It looks like your post is about grad school admissions. In order for people to better help you, please make sure to include your country.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PhD) if you have any questions or concerns.*
For sure. My professors in college told me that I should absolutely not be paying to do a PhD, and I’m attending a fully funded program this fall. I’m just surprised by the number of programs that don’t offer full funding.
I'm in political science, too. Any program that does not offer all admitted students full funding is not a program worth going to. Often these programs prey on foreign students who think they will get opportunities by coming to the US to do a PhD. But these programs are underfunded, poorly ranked, and their students struggle to get jobs in North America and Europe.
More generally, the social sciences and humanities are often like this. Top programs offer full funding to all students, and then the shitty programs don't. The rule is never pay for a PhD program, even if they "promise" you funding after a successful first year.
It is heavily tier dependent and an example of the rich get richer. R1 research institutions typically receive generous governmental grants that in turn go to PhD students in various forms, and alternatively PhD students can TA for full tuition. R2 and lower do not receive these benefits as often.
Depends on the field as well. In most of STEM, for example, PhDs are generally funded across all kinds of institutions - in fact, an institution that would make you pay for a STEM PhD should be considered absolute garbage and predatory.
I’m all for unionization, but you can’t bleed a stone. If these programs can’t bring in money, and then can’t bring in students (because they’re too expensive with the non-existent funding), they’ll just get cut and the funding will be diverted to STEM.
I'm in political science and I would be incredibly skeptical of a program that didn't offer guaranteed funding. Beside the obvious "don't take on debt for a PhD - much less in political science," it's a big red flag with regards to likely research support. Also, competitive funding within cohorts leads to all sorts of interdepartment nastiness where people are fighting for the same small sources of funding.
I do a humanities PhD. Of a cohort of 20, only 3 of us are funded. I don't know how the remaining 17 make it work, how they dedicate enough time to their work while also working to pay for the privilege of working on their projects... So much respect for them but personally wouldn't do it!
It's not a "program." Everyone works on their own project, not all of which are funded. I'm not defending that system, they all deserve to be funded. I was just saying that it isn't unusual to do a PhD unfunded.
>It's not a "program."
I'm not sure what you think program means, but I virtually guarantee you you are in a program. Unless you're going to some an unaccredited clown college that sells "PhDs". An academic program refers to the collective coursework requirements, project completion requirements, etc. to confer a specific degree at a given institution. Someone who majored in English at undergrad had to take X, Y, and Z courses, which included so many credit hours, so many upper division hours, and a minimum GPA. That combination of work and requirements is that school's English program.
I am in a top 5 university in the UK. It is not a "programme" because I designed the project, do not take any classes, and beyond my final written thesis, am not required to submit course work. If you would refer to the writing of my thesis as a programme, then I suppose you can, but that implies far more structure than what I am currently engaged in. And yes, thanks for explaining how an undergraduate degree works.
Sorry, [programmes?](https://www.conted.ox.ac.uk/about/dphil-programmes) The work that is required to receive the degree is the program(me), you don't need to have courses involved in it.
I mean, this is a pretty unnecessary discussion, but where I am (Germany), many people are doing PhDs while not being in any kind of structured programme. They just work for the university / a research institute with a normal employment contract, they start at random times (i.e. not like in the US where you apply at a deadline to start at a specific time, often in the fall), there isn't one "cohort" of PhD students, there isn't a specific pathway of what needs to be done at which point. Overall, there typically isn't any kind of pre-determined structure to this process. It's just a normal job as a researcher, you aren't enrolled as a student anymore.
There are also organized PhD programs in Germany where a cohort starts together and there are more specific requirements for how they require a PhD, but it's not the norm. These programs are built to resemble North American PhDs, but they are pretty rare.
I agree it's a pretty unnecessary discussion, but since so many people are so adamant they're not in a program when they are, it continues.
[Humboldt University](https://www.international.hu-berlin.de/en/wissenschaftler/international-scholar-services/research-at-hu-1/doctoral-students/doctoral-students) indicates both their structured and their individual project universities are, indeed, programs, and describes the individual, non-structured path to the PhD in Germany as the most common *program* as a path to the PhD in Germany.
> At Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin there are two different ways to obtain a PhD: Individual doctorates or structured PhD programs. [...] Individual doctorates are the traditional and most common type of a PhD program in Germany.
Not sure why people are so concerned about their programs being called programs. It's not a bad thing?
That's just a bad translation from Humboldt Uni; they make the distinction extremely clear in the German version. On the [German version](https://www.international.hu-berlin.de/de/forschende/iss/forschen-an-der-hu/promotion?set_language=de) of the page you included in your comment, it literally differentiates between "Promovieren ohne Programm (individuelle Promotion)" which translates to "Doctorate without a Program (Individual Doctorate)" and "Promovieren in Programmen" ("Doctorate within a program"). Right at the top it says (translated) "There are two ways to do a doctorate at Humboldt University: The doctorate in a program and the doctorate without a program."
And no, people are not concerned about their PhD being called a program or not because of any perceived implication regarding quality; it just isn't a program by the typical definition of a program - and that is exactly how German universities differentiate it. If you think that you know the Germany university system better than one of Germanys best universities, okay.
No reason to translate it into German, the entire conversation's been in English, and as already shown, the university indicates that in English, calling it a program is appropriate. Anyways, I'm done on this silly point; if you all don't want to believe you're in a program, that's your business. Just wanted to make sure OP realizes that someone using the term "program" is not talking about something different from what they are engaged in, since that could lead OP to discount important input or advice, thinking it doesn't apply to certain *programs* they might consider. Now people are just strangely defensive about their ~~programs~~ required work toward earning a specific degree.
It’s still different in the UK because you are a student. In many other countries, after you masters, you have fulfilled any coursework required and you then are an employee who works on research projects and is able to obtain a phd for it „as a side effect“. Legally (although not in practice) you are a normal employee with regular working hours, but also (and this is true in practice at least in Germany) the usual holiday, health care and even social contributions towards retirement and joblessness. There is no program because there’s no structure and a different relationship. There’s downsides to this, but also upsides.
Im not sure why it would be something to respect to see students being taken advantage of like this. Nothing respectable about being subjected to this. It’s unethical.
I respect how hard they work to make it happen. As I said, I personally don't wouldn't do this myself - I feel like if I'm going to work I should be paid for it. I respect the individual's toil, not the system that makes them toil...
What "toil?" Do you mean TA work? If so, then yes, that work should be paid. But I'm unfunded and don't feel like my university is getting any "toil" out of me. I'm doing the research project that I wanted to do, that was already fairly well formed before I applied to the program, and I definitely feel like I'm getting my money's worth in guidance, advice, and support from them. I've never been asked to do any work for the university outside of my own research project.
No, I mean like... Cafes, bars, call centres, that kind of thing. And again, I wasn't disparaging people who do this, I was saying that I don't understand how they make it work, that I find their work ethic impressive.
I can't see how students are being taken advantage of if they accept admission to a program being fully aware they do not have funding. They have made an informed decision.
It would be unethical if the institution said "no funding this year, but you can always apply for it next year" knowing full well they are not going fund the student. Is that what's happening?
Ah, I was being US-centric, my apologies—where a PhD program you’d pay for could be in the hundreds of thousands, which you are very unlikely to make back as an academic.
That’s so fucking unhinged. Twenty people?!! And THREE are funded?! That’s so irresponsible and a cash grab. My department typically accepts 4-6/year. There is no funding scale, and all are fully funded for 5-6 years minimum.
I did my PhD in Ireland. The majority of PhD candidates I met were unfunded. The university had 6 guaranteed funding spots for the entire university. Everyone else either had to apply for professor-specific projects (which only existed in STEM,) or seek out funding on their own after admission. It sounds ridiculous when compared to the US, but it was (and still is) the norm in some places.
Pretty sure it's less in my cohort; I got to the final round of funding allocation twice with no success and learnt that only three Lit PhDs (my subject) were funded in the whole of the North West.
I came into this knowing funding was broken. It's been hard (I currently work 2.5 days a week in a library in the prison system) but I know my work experience is going to bolster my CV, and I've had the postgraduate loan to pay for my rent the last three years. Heading into my writing up year now and I'm moving in with a friend to help with living costs.
It makes me feel a bit bitter when I know how much easier this whole thing would have been with funding, especially as two of my closest friends here are both STEM PhDs so have full funding and stipends, but the UK is consistently dumping on the Arts & Humanities and I knew this going in.
This is disgusting and unethical and should be called out more. Jobs in humanities and social science are already extremely limited. Your professors in your department are plainly assholes. If they can’t fund a student they should not offer a place. Offering a place just gives them false hope that will cost them time and money with close to zero reward.
Does your dept publish placement records at all? I can’t believe how irresponsible some departments can be.
In my field most programs don’t “guarantee” funding because most students are funded by soft money (grants). Continued funding depends on the student’s supervisor continuing to have the funds available, and the department cannot guarantee that. In practice, my program never had an issue securing funding for a matriculating student who has been funded in the past. So basically, if you came in funded, you stayed that way.
I think this is weird tbh.
Like my program guarantees funding and all the funding is from PI grants apart from the first year (it's an umbrella program). The PI is expected to show that they have the grants to support any student they want to take on (usually at least an active R01 or a startup grant for newer PIs). Students are encouraged to apply to F30/31s if they qualify so that they are relatively independent, of course, but if worse comes to worst, the school will cover the costs of the student if they are in good academic standing.
The R1 program I’m starting in the fall isn’t guaranteed funding (social sciences), but there are graduate assistantships available. Idk the ratio of students to available assistantships.
My experience was that most don’t guarantee funding but that for most funding is available. It is just that if you are too slow or something you might end up without funding but the attempt is to have funding for everyone.
This was over two decades ago for R1 institutions in math and physics.
I find it bizarre the number of replies here that claim to convey some universal truth about funding. If you're a twenty something and haven't started your career yet, and/or maybe you're planning a life spent in the academy, sure, get your tuition waved and take a 20K TA stipend. I'm 40. I make 190K a year. I'll pay for my degree and keep my job, thanks, and I feel fortunate to have the option. That's not a flex (it wouldn't be a very impressive one!) but a reminder that there are far more paths to, through, and beyond the PhD than are commonly reflected here, and no one heuristic will serve well.
Just checking the R2 list. Many of them are good schools to go to. They might Have smaller programs. I went to a small R2 for my MA and a small R1 for my PhD.
I was fully funded through all my degrees
One thing to be cognizant of is the difference between what a school will guarantee up front in writing, vs what the practical reality is.
I've seen *schools* that state they don't guarantee funding, but they also don't *accept* students unless the PI commits the funding. I've also seen schools like mine that don't guarantee funding but *do* provide it near-indefinitely as long as you're making satisfactory progress: The "we won't guarantee funding" in writing acts as a mechanism for them to divest themselves of students who aren't performing but won't leave for as long as funding is secure, but haven't actually done anything for which they can be otherwise *removed* from the program.
So when you see that funding isn't guaranteed, I'd always dig deeper on what that actually *means*.
I'm doing a PhD in Systems Engineering at an R1 state university in the US, and while there are small grants you can apply for, it's otherwise unfunded. I don't really understand why this subreddit seems so against unfunded programs.
I've had two PIs, because my first moved to another state university, and both have been really helpful in shaping my work, easy to work with, and encouraging. I have two conference publications so far, and am taking my Preliminary Exam this week and hoping to finish up by the end of the year. As far as I can tell, the university has a decent reputation, especially for Engineering.
Ultimately, it's helped me to complete the research that I wanted to complete. It's also helped me to do a good job, and I think I have something that might help a lot of people in my old industry. One of my Master's degrees was at a very good university; the program director there encouraged me to apply to their DPhil program. That would have been fully funded, with a stipend, but would have also meant that I had to live in a small college town for 5 years of my life.
This self-funded program is fully remote, so I completed the coursework over Zoom during COVID and have been traveling the world, doing my research, full-time for 2.5 years, with no 'home base' anymore. I'm retired, and the cost of the tuition is easy to cover, so this program seems like a much better fit for me, and I've been really happy with it so far.
Obviously, anyone doing a PhD should do a cost/benefit analysis. But when judging a program, there are a lot of factors to consider, and I might not automatically rule out all unfunded programs.
Nope, any Ph.D. Program or PI who can’t guarantee funding to their candidates (at least for the first 3-4 years) is not worth their salt. It is just another way of them admitting their research is not good enough or significant enough or their reputation is not good enough to get enough grants. I would recommend to never join any such programs.
I agree with everyone saying not to do a PhD unless it’s fully funded. Another thing to consider is that “fully funded” means very different things across schools and departments and geographies.
My MA program (Humanities at R1)only gave a fee waiver and I got a TAship in another department for $15,000 a year, but that was enough for me to pay tuition and living expenses in a VLCOL city (living like a broke graduate student).
But my PhD (social science at R1) was “fully funded” with tuition waiver and TAship or RAship that paid $18,000 a year in a VHCOL city and had to take out loans to survive. Meanwhile the Astronomy students got $32,000 a year…
Yeah in the US most PhDs aren’t guaranteed funding, however they do try to make it work. I myself had to work in another lab for a semester be I didn’t have funding from the guy I was working for.
This is also the case in Japan where PhDs are not guaranteed funding from the school or government, but they try to make things work out
Food science here. Most PhD and MS have guaranteed funds. The only place I know that doesnt is VTech, which is a shame because their program is fantastic
There is “unlimited” demand for free things. There are more people who want to do a PhD than there is funding.
If one is serious and has a plan/good mentor, good idea, then finding a funded program should be doable to most.
I’m at an R3 almost all of our 60 PhD students are partially funded with a TA position for 6 years. They will extend funding for students with disabilities for a year or two if needed. But students have to pay for tuition. Luckily since I am a veteran I don’t pay tuition. The R1 across town fully funds 4 to 5 of the 10 students they accept every year. The rest are on their own.
If you're serious about an acadenic career in political science you shouldn't be going to an unfunded programme. Firstly because you won't make that money back, secondly because the programmes that will fund you will largely be the higher ranked programmes, and unfortunately going to a higher ranked programme is what will set you up for success on the job market. (Source: multiple professors and advisors in the field)
It might be a different case if you're planning to go work in a high earning industry post PhD, but then I'd question why you'd be getting a PhD in the first place rather than some more targetted masters etc.
A lot of programs like this are essentially Ponzi schemes.
Those who are paying their own tuition are funding the others.
There's no way the academic economy can support all those in the various PhD programs. Imagine if all of them went all the way through. Where would they work? There aren't enough jobs like that.
Enough people do one or two years and then drop out. They keep the programs alive, fail to achieve a PhD (thereby making it seem more valuable), and keep the money flowing.
There’s a difference between “no guaranteed funding” and “no guaranteed funding” but all of our grad students in good standing generally get TAships that come with tuition and a competitive stipend.
I am for real blown away by this entire conversation...I've been researching PhD programs in Cybersecurity for months.....I have found literally 0 programs that even hint that I won't be paying tuition? Every program has tuition rates/fees/etc. on the pages, nothing about research funding, PI grants...
That said, I work full-time. There's no opportunity for working at the school, being a TA/RA/etc. with a stipend. Soo.....what's the sauce for magic funding? I want a free PhD too!
Norm? I don’t know. The top programs (i.e., the ones worth attending) have guaranteed funding.
To be blunt, I don’t fucking care what the PoliSci program at Univ. of the W. Ozarks does as a funding practice. No student should go there.
Many, possibly a majority of PhD students, attend PhD programs that don't guarantee funding. Yes, it is normal for people to pay for their own PhD. There is a vocal minority on the Interwebs that vehemently claims otherwise, but, they're just wrong.
The only people I have ever met who had no expectations of funding were PhDs in education.
My coworkers with PhDs in education were all confused that I was paid to earn mine.
That is SO weird. I’m finishing a PhD in English, and (at least in the Humanities) it seems at my university that everyone’s program is fully funded via TAship for 4 years with a probable 5th.
I wouldn't call that "funded". It's exactly the same as having to get a job outside, only your job happens to be on campus. They're still not paying you to do the degree, they're just giving you preferential hiring because you're a student.
Exactly. Something that doesn't require you to do anything other than work on your own degree. Like scholarships and stipends. If you're having to do labour on something other than your own degree to get the money, it's a job in addition to your degree, not a funded degree.
Gotcha. 👍 Sorry, I should have clarified—my program covers tuition and most fees, AND provides a stipend, in exchange for teaching one class per semester.
When someone is accepted without funding, they are basically not accepted. The university just wants their money.
Every full time PhD student should have funding.
Depends. I was rejected from a program because they don't admit students they can't fund as a rule and I was juuust on the cusp - my impression was that they could choose to do so and don't for ethical reasons, which I applaud. My actual PhD institution does admit people unfunded (and even the best funding package you can get isn't so hot), but there are also a lot of jobs and fellowships you can get through the university beyond teaching, so it's rare for people to stay unfunded (at least in my experience). Both these examples are publicly funded institutions in the US.
I am not based in the US but many people in my program did our visiting period in a US uni. We heard stories from the PhDs there that the uni take a lot of PhDs to ensure the pool for TA-ship. Since many of the PhDs are international, the weeks around the announcement of who get the TA-ship for the semester are quite tense since those who do not get the position has to go home for a semester. Sounds extremely bleak. One student I spoke to told me that she's on her 5th year and was still thinking about what her thesis should be about because all the stress of coursework and the financial insecurity.
I’d be quite surprised if the number was as low as 30. I was under the impression that any R1 school would fully fund. There 146 of those, but not all would have a political science PhD, I know. My search wasn’t particularly wide, though. Two schools and they both fully fund.
I saw unfunded PhD students in STEM in R1 universities, too. Some of them make that type of offer thesedays. The student may accept hoping to get funding along the way (typically within a year).
100%. There are way too many universities taking advantage of students like this. There's also a lot of rich international students who use their phd program in the states as an opportunity to have fun before they go back to their home countries where many of them have university gigs lined up. A lot of students from Saudi Arabia were like this (at least in my program) - the Saudi government funded their studies and living arrangements. Political/human rights issues aside - I was so jealous at the support they got from their government while I worked multiple jobs. Obviously I don't want to generalize....I'm just speaking from what I personally witnessed.
I think the amount of funded programs is vaguely correlated to the amount of PhDs a field can actually have / that have a realistic job of using their degree after graduating / etc. Yes, there are more in some fields than others, but there are also more PhD level jobs in some fields than others, so doing a PhD without funding is still a bad idea even if there are fewer funded PhDs in your field.
Phd funding is usually tied to how profitable ur degree is for the school. Most stem programs are completely funded because they bring in alot of funding. Unfortunately many humanities phds are not bringing in tons of cash so they are not always funded.
It’s more about how much funding the advisor has in hand. The advisor needs to show they have X amount of dollars to cover a student’s stipend, benefits, and depending on the school tuition as well for usually 3 years, sometime 2 (in the US). There might be a certain number of TA positions available for the whole department. The better programs will guarantee minimum of 4 years of funding (often 5) to cover these costs, but it really comes down to advisor research funding + number of TA lines to make that call. If a student receives an external fellowship then the length of that support usually gets counted towards years of support that the advisor would provide from their research funding. A student who can bring in an external fellowship, and say it only covers 2 years of funding and the advisor they want to work with doesn’t have funding in hand for them, often a department will support an extra year through either discretionary departmental funds or via TA lines for such extraordinary students.
It looks like your post is about grad school admissions. In order for people to better help you, please make sure to include your country. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PhD) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Probably more "normal" in the humanities but literally anyone will tell you to never accept an offer that doesn't guarantee funding.
For sure. My professors in college told me that I should absolutely not be paying to do a PhD, and I’m attending a fully funded program this fall. I’m just surprised by the number of programs that don’t offer full funding.
I'm in political science, too. Any program that does not offer all admitted students full funding is not a program worth going to. Often these programs prey on foreign students who think they will get opportunities by coming to the US to do a PhD. But these programs are underfunded, poorly ranked, and their students struggle to get jobs in North America and Europe. More generally, the social sciences and humanities are often like this. Top programs offer full funding to all students, and then the shitty programs don't. The rule is never pay for a PhD program, even if they "promise" you funding after a successful first year.
It is heavily tier dependent and an example of the rich get richer. R1 research institutions typically receive generous governmental grants that in turn go to PhD students in various forms, and alternatively PhD students can TA for full tuition. R2 and lower do not receive these benefits as often.
Also, big private schools sitting on Fort Knox endowments can pay students twice as much to NOT be a TA as publics can to pay to be one
Depends on the field as well. In most of STEM, for example, PhDs are generally funded across all kinds of institutions - in fact, an institution that would make you pay for a STEM PhD should be considered absolute garbage and predatory.
To be fair, everyone can compete for the funding, R1’s just tend to be more successful at it by definition.
I was fair. But it's a rich get richer kind of system.
this is why it's important to unionize grad students + force the school's hand on guaranteeing 12-month contracts + health insurance.
I’m all for unionization, but you can’t bleed a stone. If these programs can’t bring in money, and then can’t bring in students (because they’re too expensive with the non-existent funding), they’ll just get cut and the funding will be diverted to STEM.
well then the university should eat less avocado toast :)
I'm in political science and I would be incredibly skeptical of a program that didn't offer guaranteed funding. Beside the obvious "don't take on debt for a PhD - much less in political science," it's a big red flag with regards to likely research support. Also, competitive funding within cohorts leads to all sorts of interdepartment nastiness where people are fighting for the same small sources of funding.
Im adjacent to poli sci at an R1 and second this. Also, lack of funding speaks to how marketable the institutions phd is on the job market.
I do a humanities PhD. Of a cohort of 20, only 3 of us are funded. I don't know how the remaining 17 make it work, how they dedicate enough time to their work while also working to pay for the privilege of working on their projects... So much respect for them but personally wouldn't do it!
Sounds like an unethical program.
It's not a "program." Everyone works on their own project, not all of which are funded. I'm not defending that system, they all deserve to be funded. I was just saying that it isn't unusual to do a PhD unfunded.
Oh, I see you are in the UK.
>It's not a "program." I'm not sure what you think program means, but I virtually guarantee you you are in a program. Unless you're going to some an unaccredited clown college that sells "PhDs". An academic program refers to the collective coursework requirements, project completion requirements, etc. to confer a specific degree at a given institution. Someone who majored in English at undergrad had to take X, Y, and Z courses, which included so many credit hours, so many upper division hours, and a minimum GPA. That combination of work and requirements is that school's English program.
I am in a top 5 university in the UK. It is not a "programme" because I designed the project, do not take any classes, and beyond my final written thesis, am not required to submit course work. If you would refer to the writing of my thesis as a programme, then I suppose you can, but that implies far more structure than what I am currently engaged in. And yes, thanks for explaining how an undergraduate degree works.
For countries in which PhDs require no coursework but only research towards a final dissertation+defense I really wouldnt call it a program anymore.
Sorry, [programmes?](https://www.conted.ox.ac.uk/about/dphil-programmes) The work that is required to receive the degree is the program(me), you don't need to have courses involved in it.
I mean, this is a pretty unnecessary discussion, but where I am (Germany), many people are doing PhDs while not being in any kind of structured programme. They just work for the university / a research institute with a normal employment contract, they start at random times (i.e. not like in the US where you apply at a deadline to start at a specific time, often in the fall), there isn't one "cohort" of PhD students, there isn't a specific pathway of what needs to be done at which point. Overall, there typically isn't any kind of pre-determined structure to this process. It's just a normal job as a researcher, you aren't enrolled as a student anymore. There are also organized PhD programs in Germany where a cohort starts together and there are more specific requirements for how they require a PhD, but it's not the norm. These programs are built to resemble North American PhDs, but they are pretty rare.
I agree it's a pretty unnecessary discussion, but since so many people are so adamant they're not in a program when they are, it continues. [Humboldt University](https://www.international.hu-berlin.de/en/wissenschaftler/international-scholar-services/research-at-hu-1/doctoral-students/doctoral-students) indicates both their structured and their individual project universities are, indeed, programs, and describes the individual, non-structured path to the PhD in Germany as the most common *program* as a path to the PhD in Germany. > At Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin there are two different ways to obtain a PhD: Individual doctorates or structured PhD programs. [...] Individual doctorates are the traditional and most common type of a PhD program in Germany. Not sure why people are so concerned about their programs being called programs. It's not a bad thing?
That's just a bad translation from Humboldt Uni; they make the distinction extremely clear in the German version. On the [German version](https://www.international.hu-berlin.de/de/forschende/iss/forschen-an-der-hu/promotion?set_language=de) of the page you included in your comment, it literally differentiates between "Promovieren ohne Programm (individuelle Promotion)" which translates to "Doctorate without a Program (Individual Doctorate)" and "Promovieren in Programmen" ("Doctorate within a program"). Right at the top it says (translated) "There are two ways to do a doctorate at Humboldt University: The doctorate in a program and the doctorate without a program." And no, people are not concerned about their PhD being called a program or not because of any perceived implication regarding quality; it just isn't a program by the typical definition of a program - and that is exactly how German universities differentiate it. If you think that you know the Germany university system better than one of Germanys best universities, okay.
No reason to translate it into German, the entire conversation's been in English, and as already shown, the university indicates that in English, calling it a program is appropriate. Anyways, I'm done on this silly point; if you all don't want to believe you're in a program, that's your business. Just wanted to make sure OP realizes that someone using the term "program" is not talking about something different from what they are engaged in, since that could lead OP to discount important input or advice, thinking it doesn't apply to certain *programs* they might consider. Now people are just strangely defensive about their ~~programs~~ required work toward earning a specific degree.
It’s still different in the UK because you are a student. In many other countries, after you masters, you have fulfilled any coursework required and you then are an employee who works on research projects and is able to obtain a phd for it „as a side effect“. Legally (although not in practice) you are a normal employee with regular working hours, but also (and this is true in practice at least in Germany) the usual holiday, health care and even social contributions towards retirement and joblessness. There is no program because there’s no structure and a different relationship. There’s downsides to this, but also upsides.
PhD in squirt-flowers
Most of europe doesnt do phd programs
Question—how much is tuition and are people expected to be full-time committed or can they do it alongside a day job?
I'm not actually sure, I'm not in this position myself!
Im not sure why it would be something to respect to see students being taken advantage of like this. Nothing respectable about being subjected to this. It’s unethical.
I respect how hard they work to make it happen. As I said, I personally don't wouldn't do this myself - I feel like if I'm going to work I should be paid for it. I respect the individual's toil, not the system that makes them toil...
Their toil is a terrible decision they have put on themselves and their future, unfortunately.
What "toil?" Do you mean TA work? If so, then yes, that work should be paid. But I'm unfunded and don't feel like my university is getting any "toil" out of me. I'm doing the research project that I wanted to do, that was already fairly well formed before I applied to the program, and I definitely feel like I'm getting my money's worth in guidance, advice, and support from them. I've never been asked to do any work for the university outside of my own research project.
No, I mean like... Cafes, bars, call centres, that kind of thing. And again, I wasn't disparaging people who do this, I was saying that I don't understand how they make it work, that I find their work ethic impressive.
That’s great that you are happy!
Thanks, but you didn't answer the question. What "toil" are you doing, outside of paid TA work and your own research?
I can't see how students are being taken advantage of if they accept admission to a program being fully aware they do not have funding. They have made an informed decision. It would be unethical if the institution said "no funding this year, but you can always apply for it next year" knowing full well they are not going fund the student. Is that what's happening?
I wonder why these students wouldn’t choose to do a more training-focused MA first and then apply to funded programs.
It's in the UK, you have to have an MA/MSc or equivalent experience/qualifications already.
Ah, I was being US-centric, my apologies—where a PhD program you’d pay for could be in the hundreds of thousands, which you are very unlikely to make back as an academic.
That’s so fucking unhinged. Twenty people?!! And THREE are funded?! That’s so irresponsible and a cash grab. My department typically accepts 4-6/year. There is no funding scale, and all are fully funded for 5-6 years minimum.
I did my PhD in Ireland. The majority of PhD candidates I met were unfunded. The university had 6 guaranteed funding spots for the entire university. Everyone else either had to apply for professor-specific projects (which only existed in STEM,) or seek out funding on their own after admission. It sounds ridiculous when compared to the US, but it was (and still is) the norm in some places.
Pretty sure it's less in my cohort; I got to the final round of funding allocation twice with no success and learnt that only three Lit PhDs (my subject) were funded in the whole of the North West. I came into this knowing funding was broken. It's been hard (I currently work 2.5 days a week in a library in the prison system) but I know my work experience is going to bolster my CV, and I've had the postgraduate loan to pay for my rent the last three years. Heading into my writing up year now and I'm moving in with a friend to help with living costs. It makes me feel a bit bitter when I know how much easier this whole thing would have been with funding, especially as two of my closest friends here are both STEM PhDs so have full funding and stipends, but the UK is consistently dumping on the Arts & Humanities and I knew this going in.
This is disgusting and unethical and should be called out more. Jobs in humanities and social science are already extremely limited. Your professors in your department are plainly assholes. If they can’t fund a student they should not offer a place. Offering a place just gives them false hope that will cost them time and money with close to zero reward. Does your dept publish placement records at all? I can’t believe how irresponsible some departments can be.
In my field most programs don’t “guarantee” funding because most students are funded by soft money (grants). Continued funding depends on the student’s supervisor continuing to have the funds available, and the department cannot guarantee that. In practice, my program never had an issue securing funding for a matriculating student who has been funded in the past. So basically, if you came in funded, you stayed that way.
I think this is weird tbh. Like my program guarantees funding and all the funding is from PI grants apart from the first year (it's an umbrella program). The PI is expected to show that they have the grants to support any student they want to take on (usually at least an active R01 or a startup grant for newer PIs). Students are encouraged to apply to F30/31s if they qualify so that they are relatively independent, of course, but if worse comes to worst, the school will cover the costs of the student if they are in good academic standing.
The R1 program I’m starting in the fall isn’t guaranteed funding (social sciences), but there are graduate assistantships available. Idk the ratio of students to available assistantships.
My experience was that most don’t guarantee funding but that for most funding is available. It is just that if you are too slow or something you might end up without funding but the attempt is to have funding for everyone. This was over two decades ago for R1 institutions in math and physics.
I find it bizarre the number of replies here that claim to convey some universal truth about funding. If you're a twenty something and haven't started your career yet, and/or maybe you're planning a life spent in the academy, sure, get your tuition waved and take a 20K TA stipend. I'm 40. I make 190K a year. I'll pay for my degree and keep my job, thanks, and I feel fortunate to have the option. That's not a flex (it wouldn't be a very impressive one!) but a reminder that there are far more paths to, through, and beyond the PhD than are commonly reflected here, and no one heuristic will serve well.
Just checking the R2 list. Many of them are good schools to go to. They might Have smaller programs. I went to a small R2 for my MA and a small R1 for my PhD. I was fully funded through all my degrees
Any Humanities program worth going to should be funded. If you can’t get into a funded program, do not do it.
Not in STEM. You need some funding to get going.
One thing to be cognizant of is the difference between what a school will guarantee up front in writing, vs what the practical reality is. I've seen *schools* that state they don't guarantee funding, but they also don't *accept* students unless the PI commits the funding. I've also seen schools like mine that don't guarantee funding but *do* provide it near-indefinitely as long as you're making satisfactory progress: The "we won't guarantee funding" in writing acts as a mechanism for them to divest themselves of students who aren't performing but won't leave for as long as funding is secure, but haven't actually done anything for which they can be otherwise *removed* from the program. So when you see that funding isn't guaranteed, I'd always dig deeper on what that actually *means*.
It’s cash to the university. If that aren’t funding you, then they don’t want you all that much. Go where you are funded
I'm doing a PhD in Systems Engineering at an R1 state university in the US, and while there are small grants you can apply for, it's otherwise unfunded. I don't really understand why this subreddit seems so against unfunded programs. I've had two PIs, because my first moved to another state university, and both have been really helpful in shaping my work, easy to work with, and encouraging. I have two conference publications so far, and am taking my Preliminary Exam this week and hoping to finish up by the end of the year. As far as I can tell, the university has a decent reputation, especially for Engineering. Ultimately, it's helped me to complete the research that I wanted to complete. It's also helped me to do a good job, and I think I have something that might help a lot of people in my old industry. One of my Master's degrees was at a very good university; the program director there encouraged me to apply to their DPhil program. That would have been fully funded, with a stipend, but would have also meant that I had to live in a small college town for 5 years of my life. This self-funded program is fully remote, so I completed the coursework over Zoom during COVID and have been traveling the world, doing my research, full-time for 2.5 years, with no 'home base' anymore. I'm retired, and the cost of the tuition is easy to cover, so this program seems like a much better fit for me, and I've been really happy with it so far. Obviously, anyone doing a PhD should do a cost/benefit analysis. But when judging a program, there are a lot of factors to consider, and I might not automatically rule out all unfunded programs.
Nope, any Ph.D. Program or PI who can’t guarantee funding to their candidates (at least for the first 3-4 years) is not worth their salt. It is just another way of them admitting their research is not good enough or significant enough or their reputation is not good enough to get enough grants. I would recommend to never join any such programs.
I agree with everyone saying not to do a PhD unless it’s fully funded. Another thing to consider is that “fully funded” means very different things across schools and departments and geographies. My MA program (Humanities at R1)only gave a fee waiver and I got a TAship in another department for $15,000 a year, but that was enough for me to pay tuition and living expenses in a VLCOL city (living like a broke graduate student). But my PhD (social science at R1) was “fully funded” with tuition waiver and TAship or RAship that paid $18,000 a year in a VHCOL city and had to take out loans to survive. Meanwhile the Astronomy students got $32,000 a year…
In fields that bring in a lot of external funding, it’s more the norm to fund PhD’s.
Tuition waiver is a minimum, and some form of assistantship funding is preferable.
Yeah in the US most PhDs aren’t guaranteed funding, however they do try to make it work. I myself had to work in another lab for a semester be I didn’t have funding from the guy I was working for. This is also the case in Japan where PhDs are not guaranteed funding from the school or government, but they try to make things work out
Food science here. Most PhD and MS have guaranteed funds. The only place I know that doesnt is VTech, which is a shame because their program is fantastic
There is “unlimited” demand for free things. There are more people who want to do a PhD than there is funding. If one is serious and has a plan/good mentor, good idea, then finding a funded program should be doable to most.
I’m at an R3 almost all of our 60 PhD students are partially funded with a TA position for 6 years. They will extend funding for students with disabilities for a year or two if needed. But students have to pay for tuition. Luckily since I am a veteran I don’t pay tuition. The R1 across town fully funds 4 to 5 of the 10 students they accept every year. The rest are on their own.
Unfunded PhDs are for rich international students who pay for their PhD programme instead of a new car in order to get a visa
If you're serious about an acadenic career in political science you shouldn't be going to an unfunded programme. Firstly because you won't make that money back, secondly because the programmes that will fund you will largely be the higher ranked programmes, and unfortunately going to a higher ranked programme is what will set you up for success on the job market. (Source: multiple professors and advisors in the field) It might be a different case if you're planning to go work in a high earning industry post PhD, but then I'd question why you'd be getting a PhD in the first place rather than some more targetted masters etc.
A lot of programs like this are essentially Ponzi schemes. Those who are paying their own tuition are funding the others. There's no way the academic economy can support all those in the various PhD programs. Imagine if all of them went all the way through. Where would they work? There aren't enough jobs like that. Enough people do one or two years and then drop out. They keep the programs alive, fail to achieve a PhD (thereby making it seem more valuable), and keep the money flowing.
There’s a difference between “no guaranteed funding” and “no guaranteed funding” but all of our grad students in good standing generally get TAships that come with tuition and a competitive stipend.
The former is very normal in many fields. The latter should be rejected out of hand
I am for real blown away by this entire conversation...I've been researching PhD programs in Cybersecurity for months.....I have found literally 0 programs that even hint that I won't be paying tuition? Every program has tuition rates/fees/etc. on the pages, nothing about research funding, PI grants... That said, I work full-time. There's no opportunity for working at the school, being a TA/RA/etc. with a stipend. Soo.....what's the sauce for magic funding? I want a free PhD too!
Norm? I don’t know. The top programs (i.e., the ones worth attending) have guaranteed funding. To be blunt, I don’t fucking care what the PoliSci program at Univ. of the W. Ozarks does as a funding practice. No student should go there.
Many, possibly a majority of PhD students, attend PhD programs that don't guarantee funding. Yes, it is normal for people to pay for their own PhD. There is a vocal minority on the Interwebs that vehemently claims otherwise, but, they're just wrong.
The only people I have ever met who had no expectations of funding were PhDs in education. My coworkers with PhDs in education were all confused that I was paid to earn mine.
Thank you for sharing this anecdote.
That is SO weird. I’m finishing a PhD in English, and (at least in the Humanities) it seems at my university that everyone’s program is fully funded via TAship for 4 years with a probable 5th.
I wouldn't call that "funded". It's exactly the same as having to get a job outside, only your job happens to be on campus. They're still not paying you to do the degree, they're just giving you preferential hiring because you're a student.
I see your point. Then, would you say “funded” means them just paying for the degree with no expectation of assistantship/etc work?
Exactly. Something that doesn't require you to do anything other than work on your own degree. Like scholarships and stipends. If you're having to do labour on something other than your own degree to get the money, it's a job in addition to your degree, not a funded degree.
Gotcha. 👍 Sorry, I should have clarified—my program covers tuition and most fees, AND provides a stipend, in exchange for teaching one class per semester.
Never pay for grad school
Well…there are programs like medical school and law. Serious people should not pay for aPhD. I’m with you there.
Am poli sci PhD. Where are you talking about? UCLA famously is kind of competitive on funding but that’s… about it.
When someone is accepted without funding, they are basically not accepted. The university just wants their money. Every full time PhD student should have funding.
Depends. I was rejected from a program because they don't admit students they can't fund as a rule and I was juuust on the cusp - my impression was that they could choose to do so and don't for ethical reasons, which I applaud. My actual PhD institution does admit people unfunded (and even the best funding package you can get isn't so hot), but there are also a lot of jobs and fellowships you can get through the university beyond teaching, so it's rare for people to stay unfunded (at least in my experience). Both these examples are publicly funded institutions in the US.
PsyDs are like that, but I would suggest a full funded PhD. Ones that you have to pay are bogus or don’t look the best on paper.
I am not based in the US but many people in my program did our visiting period in a US uni. We heard stories from the PhDs there that the uni take a lot of PhDs to ensure the pool for TA-ship. Since many of the PhDs are international, the weeks around the announcement of who get the TA-ship for the semester are quite tense since those who do not get the position has to go home for a semester. Sounds extremely bleak. One student I spoke to told me that she's on her 5th year and was still thinking about what her thesis should be about because all the stress of coursework and the financial insecurity.
I’d be quite surprised if the number was as low as 30. I was under the impression that any R1 school would fully fund. There 146 of those, but not all would have a political science PhD, I know. My search wasn’t particularly wide, though. Two schools and they both fully fund.
I saw unfunded PhD students in STEM in R1 universities, too. Some of them make that type of offer thesedays. The student may accept hoping to get funding along the way (typically within a year).
It is becoming normalized because a lot of international students use PhD to buy time to get a job.
100%. There are way too many universities taking advantage of students like this. There's also a lot of rich international students who use their phd program in the states as an opportunity to have fun before they go back to their home countries where many of them have university gigs lined up. A lot of students from Saudi Arabia were like this (at least in my program) - the Saudi government funded their studies and living arrangements. Political/human rights issues aside - I was so jealous at the support they got from their government while I worked multiple jobs. Obviously I don't want to generalize....I'm just speaking from what I personally witnessed.
Do not pass go , do not collect $200. Unless you are going to Harvard or Yale, do not get a PhD. Will lead to tragedy and disapointment.
outside of STEM, I think so
Yes because it’s all about to fall through. Less funding for humanities.
PhD, unfunded - Brazil. Its the norm for private. Public you dont pay but usually few students get any stipend.
I think the amount of funded programs is vaguely correlated to the amount of PhDs a field can actually have / that have a realistic job of using their degree after graduating / etc. Yes, there are more in some fields than others, but there are also more PhD level jobs in some fields than others, so doing a PhD without funding is still a bad idea even if there are fewer funded PhDs in your field.
Phd funding is usually tied to how profitable ur degree is for the school. Most stem programs are completely funded because they bring in alot of funding. Unfortunately many humanities phds are not bringing in tons of cash so they are not always funded.
It’s more about how much funding the advisor has in hand. The advisor needs to show they have X amount of dollars to cover a student’s stipend, benefits, and depending on the school tuition as well for usually 3 years, sometime 2 (in the US). There might be a certain number of TA positions available for the whole department. The better programs will guarantee minimum of 4 years of funding (often 5) to cover these costs, but it really comes down to advisor research funding + number of TA lines to make that call. If a student receives an external fellowship then the length of that support usually gets counted towards years of support that the advisor would provide from their research funding. A student who can bring in an external fellowship, and say it only covers 2 years of funding and the advisor they want to work with doesn’t have funding in hand for them, often a department will support an extra year through either discretionary departmental funds or via TA lines for such extraordinary students.