|
Comment on this article |
View comments |
Email this Article
|
|
News :: Labor |
|
Grad Student Stipend Gap Persists |
Current rating: 0 |
by Ernst LaMothe, Jr. in the News-Gazette via goodriddancegipper
(No verified email address) |
09 Jan 2005
|
|
While I disagree with some aspects of the article, including Mr. Wang's market-based rationale for the discrepancy in stipends, this article is worth reading for several reasons, not the least of which is to illustrate the very modest remuneration for most of the graduate students who teach as a TA at one of the best universities in the United States. The News-Gazette, for all its flaws, deserves credit for reporting on this important local issue. |
Grad student stipend gap persists
By ERNST LAMOTHE JR.
© 2005 THE NEWS-GAZETTE
Published Online January 9, 2005
Five years ago, it would have been financially reckless for Stanley Wang to buy a condo.
He had just arrived at the University of Illinois to pursue a combined master's and doctorate in biochemistry. And he was starting to make monthly payments on his new black Honda CRV, using some of his $15,000 graduate school stipend. But with his stipend now at $20,000, life is much easier for Wang.
Others can't say the same.
A UI music major's stipend is currently $3,000 less than what Wang made in 1999. Graduate stipend gaps between different majors occur at universities nationwide. There is an $8,000 gap between the average top and bottom tier stipends at UI, according to university officials.
Wang lived in a graduate residence hall when he first arrived at the UI after saving up some money from working at a pharmaceutical lab in the Bay Area in California. But it was the increased stipend that made possible the move to his 1,100-square-foot, two-bedroom condo.
"I could afford to pay the mortgage and still have money to do other stuff. I don't think I would have been able to pay as I can now," said Wang of Champaign, who said the raise gave him "a little more security."
A luxury he knows others don't have.
"I have heard of people in the languages and English graduate programs that are kind of struggling," he said. "We are pretty fortunate in our stipends."
"We don't have very much financial aid for our master's students," said Wynne Sandra Korr, dean of the School of Social Work. "We know from our surveys that master's of social work students two years out of school make around $35,000 a year and are often carrying $30,000 of debt."
Nobody is arguing that a stipend gap exists. And Richard Wheeler believes there's nothing wrong with that.
"We are presuming that it is a gap that ought to be closed," said the dean of the Graduate College, who said each department sets its own stipend. "That is as unlikely as having one salary level extended to all faculty members throughout the university."
He added that nothing is being scheduled to close the gap and it's simply part of the educational system.
"Some programs can afford to go above the minimum, and some can't," said Wheeler. "What drives it is that research stipends in the science departments are paid off of federal grant dollars."
Graduate student Ed Chang is in one of the money majors, where students expect to be on the higher end of the stipend scale. But even as a Ph.D. student in molecular and integrated physiology, there are semesters when the stipend still isn't enough.
Chang took out $8,000 in loans this year to cover expenses, such as flying back home to California twice a year along with not having a roommate for the first time in several years. Six years ago, he said, he struggled with his $15,500 stipend. He chose to save money by living in a graduate residence hall and not buying a car during his first three years at the UI.
Even though he did his undergraduate studies on the West Coast, he found East Central Illinois wasn't always a bargain.
"For one thing, food isn't actually cheap here. The prices of meats and vegetables are much higher than in California," said Chang of Urbana, whose current stipend is $21,500. "And the heating prices for apartments are phenomenally high. Where I lived in northern California, the winters were never too cold, and the summers were never really hot that you needed to turn on anything except a fan."
He also managed his first few years by limiting how much he dined out.
"If you budgeted a certain amount a year, you should work within that," said Chang. "(The stipend) is not low enough that you would qualify for poverty level. There are a lot more people making less than you do."
Students are much better compensated now than when Martha Cooper received $300 a month for graduate school in the early '90s. However, she said it doesn't always cover the expenses.
"It is very rare when I run into a student, regardless of their financial aid stipend and tuition waiver, that is not taking student loans and working," said Cooper, the assistant dean of the School of Social Work.
Bryan Nicholson, communication officer for the Graduate Employees' Organization, said he is more concerned about raising the lower end stipends than closing the gaps between the haves and the haves-more.
"We don't have a problem with people making way over the minimum. We are not looking to level out graduate stipends," said the third-year teaching assistant in history. "If a graduate employee's stipend in chemistry or any of the sciences is well over the minimum, then that's fantastic."
Most graduate students work at least 20 hours a week. And with the new 3 percent raise, the graduate stipend minimum for those students is $11,864 for the 2004-2005 school year, according to the UI Office of Academic Human Resource. It's a $346 increase from a year ago.
Nicholson said he is focused on helping out students who must decide whether to pay rent or go grocery shopping.
"Our concern is that people who are doing work in the bottom of the pay scale are living a dignified life in this town. If someone gets sick in their family, it could be a catastrophe," he said. "Being able to bargain with the university collectively rather than individually is the road that is going to get us closer to a living wage."
The GEO is a volunteer-run union that has fought to improve graduate working conditions at the UI since 1988. Graduate employees account for one-third of all undergraduate teaching at the UI and 49 percent of 100-level teaching, according to the GEO Web site.
Recently, the organization ratified its first union contract with the university, which runs through Aug. 15, 2006. The contract is retroactive to 2003 and will give graduate assistants three years of 3 percent raises.
The National Association of Graduate-Professional Students is lobbying Congress to lighten some of the financial burden. The Higher Education Affordability and Equity Act (HR 3412) would return graduate scholarships to their pre-1986 tax-exempt status and make students' room and board nontaxable. While that would keep more money in their pockets, it wouldn't affect the stipend gap.
"Graduate scholarships are different from graduate stipends because students are not required to perform work such as teaching classes, conducting lab research or advising students," said Nicholson.
Chang understands he is more fortunate than many graduate students, but he takes a practical and analytical view on the situation.
"It is driven by the market forces," he said. "Since there is not a huge demand for English majors, it takes more effort for them to get money and get support. If you are going to graduate school, then this is a choice. If you can't survive your stipend, then maybe you should finish your degree as soon as possible."
Wang also agrees that it's society contributing to the pecking order that places engineering and biology at the top of the stipend totem pole, while English and social work languish at the bottom. Yet, he doesn't believe that makes it right.
"I don't think it's fair," Wang continued. "The teaching assistants in the humanities put in as much work as the teaching assistants in the sciences. People choose their professions differently, and none is better than the other, so they deserve just as much as our stipends."
STIPEND GAP AT UI
University of Illinois master's student stipends range from $11,864 to $27,000 a year for a 50 percent appointment, which involves working at least 20 hours a week. The average is $14,423. Here is a sample of average monthly stipends from 20 fields in increasing order:
Social work $1,233
Music $1,318
French $1,344
History $1,370
English $1,392
Kinesiology $1,419
Special education $1,462
Geology $1,561
Computer science $1,582
Psychology $1,601
Physics $1,641
Bioengineering $1,655
Aerospace engineering $1,730
Mathematics $1,739
Chemistry $1,782
Materials science engineering $1,790
Mechanical and industrial engineering $1,848
Molecular and cellular biology $2,000
Microbiology $2,000
Accountancy $2,777
SOURCES: University of Illinois Graduate College, The Graduate Employees' Organization and various individual departments.
You can reach News-Gazette staff writer Ernst Lamothe Jr. at (217) 351-5223 or via e-mail at elamothe (at) news-gazette.com. |
Copyright by the author. All rights reserved. |
Comments
|
Re: Grad Student Stipend Gap Persists |
by scs
ReallyGirl8 (nospam) netscape.com (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
10 Jan 2005
|
|
I earned two graduate degrees from the U of I, and had several grad assistantships. As a member of one of the lower paying disciplines, I earned less than my colleagues in engineering and science. It never occurred to me to complain about my stipend. To begin with, I was getting a FREE graduate education -- i.e. tuition and fee waivers were PART of my compensation package. Secondly, I knew I was heading for a profession that did not provide strong financial rewards. That was my choice, and that is the choice of those now pursuing graduate degrees in the humanities and fine arts. There is also the question of where the money will come from to pay higher stipends to those in fields where there is precious little outside funding for research (the source of those higher stipends in engineering and science). In case people haven't noticed, the State of Illinois is broke, the University of Illinois is having its funding reduced annually. Higher stipends can thus only come from one place: tuition increases. So, what about the students who come from working class backgrounds? My overall concern here is that this is a complex and deep issue, and it's not as simple as blaming the U of I for the outcome of an interrelated set of circumstances, social forces, econcomics, and personal choices. |
|
Re: Grad Student Stipend Gap Persists |
by IMC supporter
btfstl (nospam) consolidated.net (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
10 Jan 2005
|
Seems you've got something against the IMC, WEFT and a couple of other groups around town. Bitter, aren't we?
What do you have against said groups? |
|
Re: Grad Student Stipend Gap Persists |
by goodriddancegipper
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
10 Jan 2005
|
scs:
If it would be OK with you and others, I'm going to move the discussion back toward various points that you raised as well as those in the initial N-G article that I posted, and away from BL's bs. While I disagree with a few things you say, or at least think that there ought to be some consideration given to a few other things, I think that you make a good point when you mentioned that "There is also the question of where the money will come from to pay higher stipends to those in fields where there is precious little outside funding for research (the source of those higher stipends in engineering and science)." This is important to remember, and does relate to some degree to the stipend level, no question. I think that the N-G article should have discussed this much more, and I'm glad you brought it up. It is worth remembering that some departments, and this is the case at many major research universities, receive a lot of outside funding that allows them to pay significantly higher stipends.
However, I do think that it is worth remembering that although the State of Illinois is experiencing financial troubles, there has been a building boon on campus, which no doubt has entailed millions of dollars in state spending. My point is not to decry these projects, which will certainly pay great financial and educational dividends to the University, our communities and likely the rest of the world, but rather my point is to show that there are certain priorities that the University has and does not always have. The Graduate Employees' Organization (GEO) and its members, through years of organizing and direct action, earned much-needed improvements for TAs at the U of I, yet the raises that TAs received do not keep pace with inflation. True, there is a financial problem in the state. Let's remember that it also affects TAs, who constitute a significant number of very modestly paid state employees that act in effect as an institutional underclass to faculty at the University.
Additionally, it is important to remember that by providing decent stipends for graduate students, the University helps to ensure its own competitiveness as an institution by proving its ability to attract excellent, highly qualified and promising future academics to the U of I. Certain departments assuredly lose potential graduate students simply because other schools, which may not be as good as the U of I, offer better stipends. This can result in lower ratings for important University graduate departments which nobody wants.
Less tangible but no less important is the effect that low stipends has on our communities. Many students, especially those with families, operate under very tight budgets, and are usually quite willing to understand and do in fact know that this is part of the deal of graduate school. Yet even a bit more money from the University in stipends can go a long way toward providing necessities for students and their families, if they have them, in the form of extra groceries, a package of diapers, a gift or two for loved ones during holidays, ease in paying bills, a movie now and then to rent or some other form of leisure, and other things that are significant for finances as well as morale. Local businesses could also realize increased sales with increased stipends, showing that localism is important and closely connected to working conditions and terms in the area.
Unions provide the opportunity for workers to improve upon their conditions of employment. Under the National Labor Relations Act of 1935, workers gained the right to organize and improve their terms of employment, no longer simply enjoying the right to work and the right to quit. I don't know if the GEO was around when you earned your degrees, but it has made significant changes for TAs at the U of I and, in my opinion, for the better.
Lastly, I don't think anyone is simply "blaming the U of I for the outcome of an interrelated set of circumstances, social forces, economics, and personal choices." Far from it, I am suggesting that there are much larger forces at work, some of which have strong political and social implications, in these conditions. Surely, "personal choices" matter, and students who enter graduate school expecting six-figure salaries as TAs or Research Assistants simply haven't done their homework. Yet this does not mean that the University could not do a bit more for its TAs who are not just good teachers and students, but many of whom actually love this school as well as their field of study. Grads here usually express their love of University life and the opportunity they have here. They just want to enjoy it a little more. I come from a state school in the "Rust Belt," whose state also had deep financial woes. Yet this state system provided certain things, such as free copies through the university's online account, that the U of I does not, thus costing students who need to read articles from online journals and e-reserves for their classes quite a bit of money. All I'm saying is that there are things the U of I could do to help its TAs, most of whom are quite dedicated and good at what they do.
Thanks for your thought-provoking post, scs. |
|
Getting the Priorities Straight |
by regular reader
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
10 Jan 2005
|
Speaking of the millions of dollars spent on new facilities recently, I think the News-Gazette offered an answer to the question of why many grad students have to struggle to get by with inadequate compensation in its Friday edition. On the front page is an article about the newly appointed UI president and the financial worries he has as he takes the helm. Right next to it is an article about construction priorities at the UI, with Memorial Stadium being "the first priority" according to interim Chancellor Robert Herman.
As long as sports get either equal or top billing to academics, the UI will likely continue to see a slide in its standing among the world's great universities. It seems like the only thing that opinion leaders like the N-G really care about is whether the football team wins or loses. The obsession that the N-G has in keeping a racist mascot like the "Chief" further alienates top scholars, who can then look at the pay they will earn as a grad student to further discourage them from coming here.
Meanwhile, the B section of the same last Friday's N-G is headlined with news that the UI is reporting "a significant gain in funding" from its endowment income. No doubt the extra money will ensure that Memorial Stadium gets an even more plush renovation, while grad students have to struggle to pay medical bills and support their families.
You're right, scs, prospective students WILL make their personal choices. They are more and more likely to choose to take their talents elsewhere, as the UI slips behind its academic peers because of its non-competitive compensation package for most of its grad students. Don't be fooled by the realtively larger salaries earned that a few grad students earn. Our society will always need far more of the people who are making at the low end of the UI's grad pay scale -- and their decisions to attend other universities will continue to undermine the UI's academic ranking.
But I'm sure there will always be enough money for althletics and million dollar plus coaches' salaries.
And the N-G will continue to fail to connect the dots about what it takes to really be a great university. |
|
Re: Grad Student Stipend Gap Persists |
by goodriddancegipper
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
11 Jan 2005
|
rich:
I'm compelled to disagree with several of your statements. I think at least that they are not by any means indicative of the labor movement generally, and that they are based on some misconceptions. I think you ought not to essentialize the idea that there is a "genuine working class," particularly in today's day and age with so many different occupations and so many different professions who choose to join unions--more on that later. I know of many TAs at the University, including myself, who grew up in working-class families and who carry those experiences with us. Considering the very modest levels of TA incomes, the stipend alone qualifies so many TAs as (lower) working class. Also, let's not mischaracterize certain types of work as genuine working-class work, as actual work, and other professions as not actual labor. Let's not think for a moment that teachers don't work very hard, for very long hours, and often longer than eight hours a day.
I also think that your statement, " I find it touchingly naive that grad students actually believe the union is interested in their situation," is rather condescending and reflects a significant degree of ignorance about the GEO specifically, and unions generally. While some unions are bureaucratic and ignorant of their members' concerns, the GEO is simply not one of those unions. Having seen it from the inside and having worked and organized on its behalf, I know. The GEO conducts a lot of outreach to its members to keep them informed, it maintains and fosters democratic, rank-and-file involvement that many unions, including building trades unions such as Carpenters, do not necessarily perform. The GEO has also done much to prepare its representatives, most of whom are volunteer by the way, for direct representation in grievance cases and other pertinent issues. To state that the union just doesn't care about its members is at best wrong. Bad unions result not just from bad leaders, but often from bad and apathetic members, and these two often work symbiotically.
I also think that you're way off base in thinking that the labor movement doesn't view grads--or for that matter professionals--as "part of the union family." I know this first-hand from my union involvement here, and also from my union involvement back east, where I hail from the most heavily unionized city in the nation, proudly. While it is true that some unions, particularly building trades such as Carpenters and others, can be quite snobby about who is "skilled" or "worthy" of union membership, most union members quite simply don't feel that way. In large part, this is because so many professionals today, such as teachers, nurses, professional staffs, and government employees among others, ARE the labor movement. In part due to more stable conditions in their respective professions, and also in part due to their awareness of their relationship to corporations, management, and large and powerful interests, these professionals have embraced unionism, and rightly so. Let's remember that although there are many, many good and decent union members among building trades, there is also a culture of snobbery that some of its members cultivate. One firned of mine who joined the Building Trades apprentice program in 2002 told me that some people training him constantly mocked Laborers (LIUNA members) on construction sites with statement such as, "Make way, skilled worker coming through,' or "Skilled workers' lunch area." This stuff was toward other union members, people of the "genuine working class." They're often snobby toward nearly everyone, including a close relative of mine who's a skilled electrician. Let's also be mindful that the building trades didn't bring down racial gender barriers until well into the 1960s and 1970s. Yet this attitude is far from pervasive. When I worked at a factory and we were out on a lengthy strike, there were very close bonds between local unionized teachers and nurses, who walked picket lines with us, dropped off food and coffee for us, and wrote editorials in local newspapers for us, and our members. This affection grew during the strike, but it wasn't as though we sneered at these fellow union members beforehand. They were members of our movement and we theirs, and we knew and understood each other as members with common interests in our community. I was rather involved in the local AFL-CIO and other labor activist organizations in the community, and there were plenty of unionized teachers and other professionals who worked on different projects with us. There was never, never any snobbery thrown their way. Your perspective, alas, is less common than you purport. For those who feel "no sense of personal solidarity" toward unionized teachers or other professionals in unions, that's their problem, and they need a strong infusion of tolerance and class consciousness.
Lastly, let's be clear that most union members, not simply TAs and other teachers, enjoy "enormous relative privilege" compared to most others who are "LESS oppressed." This does not mean that we ought to stratify TAs, teachers or others as not genuine members of the working class. We ought to be working to provide better benefits and lives for everyone, not treating very modestly paid union members as isolated union members less equal than other supposedly "genuine" members of the working class. |
|
Re: Grad Student Stipend Gap Persists |
by rich
letsthinksomemore (nospam) yahoo.com (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
12 Jan 2005
|
|
GRG -- many sound points, and I learned some things that I will think about. I should confess, though, to having baited you just a bit for the sake of making a point (not very nice, I know, and I promise to be more straightforward from now on). It goes to the issue of condescension. The labor folks I hang out with feel very strongly -- rightly or wrongly -- that progressives condescend to them. That's not necessarily my view, but it certainly is the view of many, many blue-collar friends and colleagues. An excellent case in point is the recent IMC posting about the decline of labor media. The central theme of the article is that millions of union members voted against their own self-interest in the recent election, and that if they could only be educated on the errors of their thinking, they could be turned around and become democrats, or greens, or whatever else is not republican. I won't bore you with an explication, since I'm confident you're way ahead of me here, but I would suggest that this could be interepreted as condescending. Let me emphasize that I am a green, and take the "progressive" stance on virtually all social, political, and economic issues. But most of my friends are conservatives, and I listen to and respect their opinions. Where I'm more or less heading here is that there is a serious disconnect between progressives in the labor movement (with an emphasis on the "white-collar" professions) and the rank and file membership of blue-collar unions. And this is hurting the progressive cause. My friends tell me they know that Bush is anti-union, but that other issues on which they agree with him are so important and so central to their world view that they swallowed hard and voted for him. What are the implications of that? To begin, if progressives had a better line of communication with the rank and file, W would be packing his bags right now. Anyway, I respect your views and the degree to which you are dedicating yourself to the causes which matter to you. I'm not sure we're really that far apart. Again, sorry for being deliberately provocative in my earlier post, but I hope you'll agree that it did get the conversation going. I look forward to further sharing of views. - rich |
|
FYI and a Caution |
by ML
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
12 Jan 2005
|
|
New posters should realize that obvious trolling may get them mistaken for old trolls using new nymns -- and very possibly sent to the memory hole. Please avoid such behavior, as people here are more than willing to discuss issues without the need for artifically induced enticements to respond.. |
|
Re: Grad Student Stipend Gap Persists |
by rich
letsthinksomemore (nospam) yahoo.com (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
12 Jan 2005
|
|
Dear ML -- saw your message. I am not a troll, and I am new to the site. In my email to you earlier I noted that I had carefully read the publication and editorial policies, respect them, and intend to abide by them. But I respectfully suggest that GRG seems quite capable of engaging me on the matter of my rhetorical and dialectical approach. Or perhaps I'm not clear on your meaning. If so, please help me understand. |
|
Re: Grad Student Stipend Gap Persists |
by goodriddancegipper
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
12 Jan 2005
|
rich:
While I appreciate the discussion, and think that although it's worthwhile it's also a bit off topic from the original post, I must disagree with your assessment of the labor media piece that I posted a few days ago. The central point of the piece is not "that if they [the 1/3 of union members who voted for Bush] could only be educated on the errors of their thinking, they could be turned around and become democrats, or greens, or whatever else is not republican." Far from it. The point of the article is to illustrate the failings of organized labor, in a media atmosphere of significant flux, to diversify itself, to transmit its messages innovatively and successfully to its members as well as non-members, and to commit the resources and personnel necessary to transmit its messages in alternative ways. Perhaps your view is that this was somehow presented in a condescending manner. I quite frankly disagree. The point was to place blame squarely on organized labor, not necessarily its rank-and-file. Would the recommendations of the authors change every pro-Bush union vote into Democrats? Hardly, but it would go far to presenting labor-related issues in a broader worldview that goes well beyond the current single-issue framework in mainstream media that organized labor too frequently adopts. Alternative media and labor-funded media would be ways to proffer a broader, deeper worldview from organized labor by utilizing greater space through publishing, and greater time and space through tv, radio, and the Internet. The piece I posted addresses the absence of labor media in wider circulation to broaden the political discourse of this country, resulting in moderate to right-wing information and propaganda often going unchallenged. In sum, it is not the "excellent case in point" of condescension that you purported.
While it important to acknowledge and understand the variegated composition, values and backgrounds of the US working class, which certainly would include Mr. Wang and other TAs at the U of I and elsewhere whether or not they locate themselves in that category, I really don't think that there is a "serious disconnect between progressives in the labor movement (with an emphasis on the "white-collar" professions) and the rank and file membership of blue-collar unions." For some, perhaps, there is a fissure between some professionals who are more liberal and other blue-collar workers who are right-wing. For your associates they might feel some slight, yet you cite no specifics. But again, as I posted earlier, this is to some degree a false dichotomy that very loosely attributes these politics between these two groups in such neatly divided camps. Other than the fact that there are right-wing professional unionists and liberal blue-collar workers, I also think that these two groups of unionists often agree on many issues. Opposition to the war is one prime example (especially because blue-collar people are fighting and dying in it), social security is another, justice in the workplace is a third, environmental problems a fourth, sufficient social spending a fifth, among others. For "progressives to have a better line of communication with the rank and file" is precisely the point, alhough not all labor leaders are progressive, either.
So some people in organized labor and supporters outside it think that more labor-oriented media would do a better job of presenting different and more worker-friendly messages to its members and many others. Good. The implications of your post are such that one ought to think that right-wingers are condescending for thinking, planning and accomplishing massive inroads into the mainstream media to transmit their messages more successfully in order to sway people's ideas and opinions. Yet there is no such concern in your post...
If I may, I suggest that further discussions on these matters that do not address the GEO stipend gap ought to move to the labor media post in the "Local Interest" section. |
|
Re: Grad Student Stipend Gap Persists |
by rich
letsthinksomemore (nospam) yahoo.com (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
13 Jan 2005
|
|
GRG -- thanks for the tip on posting locations. I'm new to the site and still learning the protocols. I think we can agree that there is a leadership problem. After the election a number of national labor leaders acknowledged their failure to engage their membership in a multi-dimensional examination of all the issues. And single-issue approaches, as you point out, can alienate lots of folks who probably should be our allies. I appreciate your time in responding. -- rich |
|
