

Ask YC: Graduate funding going down? - Spyckie

My roommate just got back to school, and he said something about how his department (machine learning at CMU) didn't get as much funding this year. I noticed that FERMI lab got less funding, and some of my friends in Berkeley also have said similar things.<p>Does anyone have any personal stories or links to share related to this? Will there be a research fund shortage within the next few years?
======
timr
Research funding is way down, and you don't need to ask YC -- there have been
numerous articles and editorials in the major journals to verify the facts. In
particular, Science and Nature have been quite vocal about the decline and its
consequences on our national competitiveness.

It's true that research funding varies by source and subject, but the bottom
line is that funding is down across the board. The NIH and NSF budgets are
have been shrinking (in real dollars) for a few years now, and funding for the
big physics initiatives has been slashed. While there _has_ been a slight bump
in funding from sources like the DOE, the DOJ and DARPA, it doesn't even
remotely make up for the declines in the other areas (and most researchers
can't get that money, anyway).

I did my PhD at a major research school. As of late last year, they were
quietly laying off staff (techs and staff scientists), reducing enrollment in
the graduate programs, and increasing the teaching requirements of the
remaining students (in order to offload their costs onto the university, away
from grants). Moreover, the faculty are basically constantly writing grants,
because the funding rate is so exceptionally low.

Now is not a good time to be in science.

~~~
robg
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.

~~~
timr
_"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
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
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
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.

------
agripa
I'd have to agree with other statements here. As a Ph.D student myself,
funding varies quite a bit with the field, the university, etc. However, you
really shouldn't be worried as a graduate student. Most well-reputed
universities guarantee funding for anywhere between 3 to 5 years for Ph.D
students, so even if your adviser hits a rough patch, the
university/department picks up the slack. Trying to get a tenure-track
position in this funding climate is a different matter ;)

------
neilc
I wouldn't put too much stock in a few anecdotes from your friends.
Researching funding varies over time, but generally speaking, if you're at a
good school (CMU and Berkeley would both certainly qualify) and your advisor
is doing their job, you should be able to get sufficient funding without too
much trouble.

------
hugh
As I understand it, in addition to any other problems there's currently short-
term budget problems with many Federal grants. Various spending bills are
being held up in Congress while Congress waits to see who the next President
is going to be, and many researchers currently have grants which have been
officially awarded, but which they still can't spend.

Expect this short-term clusterfuck to clear itself eventually sometime after
November regardless of who wins.

------
psyklic
It depends on the field, the professor, and the university. There are too many
variables to make blanket statements. Should it affect your decision to go to
graduate school? No.

------
PStamatiou
on the other hand, some colleagues at Georgia Tech's Info Security Center got
$200k or so to buy hardware for researching and what not.. much more than
previous years

~~~
gms
They probably got that from the government (war on terror, must protect
against 'cyber threats', etc).

