Why are PhD Programs Fully Funded?

[marshwiggle]

I am wondering why universities fund PhD students?

At my [science?] sub-field they don't.
Funds are normally coming from the professor's grants, since grad students are the cheapest research workforce available.
Though, department does chip in occasionally (e.g they flew in prospective grad students several years ago).

In Canada, there are government scholarships in the natural sciences, (NSERC), and the social sciences and humanities (SSHRC), so students qualifying for these are cheaper for the universities, while being identified as good students as well.

[Ruralguy]

When we say "universities fully funding," I take it that  PhD's paid off grants, but matched by the university for tuition, are included. I think its still the model in the natural sciences at most R1's (and you R1 folks can quickly disabuse me of any incorrect notions) to get salary by grant for as many PhD students as possible, and then get TA-ships (mostly in directing lab classes) for the rest. The TA's are paid directly by the University. Sometimes and  excellent PhD student may be given a TA position anyway because either their help is needed or its  requirement of their outside fellowship to teach a little (rare, but I think some of the prestigious ones do that).

[Parasaurolophus]

In Canada, there are government scholarships in the natural sciences, (NSERC), and the social sciences and humanities (SSHRC), so students qualifying for these are cheaper for the universities, while being identified as good students as well.

FRQS and FRQSC, too. Plus the occasional Trudeau or Bombardier scholarship and the like.

When we say "universities fully funding," I take it that  PhD's paid off grants, but matched by the university for tuition, are included. I think its still the model in the natural sciences at most R1's (and you R1 folks can quickly disabuse me of any incorrect notions) to get salary by grant for as many PhD students as possible, and then get TA-ships (mostly in directing lab classes) for the rest. The TA's are paid directly by the University. Sometimes and  excellent PhD student may be given a TA position anyway because either their help is needed or its  requirement of their outside fellowship to teach a little (rare, but I think some of the prestigious ones do that).

Yeah, I think that grant-funded positions ought to be counted, even though most of the costs are externalized.

[Aster]

Grad students do most of the research work in my fields.  The point of paying grad students is they are the cheapest way to get the work done and the grad students you want have other excellent options.  The trade-off for graduate school is the extra education and mentoring one is supposed to get over immediately high pay.

Programs that don't pay essentially the same as a job when taking into account the education/apprenticeship part won't have graduate students.

No graduate students and the research doesn't get done, which is a problem in the short-term for a PI and the long-term for society that relies on that research.

The grading stuff is done by paid undergrads in a good program.  Being a TA generally means taking one's turn at the recitations/labs, but it's not a primary reason for graduate students.  Adjuncts would actually be cheaper to hire in many cases and would do better.

What Polly said.

It's not really a question that certain types of PhD programs are "fully funded". It's more that many PhD programs just so happen to pay many/most/all of their graduate students in performance of their research duties, and in performing their teaching duties (if they are any). Within many academic disciplines, a PhD program is much more akin to a multi-year, paid internship program, than it is do "just taking more classes". Many PhD programs barely require their graduate students to take much in the way of formal coursework at all. It's very different from undergraduate degrees, and even many Master's degree programs.

[coolswimmer800]

OP here, just wanted to chime in by thanking you all for sharing your thoughts!

To be honest, I am still a little confused why PhD students are funded, especially given the wide variety of responses I read here.

I do agree with others though, it appears that funding is dependent on discipline. I am in the social sciences, which tends to have the lowest stipends, but I was also never required to do research or teach, which is why I asked this question since I don't think this model was sustainable for my department, and for my discipline more broadly. My PhD program is the top-ranked in my discipline though, so our graduates tend to secure academic positions.

I know the PhD programs in the hard sciences at my R1 PhD institution had about $15-$20K higher stipend, but I believe that was because they had actual research responsibilities (aka. cheap labor for PI). I do see how this can be unfair.

Regardless of discipline, to summarize, I think these where the themes I read as reasons for funding PhD students:
1) Cheap labor (RA and/or TAships), 2) University prestige / R1 requirements

[jimbogumbo]

There is also this. Many fine Math grad programs have lots of funded TAs in classrooms right away. That in part is because accreditating bodies like HLC waive the requirement of a Masters in the discipline or Masters plus 18 grad hours in Math for them. It is ridiculous, especially when you learn I can't hire a Math teacher with Math BS, MS in another discipline and 10+ years of successful AP Calculus instruction as an adjunct to teach College Algebra.

[fizzycist]

OP here, just wanted to chime in by thanking you all for sharing your thoughts!

To be honest, I am still a little confused why PhD students are funded, especially given the wide variety of responses I read here.

I do agree with others though, it appears that funding is dependent on discipline. I am in the social sciences, which tends to have the lowest stipends, but I was also never required to do research or teach, which is why I asked this question since I don't think this model was sustainable for my department, and for my discipline more broadly. My PhD program is the top-ranked in my discipline though, so our graduates tend to secure academic positions.

I know the PhD programs in the hard sciences at my R1 PhD institution had about $15-$20K higher stipend, but I believe that was because they had actual research responsibilities (aka. cheap labor for PI). I do see how this can be unfair.

Regardless of discipline, to summarize, I think these where the themes I read as reasons for funding PhD students:
1) Cheap labor (RA and/or TAships), 2) University prestige / R1 requirements

You can add to that list that if you didn't provide funding you would restrict the pool of attendees to a small fraction of the overall population with the privilege and means to spend 5+ years doing intense work without being paid (beyond undergrad).

Also, when you say you were not required to do research, what do you mean? I thought doing research is a part of every PhD program regardless of field, no?

[onthefringe]

When we say "universities fully funding," I take it that  PhD's paid off grants, but matched by the university for tuition, are included. I think its still the model in the natural sciences at most R1's (and you R1 folks can quickly disabuse me of any incorrect notions) to get salary by grant for as many PhD students as possible, and then get TA-ships (mostly in directing lab classes) for the rest. The TA's are paid directly by the University. Sometimes and  excellent PhD student may be given a TA position anyway because either their help is needed or its  requirement of their outside fellowship to teach a little (rare, but I think some of the prestigious ones do that).

Flagship state R1, biomedical field. I pay graduate tuition off my grants. A grad student here is (slightly) less expensive than a postdoc, but more expensive than an early stage technician.

Our grad students TA for one year for the program, and we can generally get another couple of semesters of TA support for a student if needed. Graduate TAs are significantly more expensive than hiring lecturers to do the same job would be.

Some faculty here take very few grad students because of the financial issues. But because of where we are, our best grad students are more intellectually engaged than most postdocs or technicians we can attract.

[coolswimmer800]

OP here, just wanted to chime in by thanking you all for sharing your thoughts!

To be honest, I am still a little confused why PhD students are funded, especially given the wide variety of responses I read here.

I do agree with others though, it appears that funding is dependent on discipline. I am in the social sciences, which tends to have the lowest stipends, but I was also never required to do research or teach, which is why I asked this question since I don't think this model was sustainable for my department, and for my discipline more broadly. My PhD program is the top-ranked in my discipline though, so our graduates tend to secure academic positions.

I know the PhD programs in the hard sciences at my R1 PhD institution had about $15-$20K higher stipend, but I believe that was because they had actual research responsibilities (aka. cheap labor for PI). I do see how this can be unfair.

Regardless of discipline, to summarize, I think these where the themes I read as reasons for funding PhD students:
1) Cheap labor (RA and/or TAships), 2) University prestige / R1 requirements

You can add to that list that if you didn't provide funding you would restrict the pool of attendees to a small fraction of the overall population with the privilege and means to spend 5+ years doing intense work without being paid (beyond undergrad).

Also, when you say you were not required to do research, what do you mean? I thought doing research is a part of every PhD program regardless of field, no?

That's true, something I didn't consider, but in my discipline (and not sure about others), I have seen plenty of high-tier schools where I had to pay tuition for the PhD program (e.g. Harvard and UPenn). I didn't want to take on more loans for a PhD program, so I declined those offers.

Yes, research was part of my PhD program, but I mean my discipline does not require stipend to be paid in exchange for ## hours for research / teaching. It was pretty much a stipend to cover living expense, which is the norm in my field.

And final note, although we keep mentioning it is unimaginable for PhD students to be unfunded, I feel like this shouldn't be too surprising compared to other terminal degrees. For example, enrolling in an MD program seems like a huge risk if they don't follow through and pass those major exams. As of Oct 2020, the AAMC reports an average 4% dropout rate  (https://www.aamc.org/system/files/2020-10/AAMC%20Data%20Snapshot%20on%20Graduation%20Rates%20and%20Attrition%20Rates_0.pdf) and average $200K in debt (https://www.aamc.org/system/files/2020-10/aamc-2020-physician-education-debt.pdf). I must admit I don't know enough about MD programs to know if it's a good investment.

[dismalist]

...

And final note, although we keep mentioning it is unimaginable for PhD students to be unfunded, I feel like this shouldn't be too surprising compared to other terminal degrees. For example, enrolling in an MD program seems like a huge risk if they don't follow through and pass those major exams. As of Oct 2020, the AAMC reports an average 4% dropout rate  (https://www.aamc.org/system/files/2020-10/AAMC%20Data%20Snapshot%20on%20Graduation%20Rates%20and%20Attrition%20Rates_0.pdf) and average $200K in debt (https://www.aamc.org/system/files/2020-10/aamc-2020-physician-education-debt.pdf). I must admit I don't know enough about MD programs to know if it's a good investment.

Medical School is a bonanza on account medicine is a racket in the US of A. It's worth all to try to get in. Wreck your fellow students' pre-med lab experiments, e.g. Tough to do with patients, once you got in. Somebody might notice the problems with the patient, the patient e.g. :-)

They take the debt on account it's worth doing so.

[Parasaurolophus]

Yeah, you can actually hope to pay off law school or med school debt. The prospects are a lot dimmer for a lot of PhDs, especially in disciplines where the average pay is low.

[mythbuster]

In the sciences, the students are paid a stipend. The research they are performing is both their thesis research and your advisors research. It's dual ownership (both names go on the resulting papers). I know this can be different in other fields, where the thesis research is essentially separate from the advisor.  With this set-up it is to the benefit of both the university and the student to pay the student so that they can conduct the research.

[spork]

Yeah, you can actually hope to pay off law school or med school debt. The prospects are a lot dimmer for a lot of PhDs, especially in disciplines where the average pay is low.

Unless it's a top program, going into debt for law school is increasingly a losing proposition.

[mamselle]

Maybe the point would also be to turn the OP's question around:

Why should PhD Programs NOT be Fully Funded?

I.e., you must have a reason for thinking some other option would be better. What is it?

M.

[Caracal]

That's true, something I didn't consider, but in my discipline (and not sure about others), I have seen plenty of high-tier schools where I had to pay tuition for the PhD program (e.g. Harvard and UPenn). I didn't want to take on more loans for a PhD program, so I declined those offers.

Odd. In the humanities, the best programs are usually fully funded, or if they aren't, being able to continue in the program is dependent on getting funding. Even when you're out of funding you don't usually pay full tuition, most places have some much reduced non resident tuition. There was a retired guy who got a PHD in my program and I believe he was paying full tuition, but thats the only person I've ever known who was.