the quality of quantity
DESCRIPTION
A Report on Unevenness and Inequity in Time-to-Completion and Graduate Student Income Composition at the University of Toronto.TRANSCRIPT
Unevenness and Inequity inTime-to-Completion andGraduate Student Incomeat the University of Toronto
February 2016
THE QUALITY OF QUANTITY
1
Unevenness and Inequity inTime-to-Completion andGraduate Student Incomeat the University of Toronto
February 2016
by travis k. bost
THE QUALITY OF QUANTITY
1
Unevenness and Inequity inTime-to-Completion andGraduate Student Incomeat the University of Toronto
February 2016
by travis k. bost
THE QUALITY OF QUANTITY
32
D4 Life Sciences:1,403
1,003D2 Social Sciences:
714D1 Humanities:
D3 Physical Sciences:1,080
History: 110
Linguistics: 28
Economics: 64
Law: 33
Information: 43
Applied Psychologyand Human Development: 103
Sociology: 78Geography & Planning: 79
Crimi-nology: 12
Indstr’lRelatns:7
Social JusticeEducation: 61
Management: 32
Anthropology: 108
Political Science: 148
Curriculum, Teaching,and Learning: 122
Social Work: 47
Leadership & HigherAdult Education: 66
Chemistry: 176Medical Science: 179
PharmaceuticalSciences: 57
Speech-LanguagePathology: 11
Cell & Systems Biology: 85
Dentistry: 21
Physiology: 57
Psychology: 104
Forestry: 34
ExerciseSciences: 41
Medical Biophysics: 115Molecular Genetics: 107Public Health Sciences: 103 Biomedical Engineering: 108 StatisticalSciences: 24
MaterialsScience &Engineering:25
Mathematics: 81
Mechanical and IndustrialEngineering: 100
Physics: 96
EarthSciences: 20
Physical &EnvironmentalSciences: 33
Chemical Engineering& Applied Chemistry: 70
Electrical & ComputerEngineering: 138
Computer Science: 77
Civil Engineering: 52
AerospaceStudies: 49
Astronomy &Astrophysics: 31
Biochemistry: 57Ecology & EvolutionaryBiology: 69
NursingScience: 38
NutritionalSciences: 26
Immunology: 48
RehabilitationSciences: 52
Laboratory Medicine& Pathobiology: 91
Health Policy,Managment,& Evaluation: 67
Pharmacology& Toxicology: 41
ComparativeLiterature: 23
Drama, Theatre,& PerformanceStudies: 43
Philosophy: 45
CinemaStudies:11
French Language& Literature: 37
Slavic:5
W & GS:7
History &Philosophy ofScience &Technology: 24
Classics:11
GermanLang’s& Lit’s: 10
MedievalStudies: 42
Near& Middle EasternCivilizations: 46
East AsianStudies: 15Italian
Studies:11
Art: 24
Spanish: 17
English: 114
Religion: 51
Music: 40
PH.D. STUDENT POPULATIONDepartments & Divisions
32
D4 Life Sciences:1,403
1,003D2 Social Sciences:
714D1 Humanities:
D3 Physical Sciences:1,080
History: 110
Linguistics: 28
Economics: 64
Law: 33
Information: 43
Applied Psychologyand Human Development: 103
Sociology: 78Geography & Planning: 79
Crimi-nology: 12
Indstr’lRelatns:7
Social JusticeEducation: 61
Management: 32
Anthropology: 108
Political Science: 148
Curriculum, Teaching,and Learning: 122
Social Work: 47
Leadership & HigherAdult Education: 66
Chemistry: 176Medical Science: 179
PharmaceuticalSciences: 57
Speech-LanguagePathology: 11
Cell & Systems Biology: 85
Dentistry: 21
Physiology: 57
Psychology: 104
Forestry: 34
ExerciseSciences: 41
Medical Biophysics: 115Molecular Genetics: 107Public Health Sciences: 103 Biomedical Engineering: 108 StatisticalSciences: 24
MaterialsScience &Engineering:25
Mathematics: 81
Mechanical and IndustrialEngineering: 100
Physics: 96
EarthSciences: 20
Physical &EnvironmentalSciences: 33
Chemical Engineering& Applied Chemistry: 70
Electrical & ComputerEngineering: 138
Computer Science: 77
Civil Engineering: 52
AerospaceStudies: 49
Astronomy &Astrophysics: 31
Biochemistry: 57Ecology & EvolutionaryBiology: 69
NursingScience: 38
NutritionalSciences: 26
Immunology: 48
RehabilitationSciences: 52
Laboratory Medicine& Pathobiology: 91
Health Policy,Managment,& Evaluation: 67
Pharmacology& Toxicology: 41
ComparativeLiterature: 23
Drama, Theatre,& PerformanceStudies: 43
Philosophy: 45
CinemaStudies:11
French Language& Literature: 37
Slavic:5
W & GS:7
History &Philosophy ofScience &Technology: 24
Classics:11
GermanLang’s& Lit’s: 10
MedievalStudies: 42
Near& Middle EasternCivilizations: 46
East AsianStudies: 15Italian
Studies:11
Art: 24
Spanish: 17
English: 114
Religion: 51
Music: 40
PH.D. STUDENT POPULATIONDepartments & Divisions
54
Aver
age
Inco
me
Ove
r N
ine
Year
s
StipendEmploym’tInt’l Award Ext’l Award
INCOME ACROSS DIVISIONSQuantities & Sources
Graduate funding is a quantitative and qualitative problem, as well as an equity problem.
Discussions around the state of graduate student income at the University of Toronto typically center on quantitative issues—namely what constitutes an adequate level. Less prominent, but by now well-established, are questions around the qualitative aspects, of graduate student incomes—the terms by which that income is alloted, in particular the composition of funding and the role of waged work.
This report uses new data to address these familiar questions in a comparative way, allowing a com-prehensive view of the graduate income landscape at the University. It notes the contours of uneven-ness in income composition and points toward the implications of these inequities.
After surveying representative statements regard-ing the role of graduate funding for Ph.D.’s, the report examines three key issues:
• Time-to-Completion. Everyone, almost without exception, takes longer than their funding package to complete. Division I, on average, takes markedly longer to finish, while Division III is markedly quicker to finish. This amounts to thousands of years and millions of dollars in tuition cumulatively spent by Ph.D.’s beyond the funding package.
• Income Composition. While total incomes of Ph.D. ‘s are relatively similar, the composition of income sources divides starkly between Divisions I-II and Divisions III-IV. The former disproportionately rely on Employment Income while the latter are disproportionately subsidized by Research Stipends.
• Employment and Time-to-Completion. Ph.D.’s in Divisions I-II thus consistently do far more employed work which has compounding effects. When compared by department, there is a direct correlation between longer Times-to-Completion and greater proportion of income from Employment in Divisions I-II. The reverse is true for Divisions III-IV. The more Divisions I-II do employed work for their funding, the longer they delay completion of their degree.
These findings largely confirms quantitatively trends that have long been acknowledged anecdot-ablly. In particularly these are that Time-to-Com-pletion is a substantial problem and far exceeds funding packages. There is an unevenness in the
forms of graduate support across departments and divisions, with a particular emphasis on income from Employment. And there is a clear correla-tion with income from Employment and Time-to-Completion.
Arising from these conclusions are three distinct questions related to graduate income in general:
• First, what is the nature of differences in gradu-ate incomes between departments? Are these differences part of the ‘natural’ conditions or preferences of a discipline or are they a condition produced by explicit administrative decisions?
• Second, what is the role or purpose of graduate support?
• Third, acknowledging the clear existence and pattern of these differences, what should be done?
How these questions are answered by administra-tors is guided by competing ideologies, represented by two key positions:
• The Provostial Committee sees the purpose of graduate funding is to support Ph.D.’s in the completion of their studies in a timely man-ner. Differences in graduate incomes should be acknowledged and addressed to realize an equitable funding solution, (see p. 6).
• The Provost’s Office sees the purpose of gradu-ate funding as an incentive tool for recuiting. Differences in graduate incomes are the product of ‘natural’ disciplinary conditions and prefer-ences, or other structures outside their purview (see p. 7).
This report, however, shows that differences are in fact real, substantial and with clear patterns of inequity. Differences like Time-to-Completion are not ‘natural’ or ‘preferred’, but correlated with explicit administrative decisions like tying of income to Employment. This conlusion contradicts the assumptions of the latter. And with regard to the recommendations of the former, funding is pres-ently dispersed under terms that undermines its own purpose. Given that this is the case, there is clear reason to believe we should reject the logic of the latter, realize the intentions of the former, and put increased focus on developing creative and equitable solutions the three questions outlined.
Executive Summary
54
Aver
age
Inco
me
Ove
r N
ine
Year
s
StipendEmploym’tInt’l Award Ext’l Award
INCOME ACROSS DIVISIONSQuantities & Sources
Graduate funding is a quantitative and qualitative problem, as well as an equity problem.
Discussions around the state of graduate student income at the University of Toronto typically center on quantitative issues—namely what constitutes an adequate level. Less prominent, but by now well-established, are questions around the qualitative aspects, of graduate student incomes—the terms by which that income is alloted, in particular the composition of funding and the role of waged work.
This report uses new data to address these familiar questions in a comparative way, allowing a com-prehensive view of the graduate income landscape at the University. It notes the contours of uneven-ness in income composition and points toward the implications of these inequities.
After surveying representative statements regard-ing the role of graduate funding for Ph.D.’s, the report examines three key issues:
• Time-to-Completion. Everyone, almost without exception, takes longer than their funding package to complete. Division I, on average, takes markedly longer to finish, while Division III is markedly quicker to finish. This amounts to thousands of years and millions of dollars in tuition cumulatively spent by Ph.D.’s beyond the funding package.
• Income Composition. While total incomes of Ph.D. ‘s are relatively similar, the composition of income sources divides starkly between Divisions I-II and Divisions III-IV. The former disproportionately rely on Employment Income while the latter are disproportionately subsidized by Research Stipends.
• Employment and Time-to-Completion. Ph.D.’s in Divisions I-II thus consistently do far more employed work which has compounding effects. When compared by department, there is a direct correlation between longer Times-to-Completion and greater proportion of income from Employment in Divisions I-II. The reverse is true for Divisions III-IV. The more Divisions I-II do employed work for their funding, the longer they delay completion of their degree.
These findings largely confirms quantitatively trends that have long been acknowledged anecdot-ablly. In particularly these are that Time-to-Com-pletion is a substantial problem and far exceeds funding packages. There is an unevenness in the
forms of graduate support across departments and divisions, with a particular emphasis on income from Employment. And there is a clear correla-tion with income from Employment and Time-to-Completion.
Arising from these conclusions are three distinct questions related to graduate income in general:
• First, what is the nature of differences in gradu-ate incomes between departments? Are these differences part of the ‘natural’ conditions or preferences of a discipline or are they a condition produced by explicit administrative decisions?
• Second, what is the role or purpose of graduate support?
• Third, acknowledging the clear existence and pattern of these differences, what should be done?
How these questions are answered by administra-tors is guided by competing ideologies, represented by two key positions:
• The Provostial Committee sees the purpose of graduate funding is to support Ph.D.’s in the completion of their studies in a timely man-ner. Differences in graduate incomes should be acknowledged and addressed to realize an equitable funding solution, (see p. 6).
• The Provost’s Office sees the purpose of gradu-ate funding as an incentive tool for recuiting. Differences in graduate incomes are the product of ‘natural’ disciplinary conditions and prefer-ences, or other structures outside their purview (see p. 7).
This report, however, shows that differences are in fact real, substantial and with clear patterns of inequity. Differences like Time-to-Completion are not ‘natural’ or ‘preferred’, but correlated with explicit administrative decisions like tying of income to Employment. This conlusion contradicts the assumptions of the latter. And with regard to the recommendations of the former, funding is pres-ently dispersed under terms that undermines its own purpose. Given that this is the case, there is clear reason to believe we should reject the logic of the latter, realize the intentions of the former, and put increased focus on developing creative and equitable solutions the three questions outlined.
Executive Summary
76
“The amount of employment in-come ... that can be included in the graduate student funding com-mitment be limited by University policy.”
“...the University collects annual data of funding practices across its academic units...”
“That the above recommenda-tions be developed and imple-mented no later than the 2015-2016 academic year.”
“The primary relationship that the University has with its gradu-ate students is an educational one. Graduate funding is an aca-demic issue having to do with the University’s academic relation-ship with its students.”
“...program-level differences are the result of the different research and academic cultures that drive academic decisions related to graduate student funding.”
“External factors play a signifi-cant role in the differential com-position of funding across disci-plines.”
“Graduate programs at the University offer a wide range of funding support to graduate students to offset the cost of their education and to recruit the best students.”
Defining the purpose of graduate funding and the ‘nature’ of the University
Struck in 2012, the Provostial Com-mittee on Graduate Student Financial Support brought together deans from each of the departmental divisions and the School of Graduate Studies as well as representatives from the Graduate Students Union, CUPE 3902, and the Graduate Education Council to discuss the state of graduate support and make recommendations going forward to the Provost regarding in particular the balance of sources of funding.
A key definiton of the purpose of graduate funding is provided that explicitly links funding with timely degree completion.
Separate from simple concerns over total funding, the committee empha-sizes the very real state of inequality in funding, quantitative and qualitative across divisions.
It is further acknowledged that the specific point of inequality is the balance of employment income to stipendiary funds, and second, the precarious state of students beyond the funding commitment period.
While this report acknowledges several forms of inequality, it is greatly hindered by little quantitative or comprehensive data on the specifics of income composition across depart-ments. The committee pushes for the creation of this data to increase trans-parency and allow for future efforts to balance funding equity.
This statement posted to the pro-vost’s webpage also accompanies the release of a large dataset on graduate funding composition on the School of Graduate Studies website.
The provost offers an alternative definition, purpose, and history to graduate funding than that of the provostial committee, particularly with regard to funding equity.
Specifically, concerns over the state of graduate income are ignored or rejected by:
Distancing ResponsibilityDecisions on funding seem to lie everywhere but the provost’s office, the School of Graduate Studies, or any other administrative entity. These decisions are evidently always made ‘above’, by federal and provincial budgetary structures or other funding organizations that make up ‘external’ factors, or ‘below’ at the ‘local’ graduate program level or even by ‘individual’ students. Further, it is constantly emphasized that these are ‘academic’ and ‘educational’ deci-sions, somehow decidedly separate from and emphatically not tied up with administrative decision-making.
Insisting on ‘Given-ness’Difference in funding between programs is consistently described as part of the ‘nature’ or ‘culture’ of a discipline or funding structure. These ‘natures’ are apparently ‘intrinsic’ and even ‘inextricable’ to the disciplines, including ‘normal’ completion times for programs that vary from others. Further, it is implied that depart-mental decision-making is based on ‘competitiveness’ and naturally limited ‘available resources’.
Minimizing ConcernsMuch effort is given to casting the basis of student concern, in terms of quantity of money and number of students affed, as both nominally and relatively minute. Further, it is emphasized that nothing is ‘new’, that this is the way it has always been.
Office of the Vice-President & Provost. (2015, July 6). Graduate Student Funding at the University of Toronto. http://www.provost.utoronto.ca/office/2015strikeupdates/UofTGradSupport.htm
Provostial Committee on Graduate Student Financial Sup-port. (2014, January 30). Report to the Provost. http://www.provost.utoronto.ca/public/reports/pcgsfs.htm
“...encourage departments where possible to decrease the amount of employment income included in students’ funding packages to protect time for academic work...”
“...direct academic units to estab-lish clear, transparent and pub-lished policies on employment-stipend ratios that meet the need for equity among students and are cognizant of the impact of em-ployment hours on available aca-demic and research time....”
“...the committee ... recognizes that many students do not com-plete their doctoral degrees within the time limits of the mini-mum funding commitment by the University for varied reasons that need further investigation.”
“...‘units should strive to achieve equity between students with respect to the ratio between direct grants such as UofT Fellowships and awards that may require work, such as TA and RA positions’.”- reiterated and cited from 2000 report
“...many variables affect the amount and type of funding a graduate student receives, includ-ing the research culture of the graduate program, availability of external grant funds, individual students’ competitive ability to obtain external funding, competi-tive recruitment pressures and access to undergraduate pro-grams with TA positions. ...these variables, which are inextricably bound to programs’ own academ-ic priorities and resources, lead to differentiated funding across and within graduate programs at the University of Toronto.”
“...the amount and type of funding received varies across programs and reflects the differentiated academic and funding cultures within our academic units.”
“The availability of graduate fund-ing (and its composition) is in-estricably linked to academic decisions, made primarily at the graduate program level, which re-flect local academic priorities and cultures, as well as the competitive context and resources available.”
Specifically:“- The goal of attracting the best
possible students- The research interests of the
program’s faculty- The number of graduate stu-
dents that a particular program is able to register given the teaching and research fresourc-es that are available
- The financial resources avail-able to the program and to indi-vidual faculty members
- The normal time to completion for a particular program”
“the average graduate funding mix reflects a balance between the amount of employment and non-employment sources of fund-ing....this balance varies by programs due to programs’ external grant cultures and access to under-graduate programs.”
“...it is important to place the rela-tively small proportion of graduate student financial support arising from CUPE 3902, Unit 1 employ-ment within a broader context of graduate student funding.”
“This does not represent a new approach to graduate funding...”
Deflecting Responsibilityfunding issues as a non-issue, not an adminis-trative but academic concern
On Balancing Employmentemployment and stipend concerns
“...the objective of the graduate funding commit-ment ... is to provide students with financial sup-port ... in order to assist them in the completion of their graduate degrees in a timely manner.”
Defining the purpose of graduate funding and its role in graduate study
NaturalizingDifferenceconcerns as the inherent ‘nature’ or ‘culture’ of a discipline or outside funding mechanism
Selected Recommendationsconcerning graduate funding practices and documentation across the University
Resolvedpositions of the committee
Diminishing Concernsconcerns relatively small or not the case for a larger population of grad students
Provostial Committee on Graduate Student Financial SupportJan 2014
Provost StatementJuly 2015
“...it is necessary to have an ap-propriate balance of stipendiary and employment income in the total funding package. Failure to do so may result in an excessive reliance on employment income, which could be detrimental to a student’s progression towards degree completion.”
Observationsconcerning relationship between funding package components
“The committee spent consid-erable amount of time discuss-ing what the most appropri-ate stipend-employment ratio would be, but could not come to an agreed-upon single value that would be appropriate for all sec-tors of the University.”
“the University and academic programs have an obligation to create conditions that allow for timely degree completion for its graduate students.”
The purpose of graduate funding is as an incentive tool for recruiting.Differences in graduate incomes across departments are the product of ‘natural’ disciplinary conditions and preferences, or structures outside their purview.
The purpose of graduate funding is to support Ph.D.’s in the completion of their studies in a timely manner.Differences should be acknowledged and addressed in graduate incomes to realize an equitable funding solution.
76
“The amount of employment in-come ... that can be included in the graduate student funding com-mitment be limited by University policy.”
“...the University collects annual data of funding practices across its academic units...”
“That the above recommenda-tions be developed and imple-mented no later than the 2015-2016 academic year.”
“The primary relationship that the University has with its gradu-ate students is an educational one. Graduate funding is an aca-demic issue having to do with the University’s academic relation-ship with its students.”
“...program-level differences are the result of the different research and academic cultures that drive academic decisions related to graduate student funding.”
“External factors play a signifi-cant role in the differential com-position of funding across disci-plines.”
“Graduate programs at the University offer a wide range of funding support to graduate students to offset the cost of their education and to recruit the best students.”
Defining the purpose of graduate funding and the ‘nature’ of the University
Struck in 2012, the Provostial Com-mittee on Graduate Student Financial Support brought together deans from each of the departmental divisions and the School of Graduate Studies as well as representatives from the Graduate Students Union, CUPE 3902, and the Graduate Education Council to discuss the state of graduate support and make recommendations going forward to the Provost regarding in particular the balance of sources of funding.
A key definiton of the purpose of graduate funding is provided that explicitly links funding with timely degree completion.
Separate from simple concerns over total funding, the committee empha-sizes the very real state of inequality in funding, quantitative and qualitative across divisions.
It is further acknowledged that the specific point of inequality is the balance of employment income to stipendiary funds, and second, the precarious state of students beyond the funding commitment period.
While this report acknowledges several forms of inequality, it is greatly hindered by little quantitative or comprehensive data on the specifics of income composition across depart-ments. The committee pushes for the creation of this data to increase trans-parency and allow for future efforts to balance funding equity.
This statement posted to the pro-vost’s webpage also accompanies the release of a large dataset on graduate funding composition on the School of Graduate Studies website.
The provost offers an alternative definition, purpose, and history to graduate funding than that of the provostial committee, particularly with regard to funding equity.
Specifically, concerns over the state of graduate income are ignored or rejected by:
Distancing ResponsibilityDecisions on funding seem to lie everywhere but the provost’s office, the School of Graduate Studies, or any other administrative entity. These decisions are evidently always made ‘above’, by federal and provincial budgetary structures or other funding organizations that make up ‘external’ factors, or ‘below’ at the ‘local’ graduate program level or even by ‘individual’ students. Further, it is constantly emphasized that these are ‘academic’ and ‘educational’ deci-sions, somehow decidedly separate from and emphatically not tied up with administrative decision-making.
Insisting on ‘Given-ness’Difference in funding between programs is consistently described as part of the ‘nature’ or ‘culture’ of a discipline or funding structure. These ‘natures’ are apparently ‘intrinsic’ and even ‘inextricable’ to the disciplines, including ‘normal’ completion times for programs that vary from others. Further, it is implied that depart-mental decision-making is based on ‘competitiveness’ and naturally limited ‘available resources’.
Minimizing ConcernsMuch effort is given to casting the basis of student concern, in terms of quantity of money and number of students affed, as both nominally and relatively minute. Further, it is emphasized that nothing is ‘new’, that this is the way it has always been.
Office of the Vice-President & Provost. (2015, July 6). Graduate Student Funding at the University of Toronto. http://www.provost.utoronto.ca/office/2015strikeupdates/UofTGradSupport.htm
Provostial Committee on Graduate Student Financial Sup-port. (2014, January 30). Report to the Provost. http://www.provost.utoronto.ca/public/reports/pcgsfs.htm
“...encourage departments where possible to decrease the amount of employment income included in students’ funding packages to protect time for academic work...”
“...direct academic units to estab-lish clear, transparent and pub-lished policies on employment-stipend ratios that meet the need for equity among students and are cognizant of the impact of em-ployment hours on available aca-demic and research time....”
“...the committee ... recognizes that many students do not com-plete their doctoral degrees within the time limits of the mini-mum funding commitment by the University for varied reasons that need further investigation.”
“...‘units should strive to achieve equity between students with respect to the ratio between direct grants such as UofT Fellowships and awards that may require work, such as TA and RA positions’.”- reiterated and cited from 2000 report
“...many variables affect the amount and type of funding a graduate student receives, includ-ing the research culture of the graduate program, availability of external grant funds, individual students’ competitive ability to obtain external funding, competi-tive recruitment pressures and access to undergraduate pro-grams with TA positions. ...these variables, which are inextricably bound to programs’ own academ-ic priorities and resources, lead to differentiated funding across and within graduate programs at the University of Toronto.”
“...the amount and type of funding received varies across programs and reflects the differentiated academic and funding cultures within our academic units.”
“The availability of graduate fund-ing (and its composition) is in-estricably linked to academic decisions, made primarily at the graduate program level, which re-flect local academic priorities and cultures, as well as the competitive context and resources available.”
Specifically:“- The goal of attracting the best
possible students- The research interests of the
program’s faculty- The number of graduate stu-
dents that a particular program is able to register given the teaching and research fresourc-es that are available
- The financial resources avail-able to the program and to indi-vidual faculty members
- The normal time to completion for a particular program”
“the average graduate funding mix reflects a balance between the amount of employment and non-employment sources of fund-ing....this balance varies by programs due to programs’ external grant cultures and access to under-graduate programs.”
“...it is important to place the rela-tively small proportion of graduate student financial support arising from CUPE 3902, Unit 1 employ-ment within a broader context of graduate student funding.”
“This does not represent a new approach to graduate funding...”
Deflecting Responsibilityfunding issues as a non-issue, not an adminis-trative but academic concern
On Balancing Employmentemployment and stipend concerns
“...the objective of the graduate funding commit-ment ... is to provide students with financial sup-port ... in order to assist them in the completion of their graduate degrees in a timely manner.”
Defining the purpose of graduate funding and its role in graduate study
NaturalizingDifferenceconcerns as the inherent ‘nature’ or ‘culture’ of a discipline or outside funding mechanism
Selected Recommendationsconcerning graduate funding practices and documentation across the University
Resolvedpositions of the committee
Diminishing Concernsconcerns relatively small or not the case for a larger population of grad students
Provostial Committee on Graduate Student Financial SupportJan 2014
Provost StatementJuly 2015
“...it is necessary to have an ap-propriate balance of stipendiary and employment income in the total funding package. Failure to do so may result in an excessive reliance on employment income, which could be detrimental to a student’s progression towards degree completion.”
Observationsconcerning relationship between funding package components
“The committee spent consid-erable amount of time discuss-ing what the most appropri-ate stipend-employment ratio would be, but could not come to an agreed-upon single value that would be appropriate for all sec-tors of the University.”
“the University and academic programs have an obligation to create conditions that allow for timely degree completion for its graduate students.”
The purpose of graduate funding is as an incentive tool for recruiting.Differences in graduate incomes across departments are the product of ‘natural’ disciplinary conditions and preferences, or structures outside their purview.
The purpose of graduate funding is to support Ph.D.’s in the completion of their studies in a timely manner.Differences should be acknowledged and addressed in graduate incomes to realize an equitable funding solution.
98
32
1Time-To-Completion
There is broad anxiety throughout the university that Ph.D.’s take too long to finish. Common among admin-istrators, faculty, and candidates themselves, the implications of this concern are that Ph.D.’s delay enter-ing the job market, take up additional university resources, and take on additional—perhaps unnecessary—debt in order to complete.
How widespread or severe is this problem? What constitutes ‘overly long’? Who takes longer than others? And why do they take so long?
How do we balance individual and structural explanations? And, ulti-mately, in what ways does it matter?
Income CompositionThe problem of graduate funding is well-documented in a quantitative sense, but what about the qualitative aspects? It is evident that, just as the amount of graduate funding varies, so do the origins, expectations, and implications of funding. Whether from federal or provincial scholastic merit awards, public or private research funding, uni-versity funding, or employment within or beyond the university, it is clear that a) different programs and individuals hold different compositions of income, and b) there are widely differing implications to the receipt of that income. So what is the composition of graduate incomes and what are the origins or conse-quences of different compositions?
Employment & Time-to-CompletionThe most important concern for a considerable time has been the role of employment on Ph.D. research activity and ultimately on completion time. This has been made even more concerning of late as increasingly greater proportions of graduate funding packages have been made contingent on university employ-ment in recent years and as stagnating funding packages have driven students to take on additional work. These con-cerns are complicated by a lack of clarity or inconsistency in what constitutes ‘employed income’ in different programs or departments. Most importantly, what is the role or effect of graduate employ-ment - both on advancement in program of study and on graduate life?
As seen in the summary on the previous page, there is a clear set of contradictory positions regarding the role and present state of graduate funding. In particular there is a vagueness to characteriza-tions of the extent and severity of funding equity and balance-of-sources issues. Perhaps unsurprisingly, efforts to explain inequities in graduate income have frequently been grounded more in ideological, rather than empirical, terms.
This conflict and confusion has largely been the result of a great lack of clarity, comprehensiveness, and transparency in funding composition data.
Recently, however, the Provost’s office has collected a comprehensive dataset
of key figures on funding composition for each academic department at the University. The role then of this report is to make use of this new data to address established questions around funding equity, but for the first time in a com-prehensive way. The data itself likely has many shortcomings, but it gives a first pass at comprehensive answers to graduate income equity. In short, the questions stay the same—funding equity, work-stipend balance—but the methods and scale of answers grow.
Ultimately the aim is to expose more concrete evidence of funding inequality and ground a more productive compre-hensive movement toward equitable funding guidelines.
OriginIn 2015, the School of Graduate Studies launched a webpage to centralize data summarizing graduate income: http://www.sgs.utoronto.ca/gradfunding/Pages/default.aspx. The intention of this site was to increase transparency of graduate funding across the university. This data appears to have been first published 27 November 2015.
The data that is the basis of this report has been scraped directly from the application programming interface (API) supporting this SGS website.
The methodology for procurement of this data is discussed neither in SGS nor Provost’s Office material.
As presented on the website, data does not permit comparison across depart-ments or divisions. This is the primary reason for this report. Presenting one department at a time is contrary to the spirit of this data collection.
Data: Remarks & IssuesData is from Academic Year 2014-2015.
Data includes only Ph.D. program data. This may complicate the funding picture of direct-admission programs.
Data on time-to-completion may be sketchy as values for some programs
Why do Ph.D.’s take so long?How does time-to-completion vary across divisions?
Where does Ph.D. income come from?
What is the role or effect of employment on time-to-completion?
Why is there is a mismatch between funding and completion time?
What are the obligations of different income sources?
How does this relationship vary across programs?
How severe or widespread is the time-to-completion problem?
What are the qualitative aspects or composition of graduate funding?
How does this relationship affect program requirements, expectations, admissions, and curriculum planning?
What are the consequences of overly long time-to-completion?
How does funding composition vary across programs?
Background Questions
About This Data
are based on very few datapoints given that the figure is averaged from gradu-ate counts only over 2013-2015.
Income quantities in years 1-4 include tuition and fees which is immediately deducted, rather than paid out.
Key terms are left undefined by dataset: ‘Internal Awards’, ‘External Awards’, ‘Employment Income’, ‘Research Stipend’. To some degree, these are unknown categories. Examples of these categories, however, are discussed in the Provost’s document reviewed on the previous page.
There are a number of issues with the way this data is collected and represented. Nevertheless, it gives some resource to discuss incomes comprehensively across programs in a relative sense, if not a strictly nominal one. See conclusion for more extensive discussion.
Report: Remarks & IssuesFor simplicity, this report addresses only domestic students data for now.
Several departments are unincluded or have spotty data in certain graphics as the dataset does not provide quantities in certain cases (e.g. if a given year of a program has fewer than 5 students).
98
32
1Time-To-Completion
There is broad anxiety throughout the university that Ph.D.’s take too long to finish. Common among admin-istrators, faculty, and candidates themselves, the implications of this concern are that Ph.D.’s delay enter-ing the job market, take up additional university resources, and take on additional—perhaps unnecessary—debt in order to complete.
How widespread or severe is this problem? What constitutes ‘overly long’? Who takes longer than others? And why do they take so long?
How do we balance individual and structural explanations? And, ulti-mately, in what ways does it matter?
Income CompositionThe problem of graduate funding is well-documented in a quantitative sense, but what about the qualitative aspects? It is evident that, just as the amount of graduate funding varies, so do the origins, expectations, and implications of funding. Whether from federal or provincial scholastic merit awards, public or private research funding, uni-versity funding, or employment within or beyond the university, it is clear that a) different programs and individuals hold different compositions of income, and b) there are widely differing implications to the receipt of that income. So what is the composition of graduate incomes and what are the origins or conse-quences of different compositions?
Employment & Time-to-CompletionThe most important concern for a considerable time has been the role of employment on Ph.D. research activity and ultimately on completion time. This has been made even more concerning of late as increasingly greater proportions of graduate funding packages have been made contingent on university employ-ment in recent years and as stagnating funding packages have driven students to take on additional work. These con-cerns are complicated by a lack of clarity or inconsistency in what constitutes ‘employed income’ in different programs or departments. Most importantly, what is the role or effect of graduate employ-ment - both on advancement in program of study and on graduate life?
As seen in the summary on the previous page, there is a clear set of contradictory positions regarding the role and present state of graduate funding. In particular there is a vagueness to characteriza-tions of the extent and severity of funding equity and balance-of-sources issues. Perhaps unsurprisingly, efforts to explain inequities in graduate income have frequently been grounded more in ideological, rather than empirical, terms.
This conflict and confusion has largely been the result of a great lack of clarity, comprehensiveness, and transparency in funding composition data.
Recently, however, the Provost’s office has collected a comprehensive dataset
of key figures on funding composition for each academic department at the University. The role then of this report is to make use of this new data to address established questions around funding equity, but for the first time in a com-prehensive way. The data itself likely has many shortcomings, but it gives a first pass at comprehensive answers to graduate income equity. In short, the questions stay the same—funding equity, work-stipend balance—but the methods and scale of answers grow.
Ultimately the aim is to expose more concrete evidence of funding inequality and ground a more productive compre-hensive movement toward equitable funding guidelines.
OriginIn 2015, the School of Graduate Studies launched a webpage to centralize data summarizing graduate income: http://www.sgs.utoronto.ca/gradfunding/Pages/default.aspx. The intention of this site was to increase transparency of graduate funding across the university. This data appears to have been first published 27 November 2015.
The data that is the basis of this report has been scraped directly from the application programming interface (API) supporting this SGS website.
The methodology for procurement of this data is discussed neither in SGS nor Provost’s Office material.
As presented on the website, data does not permit comparison across depart-ments or divisions. This is the primary reason for this report. Presenting one department at a time is contrary to the spirit of this data collection.
Data: Remarks & IssuesData is from Academic Year 2014-2015.
Data includes only Ph.D. program data. This may complicate the funding picture of direct-admission programs.
Data on time-to-completion may be sketchy as values for some programs
Why do Ph.D.’s take so long?How does time-to-completion vary across divisions?
Where does Ph.D. income come from?
What is the role or effect of employment on time-to-completion?
Why is there is a mismatch between funding and completion time?
What are the obligations of different income sources?
How does this relationship vary across programs?
How severe or widespread is the time-to-completion problem?
What are the qualitative aspects or composition of graduate funding?
How does this relationship affect program requirements, expectations, admissions, and curriculum planning?
What are the consequences of overly long time-to-completion?
How does funding composition vary across programs?
Background Questions
About This Data
are based on very few datapoints given that the figure is averaged from gradu-ate counts only over 2013-2015.
Income quantities in years 1-4 include tuition and fees which is immediately deducted, rather than paid out.
Key terms are left undefined by dataset: ‘Internal Awards’, ‘External Awards’, ‘Employment Income’, ‘Research Stipend’. To some degree, these are unknown categories. Examples of these categories, however, are discussed in the Provost’s document reviewed on the previous page.
There are a number of issues with the way this data is collected and represented. Nevertheless, it gives some resource to discuss incomes comprehensively across programs in a relative sense, if not a strictly nominal one. See conclusion for more extensive discussion.
Report: Remarks & IssuesFor simplicity, this report addresses only domestic students data for now.
Several departments are unincluded or have spotty data in certain graphics as the dataset does not provide quantities in certain cases (e.g. if a given year of a program has fewer than 5 students).
Time-to-Completion - 1110
AVERAGE TIME-TO-COMPLETIONACROSS DIVISIONS
1 2
5.966.57
3 4
5.365.94
Soci
al S
cien
ces
Phys
ical
Sci
ence
s
Life
Sci
ence
s
Hum
aniti
es
1TIME-TO-COMPLETION
There is a clear gradiant of time-to-completion from Division 1: Humanities (the longest) to Division 4: Life Sciences (the shortest).
What drives this substantial difference?
It is commonly asserted that much of this unevenness is driven by the nature of the respective disciplines. Can we rely on such a simplifying explanation to fully or accurately represent a problem that is apparently so severe and widespread?
Further, to what degree can we look at any element of funding inequity as ‘natural’, as unproduced or unmanageable?
Funding Period
4 yrs
5 yrs
Time-to-Completion - 1110
AVERAGE TIME-TO-COMPLETIONACROSS DIVISIONS
1 2
5.966.57
3 4
5.365.94
Soci
al S
cien
ces
Phys
ical
Sci
ence
s
Life
Sci
ence
s
Hum
aniti
es
1TIME-TO-COMPLETION
There is a clear gradiant of time-to-completion from Division 1: Humanities (the longest) to Division 4: Life Sciences (the shortest).
What drives this substantial difference?
It is commonly asserted that much of this unevenness is driven by the nature of the respective disciplines. Can we rely on such a simplifying explanation to fully or accurately represent a problem that is apparently so severe and widespread?
Further, to what degree can we look at any element of funding inequity as ‘natural’, as unproduced or unmanageable?
Funding Period
4 yrs
5 yrs
Time-to-Completion - 1312 - Time-to-Completion
Div 1: Humanities
French Language and LiteratureLinguistics
East Asian StudiesEnglish
PhilosophyHistory
Medieval StudiesArt
Drama, Theatre and Performance StudiesNear and Middle Eastern Civilizations
History and Philosophy of Science and TechnologyComparative Literature
ClassicsItalian Studies
ReligionMusic
Spanish
French Language and LiteratureLinguisticsBiochemistryEast Asian StudiesEnglishPhilosophyHistoryMedieval StudiesSociologyPolitical ScienceMolecular GeneticsImmunologyArtD1 HumanitiesDrama, Theatre & Performance StudiesMedical BiophysicsCriminology & Sociolegal Studies
SociologyPolitical Science
Criminology & Sociolegal StudiesInformation
AnthropologyEconomics
Social Justice EducationSocial Work
Leadership, Higher & Adult EducationCurriculum, Teaching & Learning
Applied Psychology & Human DevelopmentManagement
Geography & PlanningLaw
Industrial Relations
InformationAnthropologySpeech-Language PathologyNear & Middle Eastern StudiesNursing ScienceEconomicsSocial Justice EducationHistory & Philosophy of Science & TechnologyCell & Systems BiologyComparative LiteratureSocial WorkPharmaceutical SciencesClassicsD4 Life SciencesD2 Social Sciences
Astronomy & AstrophysicsAerospace Studies
PhysicsChemical Engineering & Applied Chemistry
Computer ScienceBiomedical Engineering
Statistical SciencesCivil Engineering
Materials Science and EngineeringElectrical & Computer Engineering
MathematicsMechanical & Industrial Engineering
ChemistryEarth Sciences
Astronomy & AstrophysicsLeadership, Higher & Adult EducationPublic Health SciencesAerospace StudiesPhysicsItalian StudiesReligionCurriculum, Teaching & LearningMedical ScienceApplied Psychology & Human DevelopmentLaboratory Medicine & PathobiologyMusicPhysiologyEcology & Evolutionary BiologyChemical Engineering & Applied Chemistry Health Policy, Management & EvaluationComputer ScienceBiomedical EngineeringPharmacology & ToxicologyForestryDentistryManagementStatistical SciencesD3 Physical SciencesGeography & PlanningCivil EngineeringMaterials Science & EngineeringElectrical & Computer EngineeringMathematicsExercise SciencesNutritional SciencesMechanical & Industrial EngineeringSpanishChemistryPsychologyEarth SciencesRehabilitation SciencesLawIndustrial RelationsCinema Studies - NO DATAGermanic Languages & Literatures - NO DATASlavic Languages & Literatures - NO DATAWomen & Gender Studies - NO DATAPhysical & Environmental Sciences - NO DATA
BiochemistryMolecular Genetics
ImmunologyMedical Biophysics
Speech-Language PolicyNursing Science
Cell & Systems BiologyPharmaceutical Sciences
Public Health SciencesMedical Science
Laboratory Medicine & PathobiologyPhysiology
Ecology & Evolutionary BiologyHealth Policy, Management & Evaluation
Pharmacology & ToxicologyForestry
DentistryExerciseSciences
Nutritional SciencesPsychology
Rehabilitation Sciences
D1 Humanities
D2 Social Sciences
D3 Physical Sciences
D4 Life Sciences
Div 2: Social SciencesDiv 3: Physical Sciences
Div 4: Life Sciences
Div 1: Humanities
4 yrs 5 yrs
Div 2: Social SciencesDiv 3: Physical SciencesDiv 4: Life Sciences
$9.4-17.1 million
$7.9-16.4 million
$3.3-12.4 million
$11.3-23.2 million
1.57-2.57 yrs
0.94-1.94 yrs
0.36-1.36 yrs
0.96-1.96 yrs
D1 Humanities
D2 Social Sciences
D3 Physical Sciences
D4 Life Sciences
D1 Humanities
D2 Social Sciences
D3 Physical Sciences
D4 Life Sciences
TIME-TO-COMPLETIONDepartments by Division
TIME-TO-COMPLETIONAll Departments
22.6%
Top Ten Departments by Tuition PaidMost Embodied Tuition Dollars
Tuition across DivisionsCumulative Embodied Tuition Payments
Average Tuition-Paying Years (per Ph.D.)
On avg, Humanities Ph.D.’s take longer to complete than the Life Sciences by:
PHYSICAL SCIENCESDivision with quickest time to completion and the narrowest range of times to completion
SOCIAL SCIENCESDivision with widest range of times-to-completion within division
FRENCHDepartment with the longest time-to-completion, more than 3.5 years longer than the shortest program.
ONE# of depts completing on average within pe-riod of funding package
3.62yrsRange of shortest to longest times-to-completion across all departments
2.81Widest range within a division:Social Sciences
0.93Smallest range within a division:Physical Sciences
*Times-to-completion, especially in smaller departments, may be less accurate due to low sample size (TTC averaged from years 2013-2015 only)
$32-69MILLION cumulatively paid
tuition by Ph.D.’s beyond funding years.*
**[Total Ph.Ds] x [Avg TTC] x [Domestic Tuition (drops to 1/2 after year 6)] - [funding years (4-5)]
*Funding periods vary across depts (4 or 5 years). Actual total lies somewhere between either these extremes.
4-8,000YEARS
cumulatively spent completing by Ph.D.’s beyond funding years.*
POLITICAL SCIENCE
ENGLISH
HISTORY
MOLECULAR GENETICS
MEDICAL BIOPHYSICS
MEDICAL SCIENCE
ANTHROPOLOGY
SOCIOLOGY
BIOCHEMISTRY
CURRICULUM, TEACHING AND LEARNING
$1.9
$1.8
$1.5
$1.4
$1.0
$1.3
$1.2
$1.1
$0.7
$2.1
$3.3 million
$3.1 million
$2.7 million
$2.6 million
$2.6 million
$2.4 million
$2.1 million
$1.8 million
$1.7 million
$3.8 million
at mostat least
Why does almost no department complete within the funding period?
Why is there major disparity in time-to-completion?
Time-to-Completion - 1312 - Time-to-Completion
Div 1: Humanities
French Language and LiteratureLinguistics
East Asian StudiesEnglish
PhilosophyHistory
Medieval StudiesArt
Drama, Theatre and Performance StudiesNear and Middle Eastern Civilizations
History and Philosophy of Science and TechnologyComparative Literature
ClassicsItalian Studies
ReligionMusic
Spanish
French Language and LiteratureLinguisticsBiochemistryEast Asian StudiesEnglishPhilosophyHistoryMedieval StudiesSociologyPolitical ScienceMolecular GeneticsImmunologyArtD1 HumanitiesDrama, Theatre & Performance StudiesMedical BiophysicsCriminology & Sociolegal Studies
SociologyPolitical Science
Criminology & Sociolegal StudiesInformation
AnthropologyEconomics
Social Justice EducationSocial Work
Leadership, Higher & Adult EducationCurriculum, Teaching & Learning
Applied Psychology & Human DevelopmentManagement
Geography & PlanningLaw
Industrial Relations
InformationAnthropologySpeech-Language PathologyNear & Middle Eastern StudiesNursing ScienceEconomicsSocial Justice EducationHistory & Philosophy of Science & TechnologyCell & Systems BiologyComparative LiteratureSocial WorkPharmaceutical SciencesClassicsD4 Life SciencesD2 Social Sciences
Astronomy & AstrophysicsAerospace Studies
PhysicsChemical Engineering & Applied Chemistry
Computer ScienceBiomedical Engineering
Statistical SciencesCivil Engineering
Materials Science and EngineeringElectrical & Computer Engineering
MathematicsMechanical & Industrial Engineering
ChemistryEarth Sciences
Astronomy & AstrophysicsLeadership, Higher & Adult EducationPublic Health SciencesAerospace StudiesPhysicsItalian StudiesReligionCurriculum, Teaching & LearningMedical ScienceApplied Psychology & Human DevelopmentLaboratory Medicine & PathobiologyMusicPhysiologyEcology & Evolutionary BiologyChemical Engineering & Applied Chemistry Health Policy, Management & EvaluationComputer ScienceBiomedical EngineeringPharmacology & ToxicologyForestryDentistryManagementStatistical SciencesD3 Physical SciencesGeography & PlanningCivil EngineeringMaterials Science & EngineeringElectrical & Computer EngineeringMathematicsExercise SciencesNutritional SciencesMechanical & Industrial EngineeringSpanishChemistryPsychologyEarth SciencesRehabilitation SciencesLawIndustrial RelationsCinema Studies - NO DATAGermanic Languages & Literatures - NO DATASlavic Languages & Literatures - NO DATAWomen & Gender Studies - NO DATAPhysical & Environmental Sciences - NO DATA
BiochemistryMolecular Genetics
ImmunologyMedical Biophysics
Speech-Language PolicyNursing Science
Cell & Systems BiologyPharmaceutical Sciences
Public Health SciencesMedical Science
Laboratory Medicine & PathobiologyPhysiology
Ecology & Evolutionary BiologyHealth Policy, Management & Evaluation
Pharmacology & ToxicologyForestry
DentistryExerciseSciences
Nutritional SciencesPsychology
Rehabilitation Sciences
D1 Humanities
D2 Social Sciences
D3 Physical Sciences
D4 Life Sciences
Div 2: Social SciencesDiv 3: Physical Sciences
Div 4: Life Sciences
Div 1: Humanities
4 yrs 5 yrs
Div 2: Social SciencesDiv 3: Physical SciencesDiv 4: Life Sciences
$9.4-17.1 million
$7.9-16.4 million
$3.3-12.4 million
$11.3-23.2 million
1.57-2.57 yrs
0.94-1.94 yrs
0.36-1.36 yrs
0.96-1.96 yrs
D1 Humanities
D2 Social Sciences
D3 Physical Sciences
D4 Life Sciences
D1 Humanities
D2 Social Sciences
D3 Physical Sciences
D4 Life Sciences
TIME-TO-COMPLETIONDepartments by Division
TIME-TO-COMPLETIONAll Departments
22.6%
Top Ten Departments by Tuition PaidMost Embodied Tuition Dollars
Tuition across DivisionsCumulative Embodied Tuition Payments
Average Tuition-Paying Years (per Ph.D.)
On avg, Humanities Ph.D.’s take longer to complete than the Life Sciences by:
PHYSICAL SCIENCESDivision with quickest time to completion and the narrowest range of times to completion
SOCIAL SCIENCESDivision with widest range of times-to-completion within division
FRENCHDepartment with the longest time-to-completion, more than 3.5 years longer than the shortest program.
ONE# of depts completing on average within pe-riod of funding package
3.62yrsRange of shortest to longest times-to-completion across all departments
2.81Widest range within a division:Social Sciences
0.93Smallest range within a division:Physical Sciences
*Times-to-completion, especially in smaller departments, may be less accurate due to low sample size (TTC averaged from years 2013-2015 only)
$32-69MILLION cumulatively paid
tuition by Ph.D.’s beyond funding years.*
**[Total Ph.Ds] x [Avg TTC] x [Domestic Tuition (drops to 1/2 after year 6)] - [funding years (4-5)]
*Funding periods vary across depts (4 or 5 years). Actual total lies somewhere between either these extremes.
4-8,000YEARS
cumulatively spent completing by Ph.D.’s beyond funding years.*
POLITICAL SCIENCE
ENGLISH
HISTORY
MOLECULAR GENETICS
MEDICAL BIOPHYSICS
MEDICAL SCIENCE
ANTHROPOLOGY
SOCIOLOGY
BIOCHEMISTRY
CURRICULUM, TEACHING AND LEARNING
$1.9
$1.8
$1.5
$1.4
$1.0
$1.3
$1.2
$1.1
$0.7
$2.1
$3.3 million
$3.1 million
$2.7 million
$2.6 million
$2.6 million
$2.4 million
$2.1 million
$1.8 million
$1.7 million
$3.8 million
at mostat least
Why does almost no department complete within the funding period?
Why is there major disparity in time-to-completion?
Time-to-Completion - 1514 - Time-to-Completion
French97-134years
Linguistics42-100years
EastAsian
30-45years
English220-394
years
Drama65-108years
Mid East61-107years
HPST27-51years
Classics
11-22years
Italian
8-19years
Religion37-88years
Music26-66years
Spanish
2-19years
CompLit
25-48years
Philosophy86-131years
History209-319
years
Art39-63years
MedievalStudies
77-119years
Sociology141-219
years
Political Science253-401
years
18-30years
Criminology& Sociolegal
Studies
Information62-105years
Anthropology150-258
years
Economics82-146years
SocialJustice
69-130years
Leadership& Higher Ed
54-120years
SocialWork
52-99years
Aerospace
38-87years
Physics73-169years
Astr
on
omy & Astrophysics27-28years
Biochemistry122-179
years
Immunology79-127years
Biophysics170-285
years
MolecularGenetics
181-288years
Spee
ch Pathology15-26years
NursingScience
51-89years
Cell & SystemsBiology
95-180years
Pharm
aceutical Sciences
60-117years
Public HealthSciences
82-185years
MedicalScience
125-304years
Lab Medicine &Pathobiology
62-153yearsEc
olog
y & Evolutionary Biology
43-112years
HealthPolicy36-103years
Phar
macology & Toxicology21-62
years
ExerciseSciences
10-51years
Nut
ritional Sciences
5-31years
NutritionalSciences
49years
ChemicalEngineering
42-112years
ComputerScience
41-118years
BiomedicalEngineering
55-163years
Stat
istical Sciences9-33years
CivilEngineering
14-66years
Mat
erials Science
7-32years
Elec & CompEngineering
33-171years
MechEngineering
15-115years
Earth
Sciences
19years
Curriculum& Teaching
85-207years
AppliedPsychology
70-173years
Geography& Planning
22-101years
IndustrialRelations
0years
Management
13-45years
Law23
years
Mathematics
19-100years
Chemistry
16-192years
Physiology
37-94years
Forestry
16-50years
Dentistry
9-30years
Dentistry
7-111years
Total EmbodiedProgram Years
Tuition Years (Min)Tuition Years (Max)
Tuition Years
D1 Humanities:4,691 yrs1,121-1,835tuition yrs
D2 Social Sciences:5,958 yrs
943-1,946tuition yrs
D2 Physical Sciences:5,789 yrs
389-1,469tuition yrs
D4 Life Sciences:8,369 yrs1,347-2,750tuition yrs
Enrolled Ph.D.’s represent a combined:24,800 years of program study.
4-8,000 years of paid tuition.
Time-to-Completion - 1514 - Time-to-Completion
French97-134years
Linguistics42-100years
EastAsian
30-45years
English220-394
years
Drama65-108years
Mid East61-107years
HPST27-51years
Classics
11-22years
Italian
8-19years
Religion37-88years
Music26-66years
Spanish
2-19years
CompLit
25-48years
Philosophy86-131years
History209-319
years
Art39-63years
MedievalStudies
77-119years
Sociology141-219
years
Political Science253-401
years
18-30years
Criminology& Sociolegal
Studies
Information62-105years
Anthropology150-258
years
Economics82-146years
SocialJustice
69-130years
Leadership& Higher Ed
54-120years
SocialWork
52-99years
Aerospace
38-87years
Physics73-169years
Astr
on
omy & Astrophysics27-28years
Biochemistry122-179
years
Immunology79-127years
Biophysics170-285
years
MolecularGenetics
181-288years
Spee
ch Pathology15-26years
NursingScience
51-89years
Cell & SystemsBiology
95-180years
Pharm
aceutical Sciences
60-117years
Public HealthSciences
82-185years
MedicalScience
125-304years
Lab Medicine &Pathobiology
62-153yearsEc
olog
y & Evolutionary Biology
43-112years
HealthPolicy36-103years
Phar
macology & Toxicology21-62
years
ExerciseSciences
10-51years
Nut
ritional Sciences
5-31years
NutritionalSciences
49years
ChemicalEngineering
42-112years
ComputerScience
41-118years
BiomedicalEngineering
55-163years
Stat
istical Sciences9-33years
CivilEngineering
14-66years
Mat
erials Science
7-32years
Elec & CompEngineering
33-171years
MechEngineering
15-115years
Earth
Sciences
19years
Curriculum& Teaching
85-207years
AppliedPsychology
70-173years
Geography& Planning
22-101years
IndustrialRelations
0years
Management
13-45years
Law23
years
Mathematics
19-100years
Chemistry
16-192years
Physiology
37-94years
Forestry
16-50years
Dentistry
9-30years
Dentistry
7-111years
Total EmbodiedProgram Years
Tuition Years (Min)Tuition Years (Max)
Tuition Years
D1 Humanities:4,691 yrs1,121-1,835tuition yrs
D2 Social Sciences:5,958 yrs
943-1,946tuition yrs
D2 Physical Sciences:5,789 yrs
389-1,469tuition yrs
D4 Life Sciences:8,369 yrs1,347-2,750tuition yrs
Enrolled Ph.D.’s represent a combined:24,800 years of program study.
4-8,000 years of paid tuition.
Income Composition - 1716 - Income Composition
33.1% | $33,474.1412.5% | $25,792.61 24.3% | $35,278.4015.9% | $30,204.8925.2% | $28,262.9811.8% | $30,895.58 11.8% | $26,831.9710.6% | $28,645.932.0% | $32,217.021.9% | $30,724.64 3.7% | $34,593.601.9% | $25,940.16 25.9% | $29,555.15 13.4% | $27,764.53Div 4: Life Sciences | 5.96 Biochemistry | 7.14 Cell & Systems Bio | 6.12 Eco, Evo Biology | 5.62 Exercise Sciences | 5.24Forestry | 5.46Health Policy | 5.54Immunology | 6.65 Laboratory Medicine | 5.68Medical Biophysics | 6.48 Medical Science | 5.70Molecular Genetics | 6.69 Nursing Science | 6.33 Nutritional Sciences | 5.21Pharmaceutical Sciences | 6.05 Pharmacology, Toxicology | 5.51Physiology | 5.65 Psychology | 5.07Public Health Sciences | 5.80 Rehab Sciences | 4.94
DIV 1:HUMANITIES
Research Stipend
Average Timeto Completion% Income from Employment | Avg Income in Years 1-4
$10k
$20k
$30k
$40k
Year of Program1 9
Employment Income
External Awards
Internal Awards
DIV 2:SOCIAL SCIENCES
DIV 3:PHYSICAL SCIENCES
DIV 4:LIFE SCIENCES
AVERAGE FUNDING COMPOSITIONAcross Years and Between Divisions
Where does grad income come from?employment vs stipends
Disparity across divisions is more qualitative than quantitative.Across all divisions, total income is roughly equivalent in years 1-4 (the years all programs are funded). The composition of that income, however, is where the inequities lie.
With only a few exceptions, Internal & External awards, as a significant component of Ph.D. income, remain relatively consistant across departments. The variation in source of income across departments is between Employment Income & Research Stipend. Employed work makes up a greater percentage of incomes for Divisions 1-2. Divisions 3-4, meanwhile, tend to rely more on stipend funding and do far less hourly employed work.
There is one quantitative difference Despite—or perhaps as a result of—shorter times-to-completion in Divisions 3-4, there is noticeably greater funding for late-stage Ph.D.’s in these divisions while Divisions 1-2 do noticeably more employed work during late-stage years—again perhaps as a result of longer average completion times and below-average stipends.
17.2% | $29,986.1527.2% | $27,238.8933.2% | $33,956.78 27.3% | $31,887.92 12.1% | $31,648.72 28.6% | $34,557.2127.2% | $30,634.28Div 1: Humanities | 6.57 English | 6.93 Philosophy | 6.92 History | 6.90 Medieval Studies | 6.83 Drama | 6.52 Near & Middle East | 6.33 Religion | 5.73 Music | 5.65
23.5% | $32,857.8124.8% | $34,689.34 27.8% | $30,847.3032.0% | $32,671.25 15.2% | $34,735.1344.0% | $42,631.65 28.4% | $28,463.82 19.7% | $29,383.2429.4% | $33,330.73 23.4% | $32,859.39 38.4% | $31,139.0248.8% | $35,104.07Div 2: Social Sciences | 5.94 Sociology | 6.81 Political Science | 6.71 Information | 6.45 Anthropology | 6.39 Economics | 6.28 Social Justice Ed | 6.13 Social Work | 6.10 Leadership, Higher Ed | 5.82 Curriculum, Teaching | 5.70 Applied Psychology | 5.68 Geography & Planning | 5.28 Law | 4.70
18.0% | $31,783.797.1% | $34,773.9412.7% | $32,395.4919.7% | $32,784.24 6.1% | $29,991.88 40.6% | $35,828.0719.1% | $32,340.5012.4% | $30,021.8317.6% | $28,907.71 19.3% | $36,141.7820.0% | $32,655.64Div 3: Physical Sciences | 5.36 Aerospace Studies | 5.78 Physics | 5.76 Chemical Eng | 5.60 Computer Science | 5.53 Biomedical Eng | 5.51 Statistical Sciences | 5.38 Civil Engineering | 5.27 Electrical, Comp Eng | 5.24 Mathematics | 5.24 Mechanical Eng | 5.15 Chemistry | 5.09
2Income Composition
Income Composition - 1716 - Income Composition
33.1% | $33,474.1412.5% | $25,792.61 24.3% | $35,278.4015.9% | $30,204.8925.2% | $28,262.9811.8% | $30,895.58 11.8% | $26,831.9710.6% | $28,645.932.0% | $32,217.021.9% | $30,724.64 3.7% | $34,593.601.9% | $25,940.16 25.9% | $29,555.15 13.4% | $27,764.53Div 4: Life Sciences | 5.96 Biochemistry | 7.14 Cell & Systems Bio | 6.12 Eco, Evo Biology | 5.62 Exercise Sciences | 5.24Forestry | 5.46Health Policy | 5.54Immunology | 6.65 Laboratory Medicine | 5.68Medical Biophysics | 6.48 Medical Science | 5.70Molecular Genetics | 6.69 Nursing Science | 6.33 Nutritional Sciences | 5.21Pharmaceutical Sciences | 6.05 Pharmacology, Toxicology | 5.51Physiology | 5.65 Psychology | 5.07Public Health Sciences | 5.80 Rehab Sciences | 4.94
DIV 1:HUMANITIES
Research Stipend
Average Timeto Completion% Income from Employment | Avg Income in Years 1-4
$10k
$20k
$30k
$40k
Year of Program1 9
Employment Income
External Awards
Internal Awards
DIV 2:SOCIAL SCIENCES
DIV 3:PHYSICAL SCIENCES
DIV 4:LIFE SCIENCES
AVERAGE FUNDING COMPOSITIONAcross Years and Between Divisions
Where does grad income come from?employment vs stipends
Disparity across divisions is more qualitative than quantitative.Across all divisions, total income is roughly equivalent in years 1-4 (the years all programs are funded). The composition of that income, however, is where the inequities lie.
With only a few exceptions, Internal & External awards, as a significant component of Ph.D. income, remain relatively consistant across departments. The variation in source of income across departments is between Employment Income & Research Stipend. Employed work makes up a greater percentage of incomes for Divisions 1-2. Divisions 3-4, meanwhile, tend to rely more on stipend funding and do far less hourly employed work.
There is one quantitative difference Despite—or perhaps as a result of—shorter times-to-completion in Divisions 3-4, there is noticeably greater funding for late-stage Ph.D.’s in these divisions while Divisions 1-2 do noticeably more employed work during late-stage years—again perhaps as a result of longer average completion times and below-average stipends.
17.2% | $29,986.1527.2% | $27,238.8933.2% | $33,956.78 27.3% | $31,887.92 12.1% | $31,648.72 28.6% | $34,557.2127.2% | $30,634.28Div 1: Humanities | 6.57 English | 6.93 Philosophy | 6.92 History | 6.90 Medieval Studies | 6.83 Drama | 6.52 Near & Middle East | 6.33 Religion | 5.73 Music | 5.65
23.5% | $32,857.8124.8% | $34,689.34 27.8% | $30,847.3032.0% | $32,671.25 15.2% | $34,735.1344.0% | $42,631.65 28.4% | $28,463.82 19.7% | $29,383.2429.4% | $33,330.73 23.4% | $32,859.39 38.4% | $31,139.0248.8% | $35,104.07Div 2: Social Sciences | 5.94 Sociology | 6.81 Political Science | 6.71 Information | 6.45 Anthropology | 6.39 Economics | 6.28 Social Justice Ed | 6.13 Social Work | 6.10 Leadership, Higher Ed | 5.82 Curriculum, Teaching | 5.70 Applied Psychology | 5.68 Geography & Planning | 5.28 Law | 4.70
18.0% | $31,783.797.1% | $34,773.9412.7% | $32,395.4919.7% | $32,784.24 6.1% | $29,991.88 40.6% | $35,828.0719.1% | $32,340.5012.4% | $30,021.8317.6% | $28,907.71 19.3% | $36,141.7820.0% | $32,655.64Div 3: Physical Sciences | 5.36 Aerospace Studies | 5.78 Physics | 5.76 Chemical Eng | 5.60 Computer Science | 5.53 Biomedical Eng | 5.51 Statistical Sciences | 5.38 Civil Engineering | 5.27 Electrical, Comp Eng | 5.24 Mathematics | 5.24 Mechanical Eng | 5.15 Chemistry | 5.09
2Income Composition
Income Composition - 1918 - Income Composition
17.2% | $29,986.1527.2% | $27,238.8933.2% | $33,956.78 27.3% | $31,887.92 12.1% | $31,648.72 28.6% | $34,557.2127.2% | $30,634.28Div 1: Humanities | 6.57 English | 6.93 Philosophy | 6.92 History | 6.90 Medieval Studies | 6.83 Drama | 6.52 Near & Middle East | 6.33 Religion | 5.73 Music | 5.65
17.2% | $29,986.1527.2% | $27,238.8933.2% | $33,956.78 27.3% | $31,887.92 12.1% | $31,648.72 28.6% | $34,557.2127.2% | $30,634.28Div 1: Humanities | 6.57 English | 6.93 Philosophy | 6.92 History | 6.90 Medieval Studies | 6.83 Drama | 6.52 Near & Middle East | 6.33 Religion | 5.73 Music | 5.65
23.5% | $32,857.8124.8% | $34,689.34 27.8% | $30,847.3032.0% | $32,671.25 15.2% | $34,735.1344.0% | $42,631.65 28.4% | $28,463.82 19.7% | $29,383.2429.4% | $33,330.73 23.4% | $32,859.39 38.4% | $31,139.0248.8% | $35,104.07Div 2: Social Sciences | 5.94 Sociology | 6.81 Political Science | 6.71 Information | 6.45 Anthropology | 6.39 Economics | 6.28 Social Justice Ed | 6.13 Social Work | 6.10 Leadership, Higher Ed | 5.82 Curriculum, Teaching | 5.70 Applied Psychology | 5.68 Geography & Planning | 5.28 Law | 4.70
23.5% | $32,857.8124.8% | $34,689.34 27.8% | $30,847.3032.0% | $32,671.25 15.2% | $34,735.1344.0% | $42,631.65 28.4% | $28,463.82 19.7% | $29,383.2429.4% | $33,330.73 23.4% | $32,859.39 38.4% | $31,139.0248.8% | $35,104.07Div 2: Social Sciences | 5.94 Sociology | 6.81 Political Science | 6.71 Information | 6.45 Anthropology | 6.39 Economics | 6.28 Social Justice Ed | 6.13 Social Work | 6.10 Leadership, Higher Ed | 5.82 Curriculum, Teaching | 5.70 Applied Psychology | 5.68 Geography & Planning | 5.28 Law | 4.70
18.0% | $31,783.797.1% | $34,773.9412.7% | $32,395.4919.7% | $32,784.24 6.1% | $29,991.88 40.6% | $35,828.0719.1% | $32,340.5012.4% | $30,021.8317.6% | $28,907.71 19.3% | $36,141.7820.0% | $32,655.64Div 3: Physical Sciences | 5.36 Aerospace Studies | 5.78 Physics | 5.76 Chemical Eng | 5.60 Computer Science | 5.53 Biomedical Eng | 5.51 Statistical Sciences | 5.38 Civil Engineering | 5.27 Electrical, Comp Eng | 5.24 Mathematics | 5.24 Mechanical Eng | 5.15 Chemistry | 5.09
18.0% | $31,783.797.1% | $34,773.9412.7% | $32,395.4919.7% | $32,784.24 6.1% | $29,991.88 40.6% | $35,828.0719.1% | $32,340.5012.4% | $30,021.8317.6% | $28,907.71 19.3% | $36,141.7820.0% | $32,655.64Div 3: Physical Sciences | 5.36 Aerospace Studies | 5.78 Physics | 5.76 Chemical Eng | 5.60 Computer Science | 5.53 Biomedical Eng | 5.51 Statistical Sciences | 5.38 Civil Engineering | 5.27 Electrical, Comp Eng | 5.24 Mathematics | 5.24 Mechanical Eng | 5.15 Chemistry | 5.09
33.1% | $33,474.1412.5% | $25,792.61 24.3% | $35,278.4015.9% | $30,204.8925.2% | $28,262.9811.8% | $30,895.58 11.8% | $26,831.9710.6% | $28,645.932.0% | $32,217.021.9% | $30,724.64 3.7% | $34,593.601.9% | $25,940.16 25.9% | $29,555.15 13.4% | $27,764.53Div 4: Life Sciences | 5.96 Biochemistry | 7.14 Cell & Systems Bio | 6.12 Eco, Evo Biology | 5.62 Exercise Sciences | 5.24Forestry | 5.46Health Policy | 5.54Immunology | 6.65 Laboratory Medicine | 5.68Medical Biophysics | 6.48 Medical Science | 5.70Molecular Genetics | 6.69 Nursing Science | 6.33 Nutritional Sciences | 5.21Pharmaceutical Sciences | 6.05 Pharmacology, Toxicology | 5.51Physiology | 5.65 Psychology | 5.07Public Health Sciences | 5.80 Rehab Sciences | 4.94
33.1% | $33,474.1412.5% | $25,792.61 24.3% | $35,278.4015.9% | $30,204.8925.2% | $28,262.9811.8% | $30,895.58 11.8% | $26,831.9710.6% | $28,645.932.0% | $32,217.021.9% | $30,724.64 3.7% | $34,593.601.9% | $25,940.16 25.9% | $29,555.15 13.4% | $27,764.53Div 4: Life Sciences | 5.96 Biochemistry | 7.14 Cell & Systems Bio | 6.12 Eco, Evo Biology | 5.62 Exercise Sciences | 5.24Forestry | 5.46Health Policy | 5.54Immunology | 6.65 Laboratory Medicine | 5.68Medical Biophysics | 6.48 Medical Science | 5.70Molecular Genetics | 6.69 Nursing Science | 6.33 Nutritional Sciences | 5.21Pharmaceutical Sciences | 6.05 Pharmacology, Toxicology | 5.51Physiology | 5.65 Psychology | 5.07Public Health Sciences | 5.80 Rehab Sciences | 4.94
DIV
1:
HU
MA
NIT
IES
DIV
2:
SOCI
AL
SCIE
NCE
SD
IV 3
:PH
YSIC
AL
SCIE
NCE
SD
IV 4
:LI
FE S
CIEN
CES
[Dept] | [T-to-C][% Emp’t] | [Avg Income]
Income Composition - 1918 - Income Composition
17.2% | $29,986.1527.2% | $27,238.8933.2% | $33,956.78 27.3% | $31,887.92 12.1% | $31,648.72 28.6% | $34,557.2127.2% | $30,634.28Div 1: Humanities | 6.57 English | 6.93 Philosophy | 6.92 History | 6.90 Medieval Studies | 6.83 Drama | 6.52 Near & Middle East | 6.33 Religion | 5.73 Music | 5.65
17.2% | $29,986.1527.2% | $27,238.8933.2% | $33,956.78 27.3% | $31,887.92 12.1% | $31,648.72 28.6% | $34,557.2127.2% | $30,634.28Div 1: Humanities | 6.57 English | 6.93 Philosophy | 6.92 History | 6.90 Medieval Studies | 6.83 Drama | 6.52 Near & Middle East | 6.33 Religion | 5.73 Music | 5.65
23.5% | $32,857.8124.8% | $34,689.34 27.8% | $30,847.3032.0% | $32,671.25 15.2% | $34,735.1344.0% | $42,631.65 28.4% | $28,463.82 19.7% | $29,383.2429.4% | $33,330.73 23.4% | $32,859.39 38.4% | $31,139.0248.8% | $35,104.07Div 2: Social Sciences | 5.94 Sociology | 6.81 Political Science | 6.71 Information | 6.45 Anthropology | 6.39 Economics | 6.28 Social Justice Ed | 6.13 Social Work | 6.10 Leadership, Higher Ed | 5.82 Curriculum, Teaching | 5.70 Applied Psychology | 5.68 Geography & Planning | 5.28 Law | 4.70
23.5% | $32,857.8124.8% | $34,689.34 27.8% | $30,847.3032.0% | $32,671.25 15.2% | $34,735.1344.0% | $42,631.65 28.4% | $28,463.82 19.7% | $29,383.2429.4% | $33,330.73 23.4% | $32,859.39 38.4% | $31,139.0248.8% | $35,104.07Div 2: Social Sciences | 5.94 Sociology | 6.81 Political Science | 6.71 Information | 6.45 Anthropology | 6.39 Economics | 6.28 Social Justice Ed | 6.13 Social Work | 6.10 Leadership, Higher Ed | 5.82 Curriculum, Teaching | 5.70 Applied Psychology | 5.68 Geography & Planning | 5.28 Law | 4.70
18.0% | $31,783.797.1% | $34,773.9412.7% | $32,395.4919.7% | $32,784.24 6.1% | $29,991.88 40.6% | $35,828.0719.1% | $32,340.5012.4% | $30,021.8317.6% | $28,907.71 19.3% | $36,141.7820.0% | $32,655.64Div 3: Physical Sciences | 5.36 Aerospace Studies | 5.78 Physics | 5.76 Chemical Eng | 5.60 Computer Science | 5.53 Biomedical Eng | 5.51 Statistical Sciences | 5.38 Civil Engineering | 5.27 Electrical, Comp Eng | 5.24 Mathematics | 5.24 Mechanical Eng | 5.15 Chemistry | 5.09
18.0% | $31,783.797.1% | $34,773.9412.7% | $32,395.4919.7% | $32,784.24 6.1% | $29,991.88 40.6% | $35,828.0719.1% | $32,340.5012.4% | $30,021.8317.6% | $28,907.71 19.3% | $36,141.7820.0% | $32,655.64Div 3: Physical Sciences | 5.36 Aerospace Studies | 5.78 Physics | 5.76 Chemical Eng | 5.60 Computer Science | 5.53 Biomedical Eng | 5.51 Statistical Sciences | 5.38 Civil Engineering | 5.27 Electrical, Comp Eng | 5.24 Mathematics | 5.24 Mechanical Eng | 5.15 Chemistry | 5.09
33.1% | $33,474.1412.5% | $25,792.61 24.3% | $35,278.4015.9% | $30,204.8925.2% | $28,262.9811.8% | $30,895.58 11.8% | $26,831.9710.6% | $28,645.932.0% | $32,217.021.9% | $30,724.64 3.7% | $34,593.601.9% | $25,940.16 25.9% | $29,555.15 13.4% | $27,764.53Div 4: Life Sciences | 5.96 Biochemistry | 7.14 Cell & Systems Bio | 6.12 Eco, Evo Biology | 5.62 Exercise Sciences | 5.24Forestry | 5.46Health Policy | 5.54Immunology | 6.65 Laboratory Medicine | 5.68Medical Biophysics | 6.48 Medical Science | 5.70Molecular Genetics | 6.69 Nursing Science | 6.33 Nutritional Sciences | 5.21Pharmaceutical Sciences | 6.05 Pharmacology, Toxicology | 5.51Physiology | 5.65 Psychology | 5.07Public Health Sciences | 5.80 Rehab Sciences | 4.94
33.1% | $33,474.1412.5% | $25,792.61 24.3% | $35,278.4015.9% | $30,204.8925.2% | $28,262.9811.8% | $30,895.58 11.8% | $26,831.9710.6% | $28,645.932.0% | $32,217.021.9% | $30,724.64 3.7% | $34,593.601.9% | $25,940.16 25.9% | $29,555.15 13.4% | $27,764.53Div 4: Life Sciences | 5.96 Biochemistry | 7.14 Cell & Systems Bio | 6.12 Eco, Evo Biology | 5.62 Exercise Sciences | 5.24Forestry | 5.46Health Policy | 5.54Immunology | 6.65 Laboratory Medicine | 5.68Medical Biophysics | 6.48 Medical Science | 5.70Molecular Genetics | 6.69 Nursing Science | 6.33 Nutritional Sciences | 5.21Pharmaceutical Sciences | 6.05 Pharmacology, Toxicology | 5.51Physiology | 5.65 Psychology | 5.07Public Health Sciences | 5.80 Rehab Sciences | 4.94
DIV
1:
HU
MA
NIT
IES
DIV
2:
SOCI
AL
SCIE
NCE
SD
IV 3
:PH
YSIC
AL
SCIE
NCE
SD
IV 4
:LI
FE S
CIEN
CES
[Dept] | [T-to-C][% Emp’t] | [Avg Income]
Income Composition - 2120 - Income Composition
17.2% | $29,986.1527.2% | $27,238.8933.2% | $33,956.78 27.3% | $31,887.92 12.1% | $31,648.72 28.6% | $34,557.2127.2% | $30,634.28Div 1: Humanities | 6.57 English | 6.93 Philosophy | 6.92 History | 6.90 Medieval Studies | 6.83 Drama | 6.52 Near & Middle East | 6.33 Religion | 5.73 Music | 5.65
23.5% | $32,857.8124.8% | $34,689.34 27.8% | $30,847.3032.0% | $32,671.25 15.2% | $34,735.1344.0% | $42,631.65 28.4% | $28,463.82 19.7% | $29,383.2429.4% | $33,330.73 23.4% | $32,859.39 38.4% | $31,139.0248.8% | $35,104.07Div 2: Social Sciences | 5.94 Sociology | 6.81 Political Science | 6.71 Information | 6.45 Anthropology | 6.39 Economics | 6.28 Social Justice Ed | 6.13 Social Work | 6.10 Leadership, Higher Ed | 5.82 Curriculum, Teaching | 5.70 Applied Psychology | 5.68 Geography & Planning | 5.28 Law | 4.70
23.5% | $32,857.8124.8% | $34,689.34 27.8% | $30,847.3032.0% | $32,671.25 15.2% | $34,735.1344.0% | $42,631.65 28.4% | $28,463.82 19.7% | $29,383.2429.4% | $33,330.73 23.4% | $32,859.39 38.4% | $31,139.0248.8% | $35,104.07Div 2: Social Sciences | 5.94 Sociology | 6.81 Political Science | 6.71 Information | 6.45 Anthropology | 6.39 Economics | 6.28 Social Justice Ed | 6.13 Social Work | 6.10 Leadership, Higher Ed | 5.82 Curriculum, Teaching | 5.70 Applied Psychology | 5.68 Geography & Planning | 5.28 Law | 4.70
18.0% | $31,783.797.1% | $34,773.9412.7% | $32,395.4919.7% | $32,784.24 6.1% | $29,991.88 40.6% | $35,828.0719.1% | $32,340.5012.4% | $30,021.8317.6% | $28,907.71 19.3% | $36,141.7820.0% | $32,655.64Div 3: Physical Sciences | 5.36 Aerospace Studies | 5.78 Physics | 5.76 Chemical Eng | 5.60 Computer Science | 5.53 Biomedical Eng | 5.51 Statistical Sciences | 5.38 Civil Engineering | 5.27 Electrical, Comp Eng | 5.24 Mathematics | 5.24 Mechanical Eng | 5.15 Chemistry | 5.09
33.1% | $33,474.1412.5% | $25,792.61 24.3% | $35,278.4015.9% | $30,204.8925.2% | $28,262.9811.8% | $30,895.58 11.8% | $26,831.9710.6% | $28,645.932.0% | $32,217.021.9% | $30,724.64 3.7% | $34,593.601.9% | $25,940.16 25.9% | $29,555.15 13.4% | $27,764.53Div 4: Life Sciences | 5.96 Biochemistry | 7.14 Cell & Systems Bio | 6.12 Eco, Evo Biology | 5.62 Exercise Sciences | 5.24Forestry | 5.46Health Policy | 5.54Immunology | 6.65 Laboratory Medicine | 5.68Medical Biophysics | 6.48 Medical Science | 5.70Molecular Genetics | 6.69 Nursing Science | 6.33 Nutritional Sciences | 5.21Pharmaceutical Sciences | 6.05 Pharmacology, Toxicology | 5.51Physiology | 5.65 Psychology | 5.07Public Health Sciences | 5.80 Rehab Sciences | 4.94
33.1% | $33,474.1412.5% | $25,792.61 24.3% | $35,278.4015.9% | $30,204.8925.2% | $28,262.9811.8% | $30,895.58 11.8% | $26,831.9710.6% | $28,645.932.0% | $32,217.021.9% | $30,724.64 3.7% | $34,593.601.9% | $25,940.16 25.9% | $29,555.15 13.4% | $27,764.53Div 4: Life Sciences | 5.96 Biochemistry | 7.14 Cell & Systems Bio | 6.12 Eco, Evo Biology | 5.62 Exercise Sciences | 5.24Forestry | 5.46Health Policy | 5.54Immunology | 6.65 Laboratory Medicine | 5.68Medical Biophysics | 6.48 Medical Science | 5.70Molecular Genetics | 6.69 Nursing Science | 6.33 Nutritional Sciences | 5.21Pharmaceutical Sciences | 6.05 Pharmacology, Toxicology | 5.51Physiology | 5.65 Psychology | 5.07Public Health Sciences | 5.80 Rehab Sciences | 4.94
33.1% | $33,474.1412.5% | $25,792.61 24.3% | $35,278.4015.9% | $30,204.8925.2% | $28,262.9811.8% | $30,895.58 11.8% | $26,831.9710.6% | $28,645.932.0% | $32,217.021.9% | $30,724.64 3.7% | $34,593.601.9% | $25,940.16 25.9% | $29,555.15 13.4% | $27,764.53Div 4: Life Sciences | 5.96 Biochemistry | 7.14 Cell & Systems Bio | 6.12 Eco, Evo Biology | 5.62 Exercise Sciences | 5.24Forestry | 5.46Health Policy | 5.54Immunology | 6.65 Laboratory Medicine | 5.68Medical Biophysics | 6.48 Medical Science | 5.70Molecular Genetics | 6.69 Nursing Science | 6.33 Nutritional Sciences | 5.21Pharmaceutical Sciences | 6.05 Pharmacology, Toxicology | 5.51Physiology | 5.65 Psychology | 5.07Public Health Sciences | 5.80 Rehab Sciences | 4.94
DIV
1:
HU
MA
NIT
IES
DIV
2:
SOCI
AL
SCIE
NCE
S
DIV
3:
PHYS
ICA
L SC
IEN
CES
DIV
4:
LIFE
SCI
ENCE
S
18.0% | $31,783.797.1% | $34,773.9412.7% | $32,395.4919.7% | $32,784.24 6.1% | $29,991.88 40.6% | $35,828.0719.1% | $32,340.5012.4% | $30,021.8317.6% | $28,907.71 19.3% | $36,141.7820.0% | $32,655.64Div 3: Physical Sciences | 5.36 Aerospace Studies | 5.78 Physics | 5.76 Chemical Eng | 5.60 Computer Science | 5.53 Biomedical Eng | 5.51 Statistical Sciences | 5.38 Civil Engineering | 5.27 Electrical, Comp Eng | 5.24 Mathematics | 5.24 Mechanical Eng | 5.15 Chemistry | 5.09
33.1% | $33,474.1412.5% | $25,792.61 24.3% | $35,278.4015.9% | $30,204.8925.2% | $28,262.9811.8% | $30,895.58 11.8% | $26,831.9710.6% | $28,645.932.0% | $32,217.021.9% | $30,724.64 3.7% | $34,593.601.9% | $25,940.16 25.9% | $29,555.15 13.4% | $27,764.53Div 4: Life Sciences | 5.96 Biochemistry | 7.14 Cell & Systems Bio | 6.12 Eco, Evo Biology | 5.62 Exercise Sciences | 5.24Forestry | 5.46Health Policy | 5.54Immunology | 6.65 Laboratory Medicine | 5.68Medical Biophysics | 6.48 Medical Science | 5.70Molecular Genetics | 6.69 Nursing Science | 6.33 Nutritional Sciences | 5.21Pharmaceutical Sciences | 6.05 Pharmacology, Toxicology | 5.51Physiology | 5.65 Psychology | 5.07Public Health Sciences | 5.80 Rehab Sciences | 4.94
Income Composition - 2120 - Income Composition
17.2% | $29,986.1527.2% | $27,238.8933.2% | $33,956.78 27.3% | $31,887.92 12.1% | $31,648.72 28.6% | $34,557.2127.2% | $30,634.28Div 1: Humanities | 6.57 English | 6.93 Philosophy | 6.92 History | 6.90 Medieval Studies | 6.83 Drama | 6.52 Near & Middle East | 6.33 Religion | 5.73 Music | 5.65
23.5% | $32,857.8124.8% | $34,689.34 27.8% | $30,847.3032.0% | $32,671.25 15.2% | $34,735.1344.0% | $42,631.65 28.4% | $28,463.82 19.7% | $29,383.2429.4% | $33,330.73 23.4% | $32,859.39 38.4% | $31,139.0248.8% | $35,104.07Div 2: Social Sciences | 5.94 Sociology | 6.81 Political Science | 6.71 Information | 6.45 Anthropology | 6.39 Economics | 6.28 Social Justice Ed | 6.13 Social Work | 6.10 Leadership, Higher Ed | 5.82 Curriculum, Teaching | 5.70 Applied Psychology | 5.68 Geography & Planning | 5.28 Law | 4.70
23.5% | $32,857.8124.8% | $34,689.34 27.8% | $30,847.3032.0% | $32,671.25 15.2% | $34,735.1344.0% | $42,631.65 28.4% | $28,463.82 19.7% | $29,383.2429.4% | $33,330.73 23.4% | $32,859.39 38.4% | $31,139.0248.8% | $35,104.07Div 2: Social Sciences | 5.94 Sociology | 6.81 Political Science | 6.71 Information | 6.45 Anthropology | 6.39 Economics | 6.28 Social Justice Ed | 6.13 Social Work | 6.10 Leadership, Higher Ed | 5.82 Curriculum, Teaching | 5.70 Applied Psychology | 5.68 Geography & Planning | 5.28 Law | 4.70
18.0% | $31,783.797.1% | $34,773.9412.7% | $32,395.4919.7% | $32,784.24 6.1% | $29,991.88 40.6% | $35,828.0719.1% | $32,340.5012.4% | $30,021.8317.6% | $28,907.71 19.3% | $36,141.7820.0% | $32,655.64Div 3: Physical Sciences | 5.36 Aerospace Studies | 5.78 Physics | 5.76 Chemical Eng | 5.60 Computer Science | 5.53 Biomedical Eng | 5.51 Statistical Sciences | 5.38 Civil Engineering | 5.27 Electrical, Comp Eng | 5.24 Mathematics | 5.24 Mechanical Eng | 5.15 Chemistry | 5.09
33.1% | $33,474.1412.5% | $25,792.61 24.3% | $35,278.4015.9% | $30,204.8925.2% | $28,262.9811.8% | $30,895.58 11.8% | $26,831.9710.6% | $28,645.932.0% | $32,217.021.9% | $30,724.64 3.7% | $34,593.601.9% | $25,940.16 25.9% | $29,555.15 13.4% | $27,764.53Div 4: Life Sciences | 5.96 Biochemistry | 7.14 Cell & Systems Bio | 6.12 Eco, Evo Biology | 5.62 Exercise Sciences | 5.24Forestry | 5.46Health Policy | 5.54Immunology | 6.65 Laboratory Medicine | 5.68Medical Biophysics | 6.48 Medical Science | 5.70Molecular Genetics | 6.69 Nursing Science | 6.33 Nutritional Sciences | 5.21Pharmaceutical Sciences | 6.05 Pharmacology, Toxicology | 5.51Physiology | 5.65 Psychology | 5.07Public Health Sciences | 5.80 Rehab Sciences | 4.94
33.1% | $33,474.1412.5% | $25,792.61 24.3% | $35,278.4015.9% | $30,204.8925.2% | $28,262.9811.8% | $30,895.58 11.8% | $26,831.9710.6% | $28,645.932.0% | $32,217.021.9% | $30,724.64 3.7% | $34,593.601.9% | $25,940.16 25.9% | $29,555.15 13.4% | $27,764.53Div 4: Life Sciences | 5.96 Biochemistry | 7.14 Cell & Systems Bio | 6.12 Eco, Evo Biology | 5.62 Exercise Sciences | 5.24Forestry | 5.46Health Policy | 5.54Immunology | 6.65 Laboratory Medicine | 5.68Medical Biophysics | 6.48 Medical Science | 5.70Molecular Genetics | 6.69 Nursing Science | 6.33 Nutritional Sciences | 5.21Pharmaceutical Sciences | 6.05 Pharmacology, Toxicology | 5.51Physiology | 5.65 Psychology | 5.07Public Health Sciences | 5.80 Rehab Sciences | 4.94
33.1% | $33,474.1412.5% | $25,792.61 24.3% | $35,278.4015.9% | $30,204.8925.2% | $28,262.9811.8% | $30,895.58 11.8% | $26,831.9710.6% | $28,645.932.0% | $32,217.021.9% | $30,724.64 3.7% | $34,593.601.9% | $25,940.16 25.9% | $29,555.15 13.4% | $27,764.53Div 4: Life Sciences | 5.96 Biochemistry | 7.14 Cell & Systems Bio | 6.12 Eco, Evo Biology | 5.62 Exercise Sciences | 5.24Forestry | 5.46Health Policy | 5.54Immunology | 6.65 Laboratory Medicine | 5.68Medical Biophysics | 6.48 Medical Science | 5.70Molecular Genetics | 6.69 Nursing Science | 6.33 Nutritional Sciences | 5.21Pharmaceutical Sciences | 6.05 Pharmacology, Toxicology | 5.51Physiology | 5.65 Psychology | 5.07Public Health Sciences | 5.80 Rehab Sciences | 4.94
DIV
1:
HU
MA
NIT
IES
DIV
2:
SOCI
AL
SCIE
NCE
S
DIV
3:
PHYS
ICA
L SC
IEN
CES
DIV
4:
LIFE
SCI
ENCE
S
18.0% | $31,783.797.1% | $34,773.9412.7% | $32,395.4919.7% | $32,784.24 6.1% | $29,991.88 40.6% | $35,828.0719.1% | $32,340.5012.4% | $30,021.8317.6% | $28,907.71 19.3% | $36,141.7820.0% | $32,655.64Div 3: Physical Sciences | 5.36 Aerospace Studies | 5.78 Physics | 5.76 Chemical Eng | 5.60 Computer Science | 5.53 Biomedical Eng | 5.51 Statistical Sciences | 5.38 Civil Engineering | 5.27 Electrical, Comp Eng | 5.24 Mathematics | 5.24 Mechanical Eng | 5.15 Chemistry | 5.09
33.1% | $33,474.1412.5% | $25,792.61 24.3% | $35,278.4015.9% | $30,204.8925.2% | $28,262.9811.8% | $30,895.58 11.8% | $26,831.9710.6% | $28,645.932.0% | $32,217.021.9% | $30,724.64 3.7% | $34,593.601.9% | $25,940.16 25.9% | $29,555.15 13.4% | $27,764.53Div 4: Life Sciences | 5.96 Biochemistry | 7.14 Cell & Systems Bio | 6.12 Eco, Evo Biology | 5.62 Exercise Sciences | 5.24Forestry | 5.46Health Policy | 5.54Immunology | 6.65 Laboratory Medicine | 5.68Medical Biophysics | 6.48 Medical Science | 5.70Molecular Genetics | 6.69 Nursing Science | 6.33 Nutritional Sciences | 5.21Pharmaceutical Sciences | 6.05 Pharmacology, Toxicology | 5.51Physiology | 5.65 Psychology | 5.07Public Health Sciences | 5.80 Rehab Sciences | 4.94
Income Composition - 2322 - Income Composition
Div 3: Physical Sciences
Div 4: Life Sciences
EnglishD1 Humanities Philosophy History MedievalStudies
Drama
Div 2: Social Sciences
Div 1: Humanities
Near and MiddleEastern Studies
Religion Music
SociologyD2 SocialSciences
Political Science Information Anthropology Economics Social JusticeEducation
Social Work Leadership,Adult & HigherEducation
AppliedPsychology
Curriculum,Teaching &Development
Geography& Planning
Law
AerospaceStudies
D3 PhysicalSciences
Physics ChemicalEngineering
ComputerScience
BiomedicalEngineering
StatisticalSciences
Civil Engineering Electrical &Computer Engineering
Mathematics
ChemistryMechanicalEngineering
BiochemistryD4 Life Sciences MolecularGenetics
Immunology MedicalBiophysics
Nursing Science Cell & SystemsBiology
PharmaceuticalSciences
Public HealthSciences
Medical Science
LaboratoryMedicine
Physiology Ecology &EvolutionaryBiology
Health Policy Pharmacology& Toxicology
Forestry ExerciseSciences
NutritionalSciences
Psychology RehabilitationSciences
Divisions 1-2rely on employment
Division 3-4rely on research stipends
FUNDING COMPOSITION—DIVISIONS & DEPTSEmployment Income vs. Research Stipend
Income Composition - 2322 - Income Composition
Div 3: Physical Sciences
Div 4: Life Sciences
EnglishD1 Humanities Philosophy History MedievalStudies
Drama
Div 2: Social Sciences
Div 1: Humanities
Near and MiddleEastern Studies
Religion Music
SociologyD2 SocialSciences
Political Science Information Anthropology Economics Social JusticeEducation
Social Work Leadership,Adult & HigherEducation
AppliedPsychology
Curriculum,Teaching &Development
Geography& Planning
Law
AerospaceStudies
D3 PhysicalSciences
Physics ChemicalEngineering
ComputerScience
BiomedicalEngineering
StatisticalSciences
Civil Engineering Electrical &Computer Engineering
Mathematics
ChemistryMechanicalEngineering
BiochemistryD4 Life Sciences MolecularGenetics
Immunology MedicalBiophysics
Nursing Science Cell & SystemsBiology
PharmaceuticalSciences
Public HealthSciences
Medical Science
LaboratoryMedicine
Physiology Ecology &EvolutionaryBiology
Health Policy Pharmacology& Toxicology
Forestry ExerciseSciences
NutritionalSciences
Psychology RehabilitationSciences
Divisions 1-2rely on employment
Division 3-4rely on research stipends
FUNDING COMPOSITION—DIVISIONS & DEPTSEmployment Income vs. Research Stipend
D4 Life Sciences
All Divisions1 9
Avg Avg
Avg
Avg
D3 Physical SciencesD2 Social SciencesD1 Humanities
Div 4 above avg inyears 7-8
Div 3 highly aboveavg in years 8-9
Divs 1-2 above avgin Year 3
24 - Income Composition Income Composition - 25
&MOLECULAR GENETICSMEDICAL BIOPHYSICSDepartments most benefiting from research stipends.
ECONOMICSDepartment most dependent on employment income.
SOCIAL SCIENCESdo about
PHYSICAL SCIENCESdo about
Range of Incomes Over Enrollment Years
INCOME PROFILESWhile, this report focuses generally on qualitative aspects of income, one significant difference in quantity worth noting is the higher level of stipendiary funding for later year Ph.D.’s in Divisions 3-4 compared to that of Divisions 1-2.
Even as Divisions 1-2 take longer to finish—well beyond the funding period—and while Divisions 3-4 finish quicker, when Divisions 3-4 do take longer than average their incomes rise above average during years beyond the funding period while those of Divisions 1-2 are below.
Div 4Above avgin years 7-8
Div 1
Div 2Below avgin years 7-9
Div 3Far aboveavg in years8-9
+$8,000
Average
-$8,000
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 91 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Division Income Over Time
TOTAL INCOME vs AVERAGE
77%
49% 2%Income Composition Over Time, by Division
RESEARCH STIPEND vs AVG
Factor of Div 1-2 em-ployed work over that of Divs 3-4, on average
D2: Average percent of income in first 4 years from stipend
D3: Average percent of income in first 4 years from stipend
Divs 1-2 do more employed work than average for all div’s by
D2: Average percent of income from employment in first 4 years
D3: Average percent of income from employment in first 4 years
Divs 3-4 are subsi-dized more than Divs 1-2 by a factor of
less research subsidy allocated for Divs 1-2 on average
2.3x
4.9% 55.4%
6.8x49%1,614,700
Cumulative employed hours in Divs 1-2 above average of all divisions over first 7 years*
*using CUPE 3902 Unit 1 salary 1 Sept 2013
$6,9kD2: Average total subsidy from research stipends during first 4 years
$57,5kD3: Average total subsidy from research stipends in first 4 years
408D2: Employed hours worked / year on avg during first 4 years
TWELVED3: Employed hours worked / year on avgduring first 4 years
$262 millionTotal cumulative research subsidy of Divs 3-4 above that of Divs1-2 over first 7 years
Income Composition Over Time, by Division
EMPLOYMENT INCOME vs AVG
Div 1Div 2
Div 3
Div 4
+$8,000
Average
-$8,000
1 2 3 4 5 6 71 2 3 4 5 6 7
Div 1
Div 2
Div 3
Div 4
+$8,000
Average
-$8,000
1 2 3 4 5 6 71 2 3 4 5 6 7
1/33xThree Times
more employed work for their income than
LIFE SCIENCESas much employed work for their income than
HUMANITIES
D4 Life Sciences
All Divisions1 9
Avg Avg
Avg
Avg
D3 Physical SciencesD2 Social SciencesD1 Humanities
Div 4 above avg inyears 7-8
Div 3 highly aboveavg in years 8-9
Divs 1-2 above avgin Year 3
24 - Income Composition Income Composition - 25
&MOLECULAR GENETICSMEDICAL BIOPHYSICSDepartments most benefiting from research stipends.
ECONOMICSDepartment most dependent on employment income.
SOCIAL SCIENCESdo about
PHYSICAL SCIENCESdo about
Range of Incomes Over Enrollment Years
INCOME PROFILESWhile, this report focuses generally on qualitative aspects of income, one significant difference in quantity worth noting is the higher level of stipendiary funding for later year Ph.D.’s in Divisions 3-4 compared to that of Divisions 1-2.
Even as Divisions 1-2 take longer to finish—well beyond the funding period—and while Divisions 3-4 finish quicker, when Divisions 3-4 do take longer than average their incomes rise above average during years beyond the funding period while those of Divisions 1-2 are below.
Div 4Above avgin years 7-8
Div 1
Div 2Below avgin years 7-9
Div 3Far aboveavg in years8-9
+$8,000
Average
-$8,000
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 91 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Division Income Over Time
TOTAL INCOME vs AVERAGE
77%
49% 2%Income Composition Over Time, by Division
RESEARCH STIPEND vs AVG
Factor of Div 1-2 em-ployed work over that of Divs 3-4, on average
D2: Average percent of income in first 4 years from stipend
D3: Average percent of income in first 4 years from stipend
Divs 1-2 do more employed work than average for all div’s by
D2: Average percent of income from employment in first 4 years
D3: Average percent of income from employment in first 4 years
Divs 3-4 are subsi-dized more than Divs 1-2 by a factor of
less research subsidy allocated for Divs 1-2 on average
2.3x
4.9% 55.4%
6.8x49%1,614,700
Cumulative employed hours in Divs 1-2 above average of all divisions over first 7 years*
*using CUPE 3902 Unit 1 salary 1 Sept 2013
$6,9kD2: Average total subsidy from research stipends during first 4 years
$57,5kD3: Average total subsidy from research stipends in first 4 years
408D2: Employed hours worked / year on avg during first 4 years
TWELVED3: Employed hours worked / year on avgduring first 4 years
$262 millionTotal cumulative research subsidy of Divs 3-4 above that of Divs1-2 over first 7 years
Income Composition Over Time, by Division
EMPLOYMENT INCOME vs AVG
Div 1Div 2
Div 3
Div 4
+$8,000
Average
-$8,000
1 2 3 4 5 6 71 2 3 4 5 6 7
Div 1
Div 2
Div 3
Div 4
+$8,000
Average
-$8,000
1 2 3 4 5 6 71 2 3 4 5 6 7
1/33xThree Times
more employed work for their income than
LIFE SCIENCESas much employed work for their income than
HUMANITIES
Employment & Time-to-Completion - 2726 - Employment & Time-to-Completion
$15,000
$20,000
$25,000
$30,000
$35,000
$40,000
$45,000
Avg Income - First 4 Years
Time to Completion
$0
$5,000
$10,000
20%
30%
40%
0%
10%
5 5.2 5.4 5.6 5.8 6.0 6.2 6.4 6.6 6.8 7.0
% o
f Inc
ome
from
Em
ploy
men
tFi
rst 4
Yea
rsDiv1: Humanities
Div4: Life Sciences
Div3: Physical Sciences
Div2: Social Sciences
Coef:0.044
What is the effect of...Employment-contingent incomeon Time to Competion?
There is a clear correlation between percent of income contingent on employment and time-to-completion. This correlation, however, is divergent across divisions:
This divergent pattern is often obscured in U of T data by only examining employment and time-to-completion in aggregate (green trendline) as well as by the use of quantities in averages.
Why? While there is not enough information to confirm causation, there do seem two, distinct but not mutually-exclusive, ways to explain this divergent correlations:
Neither explanation is able to be confirmed here. These differences are also frequently ob-scured in U of T data by combining multiple forms of employed income together and by provid-ing incomplete or no definition of terms. Conflation of different types of work, or characterizing differences as simply the ‘nature’ of a discipline, undermines any discussion of comparison or equity between divisions.
3Employment &Time-to-Completion
In Divison 3-4, however, the pattern inverts: the more employed work, the quicker Ph.D.’s finish.
Second, “Employment Income” in Divisions 3-4 includes work that is directly relevant or actively advances the completion of degree work, while in Divisions 1-2 it does not.
In Divisions 1-2, the greater the proportion of income from employment, the longer the time-to-completion of study.
First, There is a sweet spot to employment income (~20%) below which it does not cor-relate with time-to-completion.
5.0 yearsTim
e-to-Completion
5.5 years
6.0 years
Avg : 5.96 years
6.5 years
7.0 years
20%
10%
0%
30%
40%
Percentage of Income from Employment50%
Avg : 22%
Mathematics
Psychology
Exercise Sciences
Chemistry
Civil EngineeringForestry
BiomedicalEngineering
Aerospace
Medical Science
Chem Eng
Health Policy
Public HealthD4 Life Sciences
PharamceuticalSciences
Near & Middle EastCivilizations
Physics
Religion
D2 Social Sciences
Social Justice Education
Cell & SystemsBiology
Nursing Science
Anthropology
Information
DramaD1 Humanities History
Political Science
English
Sociology
Economics
Curriculum,Teaching & Learning
Leadership,Higher &Adult Ed
Applied Psychology& Human Development
D3 Physical Sciences
ComputerScience
Ecology & EvolutionBiology
Music
Elec &Comp Eng
Mech &Industrial Eng
Geography & Planning
Employment & Time-to-Completion - 2726 - Employment & Time-to-Completion
$15,000
$20,000
$25,000
$30,000
$35,000
$40,000
$45,000
Avg Income - First 4 Years
Time to Completion
$0
$5,000
$10,000
20%
30%
40%
0%
10%
5 5.2 5.4 5.6 5.8 6.0 6.2 6.4 6.6 6.8 7.0
% o
f Inc
ome
from
Em
ploy
men
tFi
rst 4
Yea
rsDiv1: Humanities
Div4: Life Sciences
Div3: Physical Sciences
Div2: Social Sciences
Coef:0.044
What is the effect of...Employment-contingent incomeon Time to Competion?
There is a clear correlation between percent of income contingent on employment and time-to-completion. This correlation, however, is divergent across divisions:
This divergent pattern is often obscured in U of T data by only examining employment and time-to-completion in aggregate (green trendline) as well as by the use of quantities in averages.
Why? While there is not enough information to confirm causation, there do seem two, distinct but not mutually-exclusive, ways to explain this divergent correlations:
Neither explanation is able to be confirmed here. These differences are also frequently ob-scured in U of T data by combining multiple forms of employed income together and by provid-ing incomplete or no definition of terms. Conflation of different types of work, or characterizing differences as simply the ‘nature’ of a discipline, undermines any discussion of comparison or equity between divisions.
3Employment &Time-to-Completion
In Divison 3-4, however, the pattern inverts: the more employed work, the quicker Ph.D.’s finish.
Second, “Employment Income” in Divisions 3-4 includes work that is directly relevant or actively advances the completion of degree work, while in Divisions 1-2 it does not.
In Divisions 1-2, the greater the proportion of income from employment, the longer the time-to-completion of study.
First, There is a sweet spot to employment income (~20%) below which it does not cor-relate with time-to-completion.
5.0 yearsTim
e-to-Completion
5.5 years
6.0 years
Avg : 5.96 years
6.5 years
7.0 years
20%
10%
0%
30%
40%
Percentage of Income from Employment50%
Avg : 22%
Mathematics
Psychology
Exercise Sciences
Chemistry
Civil EngineeringForestry
BiomedicalEngineering
Aerospace
Medical Science
Chem Eng
Health Policy
Public HealthD4 Life Sciences
PharamceuticalSciences
Near & Middle EastCivilizations
Physics
Religion
D2 Social Sciences
Social Justice Education
Cell & SystemsBiology
Nursing Science
Anthropology
Information
DramaD1 Humanities History
Political Science
English
Sociology
Economics
Curriculum,Teaching & Learning
Leadership,Higher &Adult Ed
Applied Psychology& Human Development
D3 Physical Sciences
ComputerScience
Ecology & EvolutionBiology
Music
Elec &Comp Eng
Mech &Industrial Eng
Geography & Planning
Employment & Time-to-Completion - 2928 - Employment & Time-to-Completion
$15,000
$20,000
$25,000
$30,000
$35,000
$40,000
$45,000
Avg Income - First 4 Years
Time to Completion
$0
$5,000
$10,000
20%
30%
40%
0%
10%
5 5.2 5.4 5.6 5.8 6.0 6.2 6.4 6.6 6.8 7.0
% o
f Inc
ome
from
Em
ploy
men
tFi
rst 4
Yea
rs
Aero
spac
ePh
ysic
s
Chem
ical
Eng
Com
p Sc
iB
iom
ed E
ng
Div
3 Av
g
Civi
l Eng
Elec
Eng
; Mat
h
Mec
h En
g
Chem
istr
y
Coef:-0.167
$15,000
$20,000
$25,000
$30,000
$35,000
$40,000
$45,000
Avg Income - First 4 Years
Time to Completion
$0
$5,000
$10,000
20%
30%
40%
0%
10%
5 5.2 5.4 5.6 5.8 6.0 6.2 6.4 6.6 6.8 7.0
% o
f Inc
ome
from
Em
ploy
men
tFi
rst 4
Yea
rs
Mol
Gen
etic
s
Med
Bio
phys
Nur
sing
Cell
& S
yste
ms
Phar
mac
y
Div
4 Av
g
Publ
ic H
ealt
h
Med
Sci
ence
Lab
Med
Ecol
ogy
Hea
lth
Polic
y
Fore
stry
Exce
rcis
e
Psyc
holo
gyCoef:-0.091
$15,000
$20,000
$25,000
$30,000
$35,000
$40,000
$45,000
Avg Income - First 4 Years
Time to Completion
$0
$5,000
$10,000
20%
30%
40%
0%
10%
5 5.2 5.4 5.6 5.8 6.0 6.2 6.4 6.6 6.8 7.0
% o
f Inc
ome
from
Em
ploy
men
tFi
rst 4
Yea
rs
His
tory
Dra
ma
Div
1 Av
g
Mid
dle
East
Rel
igio
n
Mus
ic
Coef:0.066
$15,000
$20,000
$25,000
$30,000
$35,000
$40,000
$45,000
Avg Income - First 4 Years
Time to Completion
$0
$5,000
$10,000
20%
30%
40%
0%
10%
5 5.2 5.4 5.6 5.8 6.0 6.2 6.4 6.6 6.8 7.0
% o
f Inc
ome
from
Em
ploy
men
tFi
rst 4
Yea
rs
Soci
olog
y
Poli
Sci
Info
rmat
ion
Anth
ropo
logy
Econ
omic
s
Soci
al J
usti
ceSo
cial
Wor
k
Div
2 Av
g
Hig
her E
d
Teac
hing
Appl
ied
Psyc
h
Geo
grap
hy
Coef:0.083
In the Humanities & Social Sciences,the more employed work...The longer they stay.
In the Physical & Life Sciences,the more employed work...The quicker they finish.
DIV 1: HUMANITIES DIV 3: PHYSICAL SCIENCES
DIV 2: SOCIAL SCIENCES DIV 4: LIFE SCIENCES
Delay of graduation by 6 months delaycorresponds with +4%-pts employment.
Delay of graduation by 6 months delaycorresponds with -10.0%-pts employment.
Delay of graduation by 6 months delaycorresponds with +5%-pts employment.
Delay of graduation by 6 months delaycorresponds with -5.5%-pts employment.
Employment & Time-to-Completion - 2928 - Employment & Time-to-Completion
$15,000
$20,000
$25,000
$30,000
$35,000
$40,000
$45,000
Avg Income - First 4 Years
Time to Completion
$0
$5,000
$10,000
20%
30%
40%
0%
10%
5 5.2 5.4 5.6 5.8 6.0 6.2 6.4 6.6 6.8 7.0
% o
f Inc
ome
from
Em
ploy
men
tFi
rst 4
Yea
rs
Aero
spac
ePh
ysic
s
Chem
ical
Eng
Com
p Sc
iB
iom
ed E
ng
Div
3 Av
g
Civi
l Eng
Elec
Eng
; Mat
h
Mec
h En
g
Chem
istr
y
Coef:-0.167
$15,000
$20,000
$25,000
$30,000
$35,000
$40,000
$45,000
Avg Income - First 4 Years
Time to Completion
$0
$5,000
$10,000
20%
30%
40%
0%
10%
5 5.2 5.4 5.6 5.8 6.0 6.2 6.4 6.6 6.8 7.0
% o
f Inc
ome
from
Em
ploy
men
tFi
rst 4
Yea
rs
Mol
Gen
etic
s
Med
Bio
phys
Nur
sing
Cell
& S
yste
ms
Phar
mac
y
Div
4 Av
g
Publ
ic H
ealt
h
Med
Sci
ence
Lab
Med
Ecol
ogy
Hea
lth
Polic
y
Fore
stry
Exce
rcis
e
Psyc
holo
gy
Coef:-0.091
$15,000
$20,000
$25,000
$30,000
$35,000
$40,000
$45,000
Avg Income - First 4 Years
Time to Completion
$0
$5,000
$10,000
20%
30%
40%
0%
10%
5 5.2 5.4 5.6 5.8 6.0 6.2 6.4 6.6 6.8 7.0
% o
f Inc
ome
from
Em
ploy
men
tFi
rst 4
Yea
rs
His
tory
Dra
ma
Div
1 Av
g
Mid
dle
East
Rel
igio
n
Mus
ic
Coef:0.066
$15,000
$20,000
$25,000
$30,000
$35,000
$40,000
$45,000
Avg Income - First 4 Years
Time to Completion
$0
$5,000
$10,000
20%
30%
40%
0%
10%
5 5.2 5.4 5.6 5.8 6.0 6.2 6.4 6.6 6.8 7.0
% o
f Inc
ome
from
Em
ploy
men
tFi
rst 4
Yea
rs
Soci
olog
y
Poli
Sci
Info
rmat
ion
Anth
ropo
logy
Econ
omic
s
Soci
al J
usti
ceSo
cial
Wor
k
Div
2 Av
g
Hig
her E
d
Teac
hing
Appl
ied
Psyc
h
Geo
grap
hy
Coef:0.083
In the Humanities & Social Sciences,the more employed work...The longer they stay.
In the Physical & Life Sciences,the more employed work...The quicker they finish.
DIV 1: HUMANITIES DIV 3: PHYSICAL SCIENCES
DIV 2: SOCIAL SCIENCES DIV 4: LIFE SCIENCES
Delay of graduation by 6 months delaycorresponds with +4%-pts employment.
Delay of graduation by 6 months delaycorresponds with -10.0%-pts employment.
Delay of graduation by 6 months delaycorresponds with +5%-pts employment.
Delay of graduation by 6 months delaycorresponds with -5.5%-pts employment.
3130
The upshot is to, first, push Division 1-2 students away from their own work through increased employment and, second, to push them past funding periods to begin pay-ing tuition to the University, which in turn demands even greater employment.
This connected effect was likely never an administrative intention. However, each of the identified points of in-equality is the result of separate administrative decisions. Only by viewing the cumulative effect can solutions be found.
Clearly decision-making at each of these points is in-formed by a certain ideology or conception of the purpose of graduate funding.
The Purpose of Graduate SupportArising from these conclusions are three distinct ques-tions related to graduate income in general:
• First, what is the nature of differences in graduate incomes between departments? Are these differences part of the ‘natural’ conditions or preferences of a discipline or are they a condition produced by explicit administrative decisions?
• Second, what is the role or purpose of graduate sup-port?
• Third, acknowledging the clear existence and pattern of these differences, what should be done?
How these questions are answered by administrators is guided by competing ideologies, represented by two key positions:
• The Provostial Committee sees the purpose of gradu-ate funding is to support Ph.D.’s in the completion of their studies in a timely manner. Differences in gradu-ate incomes should be acknowledged and addressed to realize an equitable funding solution, (see p. 6).
• The Provost’s Office sees the purpose of graduate funding as an incentive tool for recuiting. Differences in graduate incomes are the product of ‘natural’ disciplin-ary conditions and preferences, or other structures outside their purview (see p. 7).
This report, however, shows that differences are in fact real, substantial and with clear patterns of inequity. Differences like Time-to-Completion are not ‘natural’ or ‘preferred’, but correlated with explicit administrative decisions like tying of income to Employment. This conlu-sion contradicts the assumptions of the latter. And with regard to the recommendations of the former, funding is presently dispersed under terms that undermines its own purpose. Given that this is the case, there is clear reason to believe we should reject the logic of the latter, realize the intentions of the former, and put increased focus on developing creative and equitable solutions the three questions outlined.
32
1Time-To-CompletionNearly everyone takes too long.
Funding does not acknowledge these time-to-completion realities, perhaps even exac-erbates it.
There is a clear unevenness in time-to-completion across programs, generally characterized by Humanities, Social Sci-ences, and a handful of Life Science de-partments taking as much as 3.5 years lon-ger than their Physical Science colleagues.
This differential has significant economic consequences for Ph.D.’s, not least of which is that longer programs are cumulatively indebted by thousands of tuition-paying years totally millions of dollars. This situa-tion itself likely has the effect of extending time-to-completion.
None of these findings is particularly sur-prising to graduate students, but their se-vere and widespread effect are empirically clear—no isolated or inflated anecdote.
Themes of ExplanationSo why is this the case? Are long times-to-completion driven by ‘natural’ characteristics and department structures or in-duced by funding?
While this report cannot fully answer these questions, it does substantiate the basis of their discussion and link multiple is-sues which together question the shorthand ideological expla-nations of the Provost’s office.
Common explanations for inequality across completion times and graduate incomes usually fall into three categories:
Individualizing. Shortcomings are the result of a student being inadequately ‘competitive’ or on-pace. This often correlates with dismissal of inequality as only a few ex-treme cases.
Natural Difference. Inequalities are attributed to prefer-ences unique to a discipline, public and private funding preferences, or job market characteristics (e.g. requiring lengthy publication records). These explanations are not generally correlated with efforts to even out these differ-ences.
Overly Structural. Inequality is the simple result of chron-ic underfunding and high level preference for subsidy of certain departments over others. Few responses are of-fered other than simply increasing incomes.
Can we rely on such simplifying explanations to fully or accu-rately represent a problem that is apparently so severe, wide-spread, and yet differentiated? From this report, there seems ample evidence that funding inequality cannot be only the result of innocent differences of academic preferences but may, in fact, be a compound effect of multiple administrative decisions.
The Nature of Compounded DecisionsInequities of subsidy and employment requirements com-pound over the course of a program into a stark inequality be-tween divisions. While this has been well known anecdotally, the trend is evidently wide-spread and quantitatively clear.
Income CompositionThere is a marked divergence in key funding sources: a roughly equal but opposite reli-ance of Divisions 1-2 on employment and Divisions 3-4 on research stipends.
This trend is quantitatively clear and markedly widespread, Divisions 1-2 rely-ing roughly twice as much on employment than Divisions 3-4. The severity of this trend is equally intense, with one D2 department drawing nearly 50% of their income form employment and two in D4 less than 2%.
This pattern is not only consistent through all program years, but in fact intensifies as its effects compound. Reliance on employ-ment increases in Divisions 1-2 over the course of their program while employment progressively decreases for Divisions 3-4.
Employment & Time-to-CompletionThere is a clear empirical correlation be-tween percentage of employment-contin-gent income and time-to-completion.
This correlation, however, is bimodal: for Di-visions 1-2, the greater the employed work, the longer one takes to finish; for Divisions 3-4, the more employment, the quicker one finishes. This contradiction is often ob-scured by lumping all divisions together.
Explanation for the contradiction likely is that employment for Divisions 3-4 advanc-es their own work while that of Divisions 1-2 takes away from theirs.
Concluded So What? AppendixCompounding InequalityTo summarize the compound effect of these points with re-gard to funding inequality, Divisions 1-2:
• Take longer to complete than others.
• Consequently pay far more tuition.
• Are substantially less subsidized.
• In turn, a far greater portion of their income comes from employment.
• When they do take longer, they rely even heavier on employment during final years.
• When employed, not only, does not advance, but likely detracts from degree completion.
These multiple points of inequality bely explanations of ‘natu-ral’ difference of disciplines or departments. Each of these tendencies has a compound effect, further intensifying ineq-uities at each turn.
Obscurities in the DataThe data collected from SGS used in this report and many statements directly from U of T ob-scure quantitative and qualitative underfunding and inequities of funding by:
• Including tuition in income.
• Omitting tuition as negative income in years 5-6+.
• Explicitly dealing in aggregates and averages to avoid extreme cases.
• Providing no range data.
• Obscuring definitions of funding composition categories.
• Discussing funding issues only at the level of all divisions combined (i.e. averaging to elimi-nate extremes of individuals, departments, and even divisions).
• Designing a web interface with no comparative function between departments.
• Siting decision-making power in departments but collecting no information on how decisions are made across departments.
• Eliding the difference between graduate “funding” and “income,” effectively taking credit for student and faculty winning of exter-nal funding and the taking on of supplemen-tary university work beyond funding package.
Further ResearchA key question arises from conclusions here re-lated to the definition and composition of ‘Em-ployment Income’. Clearly there is a discrepancy as to the nature of this work between Divisions 1-2 and 3-4. What exactly constitutes employ-ment for these groups?
Ignoring the composition aspects, how do we explain generally lower incomes (though not sub-stantially) in Physical & Life Sciences and shorter times-to-completion? Is it just program struc-ture? Or: A greater willingness to take on debt? Greater professional market opportunity? etc.
Certain departments seem to have anomalous access in External Awards: e.g. Philosophy, Soci-ology, Religion, Law. Why and what are the sourc-es of these awards?
Why are certain departments working such ex-ceptional amounts, namely Sociology, Econom-ics, Mathematics, and English.
While this report focuses especially on the role of Employment Income in Divisions I-II, it should be noted that the formats of income in Divisions III-IV likely represent other funding struggles that are hidden by non-waged work contingent upon research stipends contingent on This is a prime location for future research.
3130
The upshot is to, first, push Division 1-2 students away from their own work through increased employment and, second, to push them past funding periods to begin pay-ing tuition to the University, which in turn demands even greater employment.
This connected effect was likely never an administrative intention. However, each of the identified points of in-equality is the result of separate administrative decisions. Only by viewing the cumulative effect can solutions be found.
Clearly decision-making at each of these points is in-formed by a certain ideology or conception of the purpose of graduate funding.
The Purpose of Graduate SupportArising from these conclusions are three distinct ques-tions related to graduate income in general:
• First, what is the nature of differences in graduate incomes between departments? Are these differences part of the ‘natural’ conditions or preferences of a discipline or are they a condition produced by explicit administrative decisions?
• Second, what is the role or purpose of graduate sup-port?
• Third, acknowledging the clear existence and pattern of these differences, what should be done?
How these questions are answered by administrators is guided by competing ideologies, represented by two key positions:
• The Provostial Committee sees the purpose of gradu-ate funding is to support Ph.D.’s in the completion of their studies in a timely manner. Differences in gradu-ate incomes should be acknowledged and addressed to realize an equitable funding solution, (see p. 6).
• The Provost’s Office sees the purpose of graduate funding as an incentive tool for recuiting. Differences in graduate incomes are the product of ‘natural’ disciplin-ary conditions and preferences, or other structures outside their purview (see p. 7).
This report, however, shows that differences are in fact real, substantial and with clear patterns of inequity. Differences like Time-to-Completion are not ‘natural’ or ‘preferred’, but correlated with explicit administrative decisions like tying of income to Employment. This conlu-sion contradicts the assumptions of the latter. And with regard to the recommendations of the former, funding is presently dispersed under terms that undermines its own purpose. Given that this is the case, there is clear reason to believe we should reject the logic of the latter, realize the intentions of the former, and put increased focus on developing creative and equitable solutions the three questions outlined.
32
1Time-To-CompletionNearly everyone takes too long.
Funding does not acknowledge these time-to-completion realities, perhaps even exac-erbates it.
There is a clear unevenness in time-to-completion across programs, generally characterized by Humanities, Social Sci-ences, and a handful of Life Science de-partments taking as much as 3.5 years lon-ger than their Physical Science colleagues.
This differential has significant economic consequences for Ph.D.’s, not least of which is that longer programs are cumulatively indebted by thousands of tuition-paying years totally millions of dollars. This situa-tion itself likely has the effect of extending time-to-completion.
None of these findings is particularly sur-prising to graduate students, but their se-vere and widespread effect are empirically clear—no isolated or inflated anecdote.
Themes of ExplanationSo why is this the case? Are long times-to-completion driven by ‘natural’ characteristics and department structures or in-duced by funding?
While this report cannot fully answer these questions, it does substantiate the basis of their discussion and link multiple is-sues which together question the shorthand ideological expla-nations of the Provost’s office.
Common explanations for inequality across completion times and graduate incomes usually fall into three categories:
Individualizing. Shortcomings are the result of a student being inadequately ‘competitive’ or on-pace. This often correlates with dismissal of inequality as only a few ex-treme cases.
Natural Difference. Inequalities are attributed to prefer-ences unique to a discipline, public and private funding preferences, or job market characteristics (e.g. requiring lengthy publication records). These explanations are not generally correlated with efforts to even out these differ-ences.
Overly Structural. Inequality is the simple result of chron-ic underfunding and high level preference for subsidy of certain departments over others. Few responses are of-fered other than simply increasing incomes.
Can we rely on such simplifying explanations to fully or accu-rately represent a problem that is apparently so severe, wide-spread, and yet differentiated? From this report, there seems ample evidence that funding inequality cannot be only the result of innocent differences of academic preferences but may, in fact, be a compound effect of multiple administrative decisions.
The Nature of Compounded DecisionsInequities of subsidy and employment requirements com-pound over the course of a program into a stark inequality be-tween divisions. While this has been well known anecdotally, the trend is evidently wide-spread and quantitatively clear.
Income CompositionThere is a marked divergence in key funding sources: a roughly equal but opposite reli-ance of Divisions 1-2 on employment and Divisions 3-4 on research stipends.
This trend is quantitatively clear and markedly widespread, Divisions 1-2 rely-ing roughly twice as much on employment than Divisions 3-4. The severity of this trend is equally intense, with one D2 department drawing nearly 50% of their income form employment and two in D4 less than 2%.
This pattern is not only consistent through all program years, but in fact intensifies as its effects compound. Reliance on employ-ment increases in Divisions 1-2 over the course of their program while employment progressively decreases for Divisions 3-4.
Employment & Time-to-CompletionThere is a clear empirical correlation be-tween percentage of employment-contin-gent income and time-to-completion.
This correlation, however, is bimodal: for Di-visions 1-2, the greater the employed work, the longer one takes to finish; for Divisions 3-4, the more employment, the quicker one finishes. This contradiction is often ob-scured by lumping all divisions together.
Explanation for the contradiction likely is that employment for Divisions 3-4 advanc-es their own work while that of Divisions 1-2 takes away from theirs.
Concluded So What? AppendixCompounding InequalityTo summarize the compound effect of these points with re-gard to funding inequality, Divisions 1-2:
• Take longer to complete than others.
• Consequently pay far more tuition.
• Are substantially less subsidized.
• In turn, a far greater portion of their income comes from employment.
• When they do take longer, they rely even heavier on employment during final years.
• When employed, not only, does not advance, but likely detracts from degree completion.
These multiple points of inequality bely explanations of ‘natu-ral’ difference of disciplines or departments. Each of these tendencies has a compound effect, further intensifying ineq-uities at each turn.
Obscurities in the DataThe data collected from SGS used in this report and many statements directly from U of T ob-scure quantitative and qualitative underfunding and inequities of funding by:
• Including tuition in income.
• Omitting tuition as negative income in years 5-6+.
• Explicitly dealing in aggregates and averages to avoid extreme cases.
• Providing no range data.
• Obscuring definitions of funding composition categories.
• Discussing funding issues only at the level of all divisions combined (i.e. averaging to elimi-nate extremes of individuals, departments, and even divisions).
• Designing a web interface with no comparative function between departments.
• Siting decision-making power in departments but collecting no information on how decisions are made across departments.
• Eliding the difference between graduate “funding” and “income,” effectively taking credit for student and faculty winning of exter-nal funding and the taking on of supplemen-tary university work beyond funding package.
Further ResearchA key question arises from conclusions here re-lated to the definition and composition of ‘Em-ployment Income’. Clearly there is a discrepancy as to the nature of this work between Divisions 1-2 and 3-4. What exactly constitutes employ-ment for these groups?
Ignoring the composition aspects, how do we explain generally lower incomes (though not sub-stantially) in Physical & Life Sciences and shorter times-to-completion? Is it just program struc-ture? Or: A greater willingness to take on debt? Greater professional market opportunity? etc.
Certain departments seem to have anomalous access in External Awards: e.g. Philosophy, Soci-ology, Religion, Law. Why and what are the sourc-es of these awards?
Why are certain departments working such ex-ceptional amounts, namely Sociology, Econom-ics, Mathematics, and English.
While this report focuses especially on the role of Employment Income in Divisions I-II, it should be noted that the formats of income in Divisions III-IV likely represent other funding struggles that are hidden by non-waged work contingent upon research stipends contingent on This is a prime location for future research.