I'm in my 40s, working class, first generation in the family to have gone to uni, and able to do a PhD only because I got funding. Not subsidised by anyone and have managed fine, with a little bit of paid teaching work here and there. Most PhD students I know are in a similar position. It's not helpful to stereotype people and I'm not surprised this thread has gone the way it has, following the comments about being subsidised by rich parents.

To the OP, I would echo the concerns of others on this thread. If you are financially able to support yourself through a PhD and are accepting of the fact that you may not get any return for all the money you put into it, fair enough, but if you are in a more precarious financial position I would think it would be a very difficult road to take.

long time reader, but this thread prompted me to join the forum again...

Main points are:
- in the science, it's very common to be hired to develop a phd within a project led by a professor. You are effectively a team member, and hence these posts tend to be funded (out of the PI's grant, you're sort of your supervisor's employee)
- however, I know people in science following their own research interests, though I think it's a bit more difficult to get funded this way

- in the humanities and the social sciences - what the OP was asking about - around 40% of the PhD students were self-funded in 2012 (HEFCE data, I imagine numbers have gone up now...). Plus, the funding is often partial (e.g. only fees). However, fees tend to be lower (we don't need lab space / equipment).

There are tons of PhD students working during their doctorate, either in uni on temporary teaching/research positions or in completely different jobs. And if someone is lucky to have parents who can afford helping, why not? If when they admit being supported by a family, they encounter such a negative attitude, I can easily imagine why they are not all raising their hands now. Similarly, I'm sorry but I don't understand the singling out of Indian/Chinese students getting accepted only because they are sponsored by their countries: also many other governments, from the US to Germany have bursaries/loan schemes, and if anything I admire the willingness to commit to more loans for the PhD (often many governments have strict conditions on sponsoring students to do a PhD abroad, including going back to home country, work and pay back part of the loan).

In relation to jobs afterwards: no one ever asked me if I was funded or not during my PhD -it's more important how much grants one can bring in, rather than the winning of an already existing bursary for one's own PhD. Let's avoid these myths, we're supposed to be researchers... :)

As I've said before, didn't intend for this to turn into a slanging match, I'm just saying things as I see it and speaking from my experience. My point was simply that a funded PhD would see me, personally, out of pocket compared to doing it part-time and I don't see why, should I choose to do the latter, that should count against me long term. But lets's do some maths anyway. Maximum bursary is 14, 15k, that about 1200 a month. Average UK rent these days - about 800? Now I know EXACTLY what it's like to live on that as my first graduate job paid that fourteen years ago after tax pension and the Great Student Loan Robbery. Then my NQT salary was about the same again when I started with that ten years ago and there's no way I would go back to that. If others can, then fair play to them but personally I smell something fishy because even taking home more than double that, I have a two bed flat, bus everywhere, buy clothes second hand, shop in Aldi. Half term in a week so me and my partner are treating ourselves to a hostel in the Dales for one night. Come summer, we might manage a week in a cottage in Wales. That's if I can get some free time from my second job as a team leader for a national charity, taking kids out on expeditions. Or is that my forth job, after examining, and associate lecturing? Do anything I can to make ends meet basically. Why? Because my partners wage is only a little over what a PhD bursary would be and she struggles at times just with keeping her ten-year old car on the road. If I was on that too, we'd be up a creek and no mistake. So don't think it adds up, all this 'holier than thou'.

Fallenonion, my income went UP slightly when I got a PhD bursary, because in fifteen years of working I had never got myself into anything better paid. It happens. I'm glad you have managed to get something better and I can understand that it would be hard to lose an income you are used to, but there is nothing 'fishy' about my situation, I have just had to cut my cloth accordingly for many years now. I had a week in a cottage in north Wales in 2009 and have not been away from home since then. This is reality for a lot of people. I am truly sorry you think there must be rich parents waiting in the wings or something dodgy about the accounts of people like me, because you are putting a division between us that really shouldn't be there. It is rough for a lot of us.

I fully appreciate that. I was in the same situation in that my grant for doing a PGCE made me better off that working when I did that. Perhaps I have been overly polemical. I think my broader point has been lost, somewhere - that self-funding shouldn't automatically be seen as a red flag to hiring committees when it depends entirely on the person.

Yes, I agree that hiring should be down to the individual qualities of the applicant. I didn't realise that self-funding was seen as such a negative at the hiring stage. I know that when I started my PhD, we were told that applying for and getting funding was a good thing for our CVs, so I guess that anyone self-funding should also try to get some external conference grants or similar to tick that particular box.

Yes, it's purely that I'm railing against. I think ultimately, people should be able to fund a PhD however they want. Bursary, work, a mix of both...mum and dad...whatever means necessary... All that should matter is the quality of the research. Heck, I'd probably, like, sell crack or my booty if it got me where I want....(only joking!...just).

That's interesting what you say about external conference grants and the like. I have heard that also. In fact, I've read of one case where someone got close to ESRC levels of funding by accessing various different pots. I did this to a small extent when I did my Master's. I was working full time, but wrote off to a charity specialising in my area - they sent me a cheque for 500 quid, no questions asked. I could have managed fine without it, but on my CV now I can put that I was funded (a bit cheeky, but you've got to what you can). Mind you, I've also heard it said in some cases the amount of form filling and hoops to jump through for tiny amounts can be a distraction in itself. I guess it depends on each individual one.

Yes, funding applications can be annoying and time consuming - you get to know which ones can be accessed more easily and which are ultra-competitive though. Anything to make the CV look like you will be able to keep the cash flowing in if you get hired :-)

One just tries to give advise to the average self funded student. I agree with you that it is probably of no interest to hiring committees how you funded your PhD but for the individual it still matters. The chance to land a decent job afterwards if low, so getting out of a self funded PhD in humanities in debt is probably quite problematic for most students. It is of course a whole different story if you have the cash or work part-time. The ability to secure funding is just a good indicator whether or not your CV is competitive and that's quite important for subsequent, always highly competitive, positions. You don't get anything out there for the title itself and self funded students will for sure have a harder time to produce something excellent with all the added financial pressure

Well yes, that I can understand, that perhaps the day job might effect the research quality. certainly something to consider.