‘Fully-funded’ IHEID PhD Package: a False Promise?

By a group of IHEID PhD researchers

The first generation of the ‘fully-funded’ PhD package researchers mark the midpoint of their PhD programme this year. These four-year packages are touted by the Direction as having addressed long-standing issues raised by PhD and Assistants’ representatives but leave researchers underfunded and precarious, expecting them to survive the expenses of Geneva at less than half the city’s minimum wage for unskilled labour. 

On April 15th 2024, the Graduate Institute Student Association (GISA) VP for PhDs presented the Geneva Graduate Institute’s PhD report at the Collège des Enseignantes. The result of an extensive survey, the report compiles the views and experiences of 66 PhD researchers at the IHEID. The PhD package, hailed as a comprehensive solution to current issues with the PhD programme, offers two years of the old financial aid scholarship and two optional years of the current Teaching Assistantship. It received extensive critique in the PhD survey, holding a mirror to the Direction’s claims about it solving issues raised in the past.  

Notably, PhDs on the package scholarship give the lowest score of all PhDs to the programme: a rating of 5.6 out of 10. The grade given by TAs, who have long been alerting to the Direction’s flawed policies around the PhD programme, is a 5.8.  This stands in stark contrast to the 7.4 rating given by those working under the more favourable labour conditions stipulated by the Swiss National Science Foundation through either a doc.ch scholarship, or an SNF-funded research project.

Discontent permeates the Institute, with a significant portion of respondents expressing reluctance to reapply or recommend the program to friends. 37% of respondents would not reapply to the Institute if they could choose again, and an additional 21% have serious reservations about their decision. Among them, those under the package and Teaching Assistants are disproportionately represented. Factors such as lack of transparency before applying fuel this regret, with students on the package recommending applicants to consider other universities within Switzerland first.

The Institute’s website touts the PhD package as ‘a financial support package covering the four years of the PhD programme’ and affirms that ‘doctoral students will be fully funded with a support package’. This sounds fair, competitive, and in line with other academic institutions in Switzerland and abroad. Why then do the current PhDs on the package give the lowest score out of all respondents?

The prime reason stated is that the financial support package does not live up to its promise. Respondents refer to its financial insufficiency, describing it as ‘way too low’, ‘insufficient for a dignified life’, and ‘absolutely not a liveable stipend’. This has parallels to Teaching Assistants’ PhD research being remunerated like a ‘personal passion project’ rather than academic research. As one researcher on the package notes, ‘[the package is] unreasonably lower than the stipend of many PhD researchers in Switzerland’. This could no-doubt be excused by the Direction’s ‘Anglo-American model’ as a justification for the Institute’s low level of support provided to PhDs (of which we are all tired). However, very importantly, where is this model and philosophy mentioned before applicants commit to being locked in this insufficient arrangement for the 4 years of PhD research?

The fact that Geneva routinely makes it to the top ten most expensive cities to live in is not news, but that this cost of living has not been factored in by the Institution is indeed quite a shock. This is particularly true for respondents coming from outside Switzerland/ Europe who apply to the Institute based on the reputations of the professors and the departments – naively trusting endorsements of the ‘fully-funded PhD program’. When asked whether the PhD lives up to the expectations created, one respondent writes: “No, and considering most of us have to go to the food bank (that IHEID doesn’t even contribute to) it’s really ridiculous and embarrassing that they are convinced it’s enough.” Another mentions being left with 230 CHF per month for food, transport, and clothes once they have paid the costly rent in student housing, tuition fees, and student health insurance. Another respondent noted that they did not expect to be forced to choose between medicines and food. The mental health impact of this level of precarity, and the lack of transparency in endorsements to join must be highlighted for future researchers, who need to decide between offers across institutions and countries, often with limited information. 

A significant number of PhDs on the new package also indicate that their experience at the institute has pushed them away from pursuing a career in academia. About half express that the constant financial precarity has pushed them away altogether. Additionally, it is said that even if desired, the structure of the package complicates staying competitive in academia. Researchers cannot leave for visiting fellowships in the third and fourth years of the PhD, an essential element if they want to build relationships and explore a future in academia. They currently risk losing the much-needed TA salary, as well as the TA spot permanently if they choose such research stays. 

As scholars transition from the package to Teaching Assistantships, and given that the Direction shows no intention of improving the frequently flagged issues with the TA-ship either, the future looks bleak. In unveiling the hidden reality of pursuing a PhD at the Geneva Graduate Institute, we add to the mounting calls for transparency, accountability, dialogue, and genuine support for scholars who come to the IHEID. PhD candidates are a valuable resource for the university, and their contribution should be recognised, and participation valued. The report should therefore be a clear call to action for the Direction.