The issue I would like to bring up is: Should I, and all others who are funded for their Ph.D, be grateful to have this money, or should I feel like anybody else who is in a full time job — justified. Should a Ph.D perhaps be covered by another student loan.

A few points to note before I start this debate: I am funded for my Ph.D and I know that some others aren't. I also graduated from Scotland, and therefore didn't have to pay tuition fees (Thank you Mr Salmond). Likewise, I know that some students, especially now, are having to pay huge amounts to graduate through a degree.

Whatever your situation, if you don't agree with the following below, please feel free to comment and let me know. I'm trying to build up a picture of the different issues surrounding this topic to form a better opinion myself.

The main points up for debate are:

Free Education (http://tinyurl.com/3u4aapv)
No Council Tax (http://tinyurl.com/3k42974)
Hours Worked (http://tinyurl.com/3gcan6b)
What Job Are Ph.D Students Actually Doing? (http://tinyurl.com/447luye)

I've included links to my arguments for each, so I'd love to hear if you agree or disagree with any of them.

To summarise, I feel Ph.D students are paid a fair amount of money for the work they put in. However, I personally think the government should target areas of research that are in demand, and maybe cut back on some other areas. Maybe this would affect my own situation, but at the same time, plowing money into all fields is meaning that there are becoming more Ph.D students than jobs. So either way, there are consequences.

I don't think a funded PhD is a job. Often the research that a student works on has very little contribution to the wider knowledge field, and is more about training the student up to be an independent academic researcher who can do more research in future. I know that some fields are more directly relevant, for example medical research, but many are not.

Funding for PhD students can be extremely hard to get, especially in some subjects like arts and humanities. There when I applied for funding from AHRC only 25% of applicants were successful, and that was out of only the best students who would apply in the first place. It's much easier - but still hard - to get funding in the sciences. So anyone who does have funding should, I think, be very grateful. Many people don't get the chances they do.

I've been a funded student twice, once full-time science from EPSRC until my neurological illness developed, once part-time history from AHRC. And I have been incredibly grateful both times.

And for the record I'm a Scottish student too. My first degree (science) was in the early 1990s, so no fees. My history bachelors was paid for by me though, as an Open University degree. And I paid for my taught PG Masters myself. I started to self-fund my second go at a PhD, the history part-time one, but won funding from AHRC (initially fees only) from my second year onwards.

======= Date Modified 05 Jul 2011 16:44:41 =======
That's interesting to hear that side of the argument. As I am in the field of science doing my PhD, where funding, it seems, isn't as hard to get (correct me if i'm wrong), most people I have came across feel that what they are paid is about right.

But, in your case, is this not two different issues? What I mean is, were you grateful because you got the funding which was an extremely tough thing to do? Whereas if getting the funding wasn't an issue, would you feel that the money you got represented the work that you were doing?

You know, a simpler example, if you were in any job going through the interview process, you feel very relieved you got through that. But when you are in the job, you don't necessarily feel that your wage is representative of the work you do.

Sorry, just trying to distinguish for myself, as these forums are the only place you get to see the whole picture

:-)

Well remember I was originally science too. My first funded PhD (which I had to leave due to an MS-like illness developing) was EPSRC-funded. I was incredibly grateful for that, even though I just sauntered into the funding position, effortlessly. There isn't much difference between my gratitude levels for the easy-for-me-to-get EPSRC funding and the rare-as-hens-teeth AHRC one.

I still don't think that funded PhD students do a job and I don't think they have the right to feel they are paid a due rate for what they do. They are being trained as researchers. Luckily funded ones get support from the government, although I think it's debatable whether they should - for example people don't get funding to support them through a Bachelors degree which is training too, or a Masters. But that's not a right, or something to take for granted. Not least because there are far too many PhD graduates being produced (even considering funded ones) for the numbers that seem to actually be needed nowadays. So I think funding has to be reconsidered.

My apologies, I overlooked your first science PhD.

On the other hand though, maybe we don't do a job as such, but it is still full time hours. Or enough hours to prevent you from undertaking another serious job to fund yourself. Fair enough, if you are coming at it with the money there, but surely for most who go straight from University, then the only money they have is based in -ve loan pennies.

If they don't get paid, then surely they would have to decrease the length of a PhD.

Although I do definitely agree there are too many PhD's going. It's become quite a pyramid program for people wanting to get any further than Post-Doc. But I think this could be sorted by simply putting up the standard for being chosen for a PhD, rather than putting people off by cutting the funds.

In addition to that, originally I felt it logically right that we don't pay council tax, but my argument (http://tinyurl.com/3k42974) was put out by the fact that government employees still have to pay tax.

But as I said Bachelors and Masters degrees aren't funded in the same way, so why should PhDs be any different really? I think there are cases to be made, but I don't think it's as strong as you do.

My BSc(Hons) was way too full-time for any job apart from in the evenings, and that would have been pushing it. I spent all morning in lectures, and all afternoons in the labs. But I wouldn't have expected anyone to pay me - not just tuition fees but also maintenance money - to do so.

I too am from Scotland and so have had a free undergrad degree, which I was incredibly grateful for!  However even with that, living with parents (I did pay them rent) and working 20 hours a week I still got £6000 in debt just trying to pay my way (and that was with passing on most nights out and wearing the same clothes all through uni)! I then paid for my own MSc which ended up costing over £10,000 as it was part time while I worked full time over three years and there was a lot of travelling involved.  Although I am not complaining as I know so many people have it so much worse!

I have now been offered a funded PhD and I am incredibly grateful for that, but I do think of it as I'll be earning the money. Yes it's training, but in a different way to undergraduate and masters degrees where you're just repeating and regurgitating taught subjects.  PhD students are doing hard work to find out something new, and if a research assistant were doing that work they would be getting paid twice as much. So it's a good deal for the government and the student :-)

I don't think a PhD is quite in the same category as a bachelors or taught masters. In some ways I think it is more like a job. In a phd you are doing research, and generating publications, which is what the university gets paid to do. In fact PhD students are often the ones doing most of this "work". Yes we are getting training, but in many graduate entry jobs you would get similar amounts of training, and be paid for it. There might be a case for some restructuring of the academic system, so that there is less funding for phd places, and more funding available for post docs and higher levels, rather than spending all the money training vast numbers of phds.

I do feel that it's a privilege to be paid to do research, at all levels of the hierarchy, student to professor. I might put it in the same category as being an artist, or a musician. You don't really do it for the money, more for love. But some people can make a living out of it, and some people hit the big time. You could argue that pure research has a similar value to society as music or art, it's not a basic need as such, but it has a value that can't easily be quantified. For this reason I feel quite uneasy about the idea of cutting back the "low-demand" areas of research. I definitely think there should be funding for a wide range of research.

So I do feel grateful to have the funding, because not everybody gets to do this. But at the same time I think my work is valuable to the university and beyond, so I also think I'm paid a fair amount. How's that for an answer?
:p

Thanks for a really interesting subject Indoctorate - it's a great set of questions. My two pence:

Free Education: I think that people should not have to pay tuition fees to do a degree, however, there should be fewer people doing them. Many people do a degree because they don't know what they want to do, then end up working in a job that makes no use of their degree. This seems a bit of a waste, though I fully understand why people would do it. I don't know how to progress to this from the current situation however. For a start there would need to be far more opportunities for those without a degree. I think many companies advertise for people with a degree when it's really not necessary. Perhaps more apprenticeships and train while you work schemes? The Scottish system is all well and good, except for the xenophobia. That is that it is free for any student from Scotland OR THE EU, but not for people from England, Wales or Northern Ireland. This has always struck me as a bit wrong. Fine to be free for students from Scotland and no where else, but free to everyone except those that live in a different bit of the same country is a bit off.

No Council tax: To be honest I like the fact that students don't pay this as I feel it helps take a very large chunk out of a students outgoings when they already have minimal income, however if I look at it logically it doesn't make sense. Surely students use as much of the council's capability as the next person, if not more!

Hours worked: I did engineering so I had a lot of hours and I had to work them. You do hear of (usually more "arty") courses having minimal lectures. The least I heard was a course in Brighton with 2 hours a week! Obviously there is work outside this, but overall you would expect for a student to have to work at least 35 hours a week (including home study), otherwise it's not even approaching "full time study". For PhDs the same holds true. You should work at least 35 hours otherwise you are part time (obviously this is fine if you are a part time PhD).

What Job are PhDs doing?: They should be researching into an area that their funding has given them money for (assuming they are funded) in order to increase the scope of human knowledge. I disagree with anyone that argues that the research should be of itself "useful" as often these things become useful at a later date. A good example is lasers. When they were discovered the scientists just said "um, that's kind of cool, I wonder if we'll ever find a use". Nowadays there are lasers absolutely everywhere, from CD players to DIY measuring tools to laser cutters in machine shops. I would argue that in general a science PhD is more beneficial to the economy than a humanities PhD and so with the cuts (right or wrong though they may be) I feel that humanities should bear the brunt. That is not to say that humanities PhDs are useless or of less worth - the argument I present is purely financial. Once the economy is back (if ever!) then thee humanities PhDs that were cut should be brought back.

Should you be grateful for your funding? Yes, of course, in the same way that you should be grateful to have a job with a salary. The funding is there for someone to do a job (i.e. research). In that respect a PhD is like a job. I think they're more like a job than a lot of people realise. Many people in "real jobs" have work that taxes them mentally, often requires a lot of time and is stressful, others have easier jobs and it's the same with PhDs - Some are harder than others.

Thanks for reading it all, I reserve the right to change my mind if people convince me otherwise!

======= Date Modified 06 Jul 2011 13:07:50 =======
Interesting read. However, I believe graduates should contribute more as they take more out of the system but via a few percent graduate tax and not this ridiculous tuition fee system, which could lead to a collapse in the numbers going to University.

The Browne review doesn't sell itself properly, however, I don't think anyone likes the idea of being burdened with a 'debt' they can never realistically clear.

As regards feeling justified having a job, no, I just feel grateful to have one. It's hard out there (here) in the real world.

I disagree with a graduate tax. Surely if being a graduate helps you by giving you a better wage then you are already giving a proportion of that via regular taxation? If you don't earn more than you would of done then the degree has not helped you financially, so why should you pay out any more than anyone else?

To me, what we have ended up with now is essentially a graduate tax. They give you a loan that you have to repay via your wages practically forever once you get above a certain wage. Is there much difference between this and giving you a grant and then taxing the money back?

The problem with the 'loan' is that some high earners will pay it off quickly and not pay a fair proportion of their wage compared to some lower earners. With a graduate tax, every graduate will pay X percent (probably once again above a certain level) and becuase the high earners don't escape after a few years, the graduate tax can be at a lower level than the 9% of wages (above a certain amount) that is to be paid.

Also, more people in this country don't go to University than do. Why should they subsidise in any way those that do? Yes, graduates pay back more in general taxation, but I don't believe that fully covers the outlay to send people to University from the general tax bill that everyone pays. We take out more, thus should pay more back to cover that. If they are asked whether they want their taxes spent on University students or on the NHS, it's a no brainer.

I'm not sure that your assertion that the taxation doesn't cover the outlay to send people in the first place. It's tricky to answer because I'm not sure how you can measure how much someone would earn without having gone to university. Assuming they earn on average £5000 more per year throughout their life than they would otherwise, working from 22 to 50, that's 28years*£5000 per year*20%=£28 000. Of course past a certain level and the 20% changes to a 40%.

Obviously there are some big assumptions there and quite a lot of guess work. Overall I think your reasoning is sound, I just disagree about whether that's enough. Access to better statistics would obviously help. I agree with your general premise that graduates should pay themselves via taxation, I just think they do so anyway without a graduate tax.

Thanks everybody for their contribution. This is really interesting hearing everyones different views. I have to admit I wasn't expecting such a wide variation of views. I always thought the division occured between people doing a PhD and people not doing a PhD. Infact, it looks like the divide of views is occuring between PhD students as well. I still think it's two different things being grateful to have a job, and feeling grateful to be paid once in that job.

I've been thinking however, so the system maybe isn't perfected. But, what realistic solutions are there? For example, as I mentioned in my blog, an interesting article from the Independent brings up the solution of the funding PhD's decided by their University ranking. In other words, the Government would base their position on the number paper each university is producing. Then, the funding would be concentrated in the most "productive" institutions. Personally, I think this is an unfair way of looking at it.

A graduate tax also seems to be cause for debate. And I'm not really sure we can look to another country for an easy solution. But, surely there must be an improvement that everyone can agree on? Anyone any thoughts?