Number of survey responses: 455
Highest rating of any of the administrator’s actions: 5.04/10 (summer fellowships)
Most important funding issue to students: health insurance
Area of most need for students: teaching pay
Average willingness of students to participate in future action on graduate funding: 7.34/10
Dates of survey: February 23-26, 2008
• Please rate the Provost's responses in the following areas (score out of 10):
Stipends - 4.530612
Summer fellowships - 5.043478
Health insurance - 3.531178
Teaching pay - 3.2
Advanced residency tuition - 3.193548
International student support - 3.497653
Dissertation-year fellowships - 4.630734
• How important are the following issues to you (score out of 10):
Stipends - 8.063063
Summer fellowships - 7.538462
Health insurance - 9.033708
Teaching pay - 8.828054
Advanced residency tuition - 8.676471
International student support - 6.214123
Dissertation-year fellowships - 8.743764
• Please rate how much need you have in the following areas (score out of 10):
Stipends - 6.765116
Summer fellowships - 7.102088
Health insurance - 7.769767
Teaching pay - 8.151515
Advanced residency tuition - 7.945882
International student support - 3.397163
Dissertation-year fellowships - 8.016394
• How willing are you to participate in future actions on issues related to graduate funding?
Average score: 7.345109 (out of 10)
Tuesday, February 26, 2008
Maroon Article: "Major error inflates graduate aid estimate"
By Adrian Florido
http://maroon.uchicago.edu/online_edition/article/10004
The Office of the Provost’s Working Group overestimated the cost of extending full graduate aid benefits to all current students by nearly $24 million over four years, according to an independent analysis by a graduate student.
The roughly $57 million price tag calculated by the group failed to account for the reduced tuition rate that takes effect after graduate students enter their fifth year of study, according to Daragh Grant, a third-year political science graduate student who this weekend noticed the miscalculations while examining the group’s December report.
The Working Group was convened by Provost Thomas Rosenbaum last May to explore issues of graduate student life and to make recommendations on how the University could address student concerns about funding for current students. The move was a response to pressure by graduate students who organized after it was announced that benefits from the Graduate Aid Initiative, announced last February, would not be available to students who matriculated prior to the 2007-2008 school year.
The $57 million figure was cited by the Office of the Provost in its decision not to extend the generous Graduate Aid Initiative to all current students. Grant’s recalculation estimated that the actual cost would be roughly $33 million over four years.
Tuition for students beyond their fourth year—a status known as Advanced Residence (AR)—is about $15,000 compared to almost $37,000 for students in their first four years—known as Scholastic Residence (SR).
In calculating the expected costs of extending the Graduate Aid Initiative to students who did not benefit from its full-tuition and stipend allotments offered to incoming students beginning this year, the Working Group assumed all students would pay the higher SR tuition numbers, adjusted for tuition increases, through 2011.
But students progressing beyond their fourth year of study automatically begin paying AR rates, meaning that fewer current students each year will pay SR tuition without the benefit of Graduate Initiative Aid Funding. The 2010–2011 academic year will be the first year that all students in their first four years of graduate school will be covered by the initiative.
In neglecting to account for the decreased tuition rates for the group of students that each year passes into AR status, the Working Group overestimated the amount of extending the Graduate Aid Initiative to current non–initiative-eligible students by several million dollars each year—to the tune of $24 million over four years.
Grant also emphasized that the administration’s use of the $57 million figure was not entirely accurate because it included the cost for the current academic year. Because the Working Group’s recommendations would not take effect until the 2009 fiscal year, the estimates calculated for 2008 were effectively negligible, further reducing the total cost of full funding to about $17 million.
The revised numbers were presented yesterday to administrators who had been closely involved with the Working Group’s discussions and recommendations, including Deputy Provost for Graduate Education Cathy Cohen, Vice President and Dean of Students in the University Kim Goff-Crews, and Deputy Dean of Students in the University for Student Affairs Martina Munsters, who was the administration’s Working Group representative.
In an e-mail to Erica Simmons, graduate student liaison to the Board of Trustees, Munsters confirmed that Grant’s analysis was correct and that the Working Group’s calculations had “introduced a significant error.”
Munsters could not be reached for comment by press time.
Cohen, who has worked closely with members of the Working Group and been the public voice of the administration’s recent graduate funding efforts, said that while she had not taken a close look at the numbers, she and fellow administrators recognized that a significant error had been made.
“This is something that we take [seriously]; we want to look at the numbers, but the initial recalculation (putting the funding figure at $33 million) is one that we wouldn’t be able to meet to fund all graduate students,” Cohen said in a phone interview. She would not comment on specifics or speculate as to how the Working Group might have committed the error.
In light of the developments, some graduate students have questioned whether the revised numbers, had they been calculated correctly initially, might have altered the Working Group’s recommendations and thus the Provost’s provisions for graduate funding. Last week, the Provost committed almost $3 million for improved graduate funding that included minimum stipends for current students whose departments opted to reduce the number of newly admitted students next year.
“If they had started the year with this much smaller number, it might have been imaginable. Maybe if it had been [$33 million], they would have thought it might have been possible,” Simmons said, referring to the Working Group’s task of confronting the $57 million number when outlining its recommendations to the Provost.
“All of the cost-benefit analysis changes when the project is cheaper,” Grant said, claiming that the mistake showed that the Working Group didn’t approach the task seriously.
But Cohen said the revised numbers would likely have little effect on last week’s funding announcement.
“I have spoken to the Provost,” she said. “I don’t think it changes our response of last week at all… It’s not like we were a million or two million short [of the estimated cost for full funding],” she said.
Still, Simmons said that the development could have implications for graduate students’ response to future efforts by the administration to address graduate funding concerns.
As part of last week’s announcement, the Provost’s report detailed plans to convene committees to explore the issues of graduate teacher compensation and student health care, two major concerns of current students.
“It’s also really important because of the credibility of the efforts moving forward. It’s much harder to move forward working on committees that they want to form if we’re not confident that they’re able to consistently produce reliable numbers,” Simmons said.
http://maroon.uchicago.edu/online_edition/article/10004
The Office of the Provost’s Working Group overestimated the cost of extending full graduate aid benefits to all current students by nearly $24 million over four years, according to an independent analysis by a graduate student.
The roughly $57 million price tag calculated by the group failed to account for the reduced tuition rate that takes effect after graduate students enter their fifth year of study, according to Daragh Grant, a third-year political science graduate student who this weekend noticed the miscalculations while examining the group’s December report.
The Working Group was convened by Provost Thomas Rosenbaum last May to explore issues of graduate student life and to make recommendations on how the University could address student concerns about funding for current students. The move was a response to pressure by graduate students who organized after it was announced that benefits from the Graduate Aid Initiative, announced last February, would not be available to students who matriculated prior to the 2007-2008 school year.
The $57 million figure was cited by the Office of the Provost in its decision not to extend the generous Graduate Aid Initiative to all current students. Grant’s recalculation estimated that the actual cost would be roughly $33 million over four years.
Tuition for students beyond their fourth year—a status known as Advanced Residence (AR)—is about $15,000 compared to almost $37,000 for students in their first four years—known as Scholastic Residence (SR).
In calculating the expected costs of extending the Graduate Aid Initiative to students who did not benefit from its full-tuition and stipend allotments offered to incoming students beginning this year, the Working Group assumed all students would pay the higher SR tuition numbers, adjusted for tuition increases, through 2011.
But students progressing beyond their fourth year of study automatically begin paying AR rates, meaning that fewer current students each year will pay SR tuition without the benefit of Graduate Initiative Aid Funding. The 2010–2011 academic year will be the first year that all students in their first four years of graduate school will be covered by the initiative.
In neglecting to account for the decreased tuition rates for the group of students that each year passes into AR status, the Working Group overestimated the amount of extending the Graduate Aid Initiative to current non–initiative-eligible students by several million dollars each year—to the tune of $24 million over four years.
Grant also emphasized that the administration’s use of the $57 million figure was not entirely accurate because it included the cost for the current academic year. Because the Working Group’s recommendations would not take effect until the 2009 fiscal year, the estimates calculated for 2008 were effectively negligible, further reducing the total cost of full funding to about $17 million.
The revised numbers were presented yesterday to administrators who had been closely involved with the Working Group’s discussions and recommendations, including Deputy Provost for Graduate Education Cathy Cohen, Vice President and Dean of Students in the University Kim Goff-Crews, and Deputy Dean of Students in the University for Student Affairs Martina Munsters, who was the administration’s Working Group representative.
In an e-mail to Erica Simmons, graduate student liaison to the Board of Trustees, Munsters confirmed that Grant’s analysis was correct and that the Working Group’s calculations had “introduced a significant error.”
Munsters could not be reached for comment by press time.
Cohen, who has worked closely with members of the Working Group and been the public voice of the administration’s recent graduate funding efforts, said that while she had not taken a close look at the numbers, she and fellow administrators recognized that a significant error had been made.
“This is something that we take [seriously]; we want to look at the numbers, but the initial recalculation (putting the funding figure at $33 million) is one that we wouldn’t be able to meet to fund all graduate students,” Cohen said in a phone interview. She would not comment on specifics or speculate as to how the Working Group might have committed the error.
In light of the developments, some graduate students have questioned whether the revised numbers, had they been calculated correctly initially, might have altered the Working Group’s recommendations and thus the Provost’s provisions for graduate funding. Last week, the Provost committed almost $3 million for improved graduate funding that included minimum stipends for current students whose departments opted to reduce the number of newly admitted students next year.
“If they had started the year with this much smaller number, it might have been imaginable. Maybe if it had been [$33 million], they would have thought it might have been possible,” Simmons said, referring to the Working Group’s task of confronting the $57 million number when outlining its recommendations to the Provost.
“All of the cost-benefit analysis changes when the project is cheaper,” Grant said, claiming that the mistake showed that the Working Group didn’t approach the task seriously.
But Cohen said the revised numbers would likely have little effect on last week’s funding announcement.
“I have spoken to the Provost,” she said. “I don’t think it changes our response of last week at all… It’s not like we were a million or two million short [of the estimated cost for full funding],” she said.
Still, Simmons said that the development could have implications for graduate students’ response to future efforts by the administration to address graduate funding concerns.
As part of last week’s announcement, the Provost’s report detailed plans to convene committees to explore the issues of graduate teacher compensation and student health care, two major concerns of current students.
“It’s also really important because of the credibility of the efforts moving forward. It’s much harder to move forward working on committees that they want to form if we’re not confident that they’re able to consistently produce reliable numbers,” Simmons said.
Pennyless Student Story: Not Getting Paid
I'm a TA for a course in Humanities, but have not been paid at all during this quarter (not only do we get paid shit, but sometimes we don't even get paid at all).
I've been to payroll, and they told me I was not even in the system. She told me they would try to make sure I'd be paid for January and February on March 1. That was 10 days ago, and I have not heard anything else from them. I also went to see the department secretary, who was also surprised I was not being paid, although there wasn't much she could do. By the way, thanks for the hard work of SG!
- A.D.
I've been to payroll, and they told me I was not even in the system. She told me they would try to make sure I'd be paid for January and February on March 1. That was 10 days ago, and I have not heard anything else from them. I also went to see the department secretary, who was also surprised I was not being paid, although there wasn't much she could do. By the way, thanks for the hard work of SG!
- A.D.
Saturday, February 23, 2008
REPORT CARD ON GRADUATE FUNDING
REPORT CARD ON GRADUATE FUNDING
Thursday, February 28
Noon
Main Quad (near Swift Hall)
Come to the public unveiling of the Report Card on Graduate Funding, which grades University of Chicago administration's responses to issues of graduate funding, with grades provided by student responses to the survey on graduate funding.
Take the Survey on Graduate Funding
http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=ybnRxh9kHWo4889WrnlcCQ_3d_3d
See you all Thursday!
Thursday, February 28
Noon
Main Quad (near Swift Hall)
Come to the public unveiling of the Report Card on Graduate Funding, which grades University of Chicago administration's responses to issues of graduate funding, with grades provided by student responses to the survey on graduate funding.
Take the Survey on Graduate Funding
http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=ybnRxh9kHWo4889WrnlcCQ_3d_3d
See you all Thursday!
Friday, February 22, 2008
Survey on Graduate Funding and Provost Action Steps
To all students:
Please take a few minutes to complete a survey regarding graduate funding and reactions to the Provost's new action steps regarding graduate funding.
http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=ybnRxh9kHWo4889WrnlcCQ_3d_3d
Deadline: noon on Tuesday, February 26th, 2008
Thanks!
Please take a few minutes to complete a survey regarding graduate funding and reactions to the Provost's new action steps regarding graduate funding.
http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=ybnRxh9kHWo4889WrnlcCQ_3d_3d
Deadline: noon on Tuesday, February 26th, 2008
Thanks!
Student Response to Provost Action Items
So I was interested to see the email from Provost Rosenbaum this afternoon that proposes "actions [that] will materially improve the circumstances of graduate students in Divinity, Humanities and Social Sciences as well as addressing a broad range of concerns affecting graduate and professional students". I was especially pleased to see that the university is willing to commit $4.7 million which, whilst not enough to rectify the manifest imbalances that exist in the funding of current graduate students, still appears to signify something of an effort to improve graduate life.
Pleased, that is, until I read the details of the proposal. Although I am very happy for our colleagues in the Divinity School will benefit retroactively from the Grad Aid Initiative (receiving $1.4 million over the next four years), I am slightly surprised that the amount of money being made available to current graduate students at Div school is over 47% higher than the money being made available through the slots-for-cash program in the Social Sciences and the Humanities combined. [If, indeed, this money is for graduate students already here, I thoroughly applaud the administration's efforts. I wonder, however, whether the $1.4 million identified includes not only students here right now but also the cost of covering students that will arrive in the fall?]
Carving out the Divinity School, the remaining proposals suggest that the university is willing to provide $3.3 million to improve the lives of current graduate students in the Social Sciences and Humanities. Ten percent of that money will be enjoyed by a maximum of 110 students that receive summer funding over the next two years (assuming no student receives more than one such award). The slots-for-cash program will provide a further $950,000 of funding that can be utilized by the 800 or so students in these divisions not yet covered by the Grad Aid Initiative. If this is divided equally between all of these students, each will receive $1187.50 next year (about $1050 after tax) which is a little less than a third of the cost of advanced residency for a quarter. This, of course, all depends on the rather absurd assumption that this would be evenly divided between all students which is itself rendered impossible by the fact that it doesn't apply to all departments. It is fair to say, therefore, that the slots-for-cash money offers little guarantee of equity between current graduate students, and even if it were to be equitably distributed it would make little difference to graduate students who are struggling to pay their rent at the same time that they are trying to produce their research.
This leaves $2.2million which will be used to fund 15-20 write-up fellowships for the next five years. This is a pretty welcome move, though unfortunately it is a move that can benefit only 75-100 graduate students in these divisions, and only those that are able to get across the gaping funding hurdle posed by a fifth and sixth etc. years without any funding whatsoever, forcing them to teach countless classes being paid whatever low-rent wage the university is willing to offer for the 2008-09 year (which is highly unlikely to reach the dizzy heights of our peer institutions). [Let's face it, when the university administration fights as hard as they did last fall to resist a wage increase of a mere 4% for those employees of the university who literally keep the show on the road from a day-to-day basis, what are the chances that they will be willing to redress the massive gap in pay between TAs at this university and those at peer institutions?] A second, and more critical point here, is that the idea that there exist 80 write-up fellowships in the Humanities and the Social Sciences already, ignores the reality that these fellowships are not available to all students. To the extent that some of these fellowships are available to strictly defined constituencies, this needs to be made clear in the Provost's communication to avoid appearing like he has over-egged the cake.
In total, therefore, the Provost has just announced a series of proposals that will benefit fewer than half of the students that are currently financially disadvantaged by the fact that they are students at the University of Chicago. Even if the slots-for-cash program were to be combined with the increased summer funding and parceled out as 427 awards of $3,000, this would still provide money to little over half of the students in these divisions that lack funding, and still at a level insufficient to pay for even a single quarter of advanced residency. In short, these initiatives are unlikely to be of much help to people who face advanced residency fees in 2008, no funding from the university, and the daunting prospect of writing a dissertation while teaching a bunch of classes for which their colleagues at Yale, Harvard, Berkeley, Brown, Northwestern etc. etc. would be paid two or three times as much.
I don't mean to sound entirely negative, however. I am glad the university is going to investigate further the options for increasing TA salaries. I am glad that the question of advanced residency fees is being investigated. And, as an international student, I am particularly glad that the specific problems faced by international students are being investigated by the university. I also, in the past week, had the opportunity to speak with Professor Cohen, and Kim Goff-Crews, both of whom I found to be engaged and genuinely concerned with issues of graduate student life. I think that the meetings they have been holding with students are an admirable and important contribution to addressing the concerns of current graduate students. However, the proof of the pudding is in the eating (to continue this cute little baking metaphor). If the proposals that these new committees produce are inadequate, if the university continues to demand that already underfunded students pay advanced residency fees, and if we continue to be offered salaries for TAing that are radically at odds both with the work required and with the salaries being paid to our colleagues at peer institutions, then the university cannot expect its graduate students to continue to support a structure of employment that perpetuates significant disadvantages for those it employs--at both a financial and an academic level. If the university cares about graduate student life, then it has to act as if it cares. Constantly coddling us with words of affection does little to pay the rent.
Best regards,
Daragh Grant
Department of Political Science
University of Chicago
Maroon article, "Provost’s office outlines new plan for graduate aid"
Provost’s office outlines new plan for graduate aid
http://maroon.uchicago.edu/online_edition/article/9978
By Adrian Florido and Nathalie Gorman
Fri Feb 22 02:51:00 -0600 2008
The Office of the Provost yesterday announced significant changes in the allocation of financial aid to current graduate students, who benefit little from the $50 million Graduate Aid Initiative for incoming students announced last year. Current graduate students in the Humanities and Social Sciences had decried their exclusion from the package, culminating in a protest Tuesday where over 150 students gathered in the foyer of the Regenstein Library and marched to the administration building to demand increases in funding.
The provisions put forward in a report posted on the provost’s website include minimum stipends, an increase in the number of summer and dissertation fellowships, and the expansion of the Graduate Aid Initiative to cover incoming students in the Divinity School, who did not previously benefit from the plan.
The report also detailed plans by Deputy Provost for Graduate Education Cathy Cohen to convene committees charged with exploring potential headway into improving compensation for graduate student teaching and health coverage, two of the funding issues most pressing for many graduate students.
The announcement comes a year after a contingent of graduate students across the divisions began organizing in response to the lack of funding provided to students who enrolled prior to the 2007–2008 school year by the Initiative. Many students voiced disappointment that the plan had been formulated with little input from current students and pressed President Robert Zimmer, Provost Thomas Rosenbaum, and other administrators to address the disparity between incoming and current graduate students.
In May, Rosenbaum convened the Working Group, a committee of faculty, administrators, and students charged with making recommendations for improving the experience of graduate students on campus. The Office of the Provost developed the plan announced today after consideration of the group’s December report.
Under the provisions of the revamped plan, departments within the Humanities and Social Sciences divisions have the option of reducing the number of new students admitted to their programs and instead redistributing the funds offered by the Graduate Student Initiative to current students. Departments adopting this option will offer current students a minimum $10,500 stipend in the Humanities Division and $15,000 in the Social Sciences Division and the Divinity School.
Although the Office of the Provost has encouraged all departments to adopt this “slots for funds” option, several departments in both divisions have not committed to doing so.
Students in departments opting not to reduce the number of admitted students would have no stipend alternative, said Cohen, although summer and dissertation-year fellowships would still be made available to them.
In addition to the stipend option made available to departments, the provost will increase the number of $3,000 summer fellowships to 100 each year, up from 25, and also add 15 dissertation-year fellowships for students beyond their fifth year who are no longer eligible for standard graduate funding options.
Student leaders of the effort to pressure administrators to implement increased funding for current graduates have expressed only limited satisfaction with the provost’s provisions.
“Rather than taking decisive action to create equity across the board in terms of graduate students being funded...the cash for slots program sort of passes the buck off to the departments,” said graduate student and organizer Toussaint Losier.
But Cohen said that ultimately that decision is not up to administrators to make.
“These decisions are best handled at the departmental level. Often departments would say that, given the needs of the faculty and the program, that they were making a different decision,” she said.
The reaction from graduate student activists was mixed.
“It’s a step in the right direction....I’m grateful, I think all of us are, to have more support from the administration,” said graduate student Duff Morton, who has worked to organize student support for graduate funding initiatives.
But Morton and Losier felt that the Provost’s provisions did not go far enough in ensuring that current graduate students would be able to adequately provide for themselves during their academic years.
The level of compensation for graduate student teachers, who are paid significantly less than students at peer institutions, is among their chief concerns.
“We want people at this University who teach to be able to live by teaching,” Morton said. “Right now, there’s no way for people to survive by teaching on campus.”
Administrators agree that this is a concern that will take top priority in upcoming discussions about improving graduate funding.
“Everyone in the administration acknowledges and understands that we seem to be lagging behind peer institutions,” Cohen said.
According to Cohen, administrators hope to implement recommendations made by the committee convened to address graduate teaching remuneration by the start of the 2008–2009 school year.
But Morton was only cautiously optimistic about the short timeline.
“I’ll believe it when I see it,” he said.
The administration will also continue to explore the issue of health coverage for current students, said Kimberly Goff-Crews, vice president and dean of students in the University.
Although the Graduate Student Initiative announced last year did provide health insurance for most current graduate students, many beyond their fifth years still are not covered, and the issue has also been one of organizers’ rallying cries. At the protest Tuesday, two baskets of apples were deposited in front of Rosenbaum’s office in a move graduate students hoped would inspire greater concessions from administrators.
Cohen’s reaction to the protest was positive. “I thought it was respectful, I thought it was smart,” she said. “All of this is about dialogue. Different students have different needs. We try to address the needs of the largest group of graduate students that we can.”
http://maroon.uchicago.edu/online_edition/article/9978
By Adrian Florido and Nathalie Gorman
Fri Feb 22 02:51:00 -0600 2008
The Office of the Provost yesterday announced significant changes in the allocation of financial aid to current graduate students, who benefit little from the $50 million Graduate Aid Initiative for incoming students announced last year. Current graduate students in the Humanities and Social Sciences had decried their exclusion from the package, culminating in a protest Tuesday where over 150 students gathered in the foyer of the Regenstein Library and marched to the administration building to demand increases in funding.
The provisions put forward in a report posted on the provost’s website include minimum stipends, an increase in the number of summer and dissertation fellowships, and the expansion of the Graduate Aid Initiative to cover incoming students in the Divinity School, who did not previously benefit from the plan.
The report also detailed plans by Deputy Provost for Graduate Education Cathy Cohen to convene committees charged with exploring potential headway into improving compensation for graduate student teaching and health coverage, two of the funding issues most pressing for many graduate students.
The announcement comes a year after a contingent of graduate students across the divisions began organizing in response to the lack of funding provided to students who enrolled prior to the 2007–2008 school year by the Initiative. Many students voiced disappointment that the plan had been formulated with little input from current students and pressed President Robert Zimmer, Provost Thomas Rosenbaum, and other administrators to address the disparity between incoming and current graduate students.
In May, Rosenbaum convened the Working Group, a committee of faculty, administrators, and students charged with making recommendations for improving the experience of graduate students on campus. The Office of the Provost developed the plan announced today after consideration of the group’s December report.
Under the provisions of the revamped plan, departments within the Humanities and Social Sciences divisions have the option of reducing the number of new students admitted to their programs and instead redistributing the funds offered by the Graduate Student Initiative to current students. Departments adopting this option will offer current students a minimum $10,500 stipend in the Humanities Division and $15,000 in the Social Sciences Division and the Divinity School.
Although the Office of the Provost has encouraged all departments to adopt this “slots for funds” option, several departments in both divisions have not committed to doing so.
Students in departments opting not to reduce the number of admitted students would have no stipend alternative, said Cohen, although summer and dissertation-year fellowships would still be made available to them.
In addition to the stipend option made available to departments, the provost will increase the number of $3,000 summer fellowships to 100 each year, up from 25, and also add 15 dissertation-year fellowships for students beyond their fifth year who are no longer eligible for standard graduate funding options.
Student leaders of the effort to pressure administrators to implement increased funding for current graduates have expressed only limited satisfaction with the provost’s provisions.
“Rather than taking decisive action to create equity across the board in terms of graduate students being funded...the cash for slots program sort of passes the buck off to the departments,” said graduate student and organizer Toussaint Losier.
But Cohen said that ultimately that decision is not up to administrators to make.
“These decisions are best handled at the departmental level. Often departments would say that, given the needs of the faculty and the program, that they were making a different decision,” she said.
The reaction from graduate student activists was mixed.
“It’s a step in the right direction....I’m grateful, I think all of us are, to have more support from the administration,” said graduate student Duff Morton, who has worked to organize student support for graduate funding initiatives.
But Morton and Losier felt that the Provost’s provisions did not go far enough in ensuring that current graduate students would be able to adequately provide for themselves during their academic years.
The level of compensation for graduate student teachers, who are paid significantly less than students at peer institutions, is among their chief concerns.
“We want people at this University who teach to be able to live by teaching,” Morton said. “Right now, there’s no way for people to survive by teaching on campus.”
Administrators agree that this is a concern that will take top priority in upcoming discussions about improving graduate funding.
“Everyone in the administration acknowledges and understands that we seem to be lagging behind peer institutions,” Cohen said.
According to Cohen, administrators hope to implement recommendations made by the committee convened to address graduate teaching remuneration by the start of the 2008–2009 school year.
But Morton was only cautiously optimistic about the short timeline.
“I’ll believe it when I see it,” he said.
The administration will also continue to explore the issue of health coverage for current students, said Kimberly Goff-Crews, vice president and dean of students in the University.
Although the Graduate Student Initiative announced last year did provide health insurance for most current graduate students, many beyond their fifth years still are not covered, and the issue has also been one of organizers’ rallying cries. At the protest Tuesday, two baskets of apples were deposited in front of Rosenbaum’s office in a move graduate students hoped would inspire greater concessions from administrators.
Cohen’s reaction to the protest was positive. “I thought it was respectful, I thought it was smart,” she said. “All of this is about dialogue. Different students have different needs. We try to address the needs of the largest group of graduate students that we can.”
Maroon article, "A Culture of Free Inquiry"
A culture of free inquiry
http://maroon.uchicago.edu/online_edition/print/9957
By Toussaint Losier & Anjanette Chan Tack
Thu Feb 21 23:30:00 -0600 2008
Over a year ago this month, newly inaugurated University of Chicago president Robert Zimmer made two important announcements that have raised concerns about core principles. On February 2, the Office of the President revealed that, in spite of the demands made by a broad-based campaign for divestment, the Board of Trustees voted to maintain financial involvement in companies linked to the ongoing genocide in Darfur. Five days later, Zimmer announced the creation of the Graduate Aid Initiative to improve funding for incoming doctoral students in the humanities and social sciences, and eventually, the Divinity School. Although apparently unconnected, both of these developments reveal the University’s prioritization of market calculations over its own values.
Ironically, a commitment to the University’s fundamental values was supposed to lie at the heart of both pronouncements. Referencing the 1967 Kalven Report, Zimmer warned that divestment from the “crisis in Sudan” would compromise our “institutional culture that promotes and preserves free inquiry and the expression of the fullest range of perspectives.” Several days later, Zimmer lauded the new initiative as a way to “ensure that doctoral students in these programs are among the most generously supported in all of higher education.” These stated concerns masked both past failings and continued inaction.
Our investment in companies complicit in mass murder and ethnic cleansing did not become public knowledge until a group of students brought this reality to our attention. While subsequent activism engendered rich debate on campus, Zimmer’s announcement cast a moral stand for human rights as a threat to the very exchange of ideas this activism had fostered. If anything, the past year has shown us that it was the president’s announcement that has most threatened this institutional culture by silencing free inquiry, rather than encouraging it, particularly in regard to the University’s investment practices.
Similarly hollow rhetoric was used in the original unveiling of the Graduate Aid Initiative and its offer of full tuition, health insurance, a $19,000 annual stipend, and two summers of $3,000 research support. Unlike its peer institutions, the U of C did not include current students in its new funding plan. Instead, this initiative ignored the systematic underfunding of current graduate students, with roughly half of us getting by on less than $12,000 in stipend support. While the University’s own calculations place the annual cost of living at $26,080, nearly a quarter of current graduate students receive $5,000 or less in aid.
Those graduate students who have been able to make up the difference by relying on savings or taking out loans unwittingly demonstrate how graduate education remains a distant dream for those without similar privileges. Meanwhile, those of us who work a second job unrelated to our research often find ourselves relegating the “life of the mind” to a part-time pursuit.
Surprisingly, the ability of graduate students to contribute to the University’s mission through our scholarships is even further circumscribed when we work as its teachers and research assistants. Although these jobs are vital to a culture of free inquiry, salaries have not increased in eight years and they still do not come with standard benefits like health insurance. Where a survey of peer institutions found a range of pay rates, the average of $5,868 is well above the $1,500 for teaching assistants at this university. An instructor position pays only $3,500 per quarter. Teaching is essential to the University’s mission and is described as part of graduate professional development, but it is a job that graduate students cannot rely on to make ends meet. And much like the immorality of the University’s investments, there was little discussion of this issue until a group of students began to demand change.
While the steps announced Thursday by Provost Rosenbaum are a step in the right direction, they do not directly address the issues of underfunding and underpayment. Rather than bringing about equity in stipends, “slots for cash” places the responsibility on departmental decisionmakers, long the drivers of funding inequity. And instead of taking decisive action to bring teaching pay up to the level of our peer institutions, plans for change have been further delayed.
Four decades ago, the Kalven Report stated that the “great and unique role” of the University of Chicago lay in “fostering the development of social and political values in a society.” It is a role that is carried out by faculty, students, and staff in their scholarship and their political activism. Today, it is clear that a transformation of values is needed at this institution as much as in the world outside of it. For it will not be possible for us to have an ethical and collegial academic community that positively impacts the world around it unless this university places its “core principles” ahead of market values.
Anjanette Chan Tack is a second-year doctoral student in the sociology department. Toussaint Losier is a second-year doctoral student in the history department.
http://maroon.uchicago.edu/online_edition/print/9957
By Toussaint Losier & Anjanette Chan Tack
Thu Feb 21 23:30:00 -0600 2008
Over a year ago this month, newly inaugurated University of Chicago president Robert Zimmer made two important announcements that have raised concerns about core principles. On February 2, the Office of the President revealed that, in spite of the demands made by a broad-based campaign for divestment, the Board of Trustees voted to maintain financial involvement in companies linked to the ongoing genocide in Darfur. Five days later, Zimmer announced the creation of the Graduate Aid Initiative to improve funding for incoming doctoral students in the humanities and social sciences, and eventually, the Divinity School. Although apparently unconnected, both of these developments reveal the University’s prioritization of market calculations over its own values.
Ironically, a commitment to the University’s fundamental values was supposed to lie at the heart of both pronouncements. Referencing the 1967 Kalven Report, Zimmer warned that divestment from the “crisis in Sudan” would compromise our “institutional culture that promotes and preserves free inquiry and the expression of the fullest range of perspectives.” Several days later, Zimmer lauded the new initiative as a way to “ensure that doctoral students in these programs are among the most generously supported in all of higher education.” These stated concerns masked both past failings and continued inaction.
Our investment in companies complicit in mass murder and ethnic cleansing did not become public knowledge until a group of students brought this reality to our attention. While subsequent activism engendered rich debate on campus, Zimmer’s announcement cast a moral stand for human rights as a threat to the very exchange of ideas this activism had fostered. If anything, the past year has shown us that it was the president’s announcement that has most threatened this institutional culture by silencing free inquiry, rather than encouraging it, particularly in regard to the University’s investment practices.
Similarly hollow rhetoric was used in the original unveiling of the Graduate Aid Initiative and its offer of full tuition, health insurance, a $19,000 annual stipend, and two summers of $3,000 research support. Unlike its peer institutions, the U of C did not include current students in its new funding plan. Instead, this initiative ignored the systematic underfunding of current graduate students, with roughly half of us getting by on less than $12,000 in stipend support. While the University’s own calculations place the annual cost of living at $26,080, nearly a quarter of current graduate students receive $5,000 or less in aid.
Those graduate students who have been able to make up the difference by relying on savings or taking out loans unwittingly demonstrate how graduate education remains a distant dream for those without similar privileges. Meanwhile, those of us who work a second job unrelated to our research often find ourselves relegating the “life of the mind” to a part-time pursuit.
Surprisingly, the ability of graduate students to contribute to the University’s mission through our scholarships is even further circumscribed when we work as its teachers and research assistants. Although these jobs are vital to a culture of free inquiry, salaries have not increased in eight years and they still do not come with standard benefits like health insurance. Where a survey of peer institutions found a range of pay rates, the average of $5,868 is well above the $1,500 for teaching assistants at this university. An instructor position pays only $3,500 per quarter. Teaching is essential to the University’s mission and is described as part of graduate professional development, but it is a job that graduate students cannot rely on to make ends meet. And much like the immorality of the University’s investments, there was little discussion of this issue until a group of students began to demand change.
While the steps announced Thursday by Provost Rosenbaum are a step in the right direction, they do not directly address the issues of underfunding and underpayment. Rather than bringing about equity in stipends, “slots for cash” places the responsibility on departmental decisionmakers, long the drivers of funding inequity. And instead of taking decisive action to bring teaching pay up to the level of our peer institutions, plans for change have been further delayed.
Four decades ago, the Kalven Report stated that the “great and unique role” of the University of Chicago lay in “fostering the development of social and political values in a society.” It is a role that is carried out by faculty, students, and staff in their scholarship and their political activism. Today, it is clear that a transformation of values is needed at this institution as much as in the world outside of it. For it will not be possible for us to have an ethical and collegial academic community that positively impacts the world around it unless this university places its “core principles” ahead of market values.
Anjanette Chan Tack is a second-year doctoral student in the sociology department. Toussaint Losier is a second-year doctoral student in the history department.
Thursday, February 21, 2008
Article from "The Chronicle of Higher Education"
Graduate Students Rally for More Aid at the U. of Chicago
http://chronicle.com/jobs/blogs/onhiring/474
"About 150 graduate students at the University of Chicago marched to the provost’s office this week to protest the administration’s financial-aid policy.
Last year the administration unveiled a plan that gives graduate students in the humanities, social sciences, and the Divinity School $19,000 each per year for five years, plus $3,000 each for two summers of study. The package, which the administration said would cost $50-million, is available only for graduate students who enrolled beginning in the 2007-8 academic year.
Graduate students who were already attending Chicago have complained that it is unfair to leave them out. They have lobbied the administration to provide the same benefits to about 800 graduate students who enrolled before 2007-8. Half those students, said Joseph Jay Sosa — a graduate student in anthropology — earn only $12,000 a year and have no summer support. And about a quarter of those enrolled before this year have fellowships that amount to less than $5,000 a year, he said.
The graduate students have established a blog where several tell stories about earning so little that they and their children qualify for food stamps and can’t pay their medical bills.
Julie A. Peterson, a spokeswoman for the university, said it simply wouldn’t be financially feasible to give the new aid packages to graduate students who were enrolled before this year. On Thursday the administration released a plan that will give $4.7-million in additional aid to graduate students left out of the new package.
But the students say that the offering isn’t enough and that they are considering taking steps to start a union."
http://chronicle.com/jobs/blogs/onhiring/474
"About 150 graduate students at the University of Chicago marched to the provost’s office this week to protest the administration’s financial-aid policy.
Last year the administration unveiled a plan that gives graduate students in the humanities, social sciences, and the Divinity School $19,000 each per year for five years, plus $3,000 each for two summers of study. The package, which the administration said would cost $50-million, is available only for graduate students who enrolled beginning in the 2007-8 academic year.
Graduate students who were already attending Chicago have complained that it is unfair to leave them out. They have lobbied the administration to provide the same benefits to about 800 graduate students who enrolled before 2007-8. Half those students, said Joseph Jay Sosa — a graduate student in anthropology — earn only $12,000 a year and have no summer support. And about a quarter of those enrolled before this year have fellowships that amount to less than $5,000 a year, he said.
The graduate students have established a blog where several tell stories about earning so little that they and their children qualify for food stamps and can’t pay their medical bills.
Julie A. Peterson, a spokeswoman for the university, said it simply wouldn’t be financially feasible to give the new aid packages to graduate students who were enrolled before this year. On Thursday the administration released a plan that will give $4.7-million in additional aid to graduate students left out of the new package.
But the students say that the offering isn’t enough and that they are considering taking steps to start a union."
Grad Funding Committee Mtg, Thursday 2-3
Meeting of the GCGFC (Graduate Council's Graduate Funding Committee)
Thursday, February 21
2-3pm
Ex Libris (basement of Regenstein Library)
**Come to plan more graduate funding initiatives and reaction to Provost recommendations**
Contact: Toussaint Losier (tlosier@uchicago.edu)
Thursday, February 21
2-3pm
Ex Libris (basement of Regenstein Library)
**Come to plan more graduate funding initiatives and reaction to Provost recommendations**
Contact: Toussaint Losier (tlosier@uchicago.edu)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)