I disagree. There's no glory in being accepted without funding if you can't afford to go. The point of this whole process is not merely to collect acceptances, but rather to go to graduate school. Grad school can put you over $50k in the whole, and it's the rare applicant who's not from a privileged background who can afford to pay that even after taking off a couple year to work.

[garibaldi]

Have you tried negotiating with them?

[philosophy chic]

Hmm yeah I disagree. There's no glory in being accepted without funding if you can't afford to go. The point of this whole process is not merely to collect acceptances, but rather to go to graduate school. Grad school can put you over $50k in the whole, and it's the rare applicant who's not from a privileged background who can afford to pay that even after taking off a couple year to work.

I agree with Vacuum on this one. Getting accepted into a program is an honor. So many student's today seem to expect that getting into a grad school is just like getting into college -its going to happen; it should happen. But grad schools are not undergrad institutions. Having someone acknowledge the time and effort you put into your undergraduate education and graduate application is worth something. It is complaining that a school won't pay you to further your own education which sounds like the words of a someone who's from a "privileged background." If a graduate degree is something you want, then work for it. Go out and get a job to save up for it or find a way to work while earning the degree. Don't complain because the department won't pamper you at a time when their own funding is most likely being significantly reduced.

[ZeChocMoose]

It is complaining that a school won't pay you to further your own education which sounds like the words of a someone who's from a "privileged background." If a graduate degree is something you want, then work for it. Go out and get a job to save up for it or find a way to work while earning the degree. Don't complain because the department won't pamper you at a time when their own funding is most likely being significantly reduced.

Yikes, philosophy chic. Your comment is a bit harsh.

Toxic_sci, I understand your frustrations and I am glad that you are thinking seriously about the cost of graduate school. Tuition + living expenses can really add up and in some cases it is not worth it if the amount you have to borrow ends up being more than what you can pay off. When I applied to master's programs, I was in your shoes. I received some acceptances without any funding and I decided that while they were really great programs, financially I could not justify borrowing 60K for a master's degree. I do not regret this decision. A good rule of thumb that I have heard is to not borrow more than what your starting salary will be once you graduate.

If you don't receive any funded offerings, is it possible to work full-time and go to school part-time? Or if your field does not typically offer funding, are there any good programs in your state that you can apply to?

Good luck with your decision and I hope you hear of better offers soon.

Edited February 16, 2011 by ZeChocMoose

[polarscribe]

philosophy chic, I strongly disagree.

Graduate school, in many fields, is simply a terrible investment if not funded. For those who aren't independently wealthy, it means borrowing tens of thousands of dollars per year for tuition, to say nothing of living costs. Instead of working one's way up through a paid career ladder, banking lifetime earnings and paying down debt, one has to go deeper in a hole.

If you are learning to become a teacher and researcher, it stands to reason that you should be compensated for what is effectively a long-term internship that lasts from two to six years - or even longer.

Edited February 16, 2011 by polarscribe

[GutLogic]

I have to agree that, for the most part, it isn't worth doing a graduate program without funding.

In a research-based program, at least, grad students do a good part of the work of the department. Programs want to attract competitive applicants because those applicants will do good research while they are there, which will bring in money and bolster the department's reputation. Getting an acceptance without funding to that kind of program is kind of like having a company you applied to work at tell you, "Well, we think you can add value to our organization, and we'd like you to come work for us, but we're not going to pay you. In fact, you have to pay us."

While it does ultimately further your education, I tend to think of grad school- or at least a PhD program- as a career-track job. It is not at all the same as undergrad. I'm in the same boat as a lot of people when I say that I'm used to getting paid for my work, the type of work I'm doing isn't going to change drastically when I go into a grad program, and I expect to be extremely productive as a graduate student. I don't think asking to be paid to work more than full time, at something one has already proven they can do professionally, while increasing the research output of the department & the advisor's lab, is asking to be "pampered". If I wasn't going to be funded it would be a better use of my energy to get a research assistant position in the department & use my employee benefits to take classes on the side. It would require about the same amount of work because I'd be doing almost the exact same thing, while learning the same skills.

But maybe this all only applies to the sciences. I don't know what other fields are like.

[jprufrock]

I consider grad school a huge investment of time and energy, knowledge and resources.

To have to invest money as well is asking too much.

If I took all of the immaterial currency I'm willing to spend on grad school and directed it to other pathways, it would arguably result in a large +$EV. This has nothing to do with my own potential, mind you--it's simply a function of the amount of work one must or is expected to accomplish in a grad program.

Thus, a grad school offer that doesn't include funding would have to 1) have a +EV equivalent to whatever +$EV I could earn otherwise and 2) probably wouldn't be able to meet such an expectation without funding.

There's no such thing as pampering--everything should be fair and equal as far as I'm concerned. It's nothing more than an exchange--in return for my work, effort, talent, knowledge, teaching, sweat and blood, I receive a PhD degree, education, money, connections and eventually a career.

Of course, not every program has the resources to make such a fair exchange to x number of qualified people, and that is a shame.

[space-cat]

While it does ultimately further your education, I tend to think of grad school- or at least a PhD program- as a career-track job. It is not at all the same as undergrad. I'm in the same boat as a lot of people when I say that I'm used to getting paid for my work, the type of work I'm doing isn't going to change drastically when I go into a grad program, and I expect to be extremely productive as a graduate student. I don't think asking to be paid to work more than full time, at something one has already proven they can do professionally, while increasing the research output of the department & the advisor's lab, is asking to be "pampered". If I wasn't going to be funded it would be a better use of my energy to get a research assistant position in the department & use my employee benefits to take classes on the side. It would require about the same amount of work because I'd be doing almost the exact same thing, while learning the same skills.

But maybe this all only applies to the sciences. I don't know what other fields are like.

You're dead on for the social sciences, as well. I would also add that grad students are generally (implicitly) expected to put significant time and effort in to their adviser's projects, which may or may not be related to their research. Plus teaching expectations, particularly if you're running discussion groups and help sessions on top of grading papers. And, of course, you're doing all of this while being reminded that the success or failure of your academic career will ultimately have some impact on the prestige of your department, your adviser, and possibly the members of your dissertation committee.

Bottom line: PhD programs are investing in you and what you can do--not the other way around--and they expect returns.

[kateow]

I'll throw in that for anthropology, it is convention that, at the very least, your tuition will be covered by your graduate institution. I am also not familiar with other disciplines, so perhaps it is different in the humanities than the social sciences... but I have been advised (correctly, as far as I can tell) to not consider acceptance without funding a "real" acceptance. I also side with the argument that it is unreasonable to expect a working person to be able to complete a doctoral degree, while working and without aid.

However, to be accepted, even without funding, certainly *is* something to be proud of. This is a very competitive process and that acceptance sure beats a rejection. So, I think it's fair to say that one can be both proud and disappointed, at the same time, given this situation.

[philosophy chic]

In response to the responses....

I agree that students should be paid for any work they do as a TA or research assistant. If one provides a service of value to the institution then one should be compensated for it. (Like Kam750 I am used to getting paid for my work as well). I could even maybe see the reasoning behind a school paying a particular student who legitimately is a genius, has published numerous works in prestigious journals, and gains enough attention to draw other students to the program (It would be like a brand getting an athlete to endorse its product). However, I am unsure how reading texts and writing papers necessary for classes one must pass in order to get a degree without which one presumably would not be able to work in their chosen profession produces anything for which a student should monetarily be compensated. Yes, hopefully PhD's will become famous and thus increase the prestige of their school, but 1) this is not a given for all - or maybe even most - students, 2) do we expect to paid by every institution whose reputation we possibly may increase, and 3) does the benefit schools gain from having John Smith listed among their graduates provide a significant increase in revenue to justify providing funding for every student?

Yes, graduate school is hard work, and one does invest a lot of time and effort into earning a PhD. In the end though, we go for the degree - for the thing we actually need if we want to continue in our current life plans. Med students, law students, and MA students put in just as much effort as PhD candidates do, but yet, from what I can tell at least, they typically do not complain about how universities do not pay them for earning the degree that will be useful in earning their own future income. So yes, pay students for teaching undergrads and helping professors with research, but to assume that we should be paid to attend lectures, read texts, and write a dissertation sounds, at least to me, to be slightly presumptuous.

Disclaimer: I am speaking from a humanities background.

[space-cat]

Yes, hopefully PhD's will become famous and thus increase the prestige of their school, but 1) this is not a given for all - or maybe even most - students, 2) do we expect to paid by every institution whose reputation we possibly may increase, and 3) does the benefit schools gain from having John Smith listed among their graduates provide a significant increase in revenue to justify providing funding for every student?

It's definitely a bit backwards: if the current expectation is that a school will fund you to complete a PhD, then schools will, in turn, make sure they get their "money's worth" by investing in someone who will benefit the school in ways that are not necessarily tangible at the time of admission. For most schools, the bottom line is indeed admitting people who will finish on time, publish early and often, and be placed in tenure track positions right away (see the "behind the scenes" thread in Poli Sci for an example). This benefits the school by raising their rates of attrition and placement, strengthening political connections with major journals, peer institutions, and grant awarding agencies, bumping up their NRC ranking, increasing the department's funding from the university itself, attracting more top notch grad students, and so on. Maybe things are different in other fields (again, I'm in the social sciences), but in mine you are also expected to keep up a mutually beneficial relationship with your adviser and, to a lesser degree, your institution for the rest of your academic career. We all know academia is a very political place, and connections are everything.

With all that in mind, maybe it makes more sense to think of the stipend as a fair salary for work and the tuition remission and fellowship as comparable to the signing bonus or continuing education bonus one would find in the job market. The grad school admission season is also competitive for the schools: most successful applicants will receive more than one offer, and will have to choose. What's the most effective way to snag a competitive candidate from a peer institution? Offer more money. Hence the OP's sadness at not receiving funding (which, for the record, I completely understand).

Edited February 17, 2011 by space-cat

[qbtacoma]

What space-cat said.

Also, schools are looking to train the most promising scholars in their fields. The vast majority of innovative students cannot pay to go to graduate school. So, to prevent grad schools from being filled with the rich yet potentially mediocre, funding for graduate study is secured.

And you wanna talk about privilege? Privilege is paying for graduate school from your estate, or from Mommy and Daddy. You think that getting paid to go to class is privilege? How about this: I would never be able to afford grad school, not if I worked for the rest of my life. My job prospects are in the nonprofit sector or the service sector. I don't have any innovative (read: product) ideas, business training, or high-income skills. I will never own my own house. However, my economic situation says little about the viability of my ideas, my research skills, or my teaching ability. So any school that wants to hone those has to support me when I go there, period. It isn't privilege on my part (any more than a college education is to begin with) - it is the reality that my excellent academic skills are not useful to the private sector.

Edited February 17, 2011 by qbtacoma

[ZeChocMoose]

However, I am unsure how reading texts and writing papers necessary for classes one must pass in order to get a degree without which one presumably would not be able to work in their chosen profession produces anything for which a student should monetarily be compensated. Yes, hopefully PhD's will become famous and thus increase the prestige of their school, but 1) this is not a given for all - or maybe even most - students, 2) do we expect to paid by every institution whose reputation we possibly may increase, and 3) does the benefit schools gain from having John Smith listed among their graduates provide a significant increase in revenue to justify providing funding for every student?

Your comments are a bit odd philosophy chic. It is not so much that PhD graduates will increase the "prestige" of the institution that they attend, but institutions understand in order to attract and retain great PhD students then they need to provide them with basic essentials. These basics are tuition remission, a livable stipend, medical coverage, and solid training and development for the field that the students want to enter. It is a symbiotic relationship between the student and the program. Your comments make it seem like the student is the only one benefiting from their education. I disagree-- as the student, the institution, the field, and the community-at-large benefits from providing education to its citizens.

Yes, graduate school is hard work, and one does invest a lot of time and effort into earning a PhD. In the end though, we go for the degree - for the thing we actually need if we want to continue in our current life plans. Med students, law students, and MA students put in just as much effort as PhD candidates do, but yet, from what I can tell at least, they typically do not complain about how universities do not pay them for earning the degree that will be useful in earning their own future income.

Typically PhD students do not view their degrees as a "necessary evil" to earn their future income. It's the process that is important to them and this process allows them to secure a job in academia. Your comments make it sound like a PhD is just a hurdle that you need to accomplish before your "real" career begins.

I also have to disagree with your comment that medical, law, and master's students are not concerned with the cost of their degree. I think they are concerned especially in fields where the average income is declining or jobs are difficult to find for recent graduates. Personally, I think we need to do a better job at subsidizing the cost of this education as well as it is important to our community to have skilled doctors, lawyers, and industry members from all walks of life.

Edited February 17, 2011 by ZeChocMoose