How much should a grad student be paid?

[RunnerGrad]

 

Our RA pay was also based on a certain amount for a certain amount of hours worked and the remaining pay came from fellowships, which do not come with any work requirements but in effect, are meant to supplement our pay so that we have a livable stipend. Typically, at Canadian schools, undergrad researchers are paid around $15-$20/hour and graduate students in the $20-$25/hour range. Note that in most of Canada, minimum wage is $10.25/hr currently (Ontario is going to go to $13/hour soon). So, I think this is a fair wage to pay someone with the qualifications of a BA or BSc. I agree that this should only be counted on the hours we actually work for the school though!

 

 

That sounds very similar to what I made as an undergraduate RA and TA (in Ontario, Canada).  For my RA position, I was making $12/hour, and could only work a maximum of 10 hours/week.  For my TA position, I was making $20/hour.  Invigilating exams was also paid at $20/hour.  It's funny that my RA position paid less than invigilating, since invigilating was a lot less work, but the RA had the advantage of providing me with research experience.

 

As an undergraduate TA, I was a member of a union.

[TakeruK]

As for work hours, I'm not doubting that you or anyone else work 40 hours per week. I am questioning why you think you should be paid for all 40 of those hours when some of those hours are for your own work (because really, it's not like you get to include someone else's research in your primary dissertation). I'm not sure why you're contesting this so strongly. There are people in my field who have included co-authored publications in their dissertations. I checked with one of them today. He said that while yes, he worked more than 20 hours as a RA, he considered that fair because some of that work advanced his career while some of it benefited the lab more broadly. But what you're saying is that your 40+ hours of work per week should be paid as a FT employee. But, here's the thing, the FT employee might get their name on publications but wouldn't get to compile and submit them to receive a degree. Even if you don't want to see that as a difference, it most definitely is in the eyes of institutions and funders.

 

Maybe this is a difference in field then. The way that others in my field (as written here and from other conversations), is that as a graduate student research, I provide a product (papers, research output whatever) for my supervisor and school. In return, I get paid money for that work. When a plumber completes a job, it helps his/her career because the job provides more experience which allows them to become a better plumber. But they still get paid for their work even though it has benefits for them. When I complete a research "product", I become a better researcher because of the experience, but I should still get paid for all the hours I put into the work.

 

To respond to the part in bold, I agree that a plumber in training should be paid less than a full plumber because the plumber in training will take longer to do things and/or produce less skilled work, and so a graduate student researcher-in-training should be paid less than a full staff scientist for the same reasons. So yes, while I think I should be paid 40 hours per week, I am not saying that I should be paid 40 hours a week at the rate of a FT employee in my field, but instead some fraction of that, which I estimated above to be in the $30k-$40k/year range (the full time employee wage would be in the $50k-$60k range).

 

But I do agree that we are derailing the main problem presented by the OP now. I just wanted to respond to the bolded part because I felt that my words were misinterpreted.

[Vene]

To respond to the part in bold, I agree that a plumber in training should be paid less than a full plumber because the plumber in training will take longer to do things and/or produce less skilled work, and so a graduate student researcher-in-training should be paid less than a full staff scientist for the same reasons. So yes, while I think I should be paid 40 hours per week, I am not saying that I should be paid 40 hours a week at the rate of a FT employee in my field, but instead some fraction of that, which I estimated above to be in the $30k-$40k/year range (the full time employee wage would be in the $50k-$60k range).

I agree completely with this. I have worked as a researcher in industry and I am taking a large pay cut for graduate school. I'm hoping that it will work out for me as an investment, but at the same time I'm going to be doing work for somebody else. Even if it is "my" project, the work will contribute to scientific knowledge just as much as if I was a technician working under a PI's grant. The difference is that university will put more effort into training me. But, to compare to an industrial position, they do the exact same thing to talented workers. I worked with a technician who had an AS and the company was paying for her tuition to complete a BS while still paying her her full salary. I'm not seeing a huge difference between this and a university waiving tuition for a PhD student while paying them for their work as an RA except that the pay in industry will actually be higher. Edited June 4, 2014 by Vene

[GeoDUDE!]

I think a large difference comes from the differences in our backgrounds: With a BA in physics I was offered and declined 3 jobs, all paying over 60k a year (one was 80k). Entry level jobs in computer science can pay 6 figures in Mountainview CA, and while the cost of living there is high, the hours a graduate student tends to work is often greater, diminishes their earning potential in industry relative to industry experience. While there is some inherent value to the degree, if you expect to make more money with a PhD than a masters degree you are severely misguided. 

 

You also have to figure supply and demand into the equation: a large part of the reasons why science graduate students deserve to be paid more is because there aren't that many of them. While admissions to the top schools are of course competitive, if you do a good enough job, at leasts in physics, there will always be an open TA spot of for a physics major that makes the minimum requirements. The reason being is that industry salaries are very competitive. 

 

Where as for many fields, to obtain a high quality job it is almost necessary to get a graduate degree, in the sciences this is not the case.  Like it or not, Degrees aren't of equal monetary value. 

[Usmivka]

So, I'll just address a couple of things and then move on because this discussion is completely derailing the original post.

 

But I do agree that we are derailing the main problem presented by the OP now.

 

I think this is too bad, as the originally posted question seems to have been more or less wrapped up to everyone's satisfaction (yes, your officemates are being dicks, no you shouldn't feel bad, here  are some suggestions...).

 

But this ancillary discussion is clearly interesting to many of the posters and is exactly the sort of thing I enjoy learning about in the forum. This side discussion has certainly given me a fuller understanding in what the expectations and norms in various graduate fields are, and underlined something of a philosophical debate about the value of our work as students and what the payout is and should be for all involved parties.

 

I'd also suggest that as "senior" posters you have a lot of agency where the rest of us don't. The power dynamic is such that by saying that any other discussion not directly addressing the opening question is "derailing" things, you can shut down conversation on this topic for those of us who may not feel the same way. Maybe the conversation is dead anyway (though I've seen other "derailed" threads go a lot further), but I think it is something we could all be mindful of.

Edited June 4, 2014 by Usmivka

[Guest Gnome Chomsky]

How much are Ramen noodles and PBR?

[Sigaba]

I'd also suggest that as "senior" posters you have a lot of agency where the rest of us don't. The power dynamic is such that by saying that any other discussion not directly addressing the opening question is "derailing" things, you can shut down conversation on this topic for those of us who may not feel the same way. Maybe the conversation is dead anyway (though I've seen other "derailed" threads go a lot further), but I think it is something we could all be mindful of.

Please keep in mind that you could start a thread on this secondary topic and/or dive into a few of the older threads in which these issues have been discussed. (I think this may have been r_s's point.) Edited June 5, 2014 by Sigaba

[rising_star]

Sigaba is right! Usmivka, my point isn't to shut down discussion but, there's really not much value to having the larger discussion in this particular thread because it will be lost to future users (who will assume that the thread is about the question in the topic title and not a discussion about adjuncts, graduate students, and research staff and their pay). Feel free to start a new topic about this as I'm sure many will contribute. For the record, Usmivka, I wasn't trying to shut down discussion of the topic. If I believe a topic/discussion should be shut down, then I will clearly state that in my administrative capacity. I'm sorry to hear that any comments I make about whether something is "on-topic" will be interpreted as a desire to shut down the discussion. Trust me when I say that when I want discussions to stop or move elsewhere, I am very explicit about that.

[Eigen]

Not to continue derailing it, but a lot of the differences here are generally field specific. And to add to what Rising_star and Sigaba have said, "older" posters stating strong opinions shouldn't have an undue influence on the conversation just because there are more stars next to our names. 

 

It's like academia- listen to the experienced people, weigh their advice against how long they've been in the game, but don't follow something blindly that makes no sense to you. Learn to stand up for yourself. 

 

Continuing with the derail:

 

At least in the physical sciences/lab sciences/engineering, funding packages (stipend + tuition) generally have to compete with what's offered at a FT job. And in most cases, it does. 

 

Rising_Star mentions that someone working full time could not package and submit publications for a degree, but that's actually not that far off of what some models of engineering do for part-time PhDs, or especially DEng degrees. The coursework is down part time (but at least for my program, there are only 6 required courses, two of which are electives), and the research can be done while working at a company. 

 

And at that point, it's even OK if the dissertation is proprietary and not published, as long as the committee (which can be both faculty and industry researchers) can see it. 

 

At least in my field, grad students view our work as a full time job, that at the end we'll look back and try to gather up what we've done into a roughly coherent model that we can call a dissertation. But I've seen dissertations written in a week, almost as an afterthought- take all the papers you've written arrange them in the order that makes the most sense, use a review article as an introduction, and add a bit of connecting material to tell the story. The dissertation and defense are almost a formality, and the work you've done is the meat- once you've done enough that someone else wants to higher you, your committee is generally OK with letting you go. 

 

All of the work we do is supported on grants, and we have from some leeway to no leeway at all in what we do- it's completely an employee/employer relationship with the PI (your advisor/committee chair). Some labs in my department even have specific contracts, with what hours they're expected to work, how often evaluations and project reports are due, etc. A lab functions like a small independent business, more often than not. 

 

Funding situation changes, my boss's interests change? Then so does my dissertation. This is completely different than many other social science fields, psychology, ecology, and even to some extent TakeruK's field of astronomy. 

 

The PI and the University own any IP that comes out of my time at the University, as stipulated by employment contracts. If I want to take research that I've started and move on to use similar work for a post-doc or a faculty position, I'd better have worked out exactly what the delineation is between that part of the work and what my PI wants to keep doing. 

[Eigen]

How much are Ramen noodles and PBR?

 

Just sayin', I'm glad I make enough not to have to subsist on either of those anymore. Granted, PBR still brings me back to my roots at times, and who doesn't occasionally reminiscently eat raman?!

[astroyogi]

IMHO, competitive or merit based fellowships or grants are out there to be competed for -- if you have the impetus to apply for these and the merit to receive them, you deserve them, end of story.

[TakeruK]

Funding situation changes, my boss's interests change? Then so does my dissertation. This is completely different than many other social science fields, psychology, ecology, and even to some extent TakeruK's field of astronomy. 

 

Since some astronomers really only require a computer to do their research, it's far less costly to than purchasing actual materials for a lab or an experiment so even if a major change in our PI's funding happens, it's generally possible to scrape together enough funding to continue a current project. However, I have known students who had to change projects completely because the data doesn't come through--either the grant application for telescope time did not get approved, or perhaps the weather did not allow for the quality of data needed, or perhaps our telescope gets decommissioned or breaks!! etc. In general, observational astronomers try to work on at least 2 projects so that if something like this happens, they have a backup plan.

 

Astronomy/planetary science is another field where the dissertation topic is pretty much decided near the end when we look back on our research and try to unite them in a coherent theme--I've seen many defenses where the "theme" is a pretty big stretch but that doesn't really matter. The "meat" of our PhD is the research we did and the skills learned from the process, not the end result. 

 

Also interesting to note that in Canadian tax law, RAs can sometimes be considered self-employed persons, which is how a lot of graduate students see themselves--apprentice contractors for hire (except instead of building houses or fixing pipes, we perform academic research). 

Edited June 5, 2014 by TakeruK

[MorganStar32]

OP here, and I say - Derail away! This is an interesting discussion with many tangents, so please don't feel like I'm going to be displeased by a derail. As someone mentioned, I think my original question was answered. This issue of funding/stipends/salary is near to many of our hearts, so please, discuss :-)