Ask YC: Graduate funding going down?
6 comments
Research funding is way down, and you don't need to ask YC -- there have been numerous articles and editorials in the major journals to verify the facts. In particular, Science and Nature have been quite vocal about the decline and its consequences on our national competitiveness.
It's true that research funding varies by source and subject, but the bottom line is that funding is down across the board. The NIH and NSF budgets are have been shrinking (in real dollars) for a few years now, and funding for the big physics initiatives has been slashed. While there has been a slight bump in funding from sources like the DOE, the DOJ and DARPA, it doesn't even remotely make up for the declines in the other areas (and most researchers can't get that money, anyway).
I did my PhD at a major research school. As of late last year, they were quietly laying off staff (techs and staff scientists), reducing enrollment in the graduate programs, and increasing the teaching requirements of the remaining students (in order to offload their costs onto the university, away from grants). Moreover, the faculty are basically constantly writing grants, because the funding rate is so exceptionally low.
Now is not a good time to be in science.
It's true that research funding varies by source and subject, but the bottom line is that funding is down across the board. The NIH and NSF budgets are have been shrinking (in real dollars) for a few years now, and funding for the big physics initiatives has been slashed. While there has been a slight bump in funding from sources like the DOE, the DOJ and DARPA, it doesn't even remotely make up for the declines in the other areas (and most researchers can't get that money, anyway).
I did my PhD at a major research school. As of late last year, they were quietly laying off staff (techs and staff scientists), reducing enrollment in the graduate programs, and increasing the teaching requirements of the remaining students (in order to offload their costs onto the university, away from grants). Moreover, the faculty are basically constantly writing grants, because the funding rate is so exceptionally low.
Now is not a good time to be in science.
You're right, especially w/r to NIH and NSF, but the DARPA vein is very rich. Still, if you're accepted into a reputable program, you're guaranteed funding for four or five years.
Don't forget how much of this is driven by the president's budget office. Not surprisingly. this administration isn't interested in science.
Don't forget how much of this is driven by the president's budget office. Not surprisingly. this administration isn't interested in science.
"Still, if you're accepted into a reputable program, you're guaranteed funding for four or five years."
That's not as true as you think it is.
It's important to know the source of the funding. Most schools (even reputable schools) make a guarantee that's tantamount to "we won't kick you out for lack of funding". Notably, that doesn't mean that you'll be funded to do research (hello, grading!), or even that they'll try to find you funding if you should happen to run out.
There are many ways to go wrong with this. The way that it usually works is that you're "guaranteed" funding for your first 2-3 years, and that money will come from a departmental slush fund for grad student training. After that, you've (hopefully) passed your exams and selected an advisor, and from then on, your funding is coming from his/her budget.
Woe to the fourth-year PhD student whose advisor loses funding! It can happen; I've seen it. Likewise, you're equally screwed if you happen to have a falling-out with your advisor after the departmental funding runs out. If you're viewed as a problem student, they won't necessarily kick you out, but they'll play a game of financial chicken with you, and I can pretty much guarantee that you won't win (I've seen this, too). It can also affect your ability to find a new advisor or collaborations; it's easy to become persona non grata when you're an under-funded grad student.
However, these are worst-case scenarios. Most commonly, you just get screwed by having to teach a lot more than you originally bargained. This is a terrible thing to do to a fifth- or sixth-year PhD student (who is also usually looking for jobs, writing a dissertation, publishing papers, etc.), but c'est la vie. You rarely see the blunt end of the funding stick until it's too late to do anything about it.
That's not as true as you think it is.
It's important to know the source of the funding. Most schools (even reputable schools) make a guarantee that's tantamount to "we won't kick you out for lack of funding". Notably, that doesn't mean that you'll be funded to do research (hello, grading!), or even that they'll try to find you funding if you should happen to run out.
There are many ways to go wrong with this. The way that it usually works is that you're "guaranteed" funding for your first 2-3 years, and that money will come from a departmental slush fund for grad student training. After that, you've (hopefully) passed your exams and selected an advisor, and from then on, your funding is coming from his/her budget.
Woe to the fourth-year PhD student whose advisor loses funding! It can happen; I've seen it. Likewise, you're equally screwed if you happen to have a falling-out with your advisor after the departmental funding runs out. If you're viewed as a problem student, they won't necessarily kick you out, but they'll play a game of financial chicken with you, and I can pretty much guarantee that you won't win (I've seen this, too). It can also affect your ability to find a new advisor or collaborations; it's easy to become persona non grata when you're an under-funded grad student.
However, these are worst-case scenarios. Most commonly, you just get screwed by having to teach a lot more than you originally bargained. This is a terrible thing to do to a fifth- or sixth-year PhD student (who is also usually looking for jobs, writing a dissertation, publishing papers, etc.), but c'est la vie. You rarely see the blunt end of the funding stick until it's too late to do anything about it.
I can't disagree with any of that.
The best advice I can give about grad school: Know your adviser before accepting an offer. Non-tenured should be a big worry. No other students should be too. Use the beer night all schools feature to get honest assessments of potential advisers - after a few beers have set in. In a real sense, your adviser will be your venture partner with vast majority control even as you do the vast majority of the work. The decision of who to work with is therefore critical.
The best advice I can give about grad school: Know your adviser before accepting an offer. Non-tenured should be a big worry. No other students should be too. Use the beer night all schools feature to get honest assessments of potential advisers - after a few beers have set in. In a real sense, your adviser will be your venture partner with vast majority control even as you do the vast majority of the work. The decision of who to work with is therefore critical.
Having an untenured advisor is not necessarily a bad thing. An advisor trying to get tenure is going to be very active and focused on their research, because their own job is literally on the line. Although a more senior professor might have a more established reputation and more grant money, they might also be less involved in the details of the research their students are doing. That said, all this depends on the nature of the particular advisor -- and I would certainly agree that your success in graduate school has a lot to do with the advisor you choose.
The key word there is "their". If you want to be an apprentice, then a non-tenured professor could be fine. You're working on their, narrowly conceived, research. Of course, there are exceptions but an applicant to grad schools isn't usually well-prepared to distinguish. So, given your last point - which I agree with 100% - I think it's better for students to just go with more established folks (assuming good reviews from their current and former students). Let the non-tenured faculty hire assistants - they're cheaper and their independence is less critical to their long-term development.
Ermm, I'm not sure the assertions that the DARPA vein is very rich and this administration isn't interested in science are logically consistent. Where does DARPA money come from exactly?
DARPA's mission isn't science, although their relative autonomy (based on budgetary reasons) allows it to be.
Of course, the bit about this administration was extreme. But their funding priorities are less about basic science, relatively speaking.
Of course, the bit about this administration was extreme. But their funding priorities are less about basic science, relatively speaking.
I'd have to agree with other statements here. As a Ph.D student myself, funding varies quite a bit with the field, the university, etc. However, you really shouldn't be worried as a graduate student. Most well-reputed universities guarantee funding for anywhere between 3 to 5 years for Ph.D students, so even if your adviser hits a rough patch, the university/department picks up the slack. Trying to get a tenure-track position in this funding climate is a different matter ;)
I wouldn't put too much stock in a few anecdotes from your friends. Researching funding varies over time, but generally speaking, if you're at a good school (CMU and Berkeley would both certainly qualify) and your advisor is doing their job, you should be able to get sufficient funding without too much trouble.
As I understand it, in addition to any other problems there's currently short-term budget problems with many Federal grants. Various spending bills are being held up in Congress while Congress waits to see who the next President is going to be, and many researchers currently have grants which have been officially awarded, but which they still can't spend.
Expect this short-term clusterfuck to clear itself eventually sometime after November regardless of who wins.
Expect this short-term clusterfuck to clear itself eventually sometime after November regardless of who wins.
It depends on the field, the professor, and the university. There are too many variables to make blanket statements. Should it affect your decision to go to graduate school? No.
on the other hand, some colleagues at Georgia Tech's Info Security Center got $200k or so to buy hardware for researching and what not.. much more than previous years
They probably got that from the government (war on terror, must protect against 'cyber threats', etc).
Does anyone have any personal stories or links to share related to this? Will there be a research fund shortage within the next few years?