The Ph.D. Pay Gap

[Vene]

On average though, academia is skewing toward the middle and upper classes for a variety of reasons. There are some very evident biases in what undergraduate institutions send their alums to graduate school. The threads on here from people concerned that going to "Podunk U" means they'll never get into a top graduate program are somewhat rooted in reality. So, how does one get into a good undergraduate institution? By going to a decent high school and doing well there. If your high school doesn't offer the IB program or AP classes, you're at a disadvantage when applying to the top undergrad colleges and universities. How do you get to go to one of those high schools with an AP or IB curriculum? In general in the US, you do it by paying to go to private school, living in the part of town that sends you to such a school (where rents and home values are generally higher), or by getting into a public magnet school (generally test-based so you have to do well on whatever admissions test they have you take in 7th or 8th grade). Are you really suggesting that none of that favors students who are from the middle or upper classes of society?

I can offer that I grew up in rural America, my high school definitely did not have AP or IB courses. I was lucky in that I could do dual-enrollment as a local community college, but even still I didn't consider applying for top tier colleges because of my peer group. Sure, I'm in a doctoral program now, but I think that's as much dumb luck as it is from ability.

[bsharpe269]

I'm not trying to make nasty claims or say that we shouldn't help people achieve their goals. I am just trying to offer a perspective of someone from that background who grew up around many others of the same background. I've seen people who have broken out of it and people who haven't and can try to understand why. It seems that many people on here have never been in that situation but write about it like they must know way more than me about what it is like. I'm not an idiot... I realize that each person's situation is unique and some are much harder to overcome than what I have experienced. Everyone I know who was determined to gain education and break out of that situation succeeded. That certainly doesn't mean that everyone can but my sample can still give some insight.

 

I think there needs to be a balance. I am not suggesting that we do away with all the help that is in place for people currently. I also think that people should be responsible for their decisions. For example, you make a point about a student raising a child. If you decide to have a child then of course that will limit other opportunities while the child is growing up (location wise, financially, etc). I am not trying to say that in a judgmental way.... many people really want kids and I think they should go after what they want. I don't think we should feel sorry for them though when other areas of their life are a bit tougher because of it. I guess my opinion is that there are lots of great programs in place already to help people overcome these barriers. I have used some and am very thankful for them. We already have grants and loans for school, scholarship opportunities, application fee waivers, GRE fee waivers, things like medicare and foodstamps for families in need. I was able to get free breakfast and lunch at school. Free tutoring programs exist. Subsidized childcare programs exist. It sounds like you have noticed a lack of knowledge about educational opportunities among those who might need them. I think that is a reasonable thing to try to improve. I would support better educating guidance counselors so they can pass important information onto students who want to go to college. Other than that, what do you suggest then? Tons of opportunities are in place. I support them. I am not going to force people to take them though and I do think that people hold some responsibility for seeking out information as well and taking advantage of them. Relating this back to the pay gap, I agree with Cheshire_cat that the people who most need these programs aren't likely to be prepared for PhD programs so it doesn't seem to me that the pay gap is a limiting factor to people from less fortunate backgrounds.

[TakeruK]

Just to clarify, I am not saying that right now, academia is only for the upper middle class. I am sorry for confusion--when I said "Academia is just for the working class", I don't mean it literally, I mean the attitude that might prevail if we do not raise minimum stipends.

 

My background is a working class immigrant family (I am a first generation Canadian). I am the first person in my family to go to college and grad school. I've been in graduate school for awhile now and met many years of cohorts of graduate students (both before and after me). Few of us are from working class families. I would say that about 50% to 60% of the graduate students I meet have parents with at least a college degree, if not graduate degrees themselves. What I notice is not that there aren't any working class family students, but that we seem to be disproportionately under-represented.

 

Okay. So is this academia's fault? No, I don't think it is completely. My family's reaction to my decision to go to graduate school was "What? More school? Isn't a bachelors enough to get a job?" and a lot of concerns about my future. Although I don't need my family's approval, having that support is very important. My parents would support me in the end, no matter what, but being in a field that pays a livable stipend makes a big difference. I don't think I would have been able to attend graduate school if I was a graduate student in Toronto earning $15,000 per year. From talking to my friends from better off families, the decision is often framed as "Do I want to sacrifice some income now (opportunity cost for a gain later and/or to pursue my passion instead of working in financial (for example)?". For people not in these positions, the question really becomes "Can I have a financially stable future if I go to grad school?"

 

Regarding the opportunities and programs that exist out there--I've looked into them when proposing support for students in need. It's great that the programs exist. But they really only exist for those who really need it and they only get you so far (i.e. just barely surviving). When you are at that state for most of your life and you have the option of either continuing it as a grad student with $15k/year or working minimum wage (or some other entry level job) for $22k/year, it is going to be really hard to choose the former. Some people do--they are here on these forums. But how many more do not? If I was not in a field that paid more than minimum wage, I would not be here.

 

People here have said that academia is like other prestigious careers and certain socioeconomic groups will be advantaged. I reject this fatalism. I don't want academia to be this way. Unlike a lot of other careers, academia relies on and thrives on the diversity of ideas. It is literally engrained in the way we operate: "Don't go to the same place for BSc and PhD!", the peer review process, the reason we share ideas, publish papers, go to international conferences, etc. I think it's really strange that for a group of people that cultivates such diversity of ideas, we seem to be hesitant to cultivate a diversity of people studying these ideas.

[_kita]

Giving kids money for tuition is less than the bare minimum for a successful anything. Great, they can persevere and get a degree, and maybe even take the GRE. However, they have no idea of testing strategies, or that they need to know about testing strategies. Their actual academic skills might be horrible, because they had to focus on other things throughout high school/college, and here we are saying "but the skills are easy." Instead of us, as a culture being proactive, they are supposed to "know what they don't know" and ask for help instead. Subsidies are not enough. They help provide a false hope, that comes crashing down without extra support. And even the few really good support programs are being stripped from most colleges, in my area at least, because of funding.

Before anyone asks about my own privilege, I grew up between the middle class/poverty line. It changed about every 5 years. my parents went through a bankruptcy my senior year of high school. Luckily, I had already been admitted at the only school I applied to (because it was the cheapest, and I knew my family couln't afford better. Nor could they afford the prep services to help me qualify for better). I went to college. Came out of undergraduate with barely needing to pay anything for my tuition. It's all loans.

I worked 20+ hours a week for the first two years for anything I needed. Talked to my parents about only doing summer jobs (in my field) the last two years for the same thing. I came out with a decent GPA (3.42), lots of involvement, research, all the things you're suppose to. Only thing I didn't have was a clue to my own skill level, a driver's license (since no one could teach me), or an idea of what I can change. Furthermore, I definitely didn't have any money to gamble away for grad school. And it is a gamble. I could work $10/hr for experience, or throw about $500+ chasing a pipe dream.

I consider myself overall privileged compared to other students. I at least danced the privilege mambo long enough to know what the questions were I needed to ask.

Money isn't all there is to the problem. we throw money, assuming the lower SES knows about these programs, knows how to ask for it in the academic way, knows how to succeeded academically, and we still judgement on the same merit pool for PhD. 'Holistic application selection' is a bit of joke, needing to dress in business attire, or shell out travel reimbursement money (as mentioned earlier) is also unreasonable.... it's a lot of things stacked on top of each other.

Funnily enough, with our bottom SES expanding, and our top SES only expanding their paychecks; things will have to change. The students we see will become more middle-lower classes. Now if only we'd be proactive in helping them succeed. That'd create more programs, more jobs, and possibly, more stability.

Edited May 30, 2015 by psychkita

[ProfLorax]

Bsharpe: you are making so many assumptions. I didn't share my background because I understand that my own experiences are not universal. Do you honestly think you can speak for everyone who has faced adversity?

And all those programs you mention only prove that there's a problem. Let's put aside the fact that these social programs are heavily cut every year, minimizing their impact, the programs you name are just bandaids. No amount of free lunch at school is going to make dinner appear on the table (yes, I know that food stamps exist, but SNAP has also been significantly cut). No amount of free tutoring is going to tackle the school to prison pipeline. And as psychkita points out, no amount of GRE fee waivers will make up for inadequate public education in poor areas.

And with that, I will take a bow from this bizarre conversation and go spend time with the best bad life decision I ever made.

[rising_star]

For example, you make a point about a student raising a child. If you decide to have a child then of course that will limit other opportunities while the child is growing up (location wise, financially, etc). I am not trying to say that in a judgmental way.... many people really want kids and I think they should go after what they want. I don't think we should feel sorry for them though when other areas of their life are a bit tougher because of it. 

 

Ummm... this statement is highly problematic, though I'm not sure you realize or that you care. It is not always someone's choice to have a child. Let's say, for example, that you're a guy, the condom breaks or the woman misses a pill, and she gets pregnant. You don't get to decide whether or not she keeps the child, places it up for adoption, or has an abortion. You may have a say in that decision but, ultimately, at least in the USA that decision is not entirely up to you. Ergo, you could potentially end up with a child without having deliberately and intentionally chosen to have a child. So yes, it is judgmental to declare having a child a choice for everyone when in fact it is not. Does that then make the guy's life tougher? Abso-freaking-lutely. Even if he didn't want the child, he is still going to be legally responsible for helping to provide for that child.

[bsharpe269]

Ummm... this statement is highly problematic, though I'm not sure you realize or that you care.

What does this mean?? If I express a different or unpopular opinion then I don't care? I'm having this discussion because this is a topic that I do care about. I want people from varying backgrounds to succeed. We don't differ in that desire. The difference between our opinions is simply in whether people can succeed if they want to given the current system.

[Crafter]

And with that, I will take a bow from this bizarre conversation and go spend time with the best bad life decision I ever made.

 

I LOVE this sentence!!!!!!!!

 

Only people without kids think of kids as a hindrance or some sort of curse.

 

Part of my decision to go back to school, considering my already good CV and education is because of my child. I want to be a better mom for her (and, as in international student from a developing nation, she will definitely benefit from getting her first years of school education in the US, so my decision to go to school having a child is actually a GOOD LIFE DECISION, even when that means that I will have to be a student for a few years. Of course, I am lucky to have the support of my husband in every aspect of my life.

 

Having a family actually IS great. School or not.

[_kita]

I LOVE this sentence!!!!!!!!

 

Only people without kids think of kids as a hindrance or some sort of curse.

 

Part of my decision to go back to school, considering my already good CV and education is because of my child. I want to be a better mom for her (and, as in international student from a developing nation, she will definitely benefit from getting her first years of school education in the US, so my decision to go to school having a child is actually a GOOD LIFE DECISION, even when that means that I will have to be a student for a few years. Of course, I am lucky to have the support of my husband in every aspect of my life.

 

Having a family actually IS great. School or not.

 

Your story is fantastic. I have quite a few cohort members (in my professional degree) that choose to have a child the second or third year into the program, and they are quite successful. But, they also have fantastic support around them. Instead of a hindrance, it's a motivator. It's great that you have that, and the passion for giving your child the life you are aiming for will take you far.

 

For me, I could draw on the support of my significant other's family and him, but I wouldn't want to do that when he's ALSO working to establish himself in his career. I think it would be damage our relationship and the family we hope to have later on. In our case, I think the 6-7 year plan would give better support for everyone.  I've always said, I work as hard as I do for the family I want to have someday. Not for the life I have currently. 

[spunky]

And with that, I will take a bow from this bizarre conversation and go spend time with the best bad life decision I ever made.

 

aww... don't leave! plz! this topic is so ratchet and has gone in so many different directions that i'm now addicted to it. it has everything! generalization fallacies, complaints about fictitious subsidies that don't exist, thinly-veiled arguments in favour of the the natural sciences over the social sciences... gosh, if we can throw in a Agatha-Christie-style murder in here it would be PERFECT  

[Cheshire_Cat]

aww... don't leave! plz! this topic is so ratchet and has gone in so many different directions that i'm now addicted to it. it has everything! generalization fallacies, complaints about fictitious subsidies that don't exist, thinly-veiled arguments in favour of the the natural sciences over the social sciences... gosh, if we can throw in a Agatha-Christie-style murder in here it would be PERFECT

Speaking of that... Business school pwns social and hard sciences both.  Just sayin'.  But we are kind of the red-headed step children of academia.  Probably because everyone else is jealous.  We don't have to write grants much, and accounting students can get jobs ABD making 90k a year...

Crap, I'm gonna be the one getting murdered.

[spunky]

Speaking of that... Business school pwns social and hard sciences both.  Just sayin'.  But we are kind of the red-headed step children of academia.  Probably because everyone else is jealous.  We don't have to write grants much, and accounting students can get jobs ABD making 90k a year...

Crap, I'm gonna be the one getting murdered.

 

OMG! How dare you show up in these hallowed halls you!!! … you… BUSINESS STUDENT ( *ugh*, business is such a dirty word. I feel filthy just by writing it… filthy filthy!)

 

But in all seriousness… I do think you have a good point in the fact that universities/industry like to put money into things that will get them money back.  And I feel like universities more now than ever are working under the “for-profit” model where money is selectively allocated to areas of research/developments that will yield high ROIs (Return On Investment).

 

For instance, in my university just hiked up tuition (up to 10% more for international students coming this 2015) & residence costs while at the same time reducing graduate funding because of a pull in governmental/federal funding. Yet my program saw an increase in the $$$ we were getting. Why? Well, we have contracts from testing companies in the U.S. so my assumption is that university officials consider us a more valuable program to fund given that we can bring in outside money to them.  I honestly can’t think of any other reason since we’re a particularly obscure program within a particularly obscure discipline. I could see how funding business students could be seen (from people in the industry) as a good investment. Like I want highly-trained accountants for my accounting firm, so I'm gonna give $$$ to the uni so that I can have a reliable pool of talent close to me from which I can hire. 

 

And you’re right… writing for grants is a soul killer… particularly if you don’t have a cool/interesting research topic that most people can relate to. That happens a lot to me so I honestly just stopped trying altogether. 

[Cheshire_Cat]

Haha!  My undergrad school put the business school about 2 miles away from the rest of campus.  The joke was that it was to keep the conservatives in the business school from corrupting the rest of campus with their free-market, capitalist ways.  The business professors disagreed on who was corrupting whom...

 

I think in this economy, a lot of schools are just struggling to survive.  If a program can't support itself, it is going to be the first one cut, and the programs that help to support the rest of campus are getting more resources.  Otherwise everyone starves.

[Cheshire_Cat]

Speaking of women and babies and Academia- Here's an interesting article.

http://www.theatlantic.com/sexes/archive/2013/07/for-female-scientists-theres-no-good-time-to-have-children/278165/

[rising_star]

Reviving this just to share some news out of Northwestern University: http://chronicle.com/article/A-University-Banks-on-PhD/230659/

 

 

Northwestern announced last week that it planned to increase its minimum graduate stipend 26 percent, to $29,000 a year, a move meant to make it more attractive to graduate students and more competitive with Duke University, Stanford University, the University of Chicago, and other institutions it views as peers.

...

The university said the change would help recruit students primarily in the social and behavioral sciences, the arts, and the humanities. Students in other disciplines, like engineering and life sciences, were already receiving higher stipends. Mr. McBride said Northwestern had risen in recent decades from a strong regional institution to an international research university, and was now in a better position to compete for the best graduate students.

 

Like many universities, Northwestern often offers to increase stipends for promising students who are considering other programs. But negotiating those increases can be a time-consuming hassle. Data show that the new stipend would have eliminated 80 percent of such negotiations last year, Mr. McBride said.

...

Daniel I. Linzer, the university’s provost, said much of the endowment was restricted for specific purposes designated by donors.

He said the stipend increase would cost $6.25 million a year and had been made possible in part by recent increases in Northwestern’s endowment. The fund has grown from about $6 billion in 2010 thanks to gifts and a stock-market boom since the end of the Great Recession.

 

So at least one university is trying to close the Ph.D. pay gap. It'll be interesting to see if any others follow, especially given how much the increase is going to cost the university.

[Igotnothin]

Reviving this just to share some news out of Northwestern University: http://chronicle.com/article/A-University-Banks-on-PhD/230659/

 

 

So at least one university is trying to close the Ph.D. pay gap. It'll be interesting to see if any others follow, especially given how much the increase is going to cost the university.

 

Interesting but I don't see how this is any different than when any other school raises their stipends every few years. You have some extra cash and want to compete with Stanford, so you go up to $29k. Nothing groundbreaking in my opinion.

[TakeruK]

I think Northwestern's change is a little different than standard cost of living adjustments because:

 

1. It's a bigger increase than most cost of living adjustments! The minimum is going from ~$23k to ~$29k !!

 

2. This is an increase to the minimum stipend on campus, not everyone. So someone earning $31k/year might not see any difference. But a student earning $25k/year will see a difference! 

 

Overall, I think this is noteworthy because it is doing what I'd like more schools to do -- close up the gap between disciplines so that everyone can have a livable income

[rising_star]

Interesting but I don't see how this is any different than when any other school raises their stipends every few years. You have some extra cash and want to compete with Stanford, so you go up to $29k. Nothing groundbreaking in my opinion.

 

It's noteworthy as TakeruK said because it's a sizable increase happening all at once. It's also noteworthy because unlike some funding increases at other schools, it isn't going to reduce the number of years of funding available to students. And, it's not like other top schools with decently sized endowments are making similar announcements.

[Igotnothin]

It's just one school deciding to balance their budget differently - got some extra money and put it into arts and humanities. Sounds like it's mainly a strategic move, as opposed to a conscious effort to improve the lives of PhD students in those fields.

[juilletmercredi]

This thread is so interesting.

 

Re: The Atlantic article, I don't even know if I want children, but I do know that I want a vibrant social life and my evenings and weekends back. I'm currently a postdoc at an R1, and when I look around me the people who are most successful in this field are the ones who come in on weekends to work, or who stay from 9 to 9, who think about science 24/7, and I just...don't see myself doing that.

 

It's just one school deciding to balance their budget differently - got some extra money and put it into arts and humanities. Sounds like it's mainly a strategic move, as opposed to a conscious effort to improve the lives of PhD students in those fields.

[Eigen]

This thread has kind of gone all over the place! Very interesting. Particularly so for me, as I'm looking at taking about a $10k pay cut dropping from fellowship back to RA.

 

One thing that I think is under-discussed in comparing funding, personally, are benefits/additional costs. 

 

Is insurance covered as part of the stipend? What about extra fees to the University? Are there (as we've been discussing in another thread) internal grants and travel funds available? Does the school cover part of your relocation costs? Give you a computer? Is there broad availability of software available cheap/free from the University, or are you gong to be paying for it all out of pocket?

 

I've seen a lot of my undergrads trying to compare offers, and most schools heavily emphasize the dollar amount, but it takes some digging to find what the actual cost of attendance will be- a few thousand dollars in insurance, fees, travel costs, etc. can be quite a lot. 

 

One thing I've noticed sharply in my field in the last few years is the increasing magnitude of difference between low and high-paying programs. It used to be a modest increase, but not huge- now it's approaching the point where well funded schools (Stanford, Duke, etc) are paying close to twice what low-ranked R1s are paying, which is insane.

[ballwera]

This thread has kind of gone all over the place! Very interesting. Particularly so for me, as I'm looking at taking about a $10k pay cut dropping from fellowship back to RA.

 

One thing that I think is under-discussed in comparing funding, personally, are benefits/additional costs. 

 

Is insurance covered as part of the stipend? What about extra fees to the University? Are there (as we've been discussing in another thread) internal grants and travel funds available? Does the school cover part of your relocation costs? Give you a computer? Is there broad availability of software available cheap/free from the University, or are you gong to be paying for it all out of pocket?

 

I've seen a lot of my undergrads trying to compare offers, and most schools heavily emphasize the dollar amount, but it takes some digging to find what the actual cost of attendance will be- a few thousand dollars in insurance, fees, travel costs, etc. can be quite a lot. 

 

 

I got extremely lucky with mine, my program covers a full year of insurance and pays everything but a small feel that the university will not allow the program to pay for. In the end, this was a huge deciding factor for me because I had two offers that did not include Health Insurance, which would have cost me over $2000+ a year. It was amazing to see the differences in stipends. The largest school I was accepted at (which also had the best reputation), offered the worst acceptance package, which was really surprising. I was also accepted two different programs at a single institution that had very different acceptance packages, One offered me a full year stipend with paid health insurance, the other offered a 9 month stipend with no health insurance. 

Edited June 18, 2015 by ballwera

[Crafter]

I agree with Eigen regarding other benefits not mentioned when talking about stipends. One of the schools I applied to offered a similar stipend compared to the one I am going to attend, but there was $2000 in school fees that I had to pay out of my own pocket. In my current school those fees are waived and covered by the scholarship package.

 

I know that some schools offer a computer or an iPad, but most of the times, that kind of "goodies" are not really posted in the school website. For instance, I don't know if my current school will offer some sort of goodie upon arrival to their new PhD students (iPad? Computer? Mug or T shirt?). And there was nowhere in the website telling me that they do offer a complete productivity software to admitted students, but I was gladly suprised when I got the software.

 

And since information in this kind of website is entirely voluntary, it is hard to find a really comprehensive detail of benefits for each school, except for stipend amount and medical insurance.

[Vene]

And since information in this kind of website is entirely voluntary, it is hard to find a really comprehensive detail of benefits for each school, except for stipend amount and medical insurance.

 

Talking to current graduate students is a good way to finding out what additional perks a program will offer. Or, for that matter, the negative things you're not told about (such as if there are heavy fees you're responsible for paying when you register).

[Eigen]

Definitely ask current graduate students.

 

Our stipends aren't bad, but we pay ~$2k per year in student fees, and another ~$1800 if we chose to take the school insurance (or more if we have outside insurance). Some of it is also a difference in the administrative structure- we've talked to our administration about reducing fees, and they've said they'd rather focus on increasing stipends by a similar amount. Other schools I know find it easier to move money around in the budget to provide "benefits", and that's easier than coming up with the cash in payroll to increase stipends.

 

On the other hand, we have a huge amount of free software available through the University, and while laptops are hard to come by, grad students can pick up University desktops for offices- not state of the art, but very serviceable. 

 

One other thing that I've found to be really interesting is the length of funding provided by the school. We have some programs that only provide funding for the first 3 years of the program on admission. I also got some offers that had amazing dollar amounts, but only for the first 1-3 years, with lower pay than some of my initially lower offers following that period.