how "guaranteed" is your PhD funding?

[iowaguy]

How "guaranteed" should funding be if it's offered to you?

 

For example, one university offered me 2 years of funding from a fellowship, and then basically said after that, your advisor will provide funding through funded projects as an RA...

 

Problem is, with all this talk of funding reduction from the federal (and some state) budgets, I'm trying to make sure I don't get 2 or 3 years down the road and wake up one day to no funding from my PhD program.  I would ideally like to see 5 years of "guaranteed" funding before I commit to a PhD program (which would involve quitting my job & moving across the country, among other personal sacrifices).

 

Thoughts?  How "in writing" do you make sure your funding is and exactly what are you looking for as far as a "guarantee" of funding for your PhD program, and for how many years?  Thanks in advance!

Edited March 31, 2013 by iowaguy

[tarrman]

Your advisor wouldn't take you on as a student if a he couldn't fund you (at least that's how it works in the sciences and engineering). In a worst case scenario, you'd have to TA for a semester or so. But you won't have to worry about showing up to school and having them hand you a massive bill for tuition.

 

Also, if the school you are planning on attending is a well-known program with good endowment, the chances are pretty low.

 

In short, I wouldn't worry about it. My "5-year" offer from UT Austin is really just an RA from my advisor. The funding is "guaranteed" just as much as your 2-year fellowship + some source for years 3-5 is.

[sansao]

Yeah, there's usually some type of disclaimer allowing them to pull funding if all their money goes away. But I suspect as long as you don't blow it, if they committed to funding you, they've probably looked at five years down the line. My feeling is that it's more likely that these cuts will affect applicants down the line.

[compiler_guy]

Yeah, there's usually some type of disclaimer allowing them to pull funding if all their money goes away. But I suspect as long as you don't blow it, if they committed to funding you, they've probably looked at five years down the line. My feeling is that it's more likely that these cuts will affect applicants down the line.

agreed. As long as you are in line with "expected progress" you are fine.

[TakeruK]

Very rarely will you get a funding letter that says you will have unconditional funding of $X/year, guaranteed for Y years. There are usually conditions like "satisfactory progress" (which usually means "as long as you don't flunk out" -- they aren't going to keep a student around but not fund them, if they are pulling funding because of your quality of work, chances are, they are pulling funding by kicking you out). A big chunk of your funding generally comes from your supervisor's grant, and sometimes it's hard to predict how much funding profs will have say 4 years down the line.

 

From talking to profs about this, it sounds like most profs are good enough about managing their funding. It's in their best interest to do so -- funding is literally the stuff that allows them to advance their career and keep their jobs! So, some profs might have just one or two big huge grants that cover all their costs. They would then probably time their acceptance of students to their labs to ensure that they don't take on a large number of students just when a grant renewal might or might not happen. They would apply to a lot of grants as well to make sure they get some money. Other profs might be funded from a large number of smaller grants. These grants are unlikely to expire all at the same time, so even if one or two grants unexpectedly do not get renewed, the loss is mitigated. Many schools also assign admin assistant to profs to help them manage their funding!

 

In addition, I know that some departments also have contingency funds when something catastrophic happens. If somehow, a prof loses so much funding that they are no longer able to fund a student, the department might be able to step in to help out. You might have to TA a bit more too.

 

So, I would believe the department to be acting in good faith (i.e. they are making promises that to the best of their knowledge, they can actually keep) when they say that they would fund me for Y years at $X/year level, but with the above conditions. It's not ideal since grad school is such a big investment of time, opportunity, and effort yet you are not 100% certain that you will be fully funded the whole time (but the large majority of grad students will be). However, academia/grants are not always predictable and I think it's part of the volatility of the whole field. If you end up in academia, you'll face the same challenges when applying for your own grants etc.

[juilletmercredi]

That depends on you and your willingness to balance the prestige/opportunities of a program with uncertainty of funding.

 

I entered a PhD program with a 7.5 year time to degree.  Even though I only planned to spend 5-6 years max at this school, they offered me 3 years of funding.  They said that students typically found a way to fund their last years.  I decided to take a chance because otherwise, this program was a dream.

 

Fast forward nearly 5 years and that's proven true for me.  I used the institutional funding my first 2 years and won an NSF GRFP for my next 3.  I have one more year left and I have a couple of options on the table for how to fund that.  My colleagues have all also pretty much found ways to fund their extra years, as well.

 

Also, that doesn't sound like shaky funding - it's not like they said you have to compete for outside funding.  Basically it just sounds like the first 2 years are from the department without the expectation of a research assistantship - to give you the opportunity to finish up coursework.  After that, you're expected to be an RA on someone's grants.  That's not uncommon in programs.