I know I'm getting a bit ahead of myself here (PhD starts in October!), but...

I've noticed that an 'Awards and Grants' section seems to be a standard feature of academic CVs, and I was wondering whether there's any perceived difference in status/value between departmental and research council funding? I've been awarded a departmental studentship worth the same as an AHRC full-time PhD award, but might that be seen as somehow 'lesser' than an actual AHRC award - like I wasn't good enough to get 'proper' funding, but managed to land in a safety net? Or would the perception be that departmental funding goes to 'first choice' candidates, with the rest being put forward for AHRC awards? (In chronological terms, I must have been the first applicant in my dept. to be given funding - back in May, before anyone was nominated for an AHRC award - but I don't know if that means anything). Or is there just no difference?

(Apologies for the lack of tact here - I know a lot of people are getting bad news on the funding front round about now and I don't want to come across like a complete prick for worrying about whether I've got the 'right sort' of funding. Obviously I'm thrilled to have funding of any sort, but I'm also painfully aware that I'm about to enter a very competitive world...)

"Apologies for the lack of tact here" ... yes, so why are you asking this rather inane question? sorry to be so harsh, but really! You will be judge far more on the content of your CV and what you actually achieved during your PhD - ie papers, presentations.. where you got the money from is of little consequence.

Ju-ju's absolutely right in the grand scheme of things this is hardly a problem. if you have issues with having 'only' departmental funding, apply for external funding during your PhD for something else. I've received AHRC funding for a conference, and British Federation of Women Grads funding for writing up. I "only" have dept funding, but have done more than most RC-funded phd students - THAT is what people will care about.

(PS I know many AHRC/ESRC funded students who are unemployed 2 years after submission, and dept-funded students who got jobs before submission - get over it)

Hi, completely agree with sleepy. In my case, i am intl so automatically ineligble for RC funding, so nobody will expect to see that on my CV. However, also didnt get ORSAS and similar for I somersaulted out of a US fellowship into a UK PhD as late as 19th June 2008, and well, all of the intl awards closed in Feb/march.

Then on, I got a pretty generous (£7000) dept award, and this continues this yr as well to be my main support. Other sources: I got a school wide thing, then 2 little grants for my fieldwork. Doesnt that count? Of course it does as much as it should in addition to the stuff like Juju says. getting funding is great (it augurs well for the future), in may case RC is out of the Q, and all people 'expect' is the big intl awards like ORSAS which is wehn I explain my somersaulting story and that I didnt want to wait a yr.

So, just go ahead and work on tiny little things.. every bit counts (on CV, in experience, everything).

Sleepy: v glad that you mentioned BFWG. Canyou shed any light/tips on this? May apply 2011 or 2012...

xo, Bug

Magictime, love, come back in a couple of years to this forum and please laugh at the ridiculousness of the pointless thoughts bouncing round your head at the moment. You clearly have far too much time on your hands right now.

*ahem*

Bit harsh - Magictime is new to the Phd/Academia scene , and it can be quite daunting , I for one found it daunting and was thinking quite a few different things, and I can tell you I certainly didn't have 'too much time' on my hands going into the first year - I was working since i had missed all the funding deadlines and had to save up!

Anyway, my take on it is this: I was self-funded for my first year, which is seen by the insecure morons that seem to frequent academia as a 'lesser' Ph.D, these morons were silenced on finding out that I secured ESRC funding for the rest of my Ph.D. So yes, RC funding looks better, but generally to idiots that are not quality academics in the true sense themselves, thats how i see it anyway.

In my first year, I did much better in terms of conferences and opportunities than my fellow peers, funded or not, which consequently led in a roundabout way to being funded, and that was down to sheer hard work and passion for my subject, but most importantly, raised my profile. Ultimately, in the sometimes petty world of academia, funding and where it comes from etc will be compared, but generally the hard work and passion for subject , quality and desire to get involved in discussions and questions in seminars are worth much more to your overall reputation than any funding. There is kudos no doubt that comes from RC funding, but this Kudos is not reserved only for those who are funded, essentially, you get out of the phd what you put in.

Did I miss something...? Since when is it unreasonable to ask if some funding sources are perceived as better than others?

to be repetitive for sleepy may not have noticed it in my post, but sleepy, any tips on BFWG?

xo

Thanks for the support Phdnewbie - I was beginning to feel like I was in the stocks there!(up)

Thanks also for your helpful, polite and considered response to a question which is, by near-universal consent, among the very dumbest and most inane ever asked. ;-) Sounds like I should be prepared for a certain amount of snobbery about non-RC funding.

Magictime, the funding body in my area is the ESRC but I think the same applies for the AHRC. Back in the days when all studentships were awarded through a national competition, then yes it did matter for UK students, because frequently departmental money was given to people who didn't manage to get an ESRC place. Getting the ESRC funding was seen as a plus point on a c.v. when you applied for academic jobs as you got it on the basis of a fairly detailled proposal (before the 1+3 system came in). Now though with most ESRC funded studentships being decided on by departments rather than by competition, there isn't really any difference between those and departmental funding, and given decisions are often on the basis of 1+3 so before a student has a really detailled proposal, the old kudos attached to it, I think has largely gone. So no need to worry - it's an outdated prestige thing. Funding of any sort will be favourably regarded though so congrats on the departmental award. You're right to recognise how competitive it all is too, I'd suggest trying to have a chat early on with a young academic who has been on the job market recently, to get a sense of what is looked for in your particular field on a new PhD's c.v.. I can only say I'm glad I did that as frankly if I'd relied on my lovely but near retirement supervisor, I'd not have had a clue.

OK guys, rather than just point and laugh at the OP I'll explain the way academia works.

1) All universities care about funding - it gives them prestige and income when their staff have higher incomes
2) As such when you go for a job it is extremely beneficial to have received funding
3) In an academic career you will have to regularly apply to funding bodies for money - most especially the Research Councils
4) If you have PhD funding from a RC then you can say you already have success with external funding streams (although it is *nothing* like the real academic bidding process)
5) As such, it is useful to have RC external funding. But any PhD student worthy of becoming an academic will have a record of funding bids beyond their main funding. If you have RC funding, but that's all then its not really worth that much
6) Funding is only part of a package - if all you do is sit in a lab/library for 3 years thinking about your PhD who cares if you are funded. You will have a PhD, but you will not have the skills to be an academic

7) the most important. In a couple of years when your funding is running out, there are very few if any jobs, and the conference of your dreams is down the road but you still can't afford the train fare - trust me deary you won't care where you get the cash from.

Hey Bug

First of all, make sure you apply for both schemes - BFWG and FFWG. BFWG is more prestigious, as it is based solely on academic merit; but FFWG have more money and give more awards (they base it on financial need and "excellent academic calibre").
I was told that - rather pathetically - it looks good if you have a top female referee (your supervisor is though, right?); and you have to show what you have done above and beyond the norm. By that, they want real evidence that you can be a future leading female researcher; and also inspire other women into the profession (they're *very* into that). Its harder in social science (my area) as its already full of women - but I tried to emphasise an area of my research that would have a real impact on/for women...

When you get to presentation stage, that's horrendous - I was in a group with a couple of microbiologists and a law student - all very 'practical' hands on type research, where as mine, although it has a practical application, is theoretical. I just had to keep reminding myself that they are trying to invest in the person, not the research. Yes the research is part of it, but its your potential that they're after.

Need any more help, let me know

Oh, and the application forms take ages. And you have to pay £20!!! And you can only apply once!