6 ms·

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

by 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.
timr 18y ago
"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.
- robg 18y ago
  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.
  - neilc 18y ago
    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.
    - robg 18y ago
      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.

by robg 18y ago

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.

timr 18y ago

"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.

robg 18y ago
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.
- neilc 18y ago
  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.
  - robg 18y ago
    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.