When I said it was possible to work this was what I was addressing: “Others (especially humanities) may get barely more than tuition and have to scramble and/or get loans, especially masters students.”
As I’ve said many, many times there is a difference between PhD students and master’s students and I don’t think anyone should go into a PhD program without funding. My masters program was only half tuition so I did work quite a bit.
But I don’t know anyone without PhD funding because we were told early on how incredibly stupid it would be (no offense to anyone just the nature of the job market and our already existing student loans) to take on additional debt to get our PhD. Almost all of us did to get our masters though.
Since we are wildly off topic, I’ll continue with the story about the classmate whose father had the huge compound on the cape. Their last name happened to be a well known name of one of the mafia families. I am thankful I still have my kneecaps. Oh,and she didn’t make it through the program. But it was not a funding issue.
OK carry on.
That was my point. Granted, I should have been more explicit in stating that all the programs I was talking about were ones where all qualified admittees were provided full fellowship funding and living stipends.
Then again, with the exception of some professional graduate programs like MBA or PhD programs like jym626’s, the consensus was paying to do a PhD…especially being full-pay is something only the foolhardy or those who have ginormous family wealth/trust fund to pursue it as a sort of hobby would do as was the case of a member of a prominent political family* at an Ivy PhD program I know of.
- Think Bush or Kennedy.
I know of a few former PhD students and one who nearly became a non-funded PhD student before I and some other mutual friends successfully dissuaded him from accepting an admission offer to a social science PhD program without any funding.
Especially one which was out of the top 20 and a department which was known to have serious funding issues for many of their PhD students. Talk about averting what could have been a serious financial catastrophe.
My D’s PhD program specifically stated that candidates were not allowed to work outside of the university during the school year. They are given an adequate stipend and can apply for additional grants. Some candidates do a bit of tutoring on the side, but regular jobs are definitely frowned upon. They even encourage candidates to get grants for the summer, rather than employment. I assume their intent is to make sure that candidates are focused on their work.
^That’s pretty standard. When I was doing post-doc, a fellow postdoc worked on the side at a hospital which paid him just as much for a day/week job. He was MD/PhD something or other. He didn’t get fired after he was found out but got pretty severe warning. He said he had to take a side job. Postdoc pay was so bad back then that he’s never been so poor.
That’s exactly right, igloo. In my field most of the “jobs” were traineeships in the field, so the student got additional training in the field. Back in the day, I was fortunate to have traineeships from public health and the VA, but I still had to take out student loans because the measly pay didn’t cover tuition and cost of living, even though we qualified for instate tuition after the first year. So speaking for myself, I didn’t look for another job- I took out loans that took me 10 years to pay off. And while yes, I feel it was worthwhile as the degree led to a professional career, things have changed in my field over the years .Funding has severely dried up, and the potential income expectations have changed with. Healthcare changes. I have had many grad students work for me (yes, side employment while in their training program) and I worry that many of them will never dig out of the hole of debt they have amassed. I would have advised them differently, but it was not my place to do so.
In STEM, the funding situation has greatly improved. It may also be the case in other fields. At some point NSF double-tripled grad students’ stipends to provide a reasonable living on average nationally. If you are at a high cost area, we still have to skimp or find other sources to pad your stipend. Postdoc pay also got an increase. Back then, the tax must have been also much higher. After tax, we really had very little.
Unfortunately in some areas of STEM (healthcare related) funding went down the flusher.
Outline a plan between parents and child before committing to any university. Can be reviewed and amended as needed
BTW post 148 was in deference to the parallel discussion in the " college deal breaker" thread, which is currently discussing toilets b-(
One other practice many PhD programs do to avoid some of the issues jym626 encountered in her experience is to set up their admission in a manner that practically all/vast majority of admits are provided full funding.
If they cannot provide the funding or feel an applicant isn’t worth it, they either reject the candidate outright or word the acceptance in such a way and sometimes send word back to the applicant’s undergrad/grad adviser/mentor that it really should be take as a soft rejection and he/she shouldn’t expect much departmental support in areas of mentoring/support if he/she decides to accept the offer anyways.
Unfortunately, some naive/desperate applicants sometimes don’t immediately get the latter message even after the undergrad/grad mentor of the applicant has discussed the actual implications and recommend a rejection of such non-funded PhD admission offers.
A few former non-funded PhD students I know of are buried in debt of up to tens or even hundreds of thousands of dollars in what turned out to be unwise education loans.
I had fully funded traineeships. Plus a stipend for books and tution was covered the first few years. The student loan I initially took out I sent back. NBut as for the VA traineeship and internship $, what they thought was a livable income and what reality was were a but apart in the realm of reality!
It’s 2016. I don’t think what the policy was in 1980 matters. Fact is…college…even PhD programs…were far less costly in the 1980’s than they are now. It was very possible to subsist on only your tuition remission and your stipend. At some places, this is still possible, but not all.
We know a number of CURRENT doctoral candidates…and not ONE of their departments governs what they do in their “off time”. The are very free to work…if they have the time to do so and complete their other tasks.
Having a PhD stipend is not a 24/7 job.
And even in @romanigypsyeyes program, a student is allowed to work up to 10 hours outside of,the program.
My D is very frugal with her PhD stipend and grants - totalling about $25,000, She has a one br apt in a decent neighborhood, a paid for car, and undergrad loan payments of only $50. Her program does not allow them to work outside jobs during the school year (it was in the contract). The only bill we pay for her is her cell phone. And occasional plane tickets home to London. She seems to be doing fine. Buys clothes at Goodwill, cooks instead of going out, joined a running group for fun. She has even started to put away a small amount every month for her “buying a dog” account. Glad that she learned early in life that one doesn’t have to have money to have a good life.
Most of the PhD programs my friends are CURRENTLY IN or have recently graduated from(last 2-3 years) still have that policy. And depending on the department/adviser, they can apply strong pressure on what a grad/PhD student can do during their “off-time”.
Knew of one who was effectively kicked out of a STEM PhD program on the West Coast because he refused to give up his off-time hobby of rock climbing after his adviser found out and insisted he give it up or leave.
The fellowship funding and living stipends my friends in PhD programs were provided…even in expensive areas like the Bay Area, LA, or NYC were such that while they couldn’t afford nice frills/luxuries on a regular basis, they had enough for basics such as rent, food, utility bills, transportation, etc and even some left over for eating out once in a while.
Granted, they were all pretty frugal and were proficient in stretching out those fellowship/stipend dollars.
The ones who struggle financially tend to be ones who either entered lower ranked PhD programs with chronic funding issues as partially-funded or worse, non-funded students or departments which suffered a sudden cut to the budget due to budgetary and/or political factors*.
- I.e. UW-Madison. Funny enough, one undergrad Prof I had received his PhD from there and advised those of us who asked about his department to avoid applying there because they lacked funding even in the early '90s to fund most of their students sufficiently and he ended up with over $20k in debt from his PhD there. And from what I've heard from recent/current grad students in the very same department/area, the funding issues have only gotten worse since that Prof's grad student days.
So when does it stop? Undergrad…Masters…PHD…Post education…Never?
We can all explain how wonderful are kids are…thus we owe it too them…
I think you owe kids the tools to be successful adults, not an unlimited tap of funding.
JMO
In the case of a PhD…if there is a substantial cost because the student is partially or worse…unfunded…that’s usually not a PhD program worth attending.
While YMMV…most families I know of including some in my extended family who are willing to fund higher ed costs tend to stop after undergrad.
Grad is usually on the student him/herself and whatever fellowships, scholarships, or loans* he/she can get. .
- Not recommended IMO...especially considering how after 2011, the interest clock starts from the moment the grad loan is taken out...not six months after graduation as it was pre-2011. The compounding interest rate from that lack of a grace period is horrific. It's staggering how much one friends's grad loans for a 2 year masters program has grown in only a few years after he graduated when I did his taxes one year.
Once they turn 18, it’s up to you when you want to stop subsidizing your kids. You no longer have a legal obligation. People will differ on the moral obligation. Some people don’t have enough money to debate this. They can’t subsidize whether they want to or not. Just make up your mind and do what works for you. But be consistent.
Subsidizing your kids may or may not have anything whatsoever to do with teaching them financial responsibility, which it seems we have agreed is a parental responsibility. Living at poverty level is not necessarily character building.
Whatever you decide, give your kid a very clear idea of what is happening. Don’t shilly-shally.