Fellowships, liability and the unexpected.

[Jmews]

I have been admitted to a Ph.D. program at a University of California with a fellowship award and full waiver etc. However, I am slightly concerned about my liability for any funding received from the department if I do not complete the entire course of study.

Obviously I am going into this with the expectation that I will be able to complete the required work, but I have slight concerns about both my ability and desire to complete such a long period of research. I have some pressing family issues which complicate my situation, and will be far across the country from all of my family.

Does anyone know what the general situation is regarding liability for payments received when it comes to withdrawals and fellowship funding? Does it depend on what stage you are at? Is there a clear precedent in these case?

I am aware that in this program I receive an M.A. after the first year, but then there are several years of further instruction and research. This is weighing heavily on me, as I am inclined to pass up the opportunity if there is a chance of liability. To add further pressure, a graduate qualification in my field is only really useful for further academic pursuits.

[Lustforlife]

People drop out of graduate programs all the time. The university will not hold you liable. Your advisers might be disappointed, but shouldn't hold it against as long as you have a valid reason for withdrawing from your program.

[IRdreams]

That being said, if you really only want a masters and not a phd, you should not use of the slot of someone who is commited to the phd as a point of ethics.

[blackshirt]

People drop out of graduate programs all the time. The university will not hold you liable. Your advisers might be disappointed, but shouldn't hold it against as long as you have a valid reason for withdrawing from your program.

That being said, if you really only want a masters and not a phd, you should not use of the slot of someone who is commited to the phd as a point of ethics.

Both of these, exactly. Though I have no idea why IRdreams got downvoted. Whoever thinks it's fair to suck up some of the UC's dwindling PhD funding resources with no intention of going past the MA is entirely confused.

I don't think IRdreams meant to accuse the OP of planning such a maneuver; it's simply a warning to think things through before going forward with a course of study. If the OP is realizing that this course of study is not for him/her, it isn't very ethical to continue anyway with plans to drop out after a year or two, especially in a climate where so many other (very qualified) people would give an arm and their firstborn to get a shot at the full PhD.

[Jmews]

I understand, and share, your opinion regarding the misuse of funding for PhDs. I have no intent of just receiving the MA, but rather just wish to clarify my financial liability prior to committing myself.

[long_time_lurker]

A fellowship is not an award that comes with strings attached for what you have already been paid. Of course, if you don't perform, future funding can be denied, but you can't be asked to pay back previous awards.

Most of us at some point are apprehensive about how we will do and whether we will finish the marathon. The school wouldn't have awarded you the fellowship if it did not believe in you or your ability.

What you should not worry about is satisfying the university or people on this forum who think you "stole" someone's spot. You earned the position and ultimately it is your decision whether to leave if your needs dictate that. If your family needs you, leave. If you get a better paying gig, leave. That's how our capitalist system works. People go to where the best offer is. The school gives out its fellowships to the best candidates but assumes the risk of people leaving. It's the cost of doing business.

[long_time_lurker]

That being said, if you really only want a masters and not a phd, you should not use of the slot of someone who is commited to the phd as a point of ethics.

Why? If someone can take advantage of a market inefficiency, that makes him a good consumer.

When the grocery store has a sale on 2 lbs. of sugar for $1, you would seriously argue that I ethically should buy the 6 lb. package for $3.99 instead of 3 2 lb. packages for $3, just in case some guy who only needs 2 lbs. can buy his for $1? Would you also argue I am being dishonest to the store because I really want 6 lbs. of sugar?

Let's say Joe Blow applies to work at Goldman and would prefer to work there, but JP Morgan calls back first and offers $150K to work there as an analyst. Joe Blow should turn down $150K because Goldman is his first choice and some other guy's first choice is to work at JP Morgan? Better yet, if Goldman calls a month after he takes the job at JP Morgan and offers him $160K, he should stay there just because he owes it to the guy who dreamed of working at JP Morgan, or because JP Morgan invested time and money on recruiting and training him?

Lastly: Plenty of people take the NYPD and FDNY tests because, despite being hard - sometimes deadly - jobs that aren't very high paying, they pay a living wage and offer comprehensive benefits. It's a way to feed your family while you wait for something else higher paying or less demanding to become available. Meanwhile some people who dreamed their whole lives of doing these jobs - many times people who would be 4th or 5th generation On The Job - don't score high enough on the test to make the cutoff for the next Academy class. God forbid you were in a burning building, would you want the more capable person - even if it's not his dream job or one he will stay in for more than a couple years - to be your rescuer, or the less capable guy he deferred to because it was the "ethical" thing to do?

[IRdreams]

Why? If someone can take advantage of a market inefficiency, that makes him a good consumer.

When the grocery store has a sale on 2 lbs. of sugar for $1, you would seriously argue that I ethically should buy the 6 lb. package for $3.99 instead of 3 2 lb. packages for $3, just in case some guy who only needs 2 lbs. can buy his for $1? Would you also argue I am being dishonest to the store because I really want 6 lbs. of sugar?

Let's say Joe Blow applies to work at Goldman and would prefer to work there, but JP Morgan calls back first and offers $150K to work there as an analyst. Joe Blow should turn down $150K because Goldman is his first choice and some other guy's first choice is to work at JP Morgan? Better yet, if Goldman calls a month after he takes the job at JP Morgan and offers him $160K, he should stay there just because he owes it to the guy who dreamed of working at JP Morgan, or because JP Morgan invested time and money on recruiting and training him?

Lastly: Plenty of people take the NYPD and FDNY tests because, despite being hard - sometimes deadly - jobs that aren't very high paying, they pay a living wage and offer comprehensive benefits. It's a way to feed your family while you wait for something else higher paying or less demanding to become available. Meanwhile some people who dreamed their whole lives of doing these jobs - many times people who would be 4th or 5th generation On The Job - don't score high enough on the test to make the cutoff for the next Academy class. God forbid you were in a burning building, would you want the more capable person - even if it's not his dream job or one he will stay in for more than a couple years - to be your rescuer, or the less capable guy he deferred to because it was the "ethical" thing to do?

Because it is fraud. If one knows they only want a masters, they are applying under false pretenses and lying to achieve admissions. Lets continue your banker example: the equivalent of someone pursuing a masters under the guise of a phd is someone who gets hired as a director but is only willing to do an analyst's work. Or lets imagine a lawyer who bills his clients for hours he didn't do...sounds like embezzlement. The PhD program pays you on the good faith assumption that you are actually attempting to finish the higher prestige degree and that they will get a certain level of work out of you. If you violate that good faith it is the academic equivalent of fraud or embezzlement.

[Eigen]

Why? If someone can take advantage of a market inefficiency, that makes him a good consumer.

When the grocery store has a sale on 2 lbs. of sugar for $1, you would seriously argue that I ethically should buy the 6 lb. package for $3.99 instead of 3 2 lb. packages for $3, just in case some guy who only needs 2 lbs. can buy his for $1? Would you also argue I am being dishonest to the store because I really want 6 lbs. of sugar?

Let's say Joe Blow applies to work at Goldman and would prefer to work there, but JP Morgan calls back first and offers $150K to work there as an analyst. Joe Blow should turn down $150K because Goldman is his first choice and some other guy's first choice is to work at JP Morgan? Better yet, if Goldman calls a month after he takes the job at JP Morgan and offers him $160K, he should stay there just because he owes it to the guy who dreamed of working at JP Morgan, or because JP Morgan invested time and money on recruiting and training him?

Lastly: Plenty of people take the NYPD and FDNY tests because, despite being hard - sometimes deadly - jobs that aren't very high paying, they pay a living wage and offer comprehensive benefits. It's a way to feed your family while you wait for something else higher paying or less demanding to become available. Meanwhile some people who dreamed their whole lives of doing these jobs - many times people who would be 4th or 5th generation On The Job - don't score high enough on the test to make the cutoff for the next Academy class. God forbid you were in a burning building, would you want the more capable person - even if it's not his dream job or one he will stay in for more than a couple years - to be your rescuer, or the less capable guy he deferred to because it was the "ethical" thing to do?

This isn't "taking advantage of the system" as pointed out, it's fraud. If you applied for a "PhD" program, there's the implied intent to finish a PhD. You were giving funding based on the fact that you would finish a PhD. If you only intended to do a masters, then you got that funding through lying in your application.

You mix, in your posts, reasons that are legitimate for someone to leave (family issues) with reasons that really aren't legitimate at all (you finish your MA and get offered a job).

As to your Goldman/JP Morgan example- if you left a job at Goldman within a month because JP Morgan offered you higher pay, you'd get a really bad rep in the business world quite fast. Of course, in this case, you likely would have had to sign a no-compete agreement when you started at Goldman, which would prevent you from leaving to work at JP Morgan.

The reason most universities don't make students sign a contractual agreement is that there are good reasons why students might have to leave- illness, family issues, difficulty with the work, etc. They don't want to penalize someone who's giving it an honest try. But there's an implied commitment to give it your best shot to finish what you started- that you will have the dedication to see it through.