I am a student of the Social Sciences Division in advanced residence. The school still charged me $1,900+ for tuition per quarter. My RA job pays $14 per hour ($0.5 up from last year). The tuition is therefore equivalent to 136+ hours per quarter. Since I am an international student and can only work 19.5 hours during the quarter and 35 hours off-quarter, 136 hours per quarter means 7 weeks per quarter. In other words, most of my earnings during a quarter goes to tuition and other inescapable expenditures and I have only 3 weeks' earning for rent, food, utilities, and so forth. The only time I can try to break even is during the summer. My colleague from UCLA told me that they did not have to pay any tuition for three years after they proposed. As you can imagine, I have to pay most of my expenses out of my pocket and this is not funny when your parents have retired.
I did have a choice when I came here. Like Mr. Neal Patel in his horror stories sent to Provost Rosenbaum several weeks ago, I did believe in "the Life of Mind", and I have since been duly punished for my naivete, inanity, stupidity, you name it. When I came here, the stipend of the U of C was 50% below what I would have received at Penn and Berkeley, and these two school offered something more. Penn offered a desk plus insurance and Berkeley promised additional scholarships. What's even worse is that the stipend of U of C decreases by year in program, something students at other schools have never heard of. They did say you can maintain your stipend by working as a TA, but what they did not tell you is that those positions are very limited in scope and there are far more applicants than positions. As a result, at my fourth year in program, my stipend was only half of what I would have received elsewhere. How naive I was. When we went to a workshop at OSU last summer, we were so embarrassed to discuss our plight with students from other schools.
What's worse is that the school does not offer any support for presentation at annual meetings, even if I have something to present. My friend told me that OSU offered $2,000 for such meetings, regardless whether a student has paper or not, and my colleague from Madison told me that, despite the financial difficulties at Wisconsin such that the amount has been frozen for 10 years, they still get $750 if they have papers for the show.
Let's also forget about summer support at the U of C.
Even Loyola's Ph.D. students in English receive more than most of us old students. Their current rate is $16.5K per year. See the following link:
http://thegradcafe.com/survey/index.php?q=Loyola
I do not understand how the U of C dares to call its alums for donation if the school itself offers so miserably meager when the students are at school.
- CM
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
Tuesday, February 19, 2008
TODAY!! Taking Action for Graduate Funding
Its Time to Take Action on Graduate Funding
Noon
Tuesday, February 19th
Front Foyer of the Regenstein Library
Join the Graduate Council's Committee on Graduate Funding and Graduate Students United in calling on the U of C administration to take meaningful action on Graduate Funding.
After gathering at the Regenstein Library at noon, we will be walking over to the Administration Building to show that more work needs to be done on these issues. Using an apple, a symbol of education, each of us will be able to leave a message about how important it us for us as students and teachers, workers and neighbors, to see change on these issues.
Noon
Tuesday, February 19th
Front Foyer of the Regenstein Library
Join the Graduate Council's Committee on Graduate Funding and Graduate Students United in calling on the U of C administration to take meaningful action on Graduate Funding.
After gathering at the Regenstein Library at noon, we will be walking over to the Administration Building to show that more work needs to be done on these issues. Using an apple, a symbol of education, each of us will be able to leave a message about how important it us for us as students and teachers, workers and neighbors, to see change on these issues.
Pennyless Student Stories, 3
Here is what life as a graduate student has been like for me
so far:
The funding package I received was one of the most generous available to my cohort in the History Department. And yet. My son (who was 3 months old when my program began) qualified for food vouchers under the WIC program, and since I was breastfeeding, I also qualified for food vouchers until his first birthday (thereafter, he alone remains eligible). The WIC program is targeted at low-income mothers & children, but, as can be seen from their eligibility guidelines, most Uof C graduate student parents without additional sources of income would surely qualify. My son also qualifies for free health insurance under the "All Kids Covered" program. We have only ever shopped at thrift stores for clothes for the three of us, and for toys and books for my son. We are lucky to have the Family Resource Center nearby, whenever my son gets bored of his sad old toys. We have hitherto relied on public transport for all our grocery shopping, which was tough in the winter with a young child. I grew up on thrift store clothing and am proud to support Chicago's public transport system, but I feel that the University takes the sacrifices made by the graduate student population to study at this institution too lightly. I used to have a job, and so I do remember being able to afford haircuts, and the occasional purchase of makeup or new clothing... The University's lavish expenditure on catering at high profile events is offensive to those who are obliged to scrimp and save daily (and hoard leftovers from these events). Is it not an indictment of the system that events on campus advertising "free" food are such a draw in an affluent private institution?
The tiny number of times we allow ourselves meals out, trips to the cinema or theater seems too frivolous to mention. We have been able to travel home to see our families solely through their generosity. This year, my husband and I are both receiving the most generous aid packages available (he entered this year and thus has the new 19500 deal), and yet, with no support for childcare available, we have taken on an extremely time consuming (albeit rewarding) position with the Office of Undergraduate Student Housing (as Resident Heads), without which we could not afford childcare. As international students, my husband and I are not eligible for most of the research fellowships normally applied for my students whose program requires a prolonged period of field research abroad. I have no idea how I will afford my year of archival research, scheduled for 2009-2010. We spent all our savings on my first research-related trip, last summer.
The Provost's Working Group Report reinforced general concerns with our doctoral program which I had since I entered. I will focus on just two interrelated observations, one to do with student living costs and one to do with the way those costs relate to the time required to complete a degree.
1) The university does not really know how the average graduate student supports him- or herself in a given year. The figures in the report seem to suggest that many or even most of these students, unless they can access significant outside funding, would live in what can be only described as poverty, especially when they are in advanced residency. Nor does there appear to be any predictably available and generally accessible institutional mechanism that could lift them out of it. Indeed (on the basis of the report at any rate) the longer students are here, the poorer they are likely to be. Surely such a serious and general problem requires a serious response that would address the student body generally. The report documents the problem more effectively than it addresses it. The report suggest a number of new Advanced Residency fellowships, for example, and these would no doubt be helpful, but it also seems to be a winner-take-all sort of program: the fact that some students will win them is predicated on the fact that a larger pool of applicants won't. It would not truly address the fact, which the report makes obvious, that a very large number students - even a majority of them - who do not have access to significant outside resources can scarcely pay half the cost of living as a graduate student.
2) Student funding appears to be structured on the basis of a degree program that does not really exist. Current funding seems to assume 5 years of funding on entry (though not everyone has even this) plus perhaps one more year on a write-up grant to finish off the dissertation -- i.e., the funding regime seems to presume that students take five or six years to graduate. But it takes virtually all students years longer than this to complete a degree, leaving the average student unsupported for a large percentage of their time in the program (8 or 9 years on average). Thus the degree program entails a disparity between the resources that students require to complete it and the resources available to help them to do so. This problem is a general one, which arises predictably on a program-wide basis because of factors that are well beyond the agency of individual students to change. As such, it would be inadequate to try to solve the obvious funding gap by a focus on giving incentives to students to make them try to finish more quickly (a position which the report found among several informants in the faculty and administration). This would only work if most students were actually finishing in five or six years, while a few others inexplicably took longer, just needing an extra push to get them to finish on time. In the situation of the program as it stands, however, an insistence on the principle of incentive would, in effect, convert an institutional problem into an individual responsibility. The funding gap would remain substantially unfilled.
- a.a.
so far:
The funding package I received was one of the most generous available to my cohort in the History Department. And yet. My son (who was 3 months old when my program began) qualified for food vouchers under the WIC program, and since I was breastfeeding, I also qualified for food vouchers until his first birthday (thereafter, he alone remains eligible). The WIC program is targeted at low-income mothers & children, but, as can be seen from their eligibility guidelines, most Uof C graduate student parents without additional sources of income would surely qualify. My son also qualifies for free health insurance under the "All Kids Covered" program. We have only ever shopped at thrift stores for clothes for the three of us, and for toys and books for my son. We are lucky to have the Family Resource Center nearby, whenever my son gets bored of his sad old toys. We have hitherto relied on public transport for all our grocery shopping, which was tough in the winter with a young child. I grew up on thrift store clothing and am proud to support Chicago's public transport system, but I feel that the University takes the sacrifices made by the graduate student population to study at this institution too lightly. I used to have a job, and so I do remember being able to afford haircuts, and the occasional purchase of makeup or new clothing... The University's lavish expenditure on catering at high profile events is offensive to those who are obliged to scrimp and save daily (and hoard leftovers from these events). Is it not an indictment of the system that events on campus advertising "free" food are such a draw in an affluent private institution?
The tiny number of times we allow ourselves meals out, trips to the cinema or theater seems too frivolous to mention. We have been able to travel home to see our families solely through their generosity. This year, my husband and I are both receiving the most generous aid packages available (he entered this year and thus has the new 19500 deal), and yet, with no support for childcare available, we have taken on an extremely time consuming (albeit rewarding) position with the Office of Undergraduate Student Housing (as Resident Heads), without which we could not afford childcare. As international students, my husband and I are not eligible for most of the research fellowships normally applied for my students whose program requires a prolonged period of field research abroad. I have no idea how I will afford my year of archival research, scheduled for 2009-2010. We spent all our savings on my first research-related trip, last summer.
The Provost's Working Group Report reinforced general concerns with our doctoral program which I had since I entered. I will focus on just two interrelated observations, one to do with student living costs and one to do with the way those costs relate to the time required to complete a degree.
1) The university does not really know how the average graduate student supports him- or herself in a given year. The figures in the report seem to suggest that many or even most of these students, unless they can access significant outside funding, would live in what can be only described as poverty, especially when they are in advanced residency. Nor does there appear to be any predictably available and generally accessible institutional mechanism that could lift them out of it. Indeed (on the basis of the report at any rate) the longer students are here, the poorer they are likely to be. Surely such a serious and general problem requires a serious response that would address the student body generally. The report documents the problem more effectively than it addresses it. The report suggest a number of new Advanced Residency fellowships, for example, and these would no doubt be helpful, but it also seems to be a winner-take-all sort of program: the fact that some students will win them is predicated on the fact that a larger pool of applicants won't. It would not truly address the fact, which the report makes obvious, that a very large number students - even a majority of them - who do not have access to significant outside resources can scarcely pay half the cost of living as a graduate student.
2) Student funding appears to be structured on the basis of a degree program that does not really exist. Current funding seems to assume 5 years of funding on entry (though not everyone has even this) plus perhaps one more year on a write-up grant to finish off the dissertation -- i.e., the funding regime seems to presume that students take five or six years to graduate. But it takes virtually all students years longer than this to complete a degree, leaving the average student unsupported for a large percentage of their time in the program (8 or 9 years on average). Thus the degree program entails a disparity between the resources that students require to complete it and the resources available to help them to do so. This problem is a general one, which arises predictably on a program-wide basis because of factors that are well beyond the agency of individual students to change. As such, it would be inadequate to try to solve the obvious funding gap by a focus on giving incentives to students to make them try to finish more quickly (a position which the report found among several informants in the faculty and administration). This would only work if most students were actually finishing in five or six years, while a few others inexplicably took longer, just needing an extra push to get them to finish on time. In the situation of the program as it stands, however, an insistence on the principle of incentive would, in effect, convert an institutional problem into an individual responsibility. The funding gap would remain substantially unfilled.
- a.a.
A Question for the Administration
Hello,
I know many people have personal stories to share. My funding was neither particularly bad, nor so good that I don't have to worry about money. I'm in my sixth year now, anyway. Higher TA salaries would help a lot.
My question for the administration is, why does every plan have to be perpetual? I understand that endowing every expenditure is all the rage among the ruling classes these days, but it is a very expensive and perverse priority that I do not share. I find it strange and presumptuous that I am being asked to buy into this logic.
I believe if you want something that costs money and you have the money to pay for it, you should pay for it and keep moving.
In the evening funding meeting last month, Cathy Cohen explained that the reason the University won't provide more fellowships to current students is because it costs close to $500,000 to endow one $20,000 annual award. That may well be true, but that's not what is needed. The administrators seem to be trapped in a very small and expensive, endowed way-of-thinking, and they are unable to see that a temporary problem (funding for current students) requires only a temporary solution.
I think the current model of development and the scale of the University of Chicago's endowment (yes, I now it's "only 13th" in the nation) calls into serious question the appropriateness of these institutions' non-profit, tax-free status. If the administration fails to appreciate the problems of the next few years, and revels in the anticipated glories of the institution in the distant future, I would urge lawmakers to tax university endowments. There is no reason the society at large should effectively subsidize what is going on at the country's richest universities, while families mortgage their homes to pay for an education.
Even a year of loans for school is a big burden on students, that casts a long shadow well into their careers. Yet the administration feels no urgency. The tax-free status is a privilege that has been granted by the American people so that schools can afford to attend to their true constituents: actual students and the society these students will go on to serve.
The tax-free status is not a right to horde money and pretend that it takes half a million dollars to pay a $20,000 bill. As the recent news from Northwestern showed, university administrators can very simply include current students in funding improvements.
But they have to want to, first.
--Julia Brookins
I know many people have personal stories to share. My funding was neither particularly bad, nor so good that I don't have to worry about money. I'm in my sixth year now, anyway. Higher TA salaries would help a lot.
My question for the administration is, why does every plan have to be perpetual? I understand that endowing every expenditure is all the rage among the ruling classes these days, but it is a very expensive and perverse priority that I do not share. I find it strange and presumptuous that I am being asked to buy into this logic.
I believe if you want something that costs money and you have the money to pay for it, you should pay for it and keep moving.
In the evening funding meeting last month, Cathy Cohen explained that the reason the University won't provide more fellowships to current students is because it costs close to $500,000 to endow one $20,000 annual award. That may well be true, but that's not what is needed. The administrators seem to be trapped in a very small and expensive, endowed way-of-thinking, and they are unable to see that a temporary problem (funding for current students) requires only a temporary solution.
I think the current model of development and the scale of the University of Chicago's endowment (yes, I now it's "only 13th" in the nation) calls into serious question the appropriateness of these institutions' non-profit, tax-free status. If the administration fails to appreciate the problems of the next few years, and revels in the anticipated glories of the institution in the distant future, I would urge lawmakers to tax university endowments. There is no reason the society at large should effectively subsidize what is going on at the country's richest universities, while families mortgage their homes to pay for an education.
Even a year of loans for school is a big burden on students, that casts a long shadow well into their careers. Yet the administration feels no urgency. The tax-free status is a privilege that has been granted by the American people so that schools can afford to attend to their true constituents: actual students and the society these students will go on to serve.
The tax-free status is not a right to horde money and pretend that it takes half a million dollars to pay a $20,000 bill. As the recent news from Northwestern showed, university administrators can very simply include current students in funding improvements.
But they have to want to, first.
--Julia Brookins
Letter to the UofC Community (Pennyless Student Stories)
To the University of Chicago Community,
Let me begin with an expression of my love and adoration for the University of Chicago, its rigorous academic environment, and the people, the students, and the faculty who reproduce that environment every day through selfless hard work. It is they who make this institution, in my estimation, the finest place to study, teach, and learn in the world.
I know many graduate student educators, teaching assistants, research assistants, student employees, and lecturers who share these very same feelings for the university. I hear them say it all the time, and they comport themselves in a way that makes these feelings evident everyday.
Regrettably, the University of Chicago also leaves many graduate students feeling seemingly contradictory, bitter sentiments, such as naiveté and guilt.
We feel gullible and naïve because, for all of our hard work and for all the enthusiasm and love with which we make the University of Chicago what it is on a daily basis, we are paid like some cheap outsourced academic commodity. After all, what is our peculiarly low pay but another way of telling us that we are expendable, that we are not valued? For imparting our knowledge and giving our own vitality to the students we so adore, we are recompensed as if we were the butt of a perpetual joke at a roundtable of the university's economists and financial advisors – "if we pay them as little as possible, we can minimize our expenditures and can dramatically increase our net profit ratio. They will come back for more. They need us more than we need any one of them." [Table bursts into laughter].
But they need us.
We are left feeling guilt because we know that the pleasure we receive in working to provide the nation's "finest undergraduate education" comes at the expense of our health, our future finances, and similarly, the well-being of those close to us. It affects everything we do, even though we dust it off or put it away somewhere with the hope that we can just work hard and do the best for ourselves, for our students, for the university. "That will be enough," we hope. "That will make everything okay."
Just how poor is our poor compensation? Teaching assistants and interns receive $1,500 for a quarter of work, which – when considered in terms relative to our "competitor academic institutions," is nothing short of a travesty, an egregious injustice. At best, this is a mere third of the money graduate students are currently receiving to do similar work at comparable private universities. Lecturers meanwhile receive $3,500 per quarter for a "stand alone" course. As you may have realized, this is less than the amount that comparable schools pay their teaching assistants. How can such gross underpayment be justified in any way that might be interpreted as reasonable by graduate students?
Perhaps worst of all, the compensation received is insufficient to pay the health care and compulsory admission fees for graduate students who are beyond their fifth year. Who in their right mind should ever have to teach for a loss of income? What kind of academic institution would ask their graduate students to do such a thing?
This injustice has been a dirty little secret for the university and its graduate students. Yet, it is becoming less of a secret everyday. People all over are learning about and discussing our situation. Faculty are talking about it. Undergraduate students are talking about it. But what can be done to remedy this situation – this injustice – so that feelings of naiveté and guilt are replaced by a sense of pride, by a sense that we are valued and respected employees and educators?
It can be remedied in three ways.
1) Compensate University of Chicago graduate student employees (teachers, instructors, teaching assistants, interns) at the socially normative rate for the work being performed. A fair wage should be provided to all university lecturers, interns, and T/As. A fair wage should be determined through an analysis of the socially normative rate of recompense for the work being completed, taking into account regional differences in the cost of living, and the level of academic education and support being provided. That rate MUST be reviewed and adjusted annually for inflation, just as my university apartment rent is adjusted for inflation.
2) Waive the Health Care fee for all graduate students employees, regardless of their year in the program: At present, beyond a student's fifth year at the University of Chicago, health care and activity and wellness fees amount to $2,400 annually. This is true even if a graduate student lectures University of Chicago undergraduates for three quarters. Given the rising health care costs (relative to our static wages), it is becomingly increasingly clear that waiving the basic health care fee is essential for the survival of students employed by the University. Again, no one should have to work for a loss of income.
3) Waive the tuition fees for the said student employees, just as other private universities do for their student employees. By waving these fees, the University administration would make graduate student life in the critical dissertation writing years more palatable, allowing us to perform our jobs better and to finish our degrees faster without the added pressure of having to replace income lost to these fees by teaching at other universities or going further into debt.
The fact that the University of Chicago's graduate students, who provide a good percentage of the nation's "finest undergraduate education," are greatly under compensated for their work should be nothing less than an embarrassment for this university.
It is time for this university, which so dearly values education and growth of the mind, to demonstrate that it similarly values its educators. What graduate students are asking for is just, it is right, it is fair. We do not expect any lesser treatment from an institution that we give so much of our life force to with so much vigor on a daily basis.
Sincerely,
Gregory Malandrucco
Ph.D. Student, Department of History
The University of Chicago
Let me begin with an expression of my love and adoration for the University of Chicago, its rigorous academic environment, and the people, the students, and the faculty who reproduce that environment every day through selfless hard work. It is they who make this institution, in my estimation, the finest place to study, teach, and learn in the world.
I know many graduate student educators, teaching assistants, research assistants, student employees, and lecturers who share these very same feelings for the university. I hear them say it all the time, and they comport themselves in a way that makes these feelings evident everyday.
Regrettably, the University of Chicago also leaves many graduate students feeling seemingly contradictory, bitter sentiments, such as naiveté and guilt.
We feel gullible and naïve because, for all of our hard work and for all the enthusiasm and love with which we make the University of Chicago what it is on a daily basis, we are paid like some cheap outsourced academic commodity. After all, what is our peculiarly low pay but another way of telling us that we are expendable, that we are not valued? For imparting our knowledge and giving our own vitality to the students we so adore, we are recompensed as if we were the butt of a perpetual joke at a roundtable of the university's economists and financial advisors – "if we pay them as little as possible, we can minimize our expenditures and can dramatically increase our net profit ratio. They will come back for more. They need us more than we need any one of them." [Table bursts into laughter].
But they need us.
We are left feeling guilt because we know that the pleasure we receive in working to provide the nation's "finest undergraduate education" comes at the expense of our health, our future finances, and similarly, the well-being of those close to us. It affects everything we do, even though we dust it off or put it away somewhere with the hope that we can just work hard and do the best for ourselves, for our students, for the university. "That will be enough," we hope. "That will make everything okay."
Just how poor is our poor compensation? Teaching assistants and interns receive $1,500 for a quarter of work, which – when considered in terms relative to our "competitor academic institutions," is nothing short of a travesty, an egregious injustice. At best, this is a mere third of the money graduate students are currently receiving to do similar work at comparable private universities. Lecturers meanwhile receive $3,500 per quarter for a "stand alone" course. As you may have realized, this is less than the amount that comparable schools pay their teaching assistants. How can such gross underpayment be justified in any way that might be interpreted as reasonable by graduate students?
Perhaps worst of all, the compensation received is insufficient to pay the health care and compulsory admission fees for graduate students who are beyond their fifth year. Who in their right mind should ever have to teach for a loss of income? What kind of academic institution would ask their graduate students to do such a thing?
This injustice has been a dirty little secret for the university and its graduate students. Yet, it is becoming less of a secret everyday. People all over are learning about and discussing our situation. Faculty are talking about it. Undergraduate students are talking about it. But what can be done to remedy this situation – this injustice – so that feelings of naiveté and guilt are replaced by a sense of pride, by a sense that we are valued and respected employees and educators?
It can be remedied in three ways.
1) Compensate University of Chicago graduate student employees (teachers, instructors, teaching assistants, interns) at the socially normative rate for the work being performed. A fair wage should be provided to all university lecturers, interns, and T/As. A fair wage should be determined through an analysis of the socially normative rate of recompense for the work being completed, taking into account regional differences in the cost of living, and the level of academic education and support being provided. That rate MUST be reviewed and adjusted annually for inflation, just as my university apartment rent is adjusted for inflation.
2) Waive the Health Care fee for all graduate students employees, regardless of their year in the program: At present, beyond a student's fifth year at the University of Chicago, health care and activity and wellness fees amount to $2,400 annually. This is true even if a graduate student lectures University of Chicago undergraduates for three quarters. Given the rising health care costs (relative to our static wages), it is becomingly increasingly clear that waiving the basic health care fee is essential for the survival of students employed by the University. Again, no one should have to work for a loss of income.
3) Waive the tuition fees for the said student employees, just as other private universities do for their student employees. By waving these fees, the University administration would make graduate student life in the critical dissertation writing years more palatable, allowing us to perform our jobs better and to finish our degrees faster without the added pressure of having to replace income lost to these fees by teaching at other universities or going further into debt.
The fact that the University of Chicago's graduate students, who provide a good percentage of the nation's "finest undergraduate education," are greatly under compensated for their work should be nothing less than an embarrassment for this university.
It is time for this university, which so dearly values education and growth of the mind, to demonstrate that it similarly values its educators. What graduate students are asking for is just, it is right, it is fair. We do not expect any lesser treatment from an institution that we give so much of our life force to with so much vigor on a daily basis.
Sincerely,
Gregory Malandrucco
Ph.D. Student, Department of History
The University of Chicago
Pennyless Student Stories, 2
FYI: The U of C hospital told me to get on public assistance when I couldn't pay a bill...
This summer the student care nurse sent me to get blood work to test for allergies, which turned out to be many hundreds of dollars not covered by insurance. I called the hospital billing people and told them I couldn't afford that and they said that I could apply for aid to have the bill reduced but that I first had to apply for medicare and if I were rejected, then they might reduce my bill.
I don't know what this means for your idea, but just thought I would share.
- Jn
Dear Provost Cohen:
I would like to express my views regarding the situation of advanced graduate students who need to support themselves by teaching in the college as T.A.s, preceptors and instructors. Simply stated, we feel it is absolutely incumbent on the administration to raise the salaries, which have remained at the same paltry level since 1998, the year I entered. I have worked six times as a TA, each time receiving no more than $1500 a quarter, since 2001. I have calculated that if the T.A. salary had been comparable to Yale's in a quarter system, or $4500, my debt level today would be half of what it is now, or some $20,000 less. To give you a sense of how much TAs work for this token wage of $1500, last quarter I graded 30 papers per week for a total of 240 papers during the quarter, spending up to 20 hours a week doing so. In addition, I am a preceptor for BA thesis writers, compensated with a yearly stipend of $6500, or a little over $2000 a quarter. I spend numerous hours every week meeting individually with students, reading their work and providing feedback, as well as conducting a seminar. In the spring I will teach a stand-alone course for which I will receive $3500; I have already put in many hours just in preparation for the course, and will be putting in many more once the course begins. So in total for this year, I'm making $11,500 for teaching or assisting in five courses, a sum that barely covers my rent, much less my living expenses, which the University estimates is some $20,000 a year. I have no other sources of income besides loans. I simply cannot understand why the University of Chicago, with one of the largest university endowments in the country, cannot raise these stipends to the level of a living wage and to adjust yearly for inflation, especially given the ballooning costs of health care. The University of Michigan, with a lower per capita endowment and facing continual state budget cuts, offers graduate teaching fellows $15,000 per semester plus health insurance. Why can't Chicago do the same?
Thank you for your understanding and consideration of these important matters.
Sincerely,
Mikael Wolfe
This summer the student care nurse sent me to get blood work to test for allergies, which turned out to be many hundreds of dollars not covered by insurance. I called the hospital billing people and told them I couldn't afford that and they said that I could apply for aid to have the bill reduced but that I first had to apply for medicare and if I were rejected, then they might reduce my bill.
I don't know what this means for your idea, but just thought I would share.
- Jn
Dear Provost Cohen:
I would like to express my views regarding the situation of advanced graduate students who need to support themselves by teaching in the college as T.A.s, preceptors and instructors. Simply stated, we feel it is absolutely incumbent on the administration to raise the salaries, which have remained at the same paltry level since 1998, the year I entered. I have worked six times as a TA, each time receiving no more than $1500 a quarter, since 2001. I have calculated that if the T.A. salary had been comparable to Yale's in a quarter system, or $4500, my debt level today would be half of what it is now, or some $20,000 less. To give you a sense of how much TAs work for this token wage of $1500, last quarter I graded 30 papers per week for a total of 240 papers during the quarter, spending up to 20 hours a week doing so. In addition, I am a preceptor for BA thesis writers, compensated with a yearly stipend of $6500, or a little over $2000 a quarter. I spend numerous hours every week meeting individually with students, reading their work and providing feedback, as well as conducting a seminar. In the spring I will teach a stand-alone course for which I will receive $3500; I have already put in many hours just in preparation for the course, and will be putting in many more once the course begins. So in total for this year, I'm making $11,500 for teaching or assisting in five courses, a sum that barely covers my rent, much less my living expenses, which the University estimates is some $20,000 a year. I have no other sources of income besides loans. I simply cannot understand why the University of Chicago, with one of the largest university endowments in the country, cannot raise these stipends to the level of a living wage and to adjust yearly for inflation, especially given the ballooning costs of health care. The University of Michigan, with a lower per capita endowment and facing continual state budget cuts, offers graduate teaching fellows $15,000 per semester plus health insurance. Why can't Chicago do the same?
Thank you for your understanding and consideration of these important matters.
Sincerely,
Mikael Wolfe
Monday, February 18, 2008
Pennyless Student Stories
It's really simple...As it becomes a choice between feeding my baby and staying in Chicago...well there isn't really a choice is there? Smart people in their late twenties who work hard shouldn't have to worry about feeding their children.
- Jason B.
I've been following the discussions regarding funding and would like to congratulate those individuals that have kept up the good fight. Since all of this began the year I was set to leave for the job market, I was no longer being funded or located in Chicago proper. But I continue to pay registration fees while I submit my dissertation and complete my degree. Such is the gist of this email.
I think the students should ask the president, and the bursar's office, for leniency and payment plans that will NOT penalize students with late fees and other extra charges intended to get more money. Late fees here are to the tune of $50 to $100 dollars. And often times, these fees are expected to be paid in full, which is to say the whole $784 in one lump sum. My rent isn't that high, so I think the students should argue for this particular leniency.
best of luck....Si se puede!
- Jose Angel
I am an advanced Ph.D. candidate in the Divinity School. I don’t even know anymore how I fit on the SR-AR scale and think I am unlikely to see much benefit from these discussions. But there is absolutely no question that I have been delayed in my program by my need to support myself by alternative means. . .
Because I had previously been enrolled in the school, regardless of the fact that I received minimal financial support during that time, I learned in my first quarter that my package would last only two years and then would disappear. Living my first year in a 1-bedroom apartment, I spent all of my stipend on rent and had to dip into my savings for other living expenses, including health insurance. Things became difficult when my computer crashed in Spring 2003, and I had to purchase a new laptop. That summer I worked full-time as a bartender (4pm to 2am, 4 or 5 days/week). Though I intended to spend the summer studying for my qualifying exams, I was able to do very little due to my demanding work schedule and difficult hours. The following year I moved into a townhouse with 4 other students so that I could reduce my rent to about $500/month. I continued to bartend 2 nights/week through the academic year.
I have not received a stipend for the last four years. In 2004 I began working as a Resident Head for the Office of Undergraduate Student Housing. The job provides an apartment, a meal plan in the dining hall (where I argue it is very difficult to maintain a healthy diet), health care, and a small annual salary. In addition, for three years I worked every quarter as a Writing Intern in the Humanities Core (earning in 2005 the Karen Dinal Award for excellence in the teaching of writing to first-year students). I have now lectured in the Humanities Core for each of the last three quarters (though it is quite rare that someone would be hired to teach for more than one quarter in a year), and I was a lecturer in Fall 2007 in the Big Problems program. Between the Housing job and my TA and lectureships I have been able to eek out a very modest but comfortable sort of existence. I have been incredibly fortunate to get the jobs that I have.
It is difficult to count the hours that I work in the dorm and even for teaching. Between them, however, I think that I work at least full-time for the University doing jobs not associated with my degree program. I love the work, but the jobs do distract from my own research. The dorm job can be psychologically very taxing. In order to make the progress now necessary on my dissertation I feel strongly that I need to move out of my dorm living situation, but I simply don’t have the resources to pay for rent and utilities, food, health insurance – a value of probably close to $20,000. So I feel stuck by my financial situation. Moving out would require finding other work which will likely also require a great deal of time.
Only just recently have I completed my dissertation proposal. I now may be eligible for writing grants. It’s unfortunate that they are apparently available only for a single year, but I’m hopeful I might be able to get one.
- B. K.
- Jason B.
I've been following the discussions regarding funding and would like to congratulate those individuals that have kept up the good fight. Since all of this began the year I was set to leave for the job market, I was no longer being funded or located in Chicago proper. But I continue to pay registration fees while I submit my dissertation and complete my degree. Such is the gist of this email.
I think the students should ask the president, and the bursar's office, for leniency and payment plans that will NOT penalize students with late fees and other extra charges intended to get more money. Late fees here are to the tune of $50 to $100 dollars. And often times, these fees are expected to be paid in full, which is to say the whole $784 in one lump sum. My rent isn't that high, so I think the students should argue for this particular leniency.
best of luck....Si se puede!
- Jose Angel
I am an advanced Ph.D. candidate in the Divinity School. I don’t even know anymore how I fit on the SR-AR scale and think I am unlikely to see much benefit from these discussions. But there is absolutely no question that I have been delayed in my program by my need to support myself by alternative means. . .
Because I had previously been enrolled in the school, regardless of the fact that I received minimal financial support during that time, I learned in my first quarter that my package would last only two years and then would disappear. Living my first year in a 1-bedroom apartment, I spent all of my stipend on rent and had to dip into my savings for other living expenses, including health insurance. Things became difficult when my computer crashed in Spring 2003, and I had to purchase a new laptop. That summer I worked full-time as a bartender (4pm to 2am, 4 or 5 days/week). Though I intended to spend the summer studying for my qualifying exams, I was able to do very little due to my demanding work schedule and difficult hours. The following year I moved into a townhouse with 4 other students so that I could reduce my rent to about $500/month. I continued to bartend 2 nights/week through the academic year.
I have not received a stipend for the last four years. In 2004 I began working as a Resident Head for the Office of Undergraduate Student Housing. The job provides an apartment, a meal plan in the dining hall (where I argue it is very difficult to maintain a healthy diet), health care, and a small annual salary. In addition, for three years I worked every quarter as a Writing Intern in the Humanities Core (earning in 2005 the Karen Dinal Award for excellence in the teaching of writing to first-year students). I have now lectured in the Humanities Core for each of the last three quarters (though it is quite rare that someone would be hired to teach for more than one quarter in a year), and I was a lecturer in Fall 2007 in the Big Problems program. Between the Housing job and my TA and lectureships I have been able to eek out a very modest but comfortable sort of existence. I have been incredibly fortunate to get the jobs that I have.
It is difficult to count the hours that I work in the dorm and even for teaching. Between them, however, I think that I work at least full-time for the University doing jobs not associated with my degree program. I love the work, but the jobs do distract from my own research. The dorm job can be psychologically very taxing. In order to make the progress now necessary on my dissertation I feel strongly that I need to move out of my dorm living situation, but I simply don’t have the resources to pay for rent and utilities, food, health insurance – a value of probably close to $20,000. So I feel stuck by my financial situation. Moving out would require finding other work which will likely also require a great deal of time.
Only just recently have I completed my dissertation proposal. I now may be eligible for writing grants. It’s unfortunate that they are apparently available only for a single year, but I’m hopeful I might be able to get one.
- B. K.
Friday, February 15, 2008
President Zimmer quotes from Maroon article
Zimmer pressed with students’ concerns
By Dasha Vinogradsky
Relevant Quotes:
"Zimmer also said that graduate-student funding was a top priority for the administration and that the administration is waiting for the provost’s report on graduate funding before it decides what actions to take. He added that the changes to graduate funding might not reach their final form for several years."
"In his opening remarks, Zimmer said that the University is poised to become one of the few remaining intellectually serious schools with a rigorous research environment."
"President Robert Zimmer broke bread with a group of 25 undergraduate and graduate students last Friday night at a lively dinner hosted by Student Government (S.G.). The event was a part of ongoing attempts to foster open dialogue between the U of C student body and administration that some critics believe has been conspicuously absent since Zimmer assumed office in 2006..." [Read full article at http://maroon.uchicago.edu/online_edition/article/9927]
By Dasha Vinogradsky
Relevant Quotes:
"Zimmer also said that graduate-student funding was a top priority for the administration and that the administration is waiting for the provost’s report on graduate funding before it decides what actions to take. He added that the changes to graduate funding might not reach their final form for several years."
"In his opening remarks, Zimmer said that the University is poised to become one of the few remaining intellectually serious schools with a rigorous research environment."
"President Robert Zimmer broke bread with a group of 25 undergraduate and graduate students last Friday night at a lively dinner hosted by Student Government (S.G.). The event was a part of ongoing attempts to foster open dialogue between the U of C student body and administration that some critics believe has been conspicuously absent since Zimmer assumed office in 2006..." [Read full article at http://maroon.uchicago.edu/online_edition/article/9927]
It's Time to Take Action on Graduate Funding
It's Time to Take Action on Graduate Funding
Noon
Tuesday, February 19th
Front Foyer of the Regenstein Library
Join the Graduate Council's Committee on Graduate Funding and
Graduate Students United in calling on the U of C
administration to take meaningful action on Graduate Funding.
After gathering at the Regenstein Library at noon, we will be
walking over to the Administration Building to show that more
work needs to be done on these issues. Using an apple, a
symbol of education, each of us will be able to leave a
message about how important it us for us as students and
teachers, workers and neighbors, to see change on these issues.
---
For over a year, we have been patiently waiting for the U of C
to take meaningful action on graduate funding, yet current
graduate students remain grossly underfunded. While
Northwestern University extended the benefits of a new aid
package to its current doctoral students, last year's Graduate
Aid Initiative left roughly half of us with less than $12,000
a year in stipend support and a quarter of us with less than
$5,000.
As Teaching Assistants, we have been waiting for more than
eight years for a raise. Yet TA pay remains the lowest among
peer institutions at $1,500 and teaching positions lack
healthcare and other basic benefits. While wages have remained
the same, the out-of-pocket tuition for advanced students has
consistently increased to where it is now more than half of TA
pay.
On Wednesday, February 13th, the Working Group on Graduate
Student Life in the Humanities, Social Sciences and the
Divinity School publicly released their long awaited report.
With one voice, graduate students will be calling on Provost
Thomas F. Rosenbaum to go beyond the Working Group's
recommendations to address key issues like stipend equity,
teaching pay, health insurance, summer funding, advanced
residency tuition, and support for international students.
We are also calling on Provost Rosenbaum to release his action
steps at a public forum open to all graduate students and to
continue to attend such forums to ensure that progress is made
on these issues. As graduate funding directly affects our
lives, we need to have a direct and ongoing dialogue with
those who are ultimately making decisions on these issues.
Please meet us at noon in the front foyer of the Regenstein
Library, 1100 E 57t street on February 19th.
Media contacts:
Duff Morton duffmorton@yahoo.com 773-562-3364
Toussaint Losier tlosier@uchicago.edu 215-837-4071
Noon
Tuesday, February 19th
Front Foyer of the Regenstein Library
Join the Graduate Council's Committee on Graduate Funding and
Graduate Students United in calling on the U of C
administration to take meaningful action on Graduate Funding.
After gathering at the Regenstein Library at noon, we will be
walking over to the Administration Building to show that more
work needs to be done on these issues. Using an apple, a
symbol of education, each of us will be able to leave a
message about how important it us for us as students and
teachers, workers and neighbors, to see change on these issues.
---
For over a year, we have been patiently waiting for the U of C
to take meaningful action on graduate funding, yet current
graduate students remain grossly underfunded. While
Northwestern University extended the benefits of a new aid
package to its current doctoral students, last year's Graduate
Aid Initiative left roughly half of us with less than $12,000
a year in stipend support and a quarter of us with less than
$5,000.
As Teaching Assistants, we have been waiting for more than
eight years for a raise. Yet TA pay remains the lowest among
peer institutions at $1,500 and teaching positions lack
healthcare and other basic benefits. While wages have remained
the same, the out-of-pocket tuition for advanced students has
consistently increased to where it is now more than half of TA
pay.
On Wednesday, February 13th, the Working Group on Graduate
Student Life in the Humanities, Social Sciences and the
Divinity School publicly released their long awaited report.
With one voice, graduate students will be calling on Provost
Thomas F. Rosenbaum to go beyond the Working Group's
recommendations to address key issues like stipend equity,
teaching pay, health insurance, summer funding, advanced
residency tuition, and support for international students.
We are also calling on Provost Rosenbaum to release his action
steps at a public forum open to all graduate students and to
continue to attend such forums to ensure that progress is made
on these issues. As graduate funding directly affects our
lives, we need to have a direct and ongoing dialogue with
those who are ultimately making decisions on these issues.
Please meet us at noon in the front foyer of the Regenstein
Library, 1100 E 57t street on February 19th.
Media contacts:
Duff Morton duffmorton@yahoo.com 773-562-3364
Toussaint Losier tlosier@uchicago.edu 215-837-4071
Grad Funding: The Story Thus Far
Graduate Funding: The Story Thus Far . . .
Current as of February 14, 2008
This text is intended to make more accessible the diverse activity surrounding the effort to increase funding for current graduate students at the University of Chicago, activity that is a direct response to the new funding package aimed only at new graduate students. For any students who want to get involved or want more information, this document is meant to make that effort significantly easier. I apologize in advance for omissions, errors, and bias. Please forward this document to all interested parties.
- Brian Cody, Sociology - briancody@uchicago.edu - 386.965.1974 cell
I. Upcoming Events
II. Ways to Get Involved
III. Facts and Arguments
IV. The Story Thus Far (from my perspective)
V. Links.
I. Upcoming Events (events in bold are large public events)
• February 14: Read the Provost’s Working Group Report, leave feedback for administration on the Graduate Council Blog (http://sg.uchicago.edu/blog/category/assembly/gc/)
• February 18: Meeting with Provost about increased University commitments for current graduate students that go beyond the Provost’s Working Group Recommendations (closed meeting)
• February 19: Taking Action for Graduate Funding (large public event, noon at Regenstein)
• February: Documentary being made - contact Neal Patel (nhpatel@uchicago.edu)
• February: Press releases, push for articles, other promotional activities – contact Jenn Gregory (jaegregory@uchicago.edu)
• March 5: Rally for Graduate Funding (large public event, main quad 11:30am-1:30pm)
II. Ways to Get Involved
• Show up at upcoming events (above)
• Graduate Council’s Graduate Funding Committee (GCGFC) - focused on large-scale initiative to include current graduate students in the fellowship initiative, expand health insurance, improve teaching compensation/opportunities, international student funding, summer funding opportunities, advanced student tuition/fees remission, and dissertation writing support - email Averill Leslie (averill.leslie@gmail.com)
• Graduate Student Union (GSU) – focused on increasing teaching pay and teaching opportunities, expanded health insurance, and advanced student tuition/fees remission - email Duff Morton (duffmorton@yahoo.com) or Megan Wade (meganw@uchicago.edu)
• Graduate Council – formal student government, all issues of student, academic, and institutional life - email Anthony Green, President (ahgreen@uchicago.edu) or Erica Simmons, Graduate Liason to the Board of Trustees (ericas@uchicago.edu)
• Promotions and Design Work - support all efforts of communicating the graduate funding issue with the wider public - email Jenn Gregory (jaegregory@uchicago.edu) or Neal Patel (nhpatel@uchicago.edu)
III. Facts and Arguments
• Put Your Money Where Your Mouth Is
The logic behind the University’s new funding package applies to current students as well as new students: better scholarship, faster time to degree, more systematic teaching opportunities. President Zimmer was clear on the intent behind this initiative, and the university needs to become an advocate for students so it can achieve the goal the initiative set for ALL students across Social Sciences, Humanities, and the Divinity School. This means:
1. Inclusion into the new funding initiative for all graduate students years 1-5
2. Higher teaching pay, more opportunities, and health insurance for TAs
3. Increased dissertation support
4. Help international students’ situation
Whether this means finding funding, changing priorities, or raising new money, the administration needs to make a serious effort to make this happen if the University of Chicago is to improve and achieve the vision President Zimmer set out for the Graduate Aid Initiative.
• Funding Sources
The NACUBO endowment report for 2007 ranks the University of Chicago as the 13th largest endowment in the nation with $6,204,189,000 and 27.5% growth from 2006. Only 3 universities on the list reported a bigger growth last year than us. This huge increase could be put to improve scholarship among current graduate students rather than just new students and new buildings. Current graduate students need to be made a priority rather than being told “we can’t seem to find the money.”
• Cost of Living
Current students may feel lucky to be receiving a stipend of $3,000, $5,000, or even $10,000, but all of these packages fall dramatically short of the estimated cost of living for the nine-month academic year at the University of Chicago, currently estimated at $19,560. New students receive $19,000 a year which puts them much closer to the cost of living, through still well below the estimated cost of living for the twelve-month calendar year, estimated at $26,080.
• Precedents for including current students
Northwestern University implemented a very similar graduate aid initiative in January 2008 and included current students of their own choice without the need for student protests. The funding for all students in the Northwestern Graduate School is uniform across divisions, with the exception of the sciences. The new changes include increases to stipends, summer funding, health insurance, and TA availability for current students, as well as improved ways to monitor students' progression towards degree. The philosophy behind many of these improvements seems consistent with those articulated in the recent report from the Provost’s Working Group.
• Teaching Pay
• The University of Chicago pays $1500 for 10 weeks as a Teaching Assistant. This has not increased in 7 years while tuition and cost of living has increased.
• Harvard pays almost $7,000.00 (4.5 times) more than the U of C (20 hour/11 Week).
• Northwestern pays almost $4,000 more than the Univ. of Chicago (20 hour/11 Week).
• Columbia College pays almost $1,500 more than the U of C (20 hour/11 Week).
• Teaching Opportunities
Due to the Graduate Aid Initiative, Teaching Assistantships will be mandatory for all incoming graduate students. In a matter of one year, it will be impossible to fill TA-ships with an even marginal percentage of current students. Raising teaching salaries will, unfortunately, have a minimal effect on the approximately 1,000 current graduate students who are currently under-funded. There simply aren’t enough undergraduates to go around, so additional teaching opportunities are needed to properly train our future educators at the University of Chicago.
• Artificially Limiting the Discussion
The scope of the Provost’s recommendations are expected to be small ($500k-$2 million) and not include a serious initiative to raise the money needed to fully cover all Social Science, Humanities, and Divinity School students, even though President Zimmer initially told graduate students that no options were off the table. In Spring 2007, the Provost convened the Working Group on Graduate Student Life in the Humanities, Social Sciences, and Divinity. Students in this group did meet with Provost Rosenbaum to discuss the possibility of new forms of aid, and the Provost suggested that new financial resources might be found. This approach has been abandoned without explanation or rationale.
• Dissertation Support
Neither new incoming students nor current students have sufficient resources for dissertation-writing support. Millions need to be raised for more endowed dissertation writing grants to support graduate students during this critical time of researching and producing new knowledge.
IV. The Story Thus Far
• February 7, 2007: An email goes out from President Zimmer announcing a new Graduate Aid Initiative that gives all future incoming graduate students in the Humanities and the Social Sciences five years of funding ($19k/year) plus two summer stipends ($3k/summer); total cost is $50 million. Current students get health insurance through their fifth year; total cost is $2 million. Divinity School students are not included in the main fellowship portion of the initiative. (see original Zimmer email under “Links”)
• The stated goals of the initiative were to respond to “our obligation to support these programs at the highest level, allowing us to continue to attract emerging scholars who will shape academic fields and set the intellectual agenda in the decades to come” as well as “to allow students to engage their work at a more intensive level, with one result being a shortening of the time to complete degree requirements.” The program also “systematizes opportunities for students to develop a range of teaching experiences” and responds to calls “from faculty that a significant increase in graduate student support should be the highest priority for the Humanities and Social Sciences” (quotes from Zimmer email). Even though the same logic applies to them, current graduate students are not included in the initiative.
• February 28, 2007: At an open meeting with Deputy Provost Martha Roth, current graduate students express confusion and anger over not being given additional resources so they too could improve scholarship quality, shorten time to degree, have more meaningful teaching opportunities, and have funding that matches the cost of living in Hyde Park.
• March 2007: Ad-hoc group of students get together to advocate for graduate funding after meetings with Martha Roth (later becomes GCGFC)
• March 6, 2007: Provost Rosenbaum announces 30 new summer fellowships (increased to 40 later); 270 people apply by deadline, demonstrating the need for more financial support for current students.
• April 23, 2007: Open forum with Provost’s administrative staff. Students launch survey to see where graduate students perceive need for aid. 600 responses total.
• April 24, 2007: Erica Simmons, an early member of the ad-hoc student group and strong advocate of increased graduate aid, wins election as the Graduate Liaison to the Board of Trustees
• April-May, 2007: Graduate students meet with division Deans and central administration to better understand the logic of not including current students, and what could be done.
• May 2, 2007: Three students from the ad-hoc group present a proposal to President Zimmerman, Provost Rosenbaum, VP David Green, Deputy Provost Martha Roth and Deputy Dean for Student Affairs Martina Munsters. The proposal calls for full inclusion of current graduate students in the new initiative based on cost of living and the stated goals of the program (stipends, summer support, health insurance, advanced residency tuition waivers, increased teaching pay, and increased funding for international students). The only thing explicitly rejected is guaranteed support for students through their twelfth year.
• May 2, 2007: In response to student proposal, the Provost’s Ad-Hoc Committee is formed with graduate students and administrators to study the issue of increased funding for current students. Committee members: Alison Winter, Chair (Associate Professor of History), Brian Clites (third-year graduate student in History of Religions), David Martinez (Associate Professor of Classics), Martina Munsters (Deputy Dean of Students for Student Affairs), Rachel Ponce (fifth-year graduate student in History and CHSS), Thomas Thuerer (Dean of Students, Division of Humanities), Greg Weinstein (fifth-year graduate student in Music).
• May 2007: The ad-hoc student group gains official recognition as the Graduate Council’s Graduate Funding Committee (GCGFC). [Note: this is the ‘official’ acronym according to the Graduate Council records, though GCCGF and GCCGA have also been used].
• May 2007: The Graduate Student Union (GSU) begins organizing events focused on unionizing, improving teaching salaries, and improved access to affordable health care.
• June-September 2007: Provost committee works on the issue of graduate funding throughout the summer. Erica Simmons presents information to the University of Chicago’s Board of Trustees on the funding situation for current students, informed them of the charge of the provost committee, and discussed the challenges graduate students face as a result of limited financial support from the University.
• September-December 2007: GCGFC pushes for more funding, Maroon article comes out about continuing student frustration, students are told to wait for the Provost committee report to be released.
• December 8, 2007: Erica Simmons presents information to the Trustees on teaching compensation for graduate students including statistics that compared the U of C to peer and local institutions. Trustees were particularly concerned to hear that our graduate students were taking teaching positions at other local universities because of the difference in compensation rates. They were equally alarmed to hear that the U of C had fallen so far behind its peers.
• December 2007: Members of the provost committee share their initial findings with a limited number of graduate students. Final report, including a separate graduate student addendum expressing concern, is submitted.
• January 14, 2008: Provost committee report (draft form) comes to light. Students decry the narrowness of the Provost’s recommendations over email and at GCGFC/GSU meetings.
• January 28, 2008: GC forum with Deputy Provost Cohen. Presents draft recommendations of the Provost committee. Students ask how much money the Provost is looking at, no clear answer though told anywhere from $500,000 upwards (though not too much upwards). Report clearly does not consider full 5-year fellowships for all current students to be an option, and the scope of proposed recommendations is very narrow.
• February 6, 2008: Open forum w/ Cathy Cohen (Deputy Provost), Martina Munsters (Deputy Dean of Students in the University for Student Affairs), and Kimberly Goff-Crews (Vice President and Dean of Students in the University). Over 100 graduate students attend, many angry speeches concerning the lack of funding across the life of graduate work, as well as the lack of prioritization on the part of the University to find or raise money for current students. The sizeable increase in the University of Chicago endowment was noted as one possible source for funding current students, which was reported to be an average of around $13 million a year over the next 4 years (total: $54.2 million).
• February 8, 2008: GCGFC group has meeting with Provost’s staff. Focused on full coverage instead of the report recommendations because the report is too narrow. Agreed to smaller meeting (4-6 students) to discus larger funding issue rather than a large-group forum to discuss the Provost recommendation report only.
• February 13, 2008: Provost committee report “officially” comes out, all the options are limited and do not address large-scale inclusion of current graduate students in the initiative (see Links, “Provost’s Working Group Report”). Students meet to plan ways of gaining administrative support to advocate on their behalf for additional support.
V. Links
Original Email from President Zimmer Announcing Graduate Aid Initiative
http://www-news.uchicago.edu/releases/07/070207.graduate.shtml
Provost’s Working Group Report
http://sg.uchicago.edu/gradcouncil/docs/GSLWorkingGroupReport.pdf
Northwestern University - New Graduate Funding Package (January 2008)
http://www.tgs.northwestern.edu/docs/N.W.G.S_strplan08Finalnew.pdf
NACUBO University Endowment Report
http://www.nacubo.org/Images/All%20Institutions%20Listed%20by%20FY%202007%20Market%20Value%20of%20Endowment%20Assets_2007%20NES.pdf
Maroon Article - 11/13/2007
http://maroon.uchicago.edu/online_edition/news/2007/11/13/grad-students-keep-up-calls-for-funding/
Maroon Article - 02/01/2008
http://maroon.uchicago.edu/online_edition/news/2008/02/01/graduate-aid-study-group-preps-report/
Funding Initiative Blog – “U of C Blogspot”
http://uofcgradfunding.blogspot.com/
Graduate Council Blog
http://sg.uchicago.edu/blog/category/assembly/gc/
Current as of February 14, 2008
This text is intended to make more accessible the diverse activity surrounding the effort to increase funding for current graduate students at the University of Chicago, activity that is a direct response to the new funding package aimed only at new graduate students. For any students who want to get involved or want more information, this document is meant to make that effort significantly easier. I apologize in advance for omissions, errors, and bias. Please forward this document to all interested parties.
- Brian Cody, Sociology - briancody@uchicago.edu - 386.965.1974 cell
I. Upcoming Events
II. Ways to Get Involved
III. Facts and Arguments
IV. The Story Thus Far (from my perspective)
V. Links.
I. Upcoming Events (events in bold are large public events)
• February 14: Read the Provost’s Working Group Report, leave feedback for administration on the Graduate Council Blog (http://sg.uchicago.edu/blog/category/assembly/gc/)
• February 18: Meeting with Provost about increased University commitments for current graduate students that go beyond the Provost’s Working Group Recommendations (closed meeting)
• February 19: Taking Action for Graduate Funding (large public event, noon at Regenstein)
• February: Documentary being made - contact Neal Patel (nhpatel@uchicago.edu)
• February: Press releases, push for articles, other promotional activities – contact Jenn Gregory (jaegregory@uchicago.edu)
• March 5: Rally for Graduate Funding (large public event, main quad 11:30am-1:30pm)
II. Ways to Get Involved
• Show up at upcoming events (above)
• Graduate Council’s Graduate Funding Committee (GCGFC) - focused on large-scale initiative to include current graduate students in the fellowship initiative, expand health insurance, improve teaching compensation/opportunities, international student funding, summer funding opportunities, advanced student tuition/fees remission, and dissertation writing support - email Averill Leslie (averill.leslie@gmail.com)
• Graduate Student Union (GSU) – focused on increasing teaching pay and teaching opportunities, expanded health insurance, and advanced student tuition/fees remission - email Duff Morton (duffmorton@yahoo.com) or Megan Wade (meganw@uchicago.edu)
• Graduate Council – formal student government, all issues of student, academic, and institutional life - email Anthony Green, President (ahgreen@uchicago.edu) or Erica Simmons, Graduate Liason to the Board of Trustees (ericas@uchicago.edu)
• Promotions and Design Work - support all efforts of communicating the graduate funding issue with the wider public - email Jenn Gregory (jaegregory@uchicago.edu) or Neal Patel (nhpatel@uchicago.edu)
III. Facts and Arguments
• Put Your Money Where Your Mouth Is
The logic behind the University’s new funding package applies to current students as well as new students: better scholarship, faster time to degree, more systematic teaching opportunities. President Zimmer was clear on the intent behind this initiative, and the university needs to become an advocate for students so it can achieve the goal the initiative set for ALL students across Social Sciences, Humanities, and the Divinity School. This means:
1. Inclusion into the new funding initiative for all graduate students years 1-5
2. Higher teaching pay, more opportunities, and health insurance for TAs
3. Increased dissertation support
4. Help international students’ situation
Whether this means finding funding, changing priorities, or raising new money, the administration needs to make a serious effort to make this happen if the University of Chicago is to improve and achieve the vision President Zimmer set out for the Graduate Aid Initiative.
• Funding Sources
The NACUBO endowment report for 2007 ranks the University of Chicago as the 13th largest endowment in the nation with $6,204,189,000 and 27.5% growth from 2006. Only 3 universities on the list reported a bigger growth last year than us. This huge increase could be put to improve scholarship among current graduate students rather than just new students and new buildings. Current graduate students need to be made a priority rather than being told “we can’t seem to find the money.”
• Cost of Living
Current students may feel lucky to be receiving a stipend of $3,000, $5,000, or even $10,000, but all of these packages fall dramatically short of the estimated cost of living for the nine-month academic year at the University of Chicago, currently estimated at $19,560. New students receive $19,000 a year which puts them much closer to the cost of living, through still well below the estimated cost of living for the twelve-month calendar year, estimated at $26,080.
• Precedents for including current students
Northwestern University implemented a very similar graduate aid initiative in January 2008 and included current students of their own choice without the need for student protests. The funding for all students in the Northwestern Graduate School is uniform across divisions, with the exception of the sciences. The new changes include increases to stipends, summer funding, health insurance, and TA availability for current students, as well as improved ways to monitor students' progression towards degree. The philosophy behind many of these improvements seems consistent with those articulated in the recent report from the Provost’s Working Group.
• Teaching Pay
• The University of Chicago pays $1500 for 10 weeks as a Teaching Assistant. This has not increased in 7 years while tuition and cost of living has increased.
• Harvard pays almost $7,000.00 (4.5 times) more than the U of C (20 hour/11 Week).
• Northwestern pays almost $4,000 more than the Univ. of Chicago (20 hour/11 Week).
• Columbia College pays almost $1,500 more than the U of C (20 hour/11 Week).
• Teaching Opportunities
Due to the Graduate Aid Initiative, Teaching Assistantships will be mandatory for all incoming graduate students. In a matter of one year, it will be impossible to fill TA-ships with an even marginal percentage of current students. Raising teaching salaries will, unfortunately, have a minimal effect on the approximately 1,000 current graduate students who are currently under-funded. There simply aren’t enough undergraduates to go around, so additional teaching opportunities are needed to properly train our future educators at the University of Chicago.
• Artificially Limiting the Discussion
The scope of the Provost’s recommendations are expected to be small ($500k-$2 million) and not include a serious initiative to raise the money needed to fully cover all Social Science, Humanities, and Divinity School students, even though President Zimmer initially told graduate students that no options were off the table. In Spring 2007, the Provost convened the Working Group on Graduate Student Life in the Humanities, Social Sciences, and Divinity. Students in this group did meet with Provost Rosenbaum to discuss the possibility of new forms of aid, and the Provost suggested that new financial resources might be found. This approach has been abandoned without explanation or rationale.
• Dissertation Support
Neither new incoming students nor current students have sufficient resources for dissertation-writing support. Millions need to be raised for more endowed dissertation writing grants to support graduate students during this critical time of researching and producing new knowledge.
IV. The Story Thus Far
• February 7, 2007: An email goes out from President Zimmer announcing a new Graduate Aid Initiative that gives all future incoming graduate students in the Humanities and the Social Sciences five years of funding ($19k/year) plus two summer stipends ($3k/summer); total cost is $50 million. Current students get health insurance through their fifth year; total cost is $2 million. Divinity School students are not included in the main fellowship portion of the initiative. (see original Zimmer email under “Links”)
• The stated goals of the initiative were to respond to “our obligation to support these programs at the highest level, allowing us to continue to attract emerging scholars who will shape academic fields and set the intellectual agenda in the decades to come” as well as “to allow students to engage their work at a more intensive level, with one result being a shortening of the time to complete degree requirements.” The program also “systematizes opportunities for students to develop a range of teaching experiences” and responds to calls “from faculty that a significant increase in graduate student support should be the highest priority for the Humanities and Social Sciences” (quotes from Zimmer email). Even though the same logic applies to them, current graduate students are not included in the initiative.
• February 28, 2007: At an open meeting with Deputy Provost Martha Roth, current graduate students express confusion and anger over not being given additional resources so they too could improve scholarship quality, shorten time to degree, have more meaningful teaching opportunities, and have funding that matches the cost of living in Hyde Park.
• March 2007: Ad-hoc group of students get together to advocate for graduate funding after meetings with Martha Roth (later becomes GCGFC)
• March 6, 2007: Provost Rosenbaum announces 30 new summer fellowships (increased to 40 later); 270 people apply by deadline, demonstrating the need for more financial support for current students.
• April 23, 2007: Open forum with Provost’s administrative staff. Students launch survey to see where graduate students perceive need for aid. 600 responses total.
• April 24, 2007: Erica Simmons, an early member of the ad-hoc student group and strong advocate of increased graduate aid, wins election as the Graduate Liaison to the Board of Trustees
• April-May, 2007: Graduate students meet with division Deans and central administration to better understand the logic of not including current students, and what could be done.
• May 2, 2007: Three students from the ad-hoc group present a proposal to President Zimmerman, Provost Rosenbaum, VP David Green, Deputy Provost Martha Roth and Deputy Dean for Student Affairs Martina Munsters. The proposal calls for full inclusion of current graduate students in the new initiative based on cost of living and the stated goals of the program (stipends, summer support, health insurance, advanced residency tuition waivers, increased teaching pay, and increased funding for international students). The only thing explicitly rejected is guaranteed support for students through their twelfth year.
• May 2, 2007: In response to student proposal, the Provost’s Ad-Hoc Committee is formed with graduate students and administrators to study the issue of increased funding for current students. Committee members: Alison Winter, Chair (Associate Professor of History), Brian Clites (third-year graduate student in History of Religions), David Martinez (Associate Professor of Classics), Martina Munsters (Deputy Dean of Students for Student Affairs), Rachel Ponce (fifth-year graduate student in History and CHSS), Thomas Thuerer (Dean of Students, Division of Humanities), Greg Weinstein (fifth-year graduate student in Music).
• May 2007: The ad-hoc student group gains official recognition as the Graduate Council’s Graduate Funding Committee (GCGFC). [Note: this is the ‘official’ acronym according to the Graduate Council records, though GCCGF and GCCGA have also been used].
• May 2007: The Graduate Student Union (GSU) begins organizing events focused on unionizing, improving teaching salaries, and improved access to affordable health care.
• June-September 2007: Provost committee works on the issue of graduate funding throughout the summer. Erica Simmons presents information to the University of Chicago’s Board of Trustees on the funding situation for current students, informed them of the charge of the provost committee, and discussed the challenges graduate students face as a result of limited financial support from the University.
• September-December 2007: GCGFC pushes for more funding, Maroon article comes out about continuing student frustration, students are told to wait for the Provost committee report to be released.
• December 8, 2007: Erica Simmons presents information to the Trustees on teaching compensation for graduate students including statistics that compared the U of C to peer and local institutions. Trustees were particularly concerned to hear that our graduate students were taking teaching positions at other local universities because of the difference in compensation rates. They were equally alarmed to hear that the U of C had fallen so far behind its peers.
• December 2007: Members of the provost committee share their initial findings with a limited number of graduate students. Final report, including a separate graduate student addendum expressing concern, is submitted.
• January 14, 2008: Provost committee report (draft form) comes to light. Students decry the narrowness of the Provost’s recommendations over email and at GCGFC/GSU meetings.
• January 28, 2008: GC forum with Deputy Provost Cohen. Presents draft recommendations of the Provost committee. Students ask how much money the Provost is looking at, no clear answer though told anywhere from $500,000 upwards (though not too much upwards). Report clearly does not consider full 5-year fellowships for all current students to be an option, and the scope of proposed recommendations is very narrow.
• February 6, 2008: Open forum w/ Cathy Cohen (Deputy Provost), Martina Munsters (Deputy Dean of Students in the University for Student Affairs), and Kimberly Goff-Crews (Vice President and Dean of Students in the University). Over 100 graduate students attend, many angry speeches concerning the lack of funding across the life of graduate work, as well as the lack of prioritization on the part of the University to find or raise money for current students. The sizeable increase in the University of Chicago endowment was noted as one possible source for funding current students, which was reported to be an average of around $13 million a year over the next 4 years (total: $54.2 million).
• February 8, 2008: GCGFC group has meeting with Provost’s staff. Focused on full coverage instead of the report recommendations because the report is too narrow. Agreed to smaller meeting (4-6 students) to discus larger funding issue rather than a large-group forum to discuss the Provost recommendation report only.
• February 13, 2008: Provost committee report “officially” comes out, all the options are limited and do not address large-scale inclusion of current graduate students in the initiative (see Links, “Provost’s Working Group Report”). Students meet to plan ways of gaining administrative support to advocate on their behalf for additional support.
V. Links
Original Email from President Zimmer Announcing Graduate Aid Initiative
http://www-news.uchicago.edu/releases/07/070207.graduate.shtml
Provost’s Working Group Report
http://sg.uchicago.edu/gradcouncil/docs/GSLWorkingGroupReport.pdf
Northwestern University - New Graduate Funding Package (January 2008)
http://www.tgs.northwestern.edu/docs/N.W.G.S_strplan08Finalnew.pdf
NACUBO University Endowment Report
http://www.nacubo.org/Images/All%20Institutions%20Listed%20by%20FY%202007%20Market%20Value%20of%20Endowment%20Assets_2007%20NES.pdf
Maroon Article - 11/13/2007
http://maroon.uchicago.edu/online_edition/news/2007/11/13/grad-students-keep-up-calls-for-funding/
Maroon Article - 02/01/2008
http://maroon.uchicago.edu/online_edition/news/2008/02/01/graduate-aid-study-group-preps-report/
Funding Initiative Blog – “U of C Blogspot”
http://uofcgradfunding.blogspot.com/
Graduate Council Blog
http://sg.uchicago.edu/blog/category/assembly/gc/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)