3 ms·
>They're covering a stipend at $24,816, tuition at up to 16k, "training-related expenses" at $4200 and an institutional allowance of another $4200. There are un
by learc83 7y ago
>They're covering a stipend at $24,816, tuition at up to 16k, "training-related expenses" at $4200 and an institutional allowance of another $4200. There are undoubtedly other sources of money too (center grants, etc).
I get the stipend and expenses. It's the 30-40k in tuition that I'm questioning. At my school CS grad students just got a tuition waiver, and as far as I know it wasn't directly paid for by grants.
As for the stipend. They are doing research, so you have to evaluate the money in that context. If they are doing useful work for that $25k it's not a waste even if they don't end up working in research after finishing.
- mattkrause 7y agoI don't have my offer letter (and in any case it is a decade old), but the tuition part was definitely higher than $16k. It is possible that the sticker price isn't very useful, and they're taking whatever they can from outside sources and waiving the rest. There are other costs too: here's an interesting study that tries to estimate non-tuition, non-stipend costs https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4353078/#B6 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4353078/#B6 These, since they're mostly faculty time, are also partially paid for by funders. In any case, my point is that grad student labor is both important surprisingly expensive and it's not at all clear to me that we have the "right" amount of it. Specifically, I think it might be better, from a research productivity and a "system health" persepective, to have somewhat fewer grad student slots and a few more staff scientist positions: Maybe 70/10 instead of 100/~0.