Horror story: I was misled about funding for a PhD! Am I the only one?

[zoterofan]

Hey all,

I've been admitted to the political science PhD program at Temple University in Philadelphia.

In early February I was emailed by a senior member of that department, and told how impressive my application was, how excited they were to have me, and how determined they were to persuade me to choose Temple for my PhD.

I was told I had been nominated for a specific, named fellowship, and that "word" should be coming on that within two weeks.

Having made six unsuccessful attempts to contact/speak with this individual, and almost two months later, without any word on that fellowship, I managed to speak with him by phone in late March.

I specifically asked if the delay and lack of response was due to a problem with my application in particular, and was assured that it was not, but rather that there was a general delay in processing funding. His enthusiasm about recruiting me hadn't gone away - we arranged for me to be introduced around the department, and he even assured me he would lure other grad students into meeting me with free pizza. The whole tone was very collegial. I was told that these introductions would happen within a week, and also that, within a week or two, I would certainly have confirmation of my funding. Neither happened. It's really important to note that throughout this whole time, any time notice on funding was mentioned, it was unambiguously in terms of when and not if it would be confirmed.

Furthermore, in the course of this phone call, I was asked - very casually, and very much conveying a tone of mere curiosity - whether I was under pressure to accept offers from any other programs. I responded, accurately, that I was not. Having consulted with many friends of mind (including professors and college administrators), the consensus seems to be that this revelation played a key role in this whole episode.

Having waited patiently for another five weeks, I made a separate inquiry with the departmental secretary on May 1st (was it possible that a funding notice had been emailed/sent to the wrong address?)

Lo and behold, two hours later, this senior member of the department faculty sent me a 3-line email to regret that there was no funding available for me.

Since then, I have sent out letters to numerous administrators, repeatedly asked for clarification about what happened, where I was ranked as an applicant, etc... ad nauseam. Nobody is willing to respond to me in a substantive way - to acknowledge that I was misled, ignored, to answer my questions, to explain why I was promised a meeting that never happened, and twice promised notice on funding within two weeks, which never happened.

This faculty member's consistent enthusiasm about my standing among applicants, his posture of recruitment, and his failure at any time (despite limitless opportunity) to qualify or mitigate his previous assurances, has had serious consequences for me personally. I am a non-US citizen, and had been relying on this (quite reasonable) expectation of funding, in order to enroll and extend my immigration status beyond July 4th (when my current visa runs out). (To be clear, loans, etc... are not an option for me.)

Taking his lead, I had proudly told everyone about my plans for the next few years, and had foregone other possible career and immigration-related options. Now, whatever decision I make (it looks likely I will have to leave the country, placing a real burden on my 3-year relationship with my wonderful and supportive girlfriend), that decision will have to be made in a rush, without proper time for financial preparation, rental lease negotiation, etc...

I wanted to share this here, because I haven't yet come across this type of unethical practice, and I really want to hear the stories of others, especially if they pertain to Temple University. (If there is a pattern of behavior here, it may be of public interest).

I am not really looking for legal or practical advice about other sources of funding, how to extend my immigration status, and so on, though of course I would appreciate the sentiment of anyone who might offer them.

What I really want to know: is this a common practice, a "dirty little secret" of graduate admissions, that they have an incentive to over-promise to good applicants, in order to keep them interested in enrolling? That not having to attract you away from the offer of another program, makes you less of an asset to them, even if your application is of a very high quality. Or is mine really just an egregious case?

If anyone has had a similar experience, or heard of one - let's talk, really.

The bigger picture here, in my view, is that budget cuts are a scourge on academia, especially liberal arts. I understand that.

But competition and rivalry for students, should not lead to an ethical deficit like this.

Financial constraints are universal in this country, but most programs still manage to deal with applicants and students responsively and honestly.

Thanks guys.

[emmm]

I know that my program admits people in waves so that no one that they cannot fund is given an offer. They will let people know they are on a waitlist, but they will not pressure people to stay available or hold out false hope.

[zoterofan]

Thanks emmm. That seems like the right way to do it! I mean - I accept that he might have thought there was funding there, and the funding disappeared, but that means one of two things:

1. Don't assure anyone of funding in the first place

2. If you do, have the integrity to make damn sure you follow through, even if it means extra effort to advocate for that applicant, or to pull whatever strings you need to.

To try to play it both ways is just unethical.

[cafeaulaitgirl]

Perhaps I am missing something, but it does not seem like you were misled here. I see that the professor said he was nominating you for a fellowship but it doesn't look like you were selected. I was nominated for a fellowship as well and unfortunately did not get selected. I got my financial offers in writing from my programs. I hate this is happening to you but it sounds like miscommunication more than deception.

[zoterofan]

cafeaulaitgirl, I appreciate that perspective. In a purely formal sense, you're right. There was no official, headed letter. But of course what matters is that at all times the overwhelming tone was one of assurance, and that an effort to recruit me was under way. Let's assume that this was a sincere effort, and that he fought hard to have me funded. Ok. But significant damage has already been done, simply by (needlessly) piling on the "promising noises." The solution would be simple: Just don't talk like that, if there's even a chance you can't follow through.

The other question that raises itself: The fellowship he named was, in financial terms, the 2nd most valuable, but there are about 5 separate funding packages below that level. How is it that I went from being such a target for recruitment that he would bribe grad students with pizza, just to talk to me, down all five rungs on the ladder, to being offered nothing?

[margarethale]

unfortunately, a verbal agreement is typically only as good as the paper it's written on. had the recruiting professor said "if you commit to coming to this university, you will be granted funding" then you would have a pretty good case. since he only ever said that you would have the possibility of funding, there's not much you can do. so sorry this happened to you!

[zoterofan]

Thanks for your thoughts, margarethale. I see you have a pretty comprehensive (and impressive!) list of schools you've been dealing with this Spring. Have you ever come across or heard of this kind of dynamic in an application? Congrats on your success!

[reachystik]

Would it be useful to bring this issue to a student affairs/ ombudsman?

I am so sorry that this has all happened, what a cruel way to treat someone. Overly enthusiastic recruitment people promising exactly what any grad student wants to hear, should ensure that communication is grounded in honesty and clarity- it's due diligence to make sure that students understand the message. This is completely impossible when recruiters colour their language with pizza, promises in an enthusiastic tone.

Nothing is set in stone, yet why taunt and tease an individual with promises like this and then leave them hanging? Shitty news is shitty news, but it stings less if you are told ASAP so that you can move on and have the opportunity and time to consider all other options and plans.

[zoterofan]

Thanks reachystik. Appreciate that.

I did send a letter, with all the details and correspondence attached, to several senior administrators at Temple. I wanted to give them a fair chance to rectify this, which they haven't done. I would have needed some acknowledgement or explanation of what happened over the past few months, in order to feel comfortable setting foot in the political science department. Infuriatingly (but predictably) no one has been willing to address this professor's conduct. They are happy to express eagerness that I join the dept., but totally unwilling to (theoretically) make that happen by levelling with me. I am too serious about this work to begin my career in a place like that, even though this really complicates things on a practical level.

Ever come across anything like this yourself, reachystik?

[margarethale]

I've honestly never heard of anything like this in an application for a doctoral program. In every program to which I applied, PhD students are automatically granted tuition remission, a living stipend, and health care options. There are other fellowships that you may/may not be awarded through the department, but the baseline for all of the programs that I applied to included automatic funding upon acceptance.

For Colorado at Boulder, I was accepted to their MA program with some funding. When I told them that I had more offers and they would need to up their funding offer in order to remain competitive, they got back to me within the day to offer me more money. Playing your schools against each other can be tricky and risky, but it can also pay off in the long run. If a school doesn't think that they need to make a competitive offer, they might not. I think that you were right in your thought that when you said that you weren't being pressured by other schools, Temple stopped worrying so much about taking care of your funding. It's not fair and it really sucks that they treat their students like that though.

Is there any hope at all at this point of Temple coming around and giving you the financial support that you need and deserve? Again, this sounds like a terrible situation that no one deserves to go through. Hopefully things'll work out!!!

[zoterofan]

margarethale - i agree, i had always assumed that funding was essentially part of the deal, though i appreciate that budgets are shrinking these days.

To be fair, one of the administrators I contacted made the effort to suggest a grad. assistantship elsewhere on campus. Its at an institute I have no particular interest or experience in, but it is something nonetheless.

The problem is both practical and ethical: the GA would only cover 1/2 tuition, but more fundamentally, i just don't think i'd want to get embedded in the poli sci dept. for the next few years, if this is the beginning of our 'beautiful friendship.' How could I entrust my dissertation proposal, conference funding requests, letters of recommendation, etc... to this guy?

It does suck. And the more people know that about Temple University, the better.

(Sidebar: Get you, playing hardball with SEVERAL billion-dollar educational institutions at once! Glad it worked out for you.)

[vertices]

I had a professor recruiting me tell me that he thought I was a very strong candidate for a high tier fellowship at a school (not Temple). He never said 'when' but always talked about it with a "which I'm sure you will." I didn't and I didn't hear from him regarding this matter. He might not have known. I don't know if these kinds of things are distributed to the faculty. I didn't get any notice either because of course, it wasn't me applying, but him nominating me. I didn't hear anything from the department probably because they didn't know anything was going on at all. It may be that the professors and administrators you dealt with were as much in the dark as you were.

I spoke to other accepted seniors and learned they had had funding offered. I later spoke to the graduate chair and he said he could probably offer the standard first year funding. That came a few weeks before the decision deadline. Note, at that school the standard policy was to guarantee first year funding. For PhD programs in my field that's the minimum because great careers can be had with an undergraduate degree. I know in others, you're not necessarily guaranteed -- hence the advice about not going without funding. There have been many posts to thegradcafe about being accepted without funding.

I was in contact with other schools which I was open about when asked. I didn't tell how much the others were offering though. I wasn't asked about any pressure (since they all respect the April 15th deadline), just where else I was considering.

It sounds like you're making a good decision now, though it's tough to manage the abrupt and unplanned change in your life. It's clear you can no longer develop a good working relationship with the professor you had been contacting. If you still want a PhD, you can apply in another season and use your gained knowledge to find a better fit with a better offer.

Edited May 25, 2012 by vertices

[psychgurl]

I'm just a little confused...did you receive official documentation of your admission? I looked up their info online and it seems vague at best:

The department typically supports a portion of the graduate students as Teaching or Research Assistants

The amount of support available for entering students varies from year to year, in accordance with the university budget and contractural commitments with the Temple University Graduate Students' Association (TUGSA)

To be honest, I think it may have been naive to expect guaranteed funding, given this description. You could just say that you can't go without funding and see what happens...

[emmm]

If a school cannot provide funding for all graduate students (or chooses not to) this should be clear upfront. Leading someone on this way sounds unethical. People need accurate information in order to plan their futures. Whether or not a program will fund you fully is critical information. You may decide to go even without full funding, but that is different from being told you will get funding and having it fall through. It almost sounds as though they are hoping that without other options you will choose to take loans in order to attend their program. I agree with those recommending you try another round of applications. Even if the funding thing isn't a case of them intentionally misleading you, I would not recommend entering a full-pay program in your field. From what I have heard, jobs are not so easy to come by.

[zoterofan]

psychgurl - Yes, as I mentioned, I have officially been admitted. My expectation of funding was not based on what the website's guidelines state. I didn't assume I had funding based on my admission. I assumed I had funding based on, as I said, the consistent and unqualified tone of assurance from this professor. The application deadline was Jan. 15th, and he contacted me on Feb. 2nd. I think this quick turnaround also speaks to the fact I was a very highly regarded/ranked applicant. Furthermore, a friend of mine happens to know this professor informally, and in a brief conversation with the Temple professor about me, he got the impression that I was their star applicant this year. So yes, not all students will get funding, but it still doesn't add up that I would go from apparently being held in that kind of esteem, and assured "word" on the 2nd best possible fellowship, by mid-February, to being offered no funding of any kind, in early May.

That's why I really don't think it was naive of me. I appreciate your detective work, though!

[zoterofan]

emmm - to be fair, as psychgurl pointed out, the department's website does make it clear that not all admited students will get funding, and that budgets vary.

I agree with you though - my strong suspicion is that, once they knew i didnt need to be tempted away from another program, they - in a financial pinch - hoped that I would find some other way of paying, but still enroll in the Fall. What an insane miscalculation. Let me be clear though, at this point they could offer me an apartment, expenses, and a $50,000 stipend, but i still wouldnt take my place, because of how they've handled the whole affair. How could I sign myself up for 5 years of similar shadiness, right at the beginning of my career in - as you note - a VERY competitive and difficult field.

[Sigaba]

As you sort through the "whys" and "why nots" of your predicament, don't neglect the opportunity to take a long look in the mirror. From the information you've provided in this thread, your situational awareness and your ability to navigate the human terrain may doing you a disservice.

IME, if a graduate program wants an applicant to attend, it will find a way to fund that student. Is it only because of the alleged ethical defects of others that you went from having an opportunity--not a guarantee nor a promise--to receive a prestigious fellowship to being the guy who can't get his calls and email returned, or did you play some part in the dynamic? You assumed. You inferred. You concluded. You surmised. You planned. All without documentation that made it clear that you indeed had received the fellowship you wanted. So, is your dilemma the department's fault? Or did you simply make a terrible (and avoidable) series of miscalculations?

In post #16, you make a point about career management. You say political science is a "VERY competitive and difficult field." Okay. How does drawing a bull's eye on your back by airing a department's (allegedly) dirty laundry help you manage your risk and advance your career?

To be clear, I get it. You are frustrated. You feel like you've been burned. You want answers. You want vindication--if not also justice. However, having been around the block a few times in both the Ivory Tower and the private sector, it is my view that this angle of approach (i.e. venting in a public form and offering specific characterizations of established professional academics) may not be the way to go.

My $0.02.

[zoterofan]

Sigaba -

Is it only because of the alleged ethical defects of others that you went from having an opportunity--not a guarantee nor a promise--to receive a prestigious fellowship to being the guy who can't get his calls and email returned, or did you play some part in the dynamic?

It's the first one.

At all times my interactions were friendly, patient, polite, and so on... This remained the case, even after weeks and months without a response, and after promised clarification of funding and an in-person meeting had not materialized. I have the "situational awareness" to know that venting my frustration at that time with anyone associated with the department, would have jeopardized both my chances of funding and my working relationship with a key member of the departmental faculty, before it even began.

Even after I was informed (in a three-line email), that the funding wasn't there, (i.e. after the decision had been made) I tried to inquire, in a neutral way, as to what happened, what the reasons were, etc...

This was met with a perfunctory, "press release" response about how "competition was fierce", etc... that is, a response which didn't in any way acknowledge the professor's previous effusive praise, stated determination to convince me to enroll, and broken promises. It was even topped off with an invitation to mail a $250 deposit in order to accept my place, and go about enrolling and paying tuition. I decided at that point to break off direct contact with him, to avoid becoming embroiled in something that might not serve my interests.

Only at that point did my approach change. The professor in question, in my view, had had ample opportunity and prompting from me, to speak honestly with me, to level with me, or to even very simply acknowledge his failure to follow through on his 'big talk.'

So I took it to senior administrators, in order to put on record, in a detailed way, what happened, what he did and said, and what he didn't do, and the consequences it all had for me. It would have taken a fairly comprehensive acknowledgement of how it all been handled, either from within the department, or elsewhere, for me to change my view of the department. It wasn't forthcoming, so now I will move on with my career and life.

this angle of approach...may not be the way to go

If in my position, what would you have done differently, Sigaba?

Finally, two housekeeping points:

- As I cleary said in my original post, what I was hoping for, in sharing my experience, was to hear the experiences of others. I would like to see whether this type of practice is common. Though I admire your honesty, I wasn't - and am not - seeking 'tough love' from a stranger, albeit an apparently supremely experienced one. This is especially so, given that you really don't have all the relevant facts. I've had that long look in the mirror. And I've had some brutally honest conversations over the last few weeks, but with people whom I know and trust.

- "your ability to navigate the human terrain" Please, please, don't patronise me. Aside from the fact that you're operating on very limited information, if you want to call me an a$$hole, just call me an a$$hole.

[psychgurl]

As others have said, I'm very sorry this happened to you. It's basically an applicant's worst nightmare. You are now wiser, though, and learned a few lessons the hard way (i'm reiterating them for the benefit of all on this forum, especially 2013 applicants):

1. No matter what it seems like, I think it's pretty much always the case that programs mean more to applicants than applicants mean to programs. They probably did have fierce competition for that fellowship. Unfortunately, they have many "all-star" applicants to choose from and applicants only have a few (at best) programs to choose from. For this reason, I think it's safe to say that enthusiasm shouldn't be read into until you have a hard copy of your award/offer in front of you.

2. Financial aid could be a fuzzy area: what do programs GUARANTEE and to WHOM (everyone? some?) How many years? Some programs guarantee 1 year and then "unofficially" say that they have never denied funding anyone for subsequent years...ask around and see if this is true...ask this in interviews... get it in writing if possible WITH THE OFFER! It's strange to me that the financial award wouldn't be made with the offer. Though maybe I'm wrong.

3. Sometimes people are just shady. Even professors.

Again, I feel your pain. I would be outraged. But this is a forum where people learn from each other, so I'm just pointing out these lessons for others to weigh in and hopefully for all of us to learn something from this.

Edited May 26, 2012 by psychgurl

[Sigaba]

Entire post.

@danmacg--

That you consider my response an exercise in "tough love" adds evidence to my interpretation that your situational awareness is the central cause of your dilemma. As for your perception of my tone as "patronizing," I think you should take the chip off your shoulder and do a better job of engaging with those posts in this thread that do not agree with your positions.

Moreover, I think you should consider the utility of:

• STFU and not arguing with, or trying to correct, everyone who doesn't see the situation the way you want. You believe that you're a victim of "unethical" conduct. Others aren't so sure. How about that.
  
• Working to understand the answers that you've received from the department in question. (And these answers include the silences.)
  
• Doing the necessary introspection to accept those answers in the spirit they were given--like it or not. (The bottom line is that the department in question--for what ever reason or reasons--just wasn't that into you.)
  
• Taking another look in the mirror and figure out the mistakes you have made and continue to make.
  
  • IMO, the mistakes center around unvetted (if not also unsustainable) assumptions about:
    
    • Your understanding of how an academic department works.
      
    • Your understanding of the "ethics" of the Ivory Tower. (Have you received formal training and/or informal mentoring on how things get done in an academic department? Do you have work experience that would give you insight as to the ethical issues involved?)
      
      

    [*]Focusing on how you might handle similar situations in the future. This process includes:

    [*]Being better prepared to answer questions like "What kinds of other offers have you received?" (Why weren't you ready to answer this standard question in a way that advanced your interests?)

    [*]Understanding better that there's a big difference between interacting in a way that is "friendly, patient, and polite, and so on" and actually being "friendly, patient, and polite." (IMO, "so on," as well as some of your other word choices and turns of phrases--to say nothing of this thread you've started--are tells. There's nothing wrong with not being a "people person." However, difficulties and confusion can follow when a person who isn't a "people person" thinks that he/she is.)

    [*]Understand better the differences among a promising conversation, a verbal commitment, and an executable contract.

    [*]Not making allegations of "unethical" behavior on an open internet forum.

    [*]Confining one's ranting to a password protected document on your personal computer. Or a journal. Or both.

    [*]Erasing your posts in this thread, asking an administrator to deactivate your account, coming back with a different username, and then using the advanced search function to study the posts by experienced graduate students in your field as well as the posts of Eigen, ktel, Sparky and fuzzylogician.

    [*]Scrubbing the internet so that a cached version of this thread can not be tracked back to you. (A great way to beat the competition is to find ways to hoist them on their own petards. Or so I've heard.)

    [*]Accepting the idea that sometimes the best revenge is living well.

    Later, I suggest that you consider the feasibility of reaching out to the department in question and the scholar in question and mending fences. As things stand, you have nothing that they need or want. Down the line, you might need their help. In subsequent conversations about the institution in question, I recommend that you phrase your experiences with the kind of understatement that screams "trouble" to those versed in the hidden language of the academic world.

[ktel]

I certainly think there is a significant portion of this story missing. It reminds me of a poster who received a tongue lashing from a prospective department for asking too much, and then handling the subsequent situation so poorly that he removed all chance of ever having any sort of relationship with that school. Essentially he thought he was much more valuable to them than he was. While I see elements of him in your posts, you are evidently much more rational and not quite as arrogant. But I think it is certainly possible that this professor's assurances boosted your ego in such a way that you too thought you were more valuable than you evidently were. Obviously all you can do at this point is chalk it up to a lesson learned.

[zoterofan]

Sigaba -

I have consulted people with many decades of combined experience in academic departments, and in this sub-field, who have said without reservation that this was unethical. They have a fuller understanding of the facts, and they don't need to divine my character from "turns of phrase" - because they actually know me.

These are the same people who I trust to tell me to STFU, whenever necessary.

Others here have disagreed with me, and I have considered their views with genuine appreciation. If I felt there was something relevant that they had missed, I pointed it out. The difference being that their critiques didn't involve larger assumptions about my character.

I never asked you to perform a critique of my actions or reasoning this deep, multilayered, or personal.

And then I asked you not to do it.

I do accept and appreciate some of the practical considerations you've mentioned - checking out the insights of others on this forum, for example - if not the spirit behind them, nor your forays into personal territory...and so on.

[zoterofan]

ktel - thanks for the insight.

You might be right about over-estimating my value to the program. If I'm not good enough, I'm not good enough. I could accept that. It's just the discrepancy between the professor's initial praise and tone, and what inevitably transpired. Lesson learned, certainly. And again, I just wanted to come here to see if others had had similar experiences, whether or not they might ultimately describe them as unethical, or just part of a competitive status quo. Thanks again.

[snowblossom2]

It seems like you are basing a lot of your assumptions of the program and how it's run by the "tone" of the faculty member. As previously mentioned, often faculty members aren't in a position to offer funding (especially in the social sciences, whereas in the natural sciences, faculty often support grad studnets via work in their lab). That doesn't seem like credible evidence. Once you are accepted, faculty want to recuit you to pick their university. That's part of the prestige of the program, not only in the number and level of talent of their applicants/admits but also in the percent of admits who actually matriculate. Your offer letter should have mentioned something about funding. And it seems like they said you were being nominated for a prestigious fellowship. As others have mentioned, that doesn't mean you automatically get it. I also am less inclined to think that you saying "no" to the question about other schools heavily recruiting you made much of a difference. The faculty on the admissions committee read through all the applications and often go through multiple rounds to whittle it down to the admits - they talk about each case. For you to be admitted means they wanted you and thought you were a good fit for the program.

To answer the question from your original post - I've never heard of a program being unethical in funding offers (of course that doesn't mean it doesn't happen, just I don't think it's in the program's best interest to do so for their own reputation).

Also, I agree with previous posters re: dealing with the situation. Posting the detailed information you did would make it very easy for faculty at Temple or at your own university (if they read here, I don't know if they do) to know who you are. Just a consideration as you move forward. Good luck with grad school, and I'm sorry that funding at Temple didn't work out.

[zoterofan]

snowblossom2 - thanks for offering your thoughts

To you and Sigaba - i think its fair to say it was an error on my part to name the school.

Nothing to really be gained from it.

I am trying to handle sudden, forced emigration, at the same time as all of this. That kind of stress can facilitate errors of judgment.

I am also not so stubborn as to ignore sound advice, sympathetically or unsympathetically offered. It might be time to withdraw as gracefully as possible.

I hope this thread has helped others. Thanks to psychgurl, vertices et al for the helpful advice and shared experiences.

Sigaba - no hard feelings.

Congrats on successes, and good luck in future endeavors to all.