PhD Funding Programmes Should Offer Four Year Studentships
PhD's are officially three years programmes in the UK, but it is now very common for students to take four years to finish their thesis. Most PhD students won't become lecturers but most want it to happen and the increased demands of the academic job market require that you give papers, organise conferences, write publications, and teach during your PhD. Doing all of these things will not guarantee you a job or make you stand out from the competition, it just means that you are meeting the bare minimum expected of you when you go on to apply for postdocs and early lecturing jobs. Like many others, I've done all of the above during my PhD, and it's undeniable that it has knocked a year out of my research time. I've spoken to lecturers and they've told me that my publication was "done correctly" if it took that much time out of my research. I will be taking a fourth year to finish up my PhD, but my funding is only for three years. My situation is representative of most in my position but I find it surprising that the blatant inequality of the fourth year is barely discussed.
In fairness, Universities do offer some support for the fourth year. You can apply for what is called 'writing up year' status, where you no longer have to pay tuition. This is very appreciated, but it does not cover living and accommodation costs. This is where the fist sign of privilege comes in. Those who live in expensive and well-connected areas, like near central London, have a major advantage over everyone else. In my PhD I need to use the ICS library in Russell Square in order to read classical scholarship. In many ways London is a key city to do a PhD, because it is home to many excellent libraries such as the British Library. I think it's no surprise that many leading PhD departments are in London. But accessing these libraries and facilities is understandably difficult for those who do not live in the city. I know several people who moved back home in their fourth year and their parents live in expensive areas near central London which are only a short tube journey away from libraries such as the ICS. Their research was consequently significantly affected. But for those who have to move back to their parents in different cities and parts of the UK, this is not anywhere near as simple.
This is without even talking about those who, for whatever reason, cannot go back to their parents' house after their funding runs out. I remember talking to a PhD student about what they would do after their funding runs out and they told me that they could never go back to their parents for personal reasons. They simply had to finish their PhD in their funding duration because they had no other option. My parents currently live in Peterborough, which isn't amazingly well-connected to major libraries, as I would have to take expensive train journeys. That said, there are many places in the UK which are far less connected than Peterborough (it does have a very good train station) and the simple fact is that I could move back home if I had to do so. I'd prefer to live on my own of course, but if push came to shove, I would be happy to live at home for a year. That opportunity is not possible for everyone and from what I can tell, it's simply expected that many students will just go temporarily live with their parents in their fourth year. And to a house which resembles the traditional nuclear family of two parents I should add.
Despite my clear advantages over other PhD students here, I worried considerably about my fourth year for the entirety of my three years. The fourth year is called a “writing up year” but you aren't going to have done all the research necessary for your PhD by the end of the third year. The more you write, the more you discover which ideas work, which don't, and what scholarship you need to consult. I knew that when I reach my fourth year, I wouldn't be able to go to libraries as I had done in the past and that my PhD would suffer as a result. This is not something I could prepare for, because you are not allowed to do significant amounts of paid work during your PhD (rightly so, because it would impact your research). I can't magically make over ten thousand pounds appear. This is a dilemma which many PhD students have to suffer through: should they go all out preparing for an academic career and take a risky fourth year, or complete their in three years and be unprepared for the academic job market?
In my case, COVID affected my PhD in strange ways. My research has been heavily impacted by lockdown and made even basic research incredibly difficult. I have got a six month extension to funding as a result and I saved up enough money to help me survive for the six months after that funding expires. So I can in fact live in London for my fourth year because of this very unusual turn of events. However, I still need my parents to gift me money to help me survive the last six months of my fourth year. I will also have literally nothing in my bank account come September 2021 (trust me, I've been budgeting). I have only been able to do this because of my privilege in having parents who can offer me some financial help and, most crucially, a home to go back to temporarily if I can't get a job immediately come September. Not everyone has that choice. Especially now, when the AHRC has not yet guaranteed all first and second year PhD students a funding extension.
The truth is that there are several PhD students who have incredibly wealthy families and live in fancy flats in central London. These are the people who benefit the most from the current three year funding situation, as they just continue to live and research in their fourth year as they always had done because of their monetary privilege. This is not to say these people are bad, they aren't, but they do have an undeniable advantage over those who do not have such opportunities. They are the ones who are most confident in applying for conferences, organising them, making connections, and writing publications. They do so because they can: it's a lot easier to do these activities when you know that you can easily take a fourth year with no change to your research.
I'm aware that the crux of the problem here is that the academic job market now has absurd standards for those who finish PhDs. If these standards were lowered, and you weren't required to have given many papers, network, teach, and most crucially, publish, then completing your thesis in three years would be very possible. But that isn't going to happen and if anything, academia looks like it's actually getting worse. PhDs should be primarily taken because they are an academic qualification, but students and teachers are aware that the qualification should have at least some benefit in job applications. It's common now for PhD funding bodies to give you a log which you must fill with activities you have completed to help you in your career path. The only way for students to really fulfill their career plans is if they all get four years funding as standard.
---
Matthew Mordue
morduem@roehampton.ac.uk
Comments
Post a Comment