Funding List?

[Philhopeful]

I know that a few other fields on grad cafe have compiled lists of the standard funding offers from top universities in their field. Does anyone know if philosophy has one? 

[turambar85]

I know that a few other fields on grad cafe have compiled lists of the standard funding offers from top universities in their field. Does anyone know if philosophy has one? 

That would be incredibly helpful.  It is an unfortunate truth that most programs do not provide enough support for students to live on.  Some programs just offer an impossibly small amount, and others do not adjust for exorbitant costs of living.  As much as a few thousand dollar gap in funding can mean during graduate school, it would be nice to have this knowledge in hand before sending out applications.  

 

That said...I have looked everywhere for this (grad cafe and otherwise), and have not found anything very helpful.  Some programs are very forthright about funding offers on their websites, but others are (for good reason) a bit less forthright.  

[Monadology]

That would be incredibly helpful.  It is an unfortunate truth that most programs do not provide enough support for students to live on.

 

Really? UW Milwaukee's MA program has pretty poor funding, an $8000 dollar stipend, but I've scraped by on it (occasionally dipping into savings). It would really surprise me if someone couldn't live on two to three times that which is what most PhD programs offer (unless they have children, of course). There are usually cheap health-care plans through the university so your main expenses are, at worst: rent & utilities, food and if you have one, car insurance. I'm sure some cities are quite expensive to live in, so maybe some programs don't compensate enough for cost of living (but I know some compensate for this, apparently Columbia guarantees affordable housing for its grad students as long as they are in the program). 

Edited February 23, 2014 by Monadology

[ianfaircloud]

That would be incredibly helpful.  It is an unfortunate truth that most programs do not provide enough support for students to live on.  Some programs just offer an impossibly small amount, and others do not adjust for exorbitant costs of living.  As much as a few thousand dollar gap in funding can mean during graduate school, it would be nice to have this knowledge in hand before sending out applications.  

 

That said...I have looked everywhere for this (grad cafe and otherwise), and have not found anything very helpful.  Some programs are very forthright about funding offers on their websites, but others are (for good reason) a bit less forthright.  

 

Would it meet everyone's needs to have a site that organizes anonymous submissions, where those submissions include relevant information about the offers? How do these sites filter submissions of false information? After looking through some very nice law school admissions sites, I've been thinking of putting something together. But I don't want to put something together that's not going to meet people's needs.

[humean_skeptic]

Would it meet everyone's needs to have a site that organizes anonymous submissions, where those submissions include relevant information about the offers? How do these sites filter submissions of false information? After looking through some very nice law school admissions sites, I've been thinking of putting something together. But I don't want to put something together that's not going to meet people's needs.

 

I've already met my daily quota of up-votes, but this sounds like a great idea. I'd be happy to contribute some info. 

[Cottagecheeseman]

Would it meet everyone's needs to have a site that organizes anonymous submissions, where those submissions include relevant information about the offers? How do these sites filter submissions of false information? After looking through some very nice law school admissions sites, I've been thinking of putting something together. But I don't want to put something together that's not going to meet people's needs.

I concur, some kind of site listing offer information would be nice. But I'm not sure submitting anonymously would be the best ideal. We see here on the grad cafe how easy it is to fake that kind of stuff, and you can't really filter it anymore than "that looks wrong". Some other way, like private emails that the important details get posted anonymously might be a good thought, that way it could be semi-verified.

[DHumeDominates]

You might consult the link below. It was referenced in an email I received from one of the schools that wait listed me. It's not about funding offers; it's about cost of living. Still, it might prove helpful.

http://www.bestplaces.net/cost-of-living/

Edited February 23, 2014 by DHumeDominates

[ianfaircloud]

I concur, some kind of site listing offer information would be nice. But I'm not sure submitting anonymously would be the best ideal. We see here on the grad cafe how easy it is to fake that kind of stuff, and you can't really filter it anymore than "that looks wrong". Some other way, like private emails that the important details get posted anonymously might be a good thought, that way it could be semi-verified.

 

I wondered about that. Let me make sure I understand your idea: Someone sets up an email account (or something similar), and that person asks people to submit some basic information with the promise that their anonymity would be preserved. Is that what you mean? I think this is a good idea, or at least it's as good as any. The problems, of course, are ( a ) people would have to trust that person to protect privacy, ( b ) that person would have to be trusted not to adjust the numbers or something to fit her/his purposes, © and there's still difficulty verifying the reliability of the incoming data. It's not fail-safe.

 

But here's what I like about this idea. While it's easy for someone to falsify the info on the gradcafe results survey, people are less likely (presumably) to submit falsified data when it requires some typing, serious bullshitting, etc. Hence I'm way more confident about what's written in this forum than what's written on the results survey.

 

I'm very interested to hear your thoughts and others' thoughts on this...

[turambar85]

I wondered about that. Let me make sure I understand your idea: Someone sets up an email account (or something similar), and that person asks people to submit some basic information with the promise that their anonymity would be preserved. Is that what you mean? I think this is a good idea, or at least it's as good as any. The problems, of course, are ( a ) people would have to trust that person to protect privacy, ( b ) that person would have to be trusted not to adjust the numbers or something to fit her/his purposes, © and there's still difficulty verifying the reliability of the incoming data. It's not fail-safe.

 

But here's what I like about this idea. While it's easy for someone to falsify the info on the gradcafe results survey, people are less likely (presumably) to submit falsified data when it requires some typing, serious bullshitting, etc. Hence I'm way more confident about what's written in this forum than what's written on the results survey.

 

I'm very interested to hear your thoughts and others' thoughts on this...

 

Right.  And funding is relatively constant.  While there is the worry that anonymity will lead to falsifying when it comes to non-verifiable information, it is less of a problem when public materials can be checked by others.  If somebody submits information saying that Penn State only offers a 13K stipend, and this is published on the list, then another student (or faculty) who knows what the actual funding offered is would be easily able to fix this for us.  

[Philhopeful]

I wondered about that. Let me make sure I understand your idea: Someone sets up an email account (or something similar), and that person asks people to submit some basic information with the promise that their anonymity would be preserved. Is that what you mean? I think this is a good idea, or at least it's as good as any. The problems, of course, are ( a ) people would have to trust that person to protect privacy, ( b ) that person would have to be trusted not to adjust the numbers or something to fit her/his purposes, © and there's still difficulty verifying the reliability of the incoming data. It's not fail-safe.

 

But here's what I like about this idea. While it's easy for someone to falsify the info on the gradcafe results survey, people are less likely (presumably) to submit falsified data when it requires some typing, serious bullshitting, etc. Hence I'm way more confident about what's written in this forum than what's written on the results survey.

 

I'm very interested to hear your thoughts and others' thoughts on this...

 

I think that this is an outstanding idea. One way you might try to control for false information is to include some measure of confidence. For instance, if the information is from a departmental website, that could receive the highest level, information from several sources in agreement could have a high level of confidence, and information from just one source would be lower. Granted, this might have the consequence that fellowship offers would always be low confidence, but it would be good for getting the general funding package information. I imagine most people would say if they got a fellowship anyway.

Edited February 23, 2014 by Philhopeful

[Hopephily]

I posted a similar thread sometime ago because I recall seeing a list of funding packages from different schools on some website.  Anyway, I know there was once one out there, but I've no idea how to get there again. 

[PhD applicant]

Don't you guys think there might be somebody at the institutions that keep that information unpublished for a reason that might get bothered by this, I mean, in a legal sort of way? That's my only real concern about it. I'd hate for, say, faircloud to get into deep shit over it if he starts up something like that.

[Philhopeful]

Don't you guys think there might be somebody at the institutions that keep that information unpublished for a reason that might get bothered by this, I mean, in a legal sort of way? That's my only real concern about it. I'd hate for, say, faircloud to get into deep shit over it if he starts up something like that.

 

I have a hard time imagining how this could be protected information. Faircloud would be organizing the information. The people who would be submitting it would be people with offers. If there was a restriction on the information that people who receive offers could share, you'd think that the departments would inform them of that when the offer is made. 

[ianfaircloud]

I think that this is an outstanding idea. One way you might try to control for false information is to include some measure of confidence. For instance, if the information is from a departmental website, that could receive the highest level, information from several sources in agreement could have a high level of confidence, and information from just one source would be lower. Granted, this might have the consequence that fellowship offers would always be low confidence, but it would be good for getting the general funding package information. I imagine most people would say if they got a fellowship anyway.

 

I love the idea of a confidence index of some kind.

 

OK, so based on what I'm hearing, provided that I include some legal boilerplate for liability purposes, we have the foundations here.

 

Please continue to post ideas. I'll see if I can make time for this sometime this week. I'll run the specifics by you all on this thread before I move forward. I don't want to devote time to something that isn't exactly what we're looking for.

[PhD applicant]

Heads up: this site has a list already of schools by order of most students fully funded (I believe that's how this list is generated),

anyhow, check it out and make sure it isn't already doing some of the stuff you're talking about...

http://graduate-school.phds.org/rankings/philosophy/rank/funding

 

 

Looks like you can look at each school:

http://graduate-school.phds.org/university/princeton/program/ranking/philosophy/7485 For example, there is a location on this page for percentage of first year graduate funding in philosophy at Princeton University. You could probably look at every school and get the stats for the list you want to build here without waiting for anyone to submit to you anything.

Edited February 24, 2014 by PhD applicant

[ProfLorax]

We did a funding spreadsheet via Google Docs last year in the Lit/Rhet/Comp forums; we filled in the info as we received our offers. It may be useful as a model for your own. 

[ianfaircloud]

OKAY, folks, here's one idea:

 

Rather than allow people to submit anonymous funding information, I could simply go to people who I know personally to ask them information about funding. I personally know people admitted (this season) to about five of the top-20s, two or three 21-30 range, and a few in the 31-40 range.

 

From this data, suppose I hear information on schools A, B, C, D . . . through G.

 

Then what I could do is accept, via the messenger feature in this forum, information from sources in this forum.

 

Suppose a person on this forum tells me funding information on schools H, I, and J, and also school A. If this person's information on school A matches what I have already received from one-to-one communication with a person who I know, then I could trust that their information on schools H, I, and J is accurate. (Or at least that would be my assumption.)

 

So basically the rule would be this:

 

I'll accept as authoritative any data from a person whose data includes data that I've already verified independently of that person.

 

Now the problem, if there is one, with this approach is simple: Once the funding data is public, I wouldn't be able to gather new data, except by some other method. Does that make sense?

 

The other problem is that no one could contribute anything without having data on at least two programs.

 

If any of this is unclear, please say so. Also, am I forgetting anything?

 

A special thanks to an anonymous person who offered me this idea.

 

ALTERNATIVELY, I could simply accept data from any source and publish the data with information about the source.

 

E.g. Program P offers $X funding under conditions Y (source: a frequent contributor to TGC forums who has a reputation of 160 points)

Edited February 26, 2014 by ianfaircloud

[philophilosopher]

That's a good idea, but there is one problem that strikes me immediately. It is possible that different schools offer different students different funding packages, isn't it? If so, then the current system has no way of allowing that (as far as I saw) to be corroborated. 

[ianfaircloud]

That's a good idea, but there is one problem that strikes me immediately. It is possible that different schools offer different students different funding packages, isn't it? If so, then the current system has no way of allowing that (as far as I saw) to be corroborated. 

 

Yes, that's possible. I think most schools offer the same funding to most or all of the students in the same cohort. But 'most' isn't 'all'. So your point is well-taken.

 

I think we're back to what we suggested earlier, which is that I simply compile a list and give an idea of the source's reliability. I hope to have something up by the end of the week.