What does it mean, accepted with "no funding"?!!!

[PhD in English]

Getting accepted to a PhD program with "no funding".

What does "no funding" mean?

Does it cover at least tuition? 

Whoever has an idea, please let me know!

 

[Apogeee]

1 minute ago, PhD in English said:

Getting accepted to a PhD program with "no funding".

What does "no funding" mean?

Does it cover at least tuition? 

Whoever has an idea, please let me know!

 

No funding means you pay for all the courses, your tuition, and fees, housing, and get no money at all from the school.

[PhD in English]

Mamma Mia!!! Thanks for the info

[fuzzylogician]

No funding means no funding. They will not pay for anything. Any costs associated with your education must be covered by you. It means a lot of debt. Do NOT attended an unfunded PhD program in English. It is not worth it. 

[PhD in English]

Thanks fuzzylogician... I was only considering the offer if it covered tuition (thought I would work and to self-fund my stay). Of course I won't accept it... I don't even have money to pay for my courses!

That's really sad though... I wonder why they offer it... it is only a teaser!

[charlemagne88]

I don't think it's fair to automatically assume it's not worth it to self fund your education. So far this term, I only have one acceptance to a school w/out funding and I fully intend on accepting unless I end up getting another offer w/ funding. (still waiting on 4 programs). I think to some people, myself included, self funding the first 2 years of my PhD is a great idea because it will give me valuable research experience, help beef up my resume, and at the same time increase my chances of getting accepted into a funded PhD program. Not accepting the offer would ultimately leave me in limbo for a year while hoping I can make it in the next application cycle with little to no improvement to my credentials (plus I'd have to try to find a job which is increasingly competitive in my area of interest w/out a higher degree or experience). 

[GradSchoolTruther]

Repeat, not a good idea to go to a Ph.D. program without funding. Not a good idea to think you can leverage it into funding down the line.

[rising_star]

2 hours ago, charlemagne88 said:

I I think to some people, myself included, self funding the first 2 years of my PhD is a great idea because it will give me valuable research experience, help beef up my resume, and at the same time increase my chances of getting accepted into a funded PhD program.

You need to be really careful about a strategy like this. Exiting a PhD program early is often seen as a sign that one wasn't up to snuff as a student. So, if you're planning to try to leverage an unfunded PhD offer at one school into a funded PhD offer elsewhere, it will be tricky to do at best. I could see this working better if it were a master's degree but, it sounds like you're trying to "master out" of a PhD program, which is typically not viewed as a good thing. In addition, if you're self-funding, you're not going to have the same opportunities to work with a professor on their research as other students because those are students are the ones whom they are paying to do research. You'll have to convince people to let you work in their lab or on their projects without pay, which some faculty aren't willing to do at all. (Why? Because it suggests that everyone should self-fund their PhD and paid research positions aren't needed anymore, which is a rabbit hole few faculty want to go down.) 

[svent]

Look. If they believed in you, they'd be offering you funding. It's one thing to break into a field or get higher salary by doing a quick 1-2 year Master's (regular Master's, not sympathy Master's from a PhD program). Doing a PhD is a totally different story. Job prospects aren't so good with PhD, so don't even think about doing it unfunded unless you're already rich (even then, the department probably won't be that supportive of you).

[juilletmercredi]

I don't think it's fair to automatically assume it's not worth it to self fund your education. So far this term, I only have one acceptance to a school w/out funding and I fully intend on accepting unless I end up getting another offer w/ funding. (still waiting on 4 programs). I think to some people, myself included, self funding the first 2 years of my PhD is a great idea because it will give me valuable research experience, help beef up my resume, and at the same time increase my chances of getting accepted into a funded PhD program. Not accepting the offer would ultimately leave me in limbo for a year while hoping I can make it in the next application cycle with little to no improvement to my credentials (plus I'd have to try to find a job which is increasingly competitive in my area of interest w/out a higher degree or experience).

Those benefits don't necessarily make self-funding worth it, unless you're independently wealthy and can pay completely out of pocket - and even then, it's not necessarily worth the outlay of money.

First of all, your actual in-program experience might not be as good as the students who come in with funding. Funding is a signal to the program and department about how much the department is willing to invest in you. If a program doesn't fund you, that means they aren't investing in you as a student and junior scholar. Particularly if you are attending with students who are funded, there's going to be an obvious disparity. If you have to work while you're in the program to support yourself, you're taking away time that all your colleagues will be spending on research and professional development. Even if you aren't working and you're borrowing loans, the perception of you by faculty will be qualitatively different than your colleagues who have regular funding.

Secondly, transferring PhD programs - as @rising_star alluded to above - isn't a simple or easy thing. It's not like transferring undergraduate programs. Most times you can only transfer in 9-12 credits (about a semester's worth). And even if your program technically allows you to transfer in work, your PI may have additional requirements or may be reluctant to let you graduate before you've been in the program for 4-5 years. After all, they are making an investment in you, and they want to get some good years of research work out of you and hopefully some publications. I have a friend who did a few years of a PhD before transferring to my program (for legit reasons); he had to start all over and graduated the same year I did, even though I started from scratch. That was partially because of his adviser's preference. You also need the support from your old adviser, but if he feels like you just came into their PhD program to get a master's and transfer away he may be less willing to support your transitioning to another program, especially if he expected to apply for funding for you and get you to stay.

Thirdly, from a monetary perspective it's not a good ROI. The first 2-3 years of a PhD program are the most expensive years, as you are still taking coursework. Many private universities' tuition is over $40,000 per year these days, which means you'd be borrowing at least $80,000 (if you just had to borrow tuition and fees) and maybe upwards of $130,000 (if you also have to borrow living expenses). Even if you do make it in a career as a successful academic or industry scientist, the salary in those fields is not big enough to comfortably repay that kind of debt. And it'd be one thing if it was like med school or law school in which all of your colleagues have that debt, but it's not. That kind of debt may also force you to limit the kinds of jobs you can take after graduating because some of them won't allow you to repay your loans. In an already competitive market, you don't want that.

In fact, IMO it's far better to be "in limbo" for a year, or at the very least attend a terminal master's program that is designed to be a stepping stone into a PhD program (hopefully with funding, or maybe at an inexpensive public university in your home state). In some fields, there are other things you can do, like do a post-baccalaureate research fellowship or work as a lab manager or research associate. Even working a semi-related research/scholarship job would be preferable - I have some colleagues who worked at think tanks or nonprofits for 2-3 years between college and grad school, and that research can be looked on quite favorably especially in the social sciences. (Often, they are supervised by PhDs who do work that is quite similar to what professors do.)

Even doing nothing in the interim could be preferable. If you only get in without funding, or get into no programs, that might just be the luck of the draw and not due to your credentials or anything. Taking a year to work on your materials or maybe retake the GRE if that's a factor could improve your application, and in the meantime you aren't racking up debt.

[charlemagne88]

Thanks for the comment. The program I'll be attending is a terminal MA program, which is jointly offered alongside a full fledged PhD program. I truly believe that this can be an awesome stepping stone into a funded PhD program, possibly at the same college or at another, regardless of how it's paid for. It's what my adviser did, so I know that this is something that DOES work. And, even if it doesn't, at least with a terminal MA degree I'll be marketable in the "real world." In my area of study there aren't many opportunities for individuals with only a BA, apart from the above mentioned lab assistant or research assistant positions which in themselves can be competitive and hard to come by. -most of the positions I'm seeing from my university's listserv are half way across the country. 

 

I know it's hard to comment not knowing the specifics of both myself, the school, and my plans (and I'm being vague on purpose for confidentiality), and I do agree that trying to fund an entire PhD program is not really a good idea -I'm simply saying that for me, and I'm sure others, this can be good if it's your only option and you have your heart set on grad school. 

Edited March 22, 2016 by charlemagne88