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.