What is the incentive for a supervisor(s) to take on a self funded PhD student? Do they get some of the fees you pay to the university? Do they get paid a little more? Do they get someone to do their boring research work?

Generally, it's prestige for them, and it looks good on their own CV. If were to go on to become a superstar researcher, the better for them and their own reputation. The cynics amongst us might also say that, in some cases, it is perhaps to do some boring research for them.

I agree with Walminski, it's good for their careers if they do it. Also, they can get their names as second or third author on journal articles or conference papers, which helps them too. And my supervisors are both supervising me because I'm cross-disciplinary - using the methods of one supervisor in the field of the other supervisor - and being involved with my research helps them broaden their areas of expertise, which is important for future funding bids etc. So, lots of reasons! I think many of them also just like being involved with new research projects, and want to support students the way they were once supported themselves!

And if they're lucky they might get a nice few publications with their name on out of it! KB

The benefits are more obvious in the sciences, where you do get an extra body in the lab. For others though, it's only worth taking on a strong unfunded student for career purposes as they definitely don't get any money for it. A weak student would be unattractive, as there's unlikely to be any publications, and a student who fails is a blot on a career.

I think there are non career benefits as well. Both of my supervisors have said how much they enjoy working with PhD students, seeing exciting new research being done, and helping nurture them along the way on the research process. It's one of the most exciting parts of the job for them.

Financial incentives shouldn't be a factor. And it really shoudn't make a difference whether the student is funded or self-funded when it comes down to the supervisor's attitude.

======= Date Modified 25 Feb 2011 15:55:50 =======
These are the reasons I know of, and they all exactly the same for funded as for self-funded:

1. The more complete PhDs - of any kind - a lecturer has under their belt, the more likely they are to be made a professor and therefore have a massive increase in pay, prestige and thwack. A successful record with PhDs is one of the major deciding factors in allocating professorships.

2. The department (used to - not sure how this is now since the recent funding re-structuring?) gets extra funding from the government for every student, much more for PhDs; again, however they are funded, and this gives the academic more thwack in their department. This is an old reason maybe out of date now, but there is still in issue of generating funding for the department.

3.  Quo dos for their department and them as an individual: my sup makes a big deal of his PhD successes on his web page.

4. The thrill of seeing someone develop into a potentially great academic.

5. Having high level intellectual exchanges with people on the cutting edge in your field on a day to day level.


It seems much less likely that an academic would hope for a self-funded student to carry out their reasearch: self-funded students choose their own topics, where-as funded candidates are frequently directed by their supervisors and departments. Having said that, I think my first, dodgy, supervisor may have been pushing me into areas that suited her teaching interests, but because I am self-funded I was free to leave and find another supervisor, if I had been funded that would not have been possible.  


Why the question and why do you think there would be a difference?