next »

[holden1]

I have been accepted into a PhD Program in Political Science in a top 10 program in California. However, I have received no financial aid. Not even a tuition waiver. Is this usual? Is this desirable? Is this worth it? I'd like to be a professor (I enjoy research and I already have a Masters) but is going into debt without any commitments the way to start a career?

I would like some feedback. Am I reading this situation too negatively?

[histgradstudent]

No don't do it. Or, I suppose I should add, don't do it, unless you happen to have large spare reserves of cash lying around. No funding is bad enough, but paying full tuition is just terrible. Job prospects just aren't good enough to go into debt for. Go somewhere else or reapply to schools next year and see if you get a better offer, but don't come without funding.

[untenured]

Assuming that OP has received no other offers, could OP's optimal choice be to attend because the increased pay he/she receives over her/his lifetime as a result of the top 10 degree will exceed the cost and interest of tuition debt?

I don't know the answer.

Untenured

[katherineparr]

Depends on the program, IMO.

The UC schools offer competitive TA-ships to un-funded students. The pay is ok, the benefits helpful, and TA positions come with tuition waivers. So you could pick up funding later on if you're looking at a UC.

If it's someplace like USC or Stanford, I'd be very wary of starting such a program because not only is the debt a problem but it's very expensive to live in Palo Alto and LA.

[dreamingofslac]

Agree with the above first response.  If you are talking about any of the UC's and are from out of state, you will want the non-resident tuition waived at the very least.  Stanford is expensive without a tuition waver.  I'm not as crazed about the "NO DEBT, NO DEBT!" rhetoric as many others, but you don't want to get in over your head.  With no support from a your school, you will be in over your head trying to live in California .  

[dysnomia]

Depends on how much you want the PhD, but I don't really see a problem with going into a great program with no funding.

It's not at all uncommon in my field. People often find TAships, research assistanceships once they have networked a little (maybe a good possibility for you since you have an MA), or teach at a local CC. Oftentimes there is a tuition waiver associated with jobs on campus.

I would try to negotiate for a tuition waiver now, though, if you can. That's big.

Going into debt is a different matter. I would rather work my arse off while going to grad school than go into debt. So maybe that answers your question too.

[zharkov]

First of all, and just to be clear, the NO DEBT mantra refers to those seeking PhDs in fields with ridiculous oversupply, which means some fields in the humanities, like lit and history. (At least that is what it means to me.)

Second, I am a little surprised that a top 10 program doesn't fund all its students, but my field isn't poli sci and I don't know if that is common. It might be that they expect many/most students to pay tuition in the first year or two, but you are "on deck" for a TA/GA ship, etc.  I suggest you ask about that.

In my field, again not poli sci, if the tradeoff was between paying a year or two tuition at a top 10 program, and getting full funding at program number 20 or 30, I would go for that top 10 program.  YMMV.

[cardamom]

Although I myself would lean strongly to not going without funding for the afore mentioned reasons, a few additional things to factor in include your subfield since there's a huge difference in job outlook depending on your focus. If you're doing political theory, you should absolutely not take a slot without funding. If you're doing American politics or one of the hotter comparative/IR fields, then it's a better bet. Still not ideal, but better.

As suggested, you also should do a little more information gathering to find out exactly what your non-funded status means. If the budget situation is such that they just don't know how many funded slots they'll have beyond a certain number, that's one thing. It's another thing entirely if no funding is a strong "we just not that into you" message that will be difficult to overcome, particularly if the department has a strong pecking order. I also think it highly strange to not even get a tuition waiver, so you need to investigate further.

Finally, I respectfully disagree with Zharkov about whether it's worth the price to attend a top 10 versus a top 20-30 program. Top 10 is fine, but is no guarantee and, unless you're in theory, being from a lesser ranked program is not a huge obstacle to getting a job as long as you cast your net widely.

[holden1]

Fortunately, I'm not in theory. Unfortunately, I'm not in one of the hotter IR fields. The curse of speaking Russian and Spanish. I am an unfortunate child of the Cold War.

So a tuition waiver is common? I'll ask about that.

Thanks for the responses everyone! Much appreciated. Your input has been helpful.

[larryc]

I would call the graduate director and discuss your concerns. There may be money available that you don't know about. Or not.

[katherineparr]

Also, you should investigate the rules about residency. As I understand it, CA rules require out-of-state tuition only for the first year. If you move there, work there, register your car there, etc., you'll be counted as in-state after a year, which drops the tuition substantially at any UC.

Also, in some fields, you can get a tuition waiver by serving as a "reader." That's a grad who attends class, grades the papers, and nothing else. At some UC's, this comes with a tuition waiver for that term, plus a small paycheck (about $10 per student as of a few years ago). You'd have extra work, but not as much as a TA and it's good training.

As Larry points out, a frank conversation with the grad advisor is in order here.

[betterslac]

Although I myself would lean strongly to not going without funding for the afore mentioned reasons, a few additional things to factor in include your subfield since there's a huge difference in job outlook depending on your focus. If you're doing political theory, you should absolutely not take a slot without funding. If you're doing American politics or one of the hotter comparative/IR fields, then it's a better bet. Still not ideal, but better.

As suggested, you also should do a little more information gathering to find out exactly what your non-funded status means. If the budget situation is such that they just don't know how many funded slots they'll have beyond a certain number, that's one thing. It's another thing entirely if no funding is a strong "we just not that into you" message that will be difficult to overcome, particularly if the department has a strong pecking order. I also think it highly strange to not even get a tuition waiver, so you need to investigate further.

Finally, I respectfully disagree with Zharkov about whether it's worth the price to attend a top 10 versus a top 20-30 program. Top 10 is fine, but is no guarantee and, unless you're in theory, being from a lesser ranked program is not a huge obstacle to getting a job as long as you cast your net widely.

What cardamom said. 
Also Spanish/Russian studies are not hot now.  If things continue to deteriorate in Russia over the next few years, the latter might be about the time you graduate, but there is no guarantee.

Political Science does not have a very good job market in general. It's not as bad as English or history, but the competition is too intense in my opinion to risk going anywhere, including a top 10 program, without at least a tuition waiver. 

I say this is not only because of the debt you will incur and the general  condition of the job market, but also because of the message they sent in not offering funding. The implication is that while they let you in, you are not one of the favored children, and so will not have an equal crack at fellowships, network opportunities, etc. Factor this in to the equation along with the fact that you will be competing with those who are favored and have received funding, while you will have to do something, possibly non-academic, to keep yourself afloat while taking classes.

You might and can work extremely hard to overcome all this, but you are going in, basically, as a one legged man in an ass-kicking contest.

[katherineparr]

*Sometimes* a lack of funding represents a meaningful distinction among graduate students. Other times, it really doesn't.

At my grad institution, it didn't. 1. There was a persistent sense that funded students flamed out at a higher rate and rarely repaid the department's investment. 2. The admissions committee contained about 6 faculty, out of more than ten times that amount total. So your advisor's judgement of you and the department's decision to fund had *nothing* to do with one another. 3. Because of a fairly large amount of TA/TF/RA/etc. funding, most students were, for all intents and purposes, funded. You couldn't tell, from one group to another, who earned a TA-ship their second year and who had it guaranteed by funding. So unless a faculty member read your file (rare), s/he had no idea if you were funded or not. 4. Despite funding disparity, there just wasn't an atmosphere of privelege vs. derision among grad students. I say this as someone who was denied funding twice and composed my graduate career out of positions I won through the annual competition for loose slots.

OP, you should really see if you can determine the extent to which something like funding sends the message betterslac and others have identified. At some schools, and in some departments, it *absolutely* would mean what they say. At others, it would not. You should know before you go.

[sugaree]

There also may be a possibility that you can get funding upon your arrival. This happened to a few of my grad school cohort that came into our first year unfunded - profs who had gotten RA-$ "hired" newbies at our welcome reception. I was not funded in my first semester, but then worked as a research assistant to a prof who got money late in the fall semester and hired me for my second semester of grad school. I did take it a little bit personally that I was not funded at first, but that didn't stop me from getting myself national awards/fellowships over the course of my grad career (and thus thumbing my nose at my dept's obviously mistaken decision not to fund me from the start). Also, after that 1st year, I was much more aware of the variety of funding opportunities on campus to hustle for - and hustling for grant money is kind of a big part of academia so the skill will serve your career well.

It's always better to avoid debt where you can, but only you can dedice what amount of debt is worth it to you. I racked up a lot of school debt, for a HISTORY doctorate, no less (I know!), yet I wouldn't trade a moment of it. Moreover, though it took awhile, I now have a great TT job and am (slowly) paying down that debt. But hey, I came of age in the 80s, when living beyond one's means was national policy.

[bemused_befuddled]

My apologies if I am repeating something mentioned above but as one from the Social Sciences and knowing grad students in Political Science, not getting funding means something. I hate to say it but there is definitely a hierarchy when it comes to R1s and funding. Their unwillingness to fund you should speak volumes about the support you will get in the department. You will start off as someone who isn't quite as good as those with full funding packages (and yes there will be people in your cohort who aren't paying a dime).  If you want a Ph.D. and love the discipline you have chosen--go for it. But the department is rather clear about where it has placed you in *their* rankings. 

You might try talking to the grad adviser. Make sure this isn't a mistake/oversight, ask about the possibility of picking up a TAship right before the semester starts  and I would even ask if it is common for them to not fund their 1st years at all. You do not have to do this in a confrontational manner--just find out if there is a precedent for this.  No matter what happens, even if they come up with some sort of package for you, never forget that they weren't willing to pay for you and never depend upon them for support no matter what you might get. You are going to be a priority among your cohort so watch your back!