UCLA vs UC Irvine, Public Health PhD

[HermoineG]

I got into these two schools and another school (UT Houston, which I'm likely to reject).

Funding

UC Irvine is offering me a generous stipend guaranteed for next 5 years + full tuition waiver

UCLA - offered only some part of the tuition  When I asked them, they directed me to a link with bunch of fellowships and TA applications. Basically, you have to be "aggressive and secure funding for yourself" is the thing I heard from almost all of the people I talked. The tuition is too much for me to pay right now. I dont want to pay for my PhD  

Program

UCI is a newer program and I dont even know their ranking.

UCLA is a great program and I really like my potential advisor. But my advisor has no funding for me. They basically asked me to look for professors who have fundings and ask to work with them - which is confusing! How would it work?

I really want to go to UCLA desperately. But is it wise to make a decision about UCLA knowing that I would have to keep fighting for funds?

Does the name of the school really matters all that much? UCLA certainly will have more opportunities than UCI but what do I do! Should I go for secure funding for 5 years or better school reputation (possibly student debt) for my PhD?

Can someone please weigh in? 

[juilletmercredi]

Public health is the field I earned my PhD in. I would never go to a PhD program without full funding for at least the first few years, no matter how prestigious it is.

I've seen this happen at my own PhD program: your advisor has no money, so you have to work on another advisor's grant. How that works really depends on the two people involved. Generally speaking, if a professor puts you on their grant they want some work out you, because they are paying your salary out of their own pot. Sometimes, the advisor has a connection in the department - a collaborator who has a pot of money, for example. So let's say Dr. Smith and Dr. Jones work closely together, and publish lots of papers in virtually the same field together, but Dr. Smith has no funding and Dr. Jones has a GRA position. That situation could be fine - you're still going to work on what you want, probably, and while Jones will probably manage a lot of your day to day project work Smith can still give a lot of input and collaboration and advisement.

But let's say that Dr. Black is new to the department and doesn't really have anyone who does something similar to her there, or collaborators she works with. The closest she could find for you is a GRA with Dr. Yates, who does something only tangentially related to Dr. Black's work. Yates will fund you but you have to work 20 hours a week on her stuff, and basically do your own research with Black "in your spare time."

If you desperately want to go to UCLA, I would do a little more pressing and investigation into the funding situation at UCLA. A red flag for me is that your advisor is not helping you engineer this funding situation; she has basically told you to find it on your own. She is the one who knows her colleagues in the department and could far more easily find out who has a GRA spot for you than you can...but she's choosing not to, and making you do it. To me, that would be a flag in a couple of dimensions: it could signal less than optimal relationships with others in the department, or it could signal a disinterest in the mechanics of your actual degree funding and progression (as opposed to the amount of work you could do for her).

But ask them point-blank: How are students usually funded in the department? (If everyone else is offered a fellowship except you, run away.) What is the likelihood that you will find funding - how often do students have to self-fund their own PhD through loans? (For one example, my own PhD program - Columbia - only funds people through 2-3 years. But almost everyone finds an external source of funding for the remaining time.)

However, my real advice to  you would be forget about UCLA and go to UCI. Follow the money.

[COGSCI]

I agree with the post above. UCLA is an amazing school but if funding is not guaranteed, I would really consider going to UCI. See if UCLA can secure funding for the first 2 years, it would give you enough time to apply for various grants. PhD is definitely going to take you 4+ years so you need to be careful with your decision here. Although UCLA ranks higher than UCI, UCI is still a good institution.

Even though this is a stressful situation, just remember that you got into 2 awesome programs! Enjoy the decision process because you've earned it

[missgord]

What is the link for funding opportunities? 

I've always been successful finding funding before.  Depends on your skillset.  How are you with stats?