What Does a Competitive Funding Offer Look Like (STEM PhD)

[bandinterwebs]

I received an offer from a top engineering program, but I am a little confused about what constitutes a good funding offer (and by good, I mean one which would be considered seriously among multiple acceptances and indicates a strong university interest in the applicant).

1) Should a "solid" offer in STEM provide funding for all four years, or at least say it's renewable pending successful academic performance? This university's offer simply has contracts for 2016-2017, and no mention of renewal.

2) I was offered a partial fellowship, partial ta position (50/50, stipend isn't great). I would almost prefer an RA position, so I have the opportunity to work closely with a professor and not simply float around the department. I realize I might be able to do that with the free time afforded by the partial fellowship, but I would love the perspective of others. Would you prefer an RA to partial fellowship/TA? Would you consider that offer to be competitive?

I hope that makes sense and I appreciate any insights.

[Emily Roberts]

This is a great line of thinking to get started on, but I don't think you'll get the info you want from this forum unless you provide more detail. In general, I would say that a competitive funding offer would include a livable stipend after factoring in whatever you have to pay for fees including health insurance (presuming a tuition waiver). Past that, it's a bit hard to generalize. The best thing to do is to compare this offer against your other offers and this offer against the other offers given by this particular program.

For more specific information, I recommend that you talk with older students in this program (or other applicants) or even the admin assistant who you've been communicating with through the admission process. Find out if what you have been offered is standard and whether the source for your funding is expected to change in the future from TA to RA, for instance once you join a lab. If you are already committed to a lab, I might wonder a bit about having a fellowship+TA vs. an RA (and then you could just ask the PI what the funding track will be). I'd say being on a training grant (sometimes known as receiving a fellowship) in the first year is pretty typical for programs in which lab rotations are expected. In engineering, yes I would say having to hustle for a TA position every semester throughout grad school (especially if there are not enough TA position to go around) would indicate a non-competitive package, but receiving a stipend for TAing in your first year does not necessarily mean that it will continue that way.

A lack of an explicit funding guarantee over a certain number of years is not always a bad sign; it depends on the field. In well-funded fields and top universities (as you described), it may be assumed that the funding will last as long as you need it to. In non-well-funded fields or lower-tier universities, the lack of an explicit guarantee may be a red flag. Again, the best thing to do is talk with older grad students (especially 5th+) to see if any students in the program have been cut off, and also to see if your other offer letters include such a guarantee.

[TakeruK]

I agree with the above. Also this depends a lot of the field. I think I would evaluate financial offers in STEM fields based on these three main criteria: whether you have to work RA or TA for it, the quality of life it buys you, and who is paying you.

I would say a competitive STEM offer (where competitive means a really good offer that will make a difference) is one where:
1. The money is not tied to TAing (you might still have TA requirements but it's not necessary to depend on TAing to fund it). Some people want some TA experience, so I would say a "half-TAship" is good (something like 10hrs/week instead of 20hrs/week).
2. The offer is significantly higher than the rest. You can afford many luxuries (for a grad student) such as a nice apartment, a car, etc. One school offered me $36k/year in a very low cost of living area. Grad students there can afford houses! Another highly competitive offer is the Canadian Vanier fellowship ($50k/year).
3. It's probably some sort of University-level fellowship or maybe even department level. The good thing about it is that it's not coming from your supervisor (i.e. you don't cost your supervisor a lot).

I would say a "good" STEM offer would be one where:
1. The funding structure is mostly RA rather than TA. It could be 50% RA, 50% TA. Or, it could be TA for the first 1-2 years then RA for the rest of the time. Whatever works out so that you are being paid mostly for research instead of teaching.
2. The offer allows for a comfortable standard of living. One metric would be that you are paid enough to be able to afford all of your expenses and have a little bit leftover for a few small luxuries, but not quite a big luxury, such as a car. I see a lot of offers in this range, where if you saved for 2-3 years, you could probably get a used car (if that's what you want). For most places, if you want a numerical value, I'd say something like $25,000 to $30,000 per year (need to adjust for cost of living!).
3. The source of the money is either department level or from your supervisor.

I would say a "bad" STEM offer would be one where:
1. You are almost fully dependent on TAships for your funding. It usually means that your supervisor doesn't have a grant to pay for your work. Note that "bad" here really only means relative to other STEM fields---it's normal for some fields, e.g. theoretical physics, to be completely reliant on TA funding since there are few supervisors with grants that can pay RAs for this.
2. The offer barely pays for enough to meet basic needs and you will probably have almost no money for any luxuries. Some places are poorly funded enough relative to cost of living that you may have to take out small loans or really really tighten your budget. For some numbers, I would say I've seen offers around $18,000 to $24,000 (depending on cost of living) that would fall into this category.
3. The source of money is almost entirely from your supervisor or your TA work.

The reasons why I chose these three criteria are:
1. Ideally, you want all of the hours you're working to go towards your career goals, not just to make ends meet. TAing is good for career goals, but only to an extent---if you have to TA every semester in order to keep your funding, this means there is a big chunk of your time going towards things that generally don't help you get a job afterwards. Teaching jobs would value actual experience like being an instructor of record vs. plain TAing and the former is very hard to get in STEM fields. You'd want to be paid for the hours you are spending on your thesis!
2. This one is obvious---more luxuries = happier person = better work and quality of life.
3. The less that you cost your supervisor, the more funds they'll have to spend on your other needs (e.g. equipment, travel to conferences, etc.) Also, if you don't cost a lot to any particular advisor, you will have more options on who you can work with.