Would you do a PhD without funding?

[katiegud]

I'm still waiting to hear from 3 programs I applied to, I have an interview at another, and two have accepted me. Of the offers though, one is almost definitely unfunded and the other I won't find out until March (arg!). The ones I'm waiting to hear from have potential funding (I applied for scholarships), but in the UK funded PhDs are very competitive. My fear is that my only offers will be without funding. 

 

I can defer for a year to reapply for scholarships, so that is my first option, but what if I still don't get anything? Would you fund yourself? Or would you take that as a rejection? Just looking for some outside opinions. 

[DirtyLabCoat]

IMHO, I would never pay for a PhD. There are more than enough schools with funding available. Many mentors have told me the same.

[TakeruK]

I would not go to a PhD program without funding either. In fact, I would not have gone to a PhD program if I did not think their funding was enough for me to do my part in supporting my spouse and I (it worked out in the end, but at first it wasn't clear if my spouse would be able to work in the US even). 

[Maleficent999]

IMHO, I would never pay for a PhD. There are more than enough schools with funding available. Many mentors have told me the same.

 

I've been advised the same.

[emmm]

No...but it's easier for those of us in the sciences to say this. You may be able to get a TA or RA once you are on campus. I have even heard of students looking for them shortly after being admitted, as the fall they start tends to be too late (At least for that first semester/year).

[ratlab]

I would never do a PhD without full funding. If for some reason I don't get funded offers I am going to work as a research assistant for a year or two. This is incredibly unlikely as I only applied to schools that have a history or statement that says they fully fund admitted PhD students.

Edited December 17, 2013 by ratlab

[Adenine_Monarch]

Nope. Wouldn't pay either. There are too many schools out there that fully fund their students.

[Pino5]

I got accepted into a PhD program in the UK as well, and won't know of funding until March/April. If I was doing my PhD here in the US, I will definitely NOT do a PhD without funding. That said, I heard from a few friends who did their doctorates in the UK that guaranteed funding (i'm in the social sciences) is extremely competitive the first first year, but gets easier to get once you are already in the program. So even if you "self-fund" (thru FAFSA, etc) the first year, there is a strong chance you'll get funding for the remaining 2 years, so the personal expense is mitigated somewhat. The way I see it, self-funding on my first year and studentships for the remaining two years is better than 5-6 years of (near poverty) wages from a funded US program. Hope this helps.

Edited December 17, 2013 by Pino5

[Guest Gnome Chomsky]

Personally, not a chance. It's too long. It's like 5 years. I can't afford that. I could afford a year or two of loans for a master's program, but definitely not 5 years for a PhD. 

[PsycD]

Helllllll NO!

[Guest |||]

No.

[Flandre Scarlet]

Nope.

[Kharisma]

Hell emphatically no.

 

I did private undergrad with a combination of scholarships, grants, and student loans and if I have to add another loan, I'm not going to do it. Jobs aren't just falling from the sky, so taking on 50-100k worth of debt over a 5-7 year span is not worth it. Nope, too many out there willing to pay for people to go.

 

http://www.memecenter.com/fun/2214947/godzilla-nope-nope-nope

 

^^^ That's how I feel about doing a PhD program without funding.

Edited December 26, 2013 by Kharisma

[juilletmercredi]

Hell to the no!

 

And I don't think it's "easier" for those in the sciences to say that.  In fact, I think it's even more important for humanities and arts hopefuls to not pay for PhDs, since their job markets are tougher.

[spectastic]

would I pay tens of thousands of dollars each year to be somebody else's bitch?

 

 

But then again, it's one thing to go 5 years without funding. But entirely different if your intent is to pay for the first year in the hopes of walking on in case your professor gets more funding, or walking out with a masters.
 

Edited December 26, 2013 by spectastic

[anthropologygeek]

Wow, in the real world a lot of people go without funding. Hard sciences give funding to everyone soft sciences don't. I started without funding, got funding within a month of the semester starting, gave it up a year later due to fellowships and been doing fellowships since. If your confident in yourself being able to not have to rely on the department for funding why not go?

[TakeruK]

Wow, in the real world a lot of people go without funding. Hard sciences give funding to everyone soft sciences don't. I started without funding, got funding within a month of the semester starting, gave it up a year later due to fellowships and been doing fellowships since. If your confident in yourself being able to not have to rely on the department for funding why not go?

 

When I use the word "funding" in the context of graduate school education, I mean a "guaranteed" source of income to cover tuition and standard living expenses for the duration of my studies. I say "guaranteed" because few schools will actually promise money for X years, but they will usually say "up to X years, as long as the student makes satisfactory progress", which is good enough (usually unsatisfactory progress = expulsion from program). 

 

So, in the past, there were some years of grad school where the department provided only the tiny bit of funding needed to cover costs above my external fellowships. I have not ever gone into a program without a certain source of funding though because I had won the fellowship before I started the program (I found out shortly after I heard from grad school decisions). I agree that if, for some reason, you are 95% sure that you can get your own funding and there will be no or manageable gaps, then it might be worth it to go. However, there are non-monetary reasons to want funding, primarily because when a department spends money on you and pays you, it's an implicit recognition that what we are doing is actual work and that our time is valuable and not an limitless resource.

 

Also, I don't know what you mean by "in the real world a lot of people go without funding". Do you mean the non-academic real world? Everyone else in my family and my spouse's family is not in academia and not one of them have ever gone "without funding" which would be the equivalent of working in a job for no pay. Or do you mean in reality, many graduate students do not have funding and have to pay for their own programs? If so, then I agree, but it's really field dependent as you say. In professional fields, the expectation is that your eventual income will pay for your schooling later on. I think that if your field is one where the norm is not to receive funding, then it's perfectly acceptable for someone who is thinking about grad school to make that part of their decision on whether or not to go to grad school. I love doing my research and science but I will never do it for free--if for some reason, my field's norm became unfunded PhD programs, I would rather do pretty much anything else!

[Seeking]

It depends upon the country.

 

In the North America and in Australia, it's the norm to get funded for PhD and one shouldn't go for a PhD program that doesn't offer funding.

 

But in the UK and in the rest of Europe, funding probabilities are mixed. Some top-ranked universities have almost guaranteed funding (also shorter PhD), but there are many universities that don't guarantee funding if you are not from the EU.

 

The question is how badly you want this unfunded PhD from the UK. If you can wait for another cycle and apply for PhDs with guaranteed funding, I think it's better to take that option. If you can't wait, then you need to think how competitive this PhD will be in the job market against similar PhDs from other institutions and whether you feel confident about getting the kind of job you want with this PhD.

 

From your list of Universities, Edinburgh was the best option, but since it's no longer an option, I think Manchester is the other competitive PhD and my guess is that Manchester will most likely give you at least partial funding. So, worth waiting to hear from them.

 

I'm not sure about the unfunded PhDs from the rest. You know best about their potential to get you success in the kind of job you want to do.

 

I would suggest wait to see what kind of funding you get from the rest. If you don't get funding this year, apply next cycle to funded PhDs across UK, EU, Canada and if possible, US.

Edited December 28, 2013 by Seeking

[John John]

i wonder how much is the tuition you have to pay each year for the PHD?

[m-ttl]

Absolutely not. I only have one school on my list with a possibility of not having full funding -- and that's an MA program. Every single professor I spoke to (including my recommenders), all insisted that I not enter any program that didn't have funding. It's a detriment to go into further into debt in my field. It's a detriment in most fields and to be honest, why would you want to? 

 

If you can afford it, it's up to you. I eliminated any school that wouldn't fund, or did not have a high chance of funding from my list because I can't afford it, and an acceptance without money would essentially be a rejection for me. I knew I would have to eliminate any UK programs when I looked at the costs and the chances of scholarships. But you must have felt you could still afford it somehow? Perhaps taking the year to apply to fellowships + funding would at least give you an opportunity to see if you can afford to go and/or apply to programs that would fund you. 

 

Your profile says you're in the US, so applying to US schools that would fund you would be more beneficial to your wallet. 

[ferd]

Yes, if I were vastly independently wealthy and doing it just for my own personal enjoyment. Otherwise, clearly not - because of the practical reasons cited before and because securing funding and working as a TA/RA is an integral part of the doctoral experience, and a signal in the job search process that happens at the end.

[Panama Slim]

Nope!

[Pol]

Not happening.

[Brisingamen]

No. 

 

I do know someone who did a UK PhD without funding -- at least, she paid her way through the first year and then got a job on campus to cover some of it. It worked out for her because she used an inheritance to pay. Can't imagine going into debt for that, however... 

[antecedent]

I'm fairly certain that, at least in the Humanities and Social Sciences, paying for your own PhD is a job application kiss of death. While the saying 'funding begets funding' is pithy and annoying, I think it's worth thinking about in the long run. If no one was willing to pay you to do your research as a PhD, why would anyone pay you as a post-doctoral researcher/prof/whatever?

 

For the record, I would never, ever pay for a PhD. I'd even be (and am) a bit nervous about programs that offer fewer years of guaranteed funding than they project their PhDs to take to finish (i.e. offer 4 years funding when the average finishing time is 5-6 years).