7 ms·

Ask YC: Graduate funding going down?

• PStamatiou 18y ago
  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
  • gms 18y ago
    They probably got that from the government (war on terror, must protect against 'cyber threats', etc).
• psyklic 18y ago
  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.
• neilc 18y ago
  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.
• agripa 18y ago
  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 ;)
• timr 18y ago
  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.
  • robg 18y ago
    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.
    • gaius 18y ago
      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?
      • robg 18y ago
        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.
• hugh 18y ago
  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.