"Claw backs"

[Re-patriate]

I'm a Canadian student going into a doctoral program at U of Toronto, and was fortunate enough to receive a CGS SSHRC, worth $35K over three years. I reported the news to my Department and was informed that both the funding guarantee and the tuition waiver would be clawed back (I believe that is the phrase).

 

This is not a bad problem to have, given that I will come out more than $10K ahead of their funding guarantee, but it really surprised me -- like a strange 'tax' on winning a competitive award. In fact, it seemed that the best scenario would have been to receive a $9K award and take the guaranteed funding (about $23K), since the claw back only kicks in at $10K. 

 

Anyone else have experience of this? Can you negotiate with U of T? What do other Canadian universities do in this scenario?

[fuzzylogician]

This sounds pretty standard to me. If you win a competitive award then the university doesn't need to fund you itself. This can go on your CV and is overall good for everyone. The one thing you might try and negotiate is a guarantee for extra funding, e.g. if you need to take longer to graduate than your funding allows for right now. It may be possible to ask for additional summer or travel funding. But normally, you would not get any of those extra things, just the fellowship you won and that's it.

[TakeruK]

Unfortunately, that's the reality of graduate tuition stipends. It sucks that it feels like there is a "penalty" for winning and bringing in prestigious awards (congrats on the CGS!! by the way). However, I think there are two good ways to view the situation that might make you feel better (or it might not!):

 

1. Unlike undergrad awards, graduate awards aren't really "free". You are basically being paid X dollars to do Y hours of work. If you take the "funding guarantee" (which is also money paid for you to do work), the tuition waiver, AND the CGS, then it's likely that you are being paid more than once by different organizations, unless you are working an insane amount of hours. That's not exactly how things work, but let's say the funding guarantee and tuition waiver comes with an expectation of doing Y hours of work (or Z amount of productivity, whatever). Now that you have a CGS, it's not like you are going to be working more -- the expectations on you is the same no matter your funding source. So, since SSHRC is paying for the majority of your work/productivity, why should the department/school continue to pay for work that's already paid for?

 

2. Also, the guaranteed funding / tuition waiver might come in form of an award too. Most awards come with "conflict of commitment" clauses -- for example SSHRC and NSERC restricts you to working less than 10 hours per week (maybe this restriction is lifted now though). Many awards say "you can only accept this award if you are not accepting any other award worth more than X dollars [X is usually $10k]". So, the guaranteed funding is really more like a "backup award" -- i.e. if you don't manage to secure your own funding, then as a last resort, the school/department will grant you an award for $23k [in return for TA/RA work probably]. 

 

I think these are good reasons for schools/departments reducing their funding when students win other awards. It would be unfair for a student to be paid more than once for their work. It is also better, in my opinion, to think of the guaranteed funding as "needs-based" (the merit part is getting into the school).

 

There is also another reason -- there are a lot of hidden costs of maintaining grad students (i.e. overhead). In addition, there used to be a rule for NSERC that profs cannot pay RAships to students who are also funded by NSERC. So, the balance of the funding for NSERC students had to be paid by the department. Since profs generally pay a large chunk of the student's stipend out of their own grants, this means a scholarship student actually costs more to the department than a non-scholarship student. This rule is no longer in effect, I think, but you can imagine there are other costs/considerations like this.

 

As for your other questions, yes, I have had this experience with the NSERC award at both the Masters and Doctoral levels. However, most Canadian schools will provide a (one-time?) top-up between $1000 and $5000 "signing bonus" for NSERC award holders. I'm not sure if this policy exists in the social sciences though! At Queen's, I also applied for and won and internal award ($10k) for minority students and they basically reduced the department funding by exactly that amount -- it just changes the source of money, not the total amount (again, makes sense since I would do the same amount of work either way). 

 

It is good practice for most schools to do things like offer signing bonuses or let you keep some of your extra external money in order to attract the strongest students. $10k ahead of the funding guarantee is not bad. At my current American school (and most other American schools), you get to keep none of the extra money -- they will just make sure you at least get more money than you would have had without the award. You can try to negotiate with U of T but I'm not sure if you will be successful. I wish that schools would make the whole funding process more clear though. For example, my undergrad department's graduate funding page is very clear: http://www.phas.ubc.ca/graduate-program-financial-support -- this clearly shows where your money is coming from depending on each case!

 

Finally, I think there is WAY more benefit to winning a CGS and only getting to keep $10k above the guarantee vs. winning $9.9K above the guarantee. Here are some benefits:

 

1. Prestige! I am not completely familiar with SSHRC, but in NSERC, winning previous NSERCs is a good way to win future NSERCs. There are NSERC awards at the post-doctoral level and NSERC funds projects when you're a prof etc. too! Winning major graduate level awards like the CGS also looks great on your CV when you later look for jobs -- you've demonstrated a strong track record in your ability to bring money into your school and project. 

 

2. Less work! At Queen's, NSERC holders only work half as many TA hours as non award holders. At UBC, you don't TA at all during your NSERC years. I think the "half TAship" is better since it's good to have a bit of TA experience, but not being required to TA a full load can really help you get more stuff done!

 

3. Less taxes -- we only pay tax on employment income, such as TA and RA money. Fellowship income is tax-free

 

4. More freedom! You're bringing in extra money, which means somebody is saving money. Hopefully it is your supervisor. You can use this to leverage for the things fuzzy mentioned. In my case, I cost my supervisor almost $0 in my NSERC CGS-M year so he had plenty of funding to spend on new equipment and/or travel for me. I didn't outright negotiate for it at the start of the year, it's just that whenever I asked for things, he would mention how he was glad I had external funding, and that there was plenty of room in his grants for it. The extra freedom also helps if you have to switch supervisors for some reason. Having your own funding means it is less cost for a new person to unexpectedly take you on.

 

Anyways, congrats on your award! I think it comes with many more benefits than just money. Hope this helps you understand that this is standard practice though!

[Re-patriate]

That's very helpful, both of you. Thanks. 

 

I do understand the rationale from the perspective of the university, and you have laid out this logic in a clear manner. However, this doesn't make it any less irritating to be congratulated by the Department as they gladly pull back their money out of your hands. 

 

Having done my grad work in the UK, I don't think a similar fake-grant process is common there. This is my first encounter with it in the North American system.

 

Anyhow, I shall count my blessings!

[ak48]

3. Less taxes -- we only pay tax on employment income, such as TA and RA money. Fellowship income is tax-free :)i

 

Is that right? I think in the US we gotta pay taxes on fellowship income.

 

[SeriousSillyPutty]

Is that right? I think in the US we gotta pay taxes on fellowship income.

 

Yes, in the U.S. we have to pay taxes on fellowship income. It is classified as "unearned income" for tax purposes, which means the university can't withhold taxes themselves, so we have to submit quarterly taxes or risk paying a fee come tax time.  (Our income is so low that I don't know how big a risk it is, but, that's what they say... last year I was working a normal job for the first eight months, so it wasn't such an issue.)

[lewin]

In Canada fellowship income is tax free. It's one of the few things the Conservative government has done to help science funding since taking office.

 

 

At my university there's two systems: "internal funding" is $25,000 and requires 10 hours/week TAing. If you get an award then it's the "external funding" model where you get your award + $10,000 and only do 5 hours/week TAing. I suppose in one sense the university is 'clawing back' $15,000 when you get an external award but they were always very clear that the $25k is NOT a grant, but rather a minimum funding level.

 

It sounds the same at UofT. The $23k is a minimum funding level, not a salary that you were entitled to.

[TakeruK]

Is that right? I think in the US we gotta pay taxes on fellowship income.

 

 

In Canada, we don't pay income tax on fellowships or scholarships! Since the OP was asking about their situation, at a Canadian school, I didn't think to qualify my statement above, but I guess I should have made it clearer in case there were non-Canadian readers trying to apply that list to their situation.

 

As lewin00 pointed out, it's a recent thing too! Previously, I think only the first $X of fellowship income was tax-free. We still pay tax on "employment" income (i.e. RA-, TA-, or TF- ships) but the combination of the basic personal amount (Canadian equivalent of the Personal Deduction + Standard Deduction), which is about $11k for the 2013 tax year and tuition tax credits ($1 for every dollar of tuition, plus $465/month for living expenses and textbooks) means that unless you make a huge amount of money on the side, you probably won't have to pay any taxes. Of course, if you have the majority of your income from fellowships, then you won't have to dip into your education tax credits in these years and carry them over to a later year (i.e. after graduation!)

 

It sounds the same at UofT. The $23k is a minimum funding level, not a salary that you were entitled to.

I think this sums it up the best! They were just promising that they will get you to a funding level of $23k, not promising that they will be responsible for all of the $23k.

Edited May 4, 2013 by TakeruK

[Re-patriate]

Yeah, I get it now. 

 

I didn't think I was entitled to a salary. But these conditional grants, tied to certain work obligations, and which are then rescinded when students win major awards, just seems like a perverse funding structure. Why not offer incoming students a fixed grant/scholarship that varies in value according to merit? Why not make TA-ships and RA-ships real work, instead of an obligation tied to funding? 

 

I realize it's the system, and it has certain equalizing merits, but something about it also seems deceptive and unfair. 

 

Not that I'm really complaining in view of my own situation, which is just fine. 

[ANDS!]

I think only grad. students would find trading 20 hours a week of grading low level assignments in exchange for a free post-graduate education "deceptive and unfair. . ."

[TakeruK]

Yeah, I get it now. 

 

I didn't think I was entitled to a salary. But these conditional grants, tied to certain work obligations, and which are then rescinded when students win major awards, just seems like a perverse funding structure. Why not offer incoming students a fixed grant/scholarship that varies in value according to merit? Why not make TA-ships and RA-ships real work, instead of an obligation tied to funding? 

 

I realize it's the system, and it has certain equalizing merits, but something about it also seems deceptive and unfair. 

 

Not that I'm really complaining in view of my own situation, which is just fine. 

 

I don't know about U of T's program, but UBC and Queen's physics departments did make TA- and RA-ships real work. Every August, we are issued a letter stating that this year, our stipend is $A, and we get $B dollars from C hours of TA work, $D for E hours of RA work, and $F in form of fellowships etc. Everyone gets paid the same hourly rate for TA and RA work, so it's actually pretty fair. The students with fellowships get less money for TAing because their TA obligations are lower.

 

 

I think only grad. students would find trading 20 hours a week of grading low level assignments in exchange for a free post-graduate education "deceptive and unfair. . ."

 

I think this can still be pretty deceptive and unfair depending on the way the funding is structured. I think this is fine if you are actually getting paid money and then use it to pay for your tuition (that is, you get a pay stub, you count as an employee and thus have all the rights granted to employees as per labour laws, including the right to unionize and all that). If the school is saying, "here, we will grant you a tuition waiver", but in return, as part of your grad student training, you must TA for us, then I think that's pretty deceptive and unfair. In this scheme, there is no clear direct compensation for our services and thus no real obligation to increase compensation if our services have to be increased. 

 

In the end, it's probably the same though -- that is, the amount of work and take home pay a grad student receives in either of the above schemes might be the same. However, I believe the first scheme is more fair and transparent. That scheme also shows that the school respects our rights/status as workers (in both our research and teaching duties) as well as our time as valuable. In the latter scheme, I would feel like the school is basically buying out all of my time with a meager stipend and tuition waiver.

 

Again, I'm not talking about the actual money paid, because I've been in both schemes, done the same amount of work, and taken home the same amount of money. In the first scheme, I felt like a valued employee and a part of what makes the University successful. I feel like the University understands that grad students have valuable skills and that we have chosen to invest our time and money into furthering these skills in a PhD program. They recognize that we could be doing something else, but we've chosen this. In the second scheme, I feel like the school has expected me to devote the entirety of my energy into working for them, and in return, they have provided me with education and a stipend to barely cover cost of living. I feel like the University is saying that, if you want to join the ranks of academia, you must pay your penance and be thankful that you even get the chance to do it!! They treat us as if academia is the only thing anyone would ever want to do and that we have no other choices. 

 

Although both schemes will have the same result -- both universities will still pay their students for tuition and just a bit more than enough to live on. Admittedly, the two examples I've given might be more extreme ends of a spectrum of school attitudes, but my point is that it won't cost the schools much more to treat us like valued members/employees and personally, I'd be much happier!

[Re-patriate]

Thanks, TakeruK. 

The thread wasn't intended as an entitled complaint about university funding. I just think that the current system is built to give universities maximum financial flexibility, but the cost of a lack of transparency for students. I'd just like to see a grant called a grant, and a job called a job. 

 

As for the comment by ANDS!: "I think only grad. students would find trading 20 hours a week of grading low level assignments in exchange for a free post-graduate education "deceptive and unfair. . ."" Well, I think only someone who hasn't held a decently-paying job would consider $8-10K in tuition a year a good salary for working 20 hours a week. But I digress.

[rising_star]

As for the comment by ANDS!: "I think only grad. students would find trading 20 hours a week of grading low level assignments in exchange for a free post-graduate education "deceptive and unfair. . ."" Well, I think only someone who hasn't held a decently-paying job would consider $8-10K in tuition a year a good salary for working 20 hours a week. But I digress.

 This varies widely. My tuition is around $25K a year, and I'm only obligated to work 20 hours a week in exchange for that being waived. That's a pretty good "salary", but then I also get financially compensated for those 20 hours. The result is that my department spends almost $40K/year (not counting health insurance) to have me around.

[Eigen]

Between my stipend and what the university covers on my tuition waiver, I'm "earning" around $70k per year. 

 

Even in the Humanities, I don't think anyone at my school is making less than 55-60k including the tuition (OK, yes, Tuition is a lot!). 

 

But you can't really discount a tuition waiver, it's a "benefit", and it's definitely being paid. The fact that the IRS considers it "income" is definitely a mark in that column, as well. Sure, it's income that's counterbalanced by an immediate deduction to tuition, but if you were working for a company who was paying your tuition, it would be considered a taxable benefit. 

 

At my school, external fellowships replace internal funding (TA, RA), but the university covers (most) of your tuition either way. So you're trading TAing or RAing for a "free ride", even though the University is pulling back it's funding to be replaced with your external grant. 

[Re-patriate]

It seems quite different in Canada. Tuition is $8K and the 'funding guarantee' offered by my university is worth $15K, although this includes unspecified teaching requirements, the pay for which may or may not be included as part of the funding package. If the external award is worth more than $23K, everything disappears including the tuition waiver. 

 

I guess there's a lot of variation.