Am I crazy for thinking that I'm better off without an assistantship??

[c3honey84]

I am still waiting to hear if I am being offered an assistantship or not, and that has gotten me thinking about other options. GMU requires all GTA's to teach three labs per semester (which is more than other schools from what I have heard) and the stipend is only $15,000 or $1250 per month. My rent is $1000 per month...so how am I supposed to live on $250 per month! I'm married, so a roommate is not an option and my husband's salary barely pays all of his bills so living off his salary is not an option.

 

However, if I do not accept a GTA position and use student loans to pay for my Master's, I would have extra time to work a real job AND go to school, and hopefully make a lot more than what I would be making from the GTA. I would avoid the struggle of balancing my time between courses, research, and teaching the labs. And obviously I would not have to pay back the loans until after I graduate.

 

What do you guys think?

Edited June 9, 2015 by c3honey84

[GeoDUDE!]

Are you going to be able to find a job that pays more than 15 dollars an hour for 20 hours a week?

 

You will also have to pay tuition. 

 

You are not better off.

 

going into debt for graduate school is a terrible financial investment. 

Edited June 9, 2015 by GeoDUDE!

[med latte]

Are you planning to go into academia? If so, being a TA would be good experience. Essential, possibly. 

That workload and stipend is comparable to others I've seen in my field. Nobody ever said it would be easy.

Avoid the debt. Really. If the stipend is low for your field or the work requirement is too high for you to manage, then I would suggest either getting some time management help or waiting and applying to more schools next year.

Avoid the debt. Your future self will thank you.

[Vene]

Will the job pay more than your assistantship+tuition waiver? If it doesn't, you plan costs you money. Let's assume 20 hours per week, as that seems to be a standard expectation for TAing. Let's also assume a month is 4 weeks for simplicity. So, 1250/(4*20)=15.625. Without the tuition waiver, the GTA is worth $15.625/hr. 

 

This is the tuition rate for GMU. I'm going to assume environment science is College of Science, Other Graduation Programs, and I'm going to assume you're getting in-state tuition. That's $546/credit. At 24 credits/year (because that is how much my program covers per year), tuition will cost you 24*546 or $13104. So, the real value of your GTA is not $15,000/year, but $28,000/year. This is $2333/mo. So, let's recalculate the value of an hour of work. 2333/(4*20)=$29.1625.

 

Assuming my assumptions are valid, you'll need to find a job that pays $30/hr working half time to break even. Or, you can work full time at $15/hr to break even. Otherwise, it's better to take the GTA and if you absolutely must, supplement that with student loans. If they're not valid, recalculate with more realistic numbers as I don't know your exact situation.

Edited June 9, 2015 by Vene

[c3honey84]

So what should I do if I am not offered a GTA at all?

 

I know the the GTA would be great experience, especially since I intend on continuing on to my PhD and becoming a professor. But don't forget, I still have not been offered a GTA, and there is a good chance that I might never be offered one. So my choices might be to accept the debt in loans or don't go to grad school. I have been trying for 3 years, and I have finally been accepted with an advisor so I would hate to turn it down and just try again next year. 

[Eigen]

That's a very personal decision. 

 

I fall very strongly into the "don't do graduate school unless you're offered a fully funded position", but how much debt you're willing to go into depends on you, your family, your goals, and your field. 

[GeoDUDE!]

So what should I do if I am not offered a GTA at all?

 

I know the the GTA would be great experience, especially since I intend on continuing on to my PhD and becoming a professor. But don't forget, I still have not been offered a GTA, and there is a good chance that I might never be offered one. So my choices might be to accept the debt in loans or don't go to grad school. I have been trying for 3 years, and I have finally been accepted with an advisor so I would hate to turn it down and just try again next year. 

 

 

Another perspective: getting a faculty job is tough. If you haven't been competitive for masters programs (or funding) for the last 3 years, what will you do to change that when you finally have your PhD and are on the job market? It is much harder to move up into the top tier of students than top tier students to move down (which most eventually do, because less than 1/4 in stem get a TT position now, even worse in other fields.)

[dr. t]

Don't go to a PhD program without a full funding package. 

[c3honey84]

It's not that I haven't been competitive for the past 3 years, it's just that the field I want to be in is nearly impossible to get into. I study marine mammals, and anyone in that field knows that there are maybe a handful of grad positions available in the entire country per year with an advisor who focuses on that area. And funding is almost nonexistent. Most of the students and professors that I know applied for several years before finally getting in. So being accepted to a school with a top professor in the field as my advisor is nothing short of a miracle. Which is why I am seriously considering the loans...

 

On another note, I will mention that this school seems extremely disorganized. I have been having such difficulty getting a straight answer regarding a GTA. When I received my acceptance, it was just a one page letter saying congratulations and here's how you register. When I called asking about GTA positions in the Enviro program, they old me that they were all still filled with students from previous years but there are "potentially lots of opportunities" in the BIO department and that they would keep my GTA application file. I was surprised that they would even offer admission knowing that all GTA's are filled with students from last year. I was emailed to schedule an interview to be a GTA for a course that I have never even taken as an undergraduate (human anatomy and physiology), and the professor of the course changed her mind and my interview was cancelled when she saw that I had not taken it. I completely understand that, but I have heard nothing since. I emailed my advisor a month ago, with no response. I asked the GTA coordinator if it makes sense to keep waiting and all he told me was that there was nothing open at this time. His assistant told me that they still offer GTA's during the summer months. Meanwhile the graduate office wants to know if I am going to the school because I have still not accepted admission pending the answer on the GTAship (there is no acceptance deadline at this school). It is such a  emotional rollercoaster. Sorry to vent!!

Edited June 10, 2015 by c3honey84

[GeoDUDE!]

It's not that I haven't been competitive for the past 3 years, it's just that the field I want to be in is nearly impossible to get into. 

 

 

That means you haven't been competitive. Competitive is a relative term. So if MA programs are this hard to get into, do you think PhD programs are any easier? What about postdocs ? and then TT positions? Generally, MA are the easiest and it gets much harder at each level. 

 

Sorry to be blunt... but I do not think you are presenting this objectively.

Edited June 10, 2015 by GeoDUDE!

[Vene]

Is a masters even required for that field? Is there a reason to do a masters instead of going directly into a PhD program?

[c3honey84]

That means you haven't been competitive. Competitive is a relative term. So if MA programs are this hard to get into, do you think PhD programs are any easier? What about postdocs ? and then TT positions? Generally, MA are the easiest and it gets much harder at each level. 

 

Sorry to be blunt... but I do not think you are presenting this objectively.

 

It's an MS position not an MA. And what I mean to say is that in previous years I have been told I was not accepted because there was no funding at all for new grad students. So those schools were not taking grad students at all. Not just me. 

Edited June 11, 2015 by c3honey84

[TakeruK]

I also think this is a personal decision that only you can really make since only you know what is "worth it" to you. But since you asked for our opinions, I would agree with everyone else here and say that an unfunded graduate program is a very bad idea. I would never attend an unfunded graduate program. 

 

Environmental Science** is part of my academic division here and all of our PhD students are fully funded. Masters programs are not but we don't offer terminal masters in environmental science here. So, in this sense, I would slightly disagree with GeoDUDE and say that, in my (limited) experience with Environmental Science programs, Masters programs are actually quite rare and even harder to get into than PhD programs. Basically, in some fields (Planetary Science included), you are either competitive enough for a fully funded PhD program, or you don't go to grad school at all. Few programs even offer unfunded Masters programs because it's not an effective use of their faculty's time and effort. 

 

(** Note: I read "environmental science" in your sidebar, but then rereading your post, you mention "marine mammals", which confused me. My paragraph above is written with my understanding of "environmental science" as a field that study the Earth's environment, such as pollution, climate, organisms driving nutrient cycles in oceans/land, etc. Maybe we are still thinking of the same thing (i.e. perhaps you are studying the interaction between marine mammals and the ocean environment) but in case we are on different pages, I just wanted to add this disclaimer!)

 

However, I agree with GeoDUDE's sentiments that beyond grad school, things will only get more competitive. I also want to clear to say that if saying that someone is "not competitive" is not synonymous with saying that someone is "not competent". Whether or not someone is "competitive" depends a lot more on the number of opportunities available than someone's abilities. 

 

But to focus on your particular case:

 

I'd second Vene's question/suggestion and ask why don't you look into direct PhD programs? As I said above, in many fields, Masters opportunities are rare and thus can be more competitive than PhD programs. 

 

You sound very frustrated with this program giving you the run-around on GTAs and I would be too! I would consider this disorganization and lack of reliability as a warning sign of what your experience there might be.

 

If I were in your shoes, I wouldn't go to this program. If I am not ready to give up on my career goals yet, I would reapply to graduate programs in a future year. It sounds like you have already been applying for several years in the past, so I would make sure I'm doing something different next year. You say that all of the programs you applied you didn't actually take any students at all--for next year, I would contact programs ahead of time and confirm whether or not they are taking students before spending my time and money on an application. I would also consider applying to PhD programs directly. 

 

Okay, I'll stop writing "If I were you..." type statements and tell you how I feel about my own career path/plans. My dream career path is a permanent researcher position that would include, but is not limited to, a planetary science tenured professor at a university. Professor positions are really really hard to get in my field, so most people, including me, do not make career plans that absolutely depend on becoming a professor. We do not go to grad school solely to become a professor. We go to grad school to improve our career prospects--maybe we'll end up as a professor, but we choose the grad program and spend our time so that we might be able to do something else as well. 

 

Ultimately, this means that for many of us who do have professorships as one of our career goals, we have some way of measuring our progress and some way of knowing when it's okay to stop pursuing that goal so that we can spend our energy on something else. For many people, the first hurdle to pass is "acceptance into a top 10 funded program". For others, they might be willing to go to a program they are less excited about, but they will also be applying to non-academic jobs along with postdocs and they will only go to a postdoc they are really excited about. And for still others, they are happy just working in the field and they are willing to do one temporary postdoc after another until either people stop hiring them, or until they find something else they like. 

 

Personally, I don't plan on continuing an academic career path if I'm not able to attain a top position at each round. I only applied to fully funded top 10 PhD programs. I will mostly be applying to fellowship postdoc positions and/or well funded positions at top schools. Part of the reason is that I want to raise my family in a certain geographical area, and the academic job market is already hard enough without adding geographical constraints. So, the only way I think I can be competitive for an academic job in a limited geographical area is to be in the top tier of applicants. So if I fall out of the top tier, I might as well cut my losses early and return to the geographical area working on something else, instead of spending another 4-6 years chasing postdocs and career paths that won't lead to this geographical area.

 

But as I said above and many others have said as well, this is an incredibly personal decision. I'm not saying that you should adopt my career plan at all. Instead, I am just sharing how I am approaching this because you asked for our thoughts and maybe seeing how other people are considering their decisions might help you find the best decision for yourself! Good luck

[c3honey84]

I also think this is a personal decision that only you can really make since only you know what is "worth it" to you. But since you asked for our opinions, I would agree with everyone else here and say that an unfunded graduate program is a very bad idea. I would never attend an unfunded graduate program. 

 

Environmental Science** is part of my academic division here and all of our PhD students are fully funded. Masters programs are not but we don't offer terminal masters in environmental science here. So, in this sense, I would slightly disagree with GeoDUDE and say that, in my (limited) experience with Environmental Science programs, Masters programs are actually quite rare and even harder to get into than PhD programs. Basically, in some fields (Planetary Science included), you are either competitive enough for a fully funded PhD program, or you don't go to grad school at all. Few programs even offer unfunded Masters programs because it's not an effective use of their faculty's time and effort. 

 

(** Note: I read "environmental science" in your sidebar, but then rereading your post, you mention "marine mammals", which confused me. My paragraph above is written with my understanding of "environmental science" as a field that study the Earth's environment, such as pollution, climate, organisms driving nutrient cycles in oceans/land, etc. Maybe we are still thinking of the same thing (i.e. perhaps you are studying the interaction between marine mammals and the ocean environment) but in case we are on different pages, I just wanted to add this disclaimer!)

 

However, I agree with GeoDUDE's sentiments that beyond grad school, things will only get more competitive. I also want to clear to say that if saying that someone is "not competitive" is not synonymous with saying that someone is "not competent". Whether or not someone is "competitive" depends a lot more on the number of opportunities available than someone's abilities. 

 

But to focus on your particular case:

 

I'd second Vene's question/suggestion and ask why don't you look into direct PhD programs? As I said above, in many fields, Masters opportunities are rare and thus can be more competitive than PhD programs. 

 

You sound very frustrated with this program giving you the run-around on GTAs and I would be too! I would consider this disorganization and lack of reliability as a warning sign of what your experience there might be.

 

If I were in your shoes, I wouldn't go to this program. If I am not ready to give up on my career goals yet, I would reapply to graduate programs in a future year. It sounds like you have already been applying for several years in the past, so I would make sure I'm doing something different next year. You say that all of the programs you applied you didn't actually take any students at all--for next year, I would contact programs ahead of time and confirm whether or not they are taking students before spending my time and money on an application. I would also consider applying to PhD programs directly. 

 

Okay, I'll stop writing "If I were you..." type statements and tell you how I feel about my own career path/plans. My dream career path is a permanent researcher position that would include, but is not limited to, a planetary science tenured professor at a university. Professor positions are really really hard to get in my field, so most people, including me, do not make career plans that absolutely depend on becoming a professor. We do not go to grad school solely to become a professor. We go to grad school to improve our career prospects--maybe we'll end up as a professor, but we choose the grad program and spend our time so that we might be able to do something else as well. 

 

Ultimately, this means that for many of us who do have professorships as one of our career goals, we have some way of measuring our progress and some way of knowing when it's okay to stop pursuing that goal so that we can spend our energy on something else. For many people, the first hurdle to pass is "acceptance into a top 10 funded program". For others, they might be willing to go to a program they are less excited about, but they will also be applying to non-academic jobs along with postdocs and they will only go to a postdoc they are really excited about. And for still others, they are happy just working in the field and they are willing to do one temporary postdoc after another until either people stop hiring them, or until they find something else they like. 

 

Personally, I don't plan on continuing an academic career path if I'm not able to attain a top position at each round. I only applied to fully funded top 10 PhD programs. I will mostly be applying to fellowship postdoc positions and/or well funded positions at top schools. Part of the reason is that I want to raise my family in a certain geographical area, and the academic job market is already hard enough without adding geographical constraints. So, the only way I think I can be competitive for an academic job in a limited geographical area is to be in the top tier of applicants. So if I fall out of the top tier, I might as well cut my losses early and return to the geographical area working on something else, instead of spending another 4-6 years chasing postdocs and career paths that won't lead to this geographical area.

 

But as I said above and many others have said as well, this is an incredibly personal decision. I'm not saying that you should adopt my career plan at all. Instead, I am just sharing how I am approaching this because you asked for our thoughts and maybe seeing how other people are considering their decisions might help you find the best decision for yourself! Good luck

It is nice to speak with someone who understands! Yes it is very hard to get into an MS in this field. I also have geographical constraints. I plan to remain in the Northeast, which consists of a total of approximately 5 universities that offer a marine mammal research program. So, I was very happy to hear that I was accepted to one of them. I just could not understand why they would accept me knowing that all GTAs were filled by current students.

 

The main reason why I applied to schools that were not taking students is because I was initially told that they "might" have an opening for a grad student. I get that answer a lot. It's always "we MAY have an opening for a student next year." Perfect example, the school I was accepted to gave me that answer so I applied just in case, and I got in. Another school told me that they were looking for another student, and I was rejected because it turned out that they did not have the funding for a new student. 

 

I have not applied to a PhD program directly because most of the programs I researched prefer students who already have an MS. They will occasionally accept students without an MS, but give priority to undergrads who have already been published (which I have not). Thanks again for help. I emailed my potential advisor again so we'll see what he replies with.

[rising_star]

Here's what I'm thinking after reading all of this. You have a few choices and I'll outline them below.

1) Go to this program, taking on the debt, and with no guarantee that this will help you get into a PhD program in the future. This is the option you're considering but one that I am hesitant to support even a little bit.

2) Get a job working with marine mammals, possibly at an aquarium or in a research lab. That would help you gain experience and connections, which could ultimately make you more competitive for the MS or PhD programs you want to get into. There's websites that can help, like the Wildlife & Fisheries Job Board at Texas A&M. The positions will be hard to secure but, it could make a difference for you in the long run.

3) If funding is really the issue, then write an amazing proposal for funding to the NSF or another organization. I'm thinking NSF GRFP, Ford Foundation Predoctoral Fellowship, etc. You won't know in advance if you'll get it but, if you do and you apply for grad school at the same time, you may have some leverage to get into a program that otherwise wouldn't have funding for you.

4) Expand your focus area. That is, would it be acceptable to do a master's or PhD focused on other marine organisms or other mammals and then hone your focus to marine mammals through postdocs or in a PhD program? What I'm thinking here is that you could do a more general master's or doctorate in marine biology, biological oceanography, or ecology, then move into your very narrow interest in marine mammals after doing a degree or two. This has the advantage of potentially giving you more options for graduate programs, though it also means not getting to do exactly what you want to do all the time. (And it's probably worth mentioning that basically no one gets to do exactly what they want to do their entire graduate program for a variety of reasons.)

 

I hope this helps. 

[GeoDUDE!]

The biggest insight from rising_star is that for most people getting in the ball park of the research you want to do is more important than working on specific projects: if you spend the rest of your life as a scientist, its more likely than not that your research interests and focuses will change. Learning how to be a scholar is more important. 

Edited June 11, 2015 by GeoDUDE!

[Vene]

I plan to remain in the Northeast, which consists of a total of approximately 5 universities that offer a marine mammal research program.

This is going to make it extremely hard to stay in academia. I sympathize, I really do. It's just that with the academic market the way it currently is you have to be willing to sacrifice a lot in order to get a job as a professor. If you absolutely must remain in the Northeast, then you may have to broaden your horizons away from marine mammals. I'm also assuming that you're looking at more than just environmental science programs and also researched programs in ecology, zoology, biology, and the like.

[c3honey84]

I actually do work full time in the marine mammal field and have for 3 years. I am just in an entry level job where there is nowhere to move up position-wise or salary-wise. I am looking for a higher level position in the field, and no one will even look at you without at least an MS. I have also applied to the NSFGRFP every year!

 

Update-I FINALLY heard from my advisor and he told me that my situation happens all the time when a student with a GTA is supposed to graduate but doesn't...and apparently they let them continue the GTA? I thought they were limited to 2 years in an MS program. Anyways, he said there is a student leaving after Christmas for a fellowship and that I could possibly take their GTA position. So I can either defer my enrollment until Spring or pay for one semester myself. This is great news, but again all of this is hypothetical which I hate. I want to know if I am going to get this position or not....and not be waiting and wondering for another 6 months.

[rising_star]

I would definitely defer to the spring because there's no guarantee you'll get the GTA if you go in August. 

 

Given your lack of luck with the NSF and TA/RA positions, you really need to either find a way to beef up your application (stronger SOP/rec letters, better research experience, publications) or consider getting a degree in a related field if you want to be successful. It's clear that what you're doing now isn't enough. The question is really what you decide to do to remedy that. Because, at least in my mind, getting a MS in Environmental Science from GMU isn't going to be a terrific springboard into a fully funded PhD program studying marine mammals unless you do something outstanding while there (I'm talking landing articles in high-impact journals or scoring a major grant, which you've not been successful with thus far).

[c3honey84]

I would definitely defer to the spring because there's no guarantee you'll get the GTA if you go in August. 

 

Given your lack of luck with the NSF and TA/RA positions, you really need to either find a way to beef up your application (stronger SOP/rec letters, better research experience, publications) or consider getting a degree in a related field if you want to be successful. It's clear that what you're doing now isn't enough. The question is really what you decide to do to remedy that. Because, at least in my mind, getting a MS in Environmental Science from GMU isn't going to be a terrific springboard into a fully funded PhD program studying marine mammals unless you do something outstanding while there (I'm talking landing articles in high-impact journals or scoring a major grant, which you've not been successful with thus far).

Thanks for the advice. Actually my potential advisor is a world renowned marine mammal expert. The degree is Environmental Science and Policy but the focus is marine conservation. As I said earlier, I have only had a lack of luck with TA/RA's because there aren't any. They are all filled with students from last year. I am not sure how it is with other programs, but in marine science you have to request a professor to accept you into their lab before being accepted. The professors I contacted at the three other schools that I applied to told me that they would love to work with me if they were given funding for a new grad student. That did not happen, so they did not accept any new grad students at all. It had nothing to do with my application. I have a high GPA plus I have research in the field, and full-time employment in the field. The only thing I do not have are publications. And I have no way of remedying that unfortunately. 

 

PS-I have every intention of doing something outstanding!

[rising_star]

If there aren't any TA/RA positions, that means that it's going to be difficult to secure funding to do your dissertation research, to find a postdoc, and to obtain a faculty position. There aren't that many marine mammal experts or openings. That's why I (and a few others) have suggested that you consider potentially broadening your focus and interests. 

 

If the PIs don't have funding, then that isn't a good sign for the future of funding in your field. Labs without funding is a bad sign. And, given Congressional budget cuts, it's hard to say whether there will be more federal funding for research and university labs in the future. Again, it's something you should take serious note of as you think about your future career. 

 

P.S. I would double-check and make sure that none of those PIs actually accepted anyone new into their lab. I have heard (on here) of PIs using funding as an excuse to take 1-2 students but not others. Sure, you have a high GPA and research experience but probably other applicants do too. When a PI has a choice between you and someone else with similar experiences and background, what can you do to make sure they pick you and not the other person?

[bsharpe269]

I think that most of the people on here make a really good point. MS programs aren't that hard to get into in general. If this area is that short on funding that you can't get a funded MS position despite your great stats and experience then I would run! This is the easiest step. It sounds like it isn't a good time to get into this area.

 

Are you interested in any related areas with more funding? You could shoot for a PhD position in a similar/ better funded area and skip the MS completely. If you don't want to completely give up your main area of interest then you could try to work your it into your PhD through side projects or internships.

[TakeruK]

P.S. I would double-check and make sure that none of those PIs actually accepted anyone new into their lab. I have heard (on here) of PIs using funding as an excuse to take 1-2 students but not others. Sure, you have a high GPA and research experience but probably other applicants do too. When a PI has a choice between you and someone else with similar experiences and background, what can you do to make sure they pick you and not the other person?

 

Wanted to second this. Sometimes when professors say "Sorry, I don't have funding for any new students", they mean "any new students that I have not already committed to". I know many professors who say this to students then take on new people in the fall because they had already arranged to take on these new students. Usually, it's a polite way to say that "out of the choices I had to spend my money on, I chose student X instead of you" because this way, they can frame it as "it's not you, it's the lack of funding" when they decline a student. 

 

In addition, sometimes professors do have money for more students but they might know they currently only have enough funding for 1 new student in the next 2 or 3 years, so if no one is "good enough" this year, they might prefer to wait another year to see if someone else better comes along. They would not want to be in a situation where they just take the best available student this year, fully commit all of their funding, only to see an even better student come along next year.

[guttata]

PS-I have every intention of doing something outstanding!

 

Oh, good, you'll be fine then.