What is your opinion/thoughts on PhD programs not funding their first year students?

[mseph]

This is just out of curiosity--I got an acceptance from a program that was very ambiguous about funding. So I contacted the department and talked to current students, and figured out that the department never, if not rarely, funds its first year students. But most students are funded starting their 2nd year based on their performance in their first year. Since I picked up that "PhD is not worth a penny" over and over again from GC and other places, I am considering this program less than places that offered 5-yr funding (and one being better ranked program anyways, so makes my decision easier). But it was interesting to see there is such program that almost never funds its first year students. It's not like 3 year funding or partial funding for the first year. It's absolutely nothing so students need to pay the tuition. How common is this? And I am curious to know what GCers think about such departments/programs? 

[fuzzylogician]

I would not attend such a program. I would also not want to attend a program where funding is competitive and students are constantly ranked. It would make for an awkward unfriendly environment where collaborations could not thrive. One of the things I valued most about my program was the feedback I got from fellow students, from hallway conversations, from questions asked at reading groups. I would not want to go to a place where my success could possibly jeopardize someone else's ability to pay rent. 

[mseph]

I would not attend such a program. I would also not want to attend a program where funding is competitive and students are constantly ranked. It would make for an awkward unfriendly environment where collaborations could not thrive. One of the things I valued most about my program was the feedback I got from fellow students, from hallway conversations, from questions asked at reading groups. I would not want to go to a place where my success could possibly jeopardize someone else's ability to pay rent. 

Thank you for sharing your thoughts on this. I was thinking the same, but was also curious to know what others think. It's good to know that I am not the only one thinking that way about such programs. 

[expandyourmind]

yes, agreed. this is about training for a doctorate and honing your skills. a graduate program should foster your abilities and take care of their grad students. it should also be that your peers raise you up and push you to be a better scientist in a collaborative sense. 

 

from your post it doesn't seem like this is a very good environment to flourish. i would run!

[TakeruK]

100% agreed with fuzzy. 

 

Another bad practice is that some schools take in a lot of first year students and funds them all with TAships. However, funding in later years is not as available and the school uses the quals exam to fail/weed out a fraction of their students. In my opinion, when a school accepts a student, they should be willing to support that student all the way through, assuming acceptable performance. If there is doubt whether the student can succeed, they should not have been accepted.

[maelia8]

I agree with the above responses. At my institution, all of the first year students have exactly the same yearly package (except for a couple with external summer funding), and we're happier because we know we don't have to compete with each other. Our funding is guaranteed for six years, and after that, there are still more opportunities if you are willing to dig around a bit. I wouldn't go anywhere with such a "survivalist" attitude of weeding out the supposedly weak candidates.

[zephyri]

I quite agree that this school's policy would create an unhappy environment for grads.  Heck, my school promises 5 years of funding to its funded students, and the atmosphere still sucks!  

 

I've never heard of a polisci PhD program not offering funding the first year as a matter of policy.  My polisci PhD program admits students in March, notifies them about funding in April, and lets them decide if they want to attend.  Nearly all of the unfunded PhD students find TA/GAships inside or outside of our department after their first semester or first year.

 

At first I thought it was unethical to admit PhD students without funding (I joined when the department was relatively flush, so no issues with funding), but now I think it's better to give students the opportunity to attend and find funding later.  That way you're not losing great students who want to attend your school.  And let's face it, some of the "sure bets" that programs admit, turn out to be duds or drop out for various reasons!

[TakeruK]

At first I thought it was unethical to admit PhD students without funding (I joined when the department was relatively flush, so no issues with funding), but now I think it's better to give students the opportunity to attend and find funding later.  That way you're not losing great students who want to attend your school.  And let's face it, some of the "sure bets" that programs admit, turn out to be duds or drop out for various reasons!

 

That's a good point and I've thought about that too when thinking about ethics of funding. But ultimately, I think the paradigm of "give chance to attend now, and funding later" actually hurts students more than it helps. For example, all students who are not able to take on the risk of debt will not be able to take advantage of the opportunity to attend now and find funding later. I think this type of funding scheme will benefit universities at the expense of students.

[zephyri]

Oh absolutely, I agree that higher education is hopelessly elitist and reinforces various horrid intersections of racial, class, and gender discrimination.  Take political science for example: there are 4-5 people of color in my program, out of 40 graduate students.  Most minorities who come from less means, are encouraged to go into more lucrative professions with a polisci degree, like law.  So as a result, polisci grad programs are predominantly white and (somewhat less so, but still) mostly male.  This produces a professoriate that is over 80% white and nearly 80% male (from last year's APSA stats, can't remember exact numbers, but in the ball park).  And that's not even factoring in class!