The Ph.D. Pay Gap

[victorydance]

My point is that the kind of solidarity you're talking about, TakeruK, is rare (as victorydance's attitude clearly demonstrates). 

 

It's a collective action problem. People aren't necessarily going to put in the effort and time to gain benefits for something they have nothing to do with. I know I wouldn't and a lot of people wouldn't either. 

 

It's also compounded by the system of university students. It's not a stagnant landscape like an occupation where a union can organize around generations of people. Universities are too fluid, students don't spend that much time there and there is always a new stock of students entering. 

[dr. t]

some stuff.

 

I think I actually have a pretty good grasp on your experiences; you've given quite a lot of information, willingly or not, in your time here. My assessment stands.

 

All these arguments about market forces make perfect sense for the job market. I have yet to see any compelling argument that they should apply to graduate stipends. Quite the opposite, in fact.

[victorydance]

I'll answer these in order, based on what came to my mind first.

1) Downsized = philosophy, foreign languages, music, art, literature, history, sociology, anthropology. Some of this is due to a transition to more interdisciplinary programs (like Global Studies, Cultural Studies, regional studies) and some is due to a systematic disinvestment in the humanities because of a (I believe mistaken) view that studying the humanities contributes nothing to society.

2) Disciplines reliant on public funding for grants: I assume you mean things like NEH, NIH, NSF, DoD, NOAA, Dept of Energy, etc. So, that would actually include quite a few STEM disciplines, like biology, public health, chemistry, physics, etc. 

From your question at the end, it seems like you're trying to say that the humanities rely entirely on the public for grants. I'm not saying they don't (and far less grant money is available in those disciplines) but many disciplines in the US rely heavily on public funding for grants. Do you have any statistics that show otherwise? Are physics/chemistry/biology/political science departments primarily getting their grants from industry and not using grants from public sources to fund their research or graduate students?

 

This is correct. But a distinction, I didn't make a dichotomy. Many humanities and social sciences disciplines are completely reliant on public funds. Many STEM fields are more mixed, with a lot of funds coming from the private sector.

 

I would say as a general rule, a lot of academia in general is supported by the public sector. But there are some disciplines out there (mostly hard science or STEM) that are getting a lot of additional funding from industry. 

 

All this is to say is that there is a lot more money being poured into certain departments in universities than others which could definitely contribute to pay gaps.

[victorydance]

I think I actually have a pretty good grasp on your experiences; you've given quite a lot of information, willingly or not, in your time here. My assessment stands.

 

All these arguments about market forces make perfect sense for the job market. I have yet to see any compelling argument that they should apply to graduate stipends. Quite the opposite, in fact.

 

You don't think academia is affected by market forces? Academia is one of the chief trainers of highly technical employees, especially in the present and recent past. It also acts as a think tank for research that is funneled into corporations to increase their efficiency and effectiveness. 

 

I mean look at the discipline of computer science. With the introduction and importance of computers in the recent two decades it has turned the discipline into an financial juggernaut. 

Edited May 26, 2015 by victorydance

[dr. t]

You don't think academia is affected by market forces? Academia is one of the chief trainers of highly technical employees, especially in the present and recent past. 

 

I mean look at the discipline of computer science. With the introduction and importance of computers in the recent two decades it has turned the discipline into an financial juggernaut. 

 

It seems that close reading may be a technical skill more difficult to acquire than you realize. I made no such statement. I said that the kind of market forces you describe do not apply to GRADUATE STIPENDS. I have previously outlined my reasons why this is true: 1) funding structures, 2) a highly competitive admissions process. 

[victorydance]

It seems that close reading may be a technical skill more difficult to acquire than you realize. I made no such statement. I said that the kind of market forces you describe do not apply to GRADUATE STIPENDS. I have previously outlined my reasons why this is true: 1) funding structures, 2) a highly competitive admissions process. 

 

You haven't outlined anything. What does funding structures even mean exactly? Competitive admissions has nothing to do with it really. 

 

I have explained in detail how market forces affect academia and their pay gaps.

 

Academia trains many private sector employees > disciplines that the market deems more valuable get more funding and influx of money > graduate students in these disciplines get paid more. 

 

What have you provided? Erk, funding structures and admissions! Could you be any more vague?

[Cheshire_Cat]

I think I actually have a pretty good grasp on your experiences; you've given quite a lot of information, willingly or not, in your time here. My assessment stands.

 

All these arguments about market forces make perfect sense for the job market. I have yet to see any compelling argument that they should apply to graduate stipends. Quite the opposite, in fact.

Why do the laws of physics have to apply to graduate students?  Market forces just are.  You can't really argue that they should or shouldn't apply somewhere any more than you can argue that gravity shouldn't apply somewhere.  It is just how it works.  We can work with within the laws of physics to create airplanes, which may seem to defy gravity, but in reality, as soon as you change something, like a wing, then the plane will plummet to the ground.

A better question, is how you can use market forces to "defy gravity" so to speak.

[dr. t]

Outline: to sketch, state in vague details. Not to be confused with "explain".

 

Admissions:

 

The fact that any demand on the other side of the labor market is negated by the 5-10% admissions rate for any decent program "has nothing to do with it really"? Are you sure about that? The traditional economic model states that salaries go up when there isn't enough labor to meet industry demand. If PhD programs are only taking 1 in 10 applicants, does that really look like a labor shortage that's driving up salaries to you? Really?

 

If STEM PhD programs really had that great an impact on earnings potential (they don't, the studies I've seen show a 3% increase in earnings power from an MA to a PhD), wouldn't prospective students be more willing to eat a lower salary for a few years in order to reap the rewards. We already see plenty of people taking internships, paid or, more often, not, for exactly that reason.

 

 

Funding Structure:

 

The largest grant the NEH can award is $400,000. This is at least an order of magnitude smaller than the start-up costs for your standard STEM lab. Consequently, stipends for the humanities are decided on and paid out by the institution. Institutions are, as we all know, coming under increased budgetary pressure and are in any case heavily bureaucratic. Grants in STEM are a relatively small part of the large grants administered by the PI or similar. As a consequence, adding a few thousand dollars to a STEM stipend is significantly easier to do than the same operation in the humanities.

[dr. t]

Why do the laws of physics have to apply to graduate students?  Market forces just are.  You can't really argue that they should or shouldn't apply somewhere any more than you can argue that gravity shouldn't apply somewhere.  It is just how it works.  We can work with within the laws of physics to create airplanes, which may seem to defy gravity, but in reality, as soon as you change something, like a wing, then the plane will plummet to the ground.

A better question, is how you can use market forces to "defy gravity" so to speak.

 

That there are general rules which govern economic interactions does not mean that you've correctly understood or applied them.

[TakeruK]

Yea, we tried to do something like this at my PhD University but the students in STEM fields basically said, "We've got ours. Good luck with that!" That was decidedly unhelpful to everyone else. But, we also weren't unionized. When students from the humanities and social sciences started to organize around the pay gap issue (as well as other things that were actually lowering our pay, like raising fees and reducing our health insurance coverage), there were subtle threats of having one's TA/RA contract terminated. Legally, the university could do that because we were in a "right-to-work" state where the employer can discontinue your employment at will, without even needing to show cause. My point is that the kind of solidarity you're talking about, TakeruK, is rare (as victorydance's attitude clearly demonstrates). The idea that someone studying the humanities doesn't need/deserve to make minimum wage is absurd and it doesn't help when those earning more in the STEM fields turn a blind eye to the issue.

 

Note: Unionization is much more common in Canada (where my MSc school was). Universities are used to working with unions because there can be as many as 6-10 different union locals/chapters on campus (representing students, postdocs, administrative staff, plant ops/custodial staff, construction, professors, researchers, etc. although sometimes they are combined). Graduate students are also generally considered public service employees because we work for provincially funded public schools and provide services to the public (e.g. teaching). So, grad student unions are the norm, not the exception in Canada.

 

My work with the union was the Physics representative to the Union. At first, I was the one of two representatives from the STEM fields (almost all of the other disciplines that were doing well didn't even want to participate). A large part of my time was spent simply convincing other physics students that unions are a good thing for graduate students. This was a relatively new union (on the other hand, all other major Canadian schools have been unionized for many many more years). There was a lot of misconception that the students in the social sciences/humanities are trying to lower science students' stipends so that they can get an increase. 

 

I think a union (or other collective action) can still benefit those who have their needs met. Prior to unionization, the science students have good stipends and working conditions through the grace of the department (and potentially through market forces--if they don't pay well, students can do other things). However, collective bargaining make these good conditions into contractual obligations that are independent of market forces. Once they are signed into the contract, if the University wants to take them back, it will cost them. Also, while perhaps 90% of the STEM grad students had benefits like proper sick leave and vacation time due to having reasonable supervisors, there are still some who did not. Without a contract, a student is subject to the whims of their supervisor and/or their own charisma/ability to stand up to their supervisor. And since the number of marginalized students (by definition) is small, little action is taken to help them.

 

Overall, yes, the idea behind collective action will not help the few who are both currently well off and have the ability to negotiate for their own benefits and protection. Usually, these are people who generally have more influence in academia. But, if you have this privilege, then why not use your position of power and privilege to help those who have less? In general, I believe that those with more should help those with less. Especially since those without these privileges are going to have to spend more time on other things just to catch up--they might not have the resources to speak up for themselves. For example, if a PhD student is making $16k/year and working a part time job to support themselves, they might not have time to organize students or arrange meetings to discuss raising student stipends, even if the administration is open to such discussions. Or, a student with a less-than-ideal advisor-advisee relationship might be afraid of backlash if they tried to lobby the department for better sick leave policies.

 

If we want to be responsible members of our community, then, when we have privilege, we should speak up for those who cannot. Otherwise, we risk creating a community where there will only be people like us. In some industries, this might not be a big deal, but in academia, where the diversity of ideas/experiences is supposedly critical (e.g. all the worry about doing all your degrees in one place), I think we're hurting ourselves when we make academia more exclusive/restrictive.

[Crafter]

Funding was definitely one of the factors when I applied to Grad School. I have nobody to pay for my bills, so I need a decent stipend. Debt is also not an option for me because I am an international applicant from a country where no "student loans" are available and have no guarantee that I will get a well paid job after I graduate.

 

As for having kids as a graduate student, that is entirely up to the individual (or the couple, actually) and nobody should judge if it is a "good choice" or a "bad choice" based on ignorance on the specific circumstances of the couple in question. Stating that parents have no place in grad school is bad for society, for democracy and for human rights in general. Let alone for women's rights! We tend to have the bigger load when it comes to parenting, even with a good partner, and making any woman to decided between career and maternity is discriminatory. Judging others for choosing to have kids is as wrong as judging those who decided NOT to have kids. Too bad that other students, who are supposed to be smart make generalizations and judge the same way less educated people do. Anyway, as Cheshire_Cat said, maybe more money is not the answer to support parents in grad school, but there are things that can be done, like subsidized child care, only that can mean a MAJOR support, and keep everybody making the same stipend while still supporting parents.

 

Regarding the abuses to the system: I don't even think those are statistically relevant to shut down programs or to be a real concern. Having a kid is expensive by itself and tiresome. We have to talk about some serious increment in your income to even considering using a child to make money. I mean, as a single person o even a couple with no kids, a regular 25K- 27k stipend can get a decent life financially and would manege time more effectively for school purposes. For the sake of argument, let's say that you get a 5K bonus for your spouse and child. Do you really think that there will be much left after paying for diapers, all the extra food, health care (in kids that is a major expense) and other necessities??? Not really, and considering "getting unintended dependents" (how you do that?? get married to someone you don't care about just to make an extra buck?? Have a child you don't want just for the extra money that will likely go away in taking care of that child anyway), that is a very bad money making strategy and should be reconsidered, and I am not even talking about the effort and time it takes to live with a spouse and a kid. Of course, I am talking about grad school students, who are the source of this topic, I am not referring to someone living off unemployment and other state benefits because it is comfortable.

 

Moreover, as TakeruK mentioned, the amount of people who really benefit are more in numbers and by benefiting those who need it the general outcome for the rest is always for the better. We all benefit from a society (or school) where more individuals don't struggle to survive. Even those who are not directly recipients of such programs. Selfish attitudes like the ones posted here,  have been the root of social injustice throughout the world, which in turn lead to war, violence and discrimination. I know, I am going as far as I could from the topic, but coming from a developing nation where I see everyday how people who think indolently about other people's disadvantage is really bothering, we have to live with so much violence and other problems directly derived from  "I am doing fine, so f**ck others!" or "let's do X even if that will be bad for most, it will be good for me, so I don't care".

Edited May 27, 2015 by Crafter

[victorydance]

Outline: to sketch, state in vague details. Not to be confused with "explain".

 

You didn't state any details.

 

 

Admissions:

 

The fact that any demand on the other side of the labor market is negated by the 5-10% admissions rate for any decent program "has nothing to do with it really"? Are you sure about that? The traditional economic model states that salaries go up when there isn't enough labor to meet industry demand. If PhD programs are only taking 1 in 10 applicants, does that really look like a labor shortage that's driving up salaries to you? Really?

 

If STEM PhD programs really had that great an impact on earnings potential (they don't, the studies I've seen show a 3% increase in earnings power from an MA to a PhD), wouldn't prospective students be more willing to eat a lower salary for a few years in order to reap the rewards. We already see plenty of people taking internships, paid or, more often, not, for exactly that reason.

 

This is an assumption based on insufficient information. Do you have the statistics that show the admission rates by discipline?

 

Secondly, admission rates can be determined by many factors, particularly internal matters within the department. For one, natural sciences may be more constrained by lab space than other disciplines that don't require it. Secondly, STEM majors are more likely to have paid masters programs, so that shouldn't be excluded from the equation here like you seem to be doing.

 

Funding Structure:

 

The largest grant the NEH can award is $400,000. This is at least an order of magnitude smaller than the start-up costs for your standard STEM lab. Consequently, stipends for the humanities are decided on and paid out by the institution. Institutions are, as we all know, coming under increased budgetary pressure and are in any case heavily bureaucratic. Grants in STEM are a relatively small part of the large grants administered by the PI or similar. As a consequence, adding a few thousand dollars to a STEM stipend is significantly easier to do than the same operation in the humanities.

 

 

So you are arguing that this is the root cause of as much of a $10,000 difference in funding compared to STEM vs. social science/humanities funding? 

[dr. t]

This is an assumption based on insufficient information. Do you have the statistics that show the admission rates by discipline?

 

Secondly, admission rates can be determined by many factors, particularly internal matters within the department. For one, natural sciences may be more constrained by lab space than other disciplines that don't require it. Secondly, STEM majors are more likely to have paid masters programs, so that shouldn't be excluded from the equation here like you seem to be doing.

 

 

So you are arguing that this is the root cause of as much of a $10,000 difference in funding compared to STEM vs. social science/humanities funding? 

 

Seratim:

 

First: Admissions information is readily available from the program websites of many departments. I know of no comprehensive survey.

 

Second, first: Yep. That doesn't help your point any.

Second, second: And?

 

Third: Yes.

[victorydance]

I find it a logical leap to state that natural sciences stipends are solely higher because funding goes through a PI than through a department.

[dr. t]

I find it a logical leap to state that natural sciences stipends are solely higher because funding goes through a PI than through a department.

 

Fortunately, I said that the science stipends are higher 1) because more of the funding is external and 2) that funding goes through a PI rather than the university administration.

[TakeruK]

I find it a logical leap to state that natural sciences stipends are solely higher because funding goes through a PI than through a department.

 

At my MSc school, natural science and social science and humanities students sat down and talked about our funding structures to determine why the pay gap exists. We compared many cases, but the simplest/clearest case is the one where there are no external fellowships.

 

Physics PhD Student Funding Structure (annual):

$10,000 for 250 hours of TA work

$10,000 for 500 hours of RA work (on our theses; but no one track RA hours)

$5,000 from the department directly (labeled as internal fellowships)

Total: $25,000/year

 

English PhD Student Funding Structure (annual):

$20,000 for 500 hours of TA work

Total: $20,000/year

 

(At this school, the campus-wide minimum stipend was around $18,000 per year. And all TA money is paid for by the department.)

 

So, at the department level, yes, the main reason there is a difference in stipend is that natural science students are paid for research work (by our advisor) while the social sciences and humanities students tend to get paid only for teaching work. This means they have to work almost twice as many hours on non-dissertation work than natural science students, which means they take longer to finish, which means they are more financially disadvantaged. In addition, for the few that do get RA work, they are often working for other professors doing non-dissertation research, which leads to the same problem as above.

 

At this school, all pay rates were the same for all students, whether it's payment for teaching (as a TA or as an adjunct) or for research. The difference is only how many hours your advisor or your department is able to pay you. Because social science and humanities professors don't usually get grants for their research work, they are not able to pay their students so students must teach more or find their own funding. (Note: This happens in some fields of physics too--often the highly theoretical fields have very little grant money).

 

At a higher level though, there is certainly more to the story. Due to funding priorities from government and other agencies, there are fewer grants available to social science and humanities researchers, which causes the advisors to not have money to pay their own students. And the natural sciences departments might get more money allocated from the University due to that University's priorities. However, the fact that PIs have grants in natural sciences definitely affect the department budget as well. For example, my last department voted for all professors to contribute some % of their grant money towards a common department fund that will help offset the cost of international students.

 

Therefore, I think the simplification "natural sciences stipends are higher because funding goes through a PI rather than department" is accurate.

[victorydance]

Thank you, now I understand. Although my experience with social sciences is that professors do often get grants for their research, but it definitely is dispersed more sporadically in terms of isolated RA positions for students. There are also a lot of internal fellowships available outside of typical TA positions as well.

 

But this comes back to what I was saying before? That because certain fields pull in more money from funding either federal or private sources that students in those departments get paid more? 

 

So wouldn't that mean it's not necessarily a funding structure thing, it's more to do with the available funds in the department?

Edited May 27, 2015 by victorydance

[Igotnothin]

Lots of interesting discussion here. My take on some of the issues raised:

 

1. I put a ton of weight on stipend when deciding on a PhD program. I'm very happy at a mid-ranked department that pays well. I'm working with an awesome adviser and maximizing my annual Roth IRA contributions.

 

2. It'd be nice to raise stipends from $25k to $50k to accommodate folks with kids, debt, etc. But I doubt that is in the realm of possibility at 99.9% of schools.

 

3. If stipends did go from $25k to $50k, competition would get fierce due to higher demand and presumably fewer spots. I might not be in a PhD program if stipends were that high, because acceptance rates would be so low.

 

4. I think there is some merit to victorydance's much-hated comment about family planning. If I see $25k a year in my 5-year future, I'm not going to start a family. On the other hand, if I'm set on starting a family, I'm not going for $25k a year. In that sense the low pay probably does keep certain folks out of academia.

 

5. I don't feel bad for PhD students and their small stipends. In fact I take exception to students complaining about being poor, and even taking advantage of low-income housing meant for those who really need it. At risk of subjecting myself to downvotes, let's be honest here: we as a group (PhD students) are mostly from high SES backgrounds, and we're heading for the high income brackets after getting our degrees. We're doing all right.

[dr. t]

But this comes back to what I was saying before? That because certain fields pull in more money from funding either federal or private sources that students in those departments get paid more? 

 

So wouldn't that mean it's not necessarily a funding structure thing, it's more to do with the available funds in the department?

 

1) No. The economic effect is indirect, and much of it is governed by political determinations rather than economic ones. 

 

2) The funds available to the department are dependent on the funding structure. That's the point.

[Crafter]

 

4. I think there is some merit to victorydance's much-hated comment about family planning. If I see $25k a year in my 5-year future, I'm not going to start a family. On the other hand, if I'm set on starting a family, I'm not going for $25k a year. In that sense the low pay probably does keep certain folks out of academia.

 

I don't think family planning is what was hated about the comment, it was the assessment of a parental choice as "right" or "wrong".

 

I am pro family planning. Actually, I planned so much that I ended up having my baby very "late" and now I don't think I will have another one, although my husband and I wanted to have more. Mainly because I will start a PhD program this fall and by the time I will be done I will be "too old" to be running after a 2 year old.

 

You become a grad student with kids because either you got pregnant (or your partner did) while in grad school or because you started grad school after you got kids. Either case I don't think there is a reason for considering a parent not suitable for academia. Nobody knows why this person is either having a kid or enrolling in school after having children. Whatever the reason, it is entirely up to the individual and I believe that in most cases grad students are not 18 year olds who "oooopss! got pregnat while in school" and if they become grad students and parents is because they wanted to do so and can do it. And who said that we will be living off my  stipend only?

 

So, if a parent express an interest about intending to go to grad school I will encourage the idea instead of saying "that is a bad choice". If a grad student gets pregnant I would not say "you are making a bad choice by having that baby". Many have done it and have succeeded in getting their degrees, even many have had very understanding PIs who are parents themselves and know what the sacrifices are and are willing to offer flexible hours (note that I am not saying "less work and more money for the parent" I am talking about being flexible, as in not working this  morning because child is sick, but working the weekend) and so on.

 

I am married and have a child and I never considered not enrolling in a PhD program because of that. I don't consider that being a grad student and a mom is a "bad choice". And that is why I consider vicotrydance's comment out of place. I am also a female who has not bought the idea of being either a mom OR a successful professional. I am already a professional with much success and a very caring an dedicated mom as well.

 

In another related topic: I see how the school benefits from TAs and RAs as much as we benefit from getting degrees. And while it holds true that we are students and it is awesome that we will get an advanced degree without having to pay for tuition, I think that as skilled professional workers we are kind entitled to certain benefits, like a decent pay and medical insurance, at least.

[TakeruK]

1) No. The economic effect is indirect, and much of it is governed by political determinations rather than economic ones. 

 

2) The funds available to the department are dependent on the funding structure. That's the point.

 

For example, in Canada, the major graduate level fellowships are administered by three agencies SSHRC (Social Sciences/Humanities), NSERC (Natural Sciences/Engineering) and CIHR (Health Research). These three agencies perform the equivalent role to the NSF in the United States. They also fund graduate students at about the same level as the NSF GRFP awards.

 

I looked into how many fellowship dollars are spent in SSHRC vs. NSERC. You might expect "NSERC fields have more economic impact, so they are probably awarding more dollars", but you would be wrong. In fact, SSHRC awards three times more money to graduate students than NSERC. There are also about three times as many applicants to SSHRC funds as NSERC funds, so the ratio of graduate students who are funded by a major national fellowship is the same on the SSHRC side as NSERC side.

 

To me, this is an example of telkanuru's point. Governments can choose to prioritize research and direct funding the way they want to. Sure, what they "want" to do is correlated with market forces, but as in this example, it doesn't have to be this way. Therefore, I think there is still ground to gain by arguing for decreased pay gap through political action, not just economic actions.

 

(Caveat: I don't know the split of SSHRC funds within SSHRC. It might be possible that the "social science" side of SSHRC gets way more funding than the "humanities" side, or vice-versa.)

[TakeruK]

Lots of interesting discussion here. My take on some of the issues raised:

 

4. I think there is some merit to victorydance's much-hated comment about family planning. If I see $25k a year in my 5-year future, I'm not going to start a family. On the other hand, if I'm set on starting a family, I'm not going for $25k a year. In that sense the low pay probably does keep certain folks out of academia.

 

5. I don't feel bad for PhD students and their small stipends. In fact I take exception to students complaining about being poor, and even taking advantage of low-income housing meant for those who really need it. At risk of subjecting myself to downvotes, let's be honest here: we as a group (PhD students) are mostly from high SES backgrounds, and we're heading for the high income brackets after getting our degrees. We're doing all right.

 

Both of these points (emphasis added) highlight the reason why I believe in arguing for needs-based funding adjustments or other support (increased stipend is just one example--I don't want to focus on the exact form of the solution, just the fact that the problem exists and worth thinking about). Currently, at the graduate programs that pay well (I consider mine among them), it is not really a huge problem for those who do not have families or those who have stable financial backgrounds. But the way our system is set up, we are keeping out those that don't fit these categories, either by directly discouraging them, or setting up extra obstacles.

 

For example, the whole reimbursement culture of academia. Someone who has a history of debt or not a lot of savings might not be able to charge travel to conferences to their credit card months before the conference. They may encounter interest fees and other charges until they get reimbursed after the travel. Many of us might take "oh we'll get that reimbursed later" for granted. There are simple solutions to this (e.g. give students travel advances, like my MSc school, or have the advisor/department pay for it ahead of time with a P-card and thus charging to a grant directly, like my current PhD school). 

 

For students with dependents, a way to support them would be to have an extra grant to pay for childcare during travel to conferences. In my field, most conferences have onsite childcare now--the grant can pay for the child's ticket to the conference location and the daily cost of childcare onsite. Or, they can pay for a caretaker (spouse, family member) to travel with the student in order to care for the child. These programs currently exist for faculty members, but not for students in my program. My field's national society also has grants that students can apply for.

 

These are just two quick examples of ways of using additional money wisely to help students who need it the most. By doing this, we make advances in diversifying academia and making sure we remove/reduce uneven and unfair obstacles.

[victorydance]

But that doesn't make sense if there is not a market force related to funding. Because funding structure is very similar for humanities vs. social sciences. So why is there a pay gap between this spectrum of disciplines? On average, a social science grad student has a higher stipend than a humanities one. If they have very similar funding structures why is this the case?

 

It's one thing to argue that the pay structures of natural science students are different than others, but then why is the same pay gaps represented between the social sciences and humanities? 

 

You can even see the differences within social sciences. With economics and political science majors getting higher stipends than say anthropology or criminology majors.

Edited May 27, 2015 by victorydance

[happy little pill]

(Caveat: I don't know the split of SSHRC funds within SSHRC. It might be possible that the "social science" side of SSHRC gets way more funding than the "humanities" side, or vice-versa.)

 

Just in case anyone's interested, here's the committees for SSHRC. From what I saw in the SSHRC Doctoral thread this year it seemed like each of these had a specific amount of money and whether you were successful or not had to do with where you placed in that specific category. 

 

As for the original question: 

I didn't apply based on stipends but it definitely made a difference in my decision making process. I was accepted to a public university with no guaranteed funding beyond the first year but I really liked my POI and we got along really well and she's sent me some freelance work since, so we have a lovely relationship and I'm sure we'll collaborate on something in the future. The school that I'm going to offered me an incredibly generous package and sent me forth for further scholarships (which I received), and so that definitely did play on my mind, but it wasn't the only thing that I considered. Ultimately, a) the field the proximity of being in Toronto to some of the key non-academic players in said field (and the ability to work with them to fix real problems in their system) and c) knowing that the school I was going to would be able to provide me with resources to actually affect change in the communities that I'll be working with were the things that made up my mind (my POI is the PI on a SSHRC partnership grant that I think has four years left to go). 

 

Re: Toronto.

As someone who was active in the Printemps Érable during 2012, I was so happy to see students both at U of T and York fighting for the right to live above the poverty line and make sure that international students were not hindered from receiving the same opportunities as domestic students. I am a big believer in the power of collective action and from what a friend at York told me, there was such positivity and good will on the front lines. I have to say, seeing undergrads rally around their TAs also made my heart swell a little bit.

Edited May 27, 2015 by happy little pill

[victorydance]

I don't think family planning is what was hated about the comment, it was the assessment of a parental choice as "right" or "wrong".

 

So let's disentangle this a bit. If there is some family (or perhaps single parent) that is working minimum wage or something marginally better than that, do you think it is a good choice to have a child on purpose? 

 

And I am not talking about political correct, "sure! it's their choice I won't judge" I am talking about what you actually feel here.

 

Because I don't think it is the right choice and I am not afraid to state that. Raising a child in this economic environment is a serious decision not to be taken lightly. If I was to want to have a child I would make sure I have a stable and decent paying occupation in order to start a family. And that isn't what academia is unless you are in TT territory. And I am not singling out academia either, this applies to any occupation or field where making money and job security is scarce.