Naïveté about funding

[Ayayay]

Here's a question. How come as grad school applicants we expect to be funded for our PhDs and MAs. Seems like lawschool follks and med school folks don't expect such remuneration and they're also getting professional training.

This is not to say I'm not applying for grants, etc. I certainly am. But I wonder if funding ought to be a baseline requirement. Surely, grants ought to be given to those who need them and scholarships to those who've earned them. But the expectation that a person ought to be paid and subsidized for half a decade or more for reading and researching on subjects he or she enjoys while simultaneously obtaining professional qualifications...well doesn't it seem almost unrealistic?

Healthy debate encouraged

Ayayay

[JustChill]

It's because law school and med school grads can reasonably be expected to earn significantly more over their lifetimes compared to humanities or social sciences grad school graduates. They can pay off their debts much faster and usually with less hardship than the rest of us. My brother got his J.D. four years ago and has already cut his students debt in half. There are exception to this, of course, but that has been the underlying reason for this funding discrepancy historically.

[Sanssouci]

For my area anyway, the funding we recieve is in return for time we spend (usually) teaching, or researching, in addition to our studies. So it's not like we're getting something for nothing.

[coyabean]

Sanssouci took my response.

Unless you're very lucky you are teaching and saving the University lots of money.

[Ayayay]

Both good points. But the "if you're not getting funded, forget it" attitude I've seen from lots of grad students and grad school applicants worries me. You paid for your undergrad education; surely you CAN see why you'd be asked to pay for a postgraduate education in a subject you love.

Of course, if you can get a TAship or funding all the better!

[Venetia]

Both good points. But the "if you're not getting funded, forget it" attitude I've seen from lots of grad students and grad school applicants worries me. You paid for your undergrad education; surely you CAN see why you'd be asked to pay for a postgraduate education in a subject you love.

Aside from the many obvious benefits of funding, I've also seen posts on this board advising people not to undertake PhDs without funding, saying that employers might look askance at people funding themselves, as it suggests that they weren't amazing enough to receive any grants. I don't know if that's the case, it's just what I've seen others say.

[Ayayay]

Of that's so that's absurd; I wouldn't reject a Harvard law student's job application just because he didn't get a free ride to HLS. Why should hiring a PhD be any different.

[hubris]

Hardly naivete, if anything the rule that no funding = rejection is one of the few glimmers of cold realism displayed by applicants.

This is a game about expected values.

Edited January 25, 2010 by hubris

[Ayayay]

Expected values, eh? Whatever happened to "follow your bliss?"

[rising_star]

Both good points. But the "if you're not getting funded, forget it" attitude I've seen from lots of grad students and grad school applicants worries me. You paid for your undergrad education; surely you CAN see why you'd be asked to pay for a postgraduate education in a subject you love.

Of course, if you can get a TAship or funding all the better!

WHOA! There are LOTS of people that fund their undergraduate education through scholarships, not by paying for it out of pocket. Furthermore, many of the graduate degrees people on here are pursuing are not going to translate into getting a higher-paying job. So, why would you pay for 4-7 years of school when your potential earning power will likely not increase?

I don't know about you, but I would study the subject I love independently while working full-time if I didn't have funding.

[BlueSwedeShoes]

I did not pay for my undergraduate degree. Or my masters. Then again, I'm in socialist nightmare Sweden where higher education is free, just like our health care.

Oh, and here it's customary to be employed as a PhD student. You do a certain amount of teaching in addition to your research and get a live-able salary. And just like with all other education there's no fees anywhere.

I see it sort of the same way in the USA. As a PhD student you're teaching classes. The research you're doing is (hopefully) relevant to society, you publish papers which gives the university good PR, boosts (some) academic rankings and in general helps improve your their reputation as a productive and attractive university.

I guess you could ask why professors should get paid. They just teach, and do research. Like a PhD student. Why can't they just follow their dream and do it for free?! Cheap bastards.

That said, I wouldn't discourage anyone who really, really wants to attend a certain university and who has the means to support him/herself during that unfunded from going. It's their choice. It's something you should think twice about though.

Being funded is a fair deal if you ask me.

Edited January 25, 2010 by waylance

[ornithology]

don't assume we all paid for our undergraduate degrees. aside from a 10,000 dollar stafford loan, my undergrad institution/the government paid my way.

america is the only country that thinks a degree in literature is worth 40,000 a year, at any level.

[Ayayay]

So, why would you pay for 4-7 years of school when your potential earning power will likely not increase?

I don't know about you, but I would study the subject I love independently while working full-time if I didn't have funding.

I'd argue that TT and tenured profs at a variety of universities in humanities and social sciences departments across the land probably make more money than a variety of folks who got a BA and decided to work and eschew grad school as an alternative. Obviously not all PhDs are success stories, but I don't think getting a PhD necessarily affects your potential earning power in a negative way, indeed I'd say it probably "empowers" lots of parts of your earning potential.

Edited January 25, 2010 by Ayayay

[rising_star]

I'd argue that TT and tenured profs at a variety of universities in humanities and social sciences departments across the land probably make more money than a variety of folks who got a BA and decided to work and eschew grad school as an alternative. Obviously not all PhDs are success stories, but I don't think getting a PhD necessarily affects your potential earning power in a negative way, indeed I'd say it probably "empowers" lots of parts of your earning potential.

Maybe, maybe not. Depends on how you look at it. Many of my friends were making $50K/year immediately following graduation. I went and got a MA, and now the PhD. What will they be making with 6-7 years of work experience under their belt? What will I be making as an assistant professor? I can tell you that starting salaries in my discipline are $50-60K/year and that's after getting the MA and PhD...

Or, think about the GS scale for the US federal government. Sure you may be able to start at GS-9 instead of GS-7, but those with 2 years of experience at the GS-7 level are also eligible for the GS-9 jobs... AND, they've been making GS-7 pay while you've been living on a graduate stipend or worse, you've been unfunded and have student loans of $50K to repay. And that's just for the master's. PhDs start at GS-12/13, but again, someone else can get there with experience and with having made more money than you all along.

[Reinventing]

I don't think getting a PhD necessarily affects your potential earning power in a negative way, indeed I'd say it probably "empowers" lots of parts of your earning potential.

I think a lot of people see the deck stacked against them when considering unfunded academic degrees. For example, they're easily $250-500k in the hole by just taking the time away from the working world to do the PhD. Then at least $50-100k in debt for doing the PhD. And usually at the point in their life where investing earnings has the potential to yield the highest return for retirement--and when many are building a nest egg. All the debt and lost income during this time essentially equates to $10-20k less per year in real earnings once you get the PhD (or $300k-$600k over your working lifetime); which, if you're working in your field of interest, might be worth it. If you're lucky enough to be making $10-20k more than what you need to live on.

[twocosmicfish]

Ayayay, the funding you receive helps to rank you compared to your peers, which (along with the school/department/advisor reputation) goes along way towards establishing your own reputation as a new PhD. A lack of funding means either that you were uncompetitive (bad) or that you were researching something not worth funding (also bad). A year or two self-financed is not a big deal, as you may have been undervalued going in or perhaps RA funding got cancelled, but if you self-finance the whole way it just looks bad. Unless you're rich. At the end of the day, good funding tends to be a resume booster and bad funding doesn't really hurt you that much in finding a job.

But.

I generally do not recommend self-financing a grad degree for more than a year or two just because it is bad financial planning. Most grad degrees do NOT pay themselves off - this is why it is so important to chase something you love, because it may well cost you a lot of money. If you self-finance it gets even worse!!

For example, let's compare 3 engineers at my company. The first goes in with a BS, the second goes in 2 years later with a masters, and the last goes in 6 years later with a PhD. The numbers involved accurately reflect numbers typical for my company.

Engineer A makes $60k, $63k, $71k, $74k, $78k, $87k, and $91k in his first 7 years, with 5% raises most years, plus promotions with 12% raises in years 3 and 6. During this time he can take advantage of night classes and tuition reimbursement and get a part-time masters in 2-4 years, but for the sake of simplicity, lets assume he doesn't. He can never get a job in academia, but is hirable just about anywhere.

Engineer B makes $72, $76k, $79k, $89k, and $93k in his first 5 years, with 5% raises most years plus a promotion with 12% raise in year 4. At this point he is making $1-2k more per year than Engineer A, who has a $120k head start from his first two years. If Engineer B had a $30k funding package while a grad student, he will make up the lost equity in about 10-30 years, otherwise he will never make it up before he retires. He can get a poor job in academia or research, which makes him more versatile, but his specialization in grad school now limits the companies that will hire him. Why would someone hire an antenna specialist at a premium if you design control assemblies?

Engineer C makes $90k his first year, at which time A and B are making $91k and $93k respectively. Since he is already behind, he will probably never make up the $300k-$400k head start of his coworkers unless he is promoted much more advantagously in later years. On the bright side, senior technical positions do generally go to those with a better academic background, but, on the other hand, well-paying management jobs rarely do. On average, call it a wash. So the cost of that PhD is probably around $300k less any assistantships or fellowships earned during that time. He is now eligible for the handful of TT professorships out there, along with a bunch of crappy non-tenure academic jobs, and is employable in only a few narrow slices of private industry - if he gets laid off, he may go unemployed for quite some time or accept a substantial pay cut to switch specialties.

Anyway... don't pay for grad school, and if you do don't think you're getting it back.

Edited January 26, 2010 by twocosmicfish

[dzk]

Both good points. But the "if you're not getting funded, forget it" attitude I've seen from lots of grad students and grad school applicants worries me. You paid for your undergrad education; surely you CAN see why you'd be asked to pay for a postgraduate education in a subject you love.

I don't see why this is worrisome; it's realistic. If someone asked me to pay for my neuroscience Ph.D., then I'd be headed straight to medical school instead. I don't need to go into six-figure debt and work 80 hour weeks to make $40,000/year.

[red_crayons]

Anyway... don't pay for grad school, and if you do don't think you're getting it back.

I liked your post. The things they teach in b-school classes are useful, sometimes. That's why I also plan to apply to jobs in my area of interest, too. And lots of them, because it is competitive, so I have at least one or two other options to compare with grad school offers.

What you said really doesn't apply to a lot of the humanities, though. But there are other reasons people go into the humanities that outweigh the financial possibilities.

[Reinventing]

What you said really doesn't apply to a lot of the humanities, though. But there are other reasons people go into the humanities that outweigh the financial possibilities.

People who go into the humanities should also consider the financial impact--in fact, they should consider it more. Just because your goals are lofty doesn't mean you shouldn't look at the price tag. If you can't afford it, you can't afford it. Simple as that. It's why Thomas H. Benton says, "Graduate School in the Humanities: Just Don't Go." His articles on this topic are great, for anyone who hasn't read them (they're available at the Chronicle of Higher Education).

[red_crayons]

People who go into the humanities should also consider the financial impact--in fact, they should consider it more. Just because your goals are lofty doesn't mean you shouldn't look at the price tag. If you can't afford it, you can't afford it. Simple as that. It's why Thomas H. Benton says, "Graduate School in the Humanities: Just Don't Go." His articles on this topic are great, for anyone who hasn't read them (they're available at the Chronicle of Higher Education).

While I agree with you personally, not everyone thinks this way. I mean, people pay to get an MFA. To them, paying off a debt for 10 or 30 years is worth a year spent with a really fabulous, famous author that they admire. That's totally their call, IMHO. Also, someone who goes into lots of debt attending grad school is probably still going to make cultural or scientific contributions to their field, university, and society.

There are lots of reasons for school, and for debt. It's not always fair to judge, and it's not really my business to worry about how much another student is paying to go to school, either. It's an issue at the macro level if lots (millions) of people default on their student loans, yes, but that's a structural problem that is politically (at the national, state, university, and community levels) impossible to solve right now.

[eikko]

I did not pay for my undergraduate degree. Or my masters. Then again, I'm in socialist nightmare Sweden where higher education is free, just like our health care.

Oh, and here it's customary to be employed as a PhD student. You do a certain amount of teaching in addition to your research and get a live-able salary. And just like with all other education there's no fees anywhere.

yep, i'm with waylance. i have also gotten a master's degree in sweden for free (yes, of course i pay taxes, not high ones since i don't make much as a research assistant.) the doctoral students in my department make $33k per year to start. it's a good salary, the same as a first-year middle school teacher. it makes the american ta/ra funding deal look pretty bad, which is why they should unionize.

[jenali]

Speaking of naïveté! Many, many, many of us ARE unionized. And most of our unionized selves are still getting paid < $20,000 / year (plus tuition etc.). The union, sadly, does not have magical powers.

yep, i'm with waylance. i have also gotten a master's degree in sweden for free (yes, of course i pay taxes, not high ones since i don't make much as a research assistant.) the doctoral students in my department make $33k per year to start. it's a good salary, the same as a first-year middle school teacher. it makes the american ta/ra funding deal look pretty bad, which is why they should unionize.

[Reinventing]

There are lots of reasons for school, and for debt. It's not always fair to judge, and it's not really my business to worry about how much another student is paying to go to school, either. It's an issue at the macro level if lots (millions) of people default on their student loans, yes, but that's a structural problem that is politically (at the national, state, university, and community levels) impossible to solve right now.

I hope my statement doesn't come off as a judgment. Obviously, everyone makes their own decision on this. I just think not everyone realizes what it will mean for them to pay off a large debt. There's a lot of "just do it!" Kool-aid out there, and while I love education and wish everyone could have the best one possible, I realize it's an expense just like anything else. And it has become much more expensive than it was for previous generations.

On the far side, I've seen people go on the 30-year repayment plan or live what I would consider a very restrictive lifestyle (and I live pretty minimally myself--no car, no kids). If someone wants to take out loans, realizes what it will mean financially, and is prepared to make the sacrifice, then great. It's the people who hear the call, but are totally blindsided by the debt and what it will mean for their life (at a point where they may not even have thought much about their futures) that I feel for.

I've had some pushback on this opinion, of course, but I honestly can't imagine why. I'm stuck wondering if these people are just financially solid enough that they can't imagine the struggle some people will go through to afford the degree; or if they haven't sat down and done the math; or maybe they're lucky people who can work 20 hours a day whenever they have to, to pay off the debt (I admire them, but definitely could not do that and still be coherent).

Anyway, I have to side with twocosmicfish: I think in many fields, funding is a vote of confidence in your potential. To me, the naïveté is not understanding that, and going deep into debt anyway.

[eikko]

Speaking of naïveté! Many, many, many of us ARE unionized. And most of our unionized selves are still getting paid < $20,000 / year (plus tuition etc.). The union, sadly, does not have magical powers.

Sure they have no magical powers, but they do tend to improve wages, granted more for low-wage workers than for higher-wage workers.

I don't know where you work; I was thinking of the grad student strikes in 2005 at Yale, Columbia and NYU:

"Those [university employees] who are not unionized include laboratory research technicians, officers of administration (who hold supervisory and managerial positions), IT workers, adjunct faculty, and graduate student teachers and research assistants." (from the Columbia newspaper)

Anyway I suppose it varies from institution to institution. Maybe a public/private split?

[socnerd]

I'm sure I'm way out of the norm here but I wasn't even aware that the grad school typically paid for your degree until I started reading this forum. I just assumed that you paid for your graduate degree like you paid for your undergraduate, unless of course you couldn't afford it. But then again, a graduate degree is less of a necessity and more of a voluntary thing so I can understand there being less government funding for it. I'm not against people getting funding based on merit or anything else, I just didn't know this happened. My parents paid for most of my undergraduate (I got some financial aid from the school, more in recent years since the economy has gotten worse) but I didn't expect that from graduate school. I have no idea how I'm going to pay for it, but my parents always tell me not to worry and just do the best I can to get in and they'll find a way to pay for it. They are very supportive and I'm grateful for it, since with my stats I'll be lucky to get in and won't be in the pool for funding.

I've often wondered if I'd have a better chance of getting in if they knew I didn't need funding, I wish there was a way to communicate that to them in a way that made sense.

Edited February 6, 2010 by socnerd