Why am I supposed to be respectful toward a person who wants unpaid labor?

Question

I am a master's student at a R1 university, who has previously published in reputable conferences (think ICML, OSDI), and have strong letters of recommendation from the concerned professors (or I wouldn't be admitted).

I recently approached a professor whose work matched with what I wanted to do, and they wanted me to work for free instead of for a stipend. This professor has adequate funding, and despite my background, their response was this:

Hi spatial,
Thank you for your interest in working with me, your skills are definitely aligned with the project. I would like to offer you a position in my lab on [insert project name]. However, without prior experience with your work, I can't offer you funding. We can reassess potential funding opportunities in the future.

When asked what "future" meant, they said about two semesters. I would easily graduate by then.

This person wants me to work for free for a year! That sounds outrageous. Maybe now I know why they have no PhD students. I wanted to reply something like

I am not going to be unpaid labor. You should revisit your ethics. Bye.

Of course, everyone is discouraging me from doing this and asking me to be respectful. Why am I supposed to be respectful to this person who thinks students are slaves?

---

To be honest, I despise this idea of students slaving away in research for months without getting paid, and yet there's the scam of "work for credit" which most professors exploit. That doesn't work in industry, you have to pay your new employee regardless. Why does academia encourage this practice?

Answer 1

The pragmatic answer is that it's a waste of time. Do you really think this professor is going to read your mail and say "Egads! I have seen the error of my ways and am overcome with remorse?"

there's the scam of "work for credit"...this slave practice...You should revisit your ethics.

Using charged language like this is particularly unlikely to convince anyone who doesn't already agree with you. I suppose using such language is okay if your intent is merely to scold rather than convince, but frankly, few are overly concerned when they get scolded by a master's student they barely know. And while it's probably unlikely that you will have to deal with this person in the future, you never know what might happen.

Finally, being rude always carries the risk that you misunderstood something and so your rudeness was entirely uncalled for. It’s possible to misread even seemingly clearcut situations. Which you may in fact have done here…see Bryan’s answer and the ensuing comments.

---

To the larger question, I'm certainly not going to defend "unpaid labor." But I will push back on a few of your points....

This professor has adequate funding

This is not for you to say. What may seem like adequate funding from the outside may look quite different from the other side of the desk. And regardless of how much money they have, they still need to spend the money responsibly. (Which is not to say that paying students would be an irresponsible use of grant money).

I am not going to be unpaid labor.

You probably overestimate how useful your labor is. It will probably take at least 12 months before it is faster for the professor to delegate to you than to do things themself. Being a good supervisor takes a lot of time and effort, and students at your level tend to disappear right around the time they finally become useful.

Now you could argue that's the cost of doing business; professorships are very literally about supervising students, and such costs (in both money and time) should be accounted for. I don't disagree with you. But you go much too far if you imagine that supervising a student entails simply telling them what to do, waiting for them to do it, and then copying-and-pasting their results into your publications.

Answer 2

I would not interpret this message:

I would like to offer you a position in my lab on [insert project name]. However, without prior experience with your work, I can't offer you funding. We can reassess potential funding opportunities in the future.

as desiring "unpaid labor". I would interpret this message as a "polite no". In some cultures (for example, in the US midwest, though there's a lot of variance), it's seen as rude to tell people "no" directly. Instead, you say "yes" while giving the asker some additional conditions or qualifications. This indirect style can be very confusing to people who are used to more direct communication, but it's not meant to be harmful, it's meant to let you off easy and to let you be the one to walk away rather than being rejected (cynically, you may also take this as letting the professor not feel guilty for saying no).

I would take the statement that funding can't be offered as an honest one: if there's no money to pay you (because any money available is already promised to other students) there's no money to pay you. Should the professor cancel someone else's position to take you on? That would make them truly a horrible person to work with.

So, to answer your question directly: this person doesn't have a paid position available for you, they are telling you so, and there's no reason to react to that situation rudely. If you are looking for a paid position, you should decline their offer and work with someone else.

Answer 3

You sound amazingly entitled. You asked for a job, were politely told 'no', and now are snotty about being offered a unpaid internship as a counteroffer.

If you don't like the deal offered, just say 'no, thanks' and walk away.

Nobody has done anything bad to you - just made you an offer you don't care to accept. Some people in your position might be happy to accept and get experience instead of pay. You're not - fine. Just say no and don't get all insulted and prickly about it.

Answer 4

Why do you consider this offer unethical? You pay the university for your education and they make you do homeworks and class projects? You are given the opportunity to learn by doing useful stuff with the potential to advance your career afterwards or to find out whether you want to pursue a Ph.D. Nobody is forcing you to accept this offer. You initiated the interchange. I fail to see why your professor is doing anything bad to you.

If you send this letter to the professor, this answer will (in my estimate) make the rounds among their colleagues, who will (in my estimate) think that you feel entitled and likely turn out to be a "difficult student" if admitted to the Ph.D. programme. Some "difficult students" are worth keeping in a research group, but most are not.

Answer 5

Why am I supposed to be respectful toward a person who wants unpaid labor?

Let's cut straight to the chase: because it's in your interest to do so. Nothing against the answer that points out that it's the good thing to do, it's also the best option from greedy self-interest.

Best case scenario if you shoot off a nasty email back: you feel good for a couple seconds? But you certainly will not be changing any minds on what is a long established practice. That would only happen if 1) your work has value and 2) the supply of people that can produce value is less than the demand.

Now what are the outcomes for a polite response? It's a small world. You don't burn the bridge with the prof and they might be able to help you out in a significant way later. They won't tell others in the field to avoid working with you. Etc etc etc.

This person wants me to work for free for a year! That sounds outrageous.

Younger people seem really adverse to this sort of setup but history is littered with great people who did exactly that, worked their butt off and it was the thing that opened the doors and allowed them to flourish.

The simple fact is that you are assuming that your work will be valuable, but there's no guarantee that is the case. "Working for free" may actually still be a (at least in the short term) net loss from the profs side if they have to put in more time and effort than the value they get from you. Yes, sometimes such relationships are exploitative. But they can also be good for both parties in the long run, if not the short. An mutual investment for the future, in other words.

That doesn't work in industry, you have to pay your new employee regardless.

Well that's simply not true. They certainly aren't as common but of course unpaid internships still exist.

Answer 6

The main reason (at least for me) is that one should (at least try to) be respectful to everyone, even "bad" people.

While I am very much against free labor in Academia, many people see nothing against working for free - either because they are from a wealthy background and can easily afford this (and are happy to learn), because they have to in order to stay in Academia, because that is the only "reasonable" way to to research for them, because the professor is a big fish, because they want to save the university money... The point is that there are a lot of people out there working for free in Academia, so the professor might also have this point of view. Of course, it is not problematic that you decline - but it is also not problematic if the professor offers you something that many students want. (At least, I don't see it problematic for the professor or those students - I see it more problematic that the system allows it.)

And a more practical reason: If you send a really "unexpected" email, the professor may pass it around (even if he should not) and he/other faculty members hold it against you/ grade you worse etc.

In my opinion, there is nothing good which could come out from such an email.

Answer 7

In most formal education, the student pays to be there, so this seems less bad than that

The main justification for work without pay here is contextual --- since you are a student you are presently in the process of engaging in learning and practice of your skills, and even an unpaid offer to be on a research team allows you to do this. This type of thing can occur for course credit or just as an extra-curricular activity to learn and practice. Indeed, tertiary education typically proceeds with the student paying others for the opportunity to be educated by experts and to practice their skills under the supervision of experts.

Regarding your ethical aversion to this type of practice, it raises obvious questions about whether you think it is okay for students to engage in unpaid education, or education that they pay for, at all. After all, if it is ethically okay for students to pay for their education at a university, then it is difficult to make the case that it is unethical for another educational activity/opportunity to be offered to the student for free.

I don't necessarily think that these opportunities are always something that a student should take up --- they are a trade-off and often not a good one. If you don't think the value in learning/practice is worth the free labour you would be providing then it would be a good idea to decline the offer. As to why you should do this respectfully, well, you approached this professor looking for an opportunity to work with him, and that is what you've been provided with. The offer is certainly less attractice than a paid position (which virtually no masters student would ever be offered) but it is a research opportunity nonetheless. If you were to respond as you propose, I think this professor (and perhaps others) might be disinclined to make offers of this kind in the future.

Answer 8

Your direct question is "Why am I supposed to be respectful ...?" but the body of your question is more along the lines of "Why should I not be deliberately rude?", which is an entirely different matter.

The answer to the latter question is that the only person whom your proposed, rude response will affect, is you, and it will affect you badly. No one likes a student who is egregiously rude. You have nothing to lose by not replying at all, and you might even have a little to gain by saying, "Many thanks for considering me. I'd be grateful if you would keep me in mind if funding does become available for a position in the future."

Answer 9

The professor's response does not preclude you having funding. He just says that he can't provide it. You'd be welcome to find a third-party grant or stipend to work on this project.

Most employees work for a normal employer who provides them with working space, equipment and payment all in one package. When you step outside that bubble, it's not so simple and your job may be "some assembly required". You need something to work on, and working space and equipment - sounds like he can provide that. You also need money - sounds like he can't, so you'll need it from elsewhere.

If you can't get all the pieces, you can't put together the final result. This applies in business too. That's just how business is, and not a reason to be rude to people. If I want to buy a house, and my bank approves the loan, and my insurance doesn't approve the insurance, then I have to go without insurance (if possible) or just not buy it. It wouldn't be a good reason to be rude to my bank for trying to force me to buy an uninsured house. That would make no sense.

Of course you also have the option, but not the obligation, to work for free - if you can ride through a year, expect to receive something valuable enough after that to make it worth it, and can handle the risk of still getting rejected after a year. Many extremely successful people did take extreme risks to get there. It should never be expected, but it's an option for risk-takers.

Answer 10

As mentioned by most responders, you should not be rude as a rule. You should also take into account a few points to fully understand the context of your situation, which you clearly do not. It's not your fault because there's just no way to know these things.

In no particular order:

• your prior qualifications and LoRs were the minimum to get you into the graduate program. Really nothing more. You are one of many, and frankly you are clearly not among the most exceptional or you would be fully funded through scholarships/fellowships.
• your insistence on the fact that the faculty has "funding" shows how misguided you are about how funding works. Most active faculty have some form of funding. Funding does not exist in perpetuity, and it is rarely ever open to be spent at will. It is money that is earmarked for certain tasks for limited amounts of time (this is important at the university level as it also dictates the way that overhead is drawn). Money is rarely sitting around waiting for the ideal candidate to come around, because once faculty get it, they generally have to spend it (you can typically extended one calendar year beyond with most agencies if you have a valid reason to do so). There is no faculty benefit to hoarding funding as it just goes away if unspent.
• you overvalue your worth as a researcher. Masters students are a massive time and resource sink with very little ROI. The only reason I ever take them is as a service to the department. I would rather pay an undergraduate from their junior year all the way through graduation. It takes time to learn to do things properly, and the masters program is just too short. You waste four months training them, then they can barely produce anything meaningful before they have to start focusing on wrapping up their thesis. The average Ph.D. student needs 1-2 years to get up to speed and start producing. The cost of a masters is same as a PhD or 2/3rd of a postdoc (depending on tuition costs)... so yeah, if we are going to make this whole conversation about money, worth and respect, you have little value in this context.
• When a faculty takes you on for a graduate degree, even a short one, they are on the hook for training you, providing guidance, providing letters of reference, building up your network (the latter there is no obligation, but typically this is what you get). Advocating for you at the university (many of my students will never know how many times I have had to step in for them behind the scences). These are all time commitments, so you aren't getting nothing. This is a long-term educationally and professionally enriching relationship you are entering into.
• You are technically enrolled in research credit hours (unless it is a wholly course based degree), so this is part of your education, which as noted above, is being provided to you by the advisor.

To all those making a note of how things are done in industry. This is not industry. This is school. Unless an advisor makes you perform work for a spin-off company or something they have a COI with (which is wholly unethical), no money is being made off a masters student or most any other students work. This is part of the training and earning a degree. If you cannot see that, and view all relationships and exchanges as fully transactional at the very superficial level of exchanging money, then perhaps higher education and STEM-related work may not be for you, certainly not the current paradigm of academia.

Finally, your use of language, insinuating that what was offered to you by the faculty amounted to treating you like a slave is frankly pathetic and disgusting given what that has entailed in the past, and currently still exists in parts of the world today.

Answer 11

He does not want unpaid labor. He wants you, but he has no money. More clearly, yes he has the money, but it is already allocated (mostly for the salaries of others). He can not alter the contract what he made with them.

That "about two semesters" are very clearly the time when he will have the money for you.

In your case, I would accept it, if I have no better option.

Answer 12

Maybe now I know why they have no PhD students

So do they just hire post-docs for their research? It sounds like the lab really isn't interested in having a PhD student. Would you rather have just gotten a flat rejection letter?

It doesn't sound like they expect unpaid labor, but are just informing you of the facts. They aren't interesting in offering you a paid position at this time, but they are leaving the option open for later.

"We can reassess potential funding opportunities in the future."

When asked what "future" meant, they said about two semesters. I would easily graduate by then.

It sounds like they want you to graduate, and then they might be willing to offer you a paid position. Since you are the one that went to them, and since they seem to be amenable to offering you a paid position in the future, I wouldn't burn this bridge. You can't work for free, they won't pay you. No need to take offense. What they did give you is better than a flat rejection and now they know your name.

Answer 13

There are unspecified details in the question (regarding the discipline, what the lab does, and what "working" in the lab means) that make what I am going to say possibly not apply to the OP but I offer this response for those who may end up in similar interactions.

So especially before responding aggressively to this denial of funding, I'd suggest getting a better sense of what would be asked of you as a part of this person's lab. My initial read of the question and the purported communications was that the professor may be offering some form of mentorship until funding is available and quite plausibly might be very open-minded about the level of effort expected of the OP until they are in an actual work relationship.

In my social science field, and some others, a PI's "lab" is often neither a physical space nor is it even akin to a place of employment. They are often like a social group that engages in research. There may be some hierarchy, but not always. To join or "work" in a lab may not entail the kind of labor that would always require compensation, but rather voluntarily accepting research tasks in the context of collaboration. Such labs may have members who are on a PI's grant as RAs or post-docs, but not always and not always everyone who is junior to the PI would be funded in this manner. They may instead be self-funded, teaching assistants, fellows, or funded through another PI's grants. As such, students might be involved in more than one lab.

In that context, it is at least sometimes the case that the PI welcomes lab members as part of their duties as a mentor and allows contributions from these members for the purpose of the member's benefit (or mutual benefit) rather than to merely extract labor from them. Of course, the distinction between doing unpaid work and engaging in genuine collaboration is not always so obvious.

As an example during my studies, I had greater-than-usual statistical skills relative to my peers and most faculty. My funding was guaranteed through TAships or RAships unconnected to any particular project. I sometimes would offer to join faculty "labs" (often on a temporary basis) to aid them with their statistical analyses because I wanted to be involved in research and receive professional credit by way of co-authorship. I was neither paid (in cash) nor under any formal obligation to continue if I didn't want to. I didn't perceive this to be exploitative or problematic even if other members of the lab, including the PI, benefited professionally from my involvement.

Answer 14

You don't work for free. The professor you mentioned doesn't want to work with you at the moment.

You see. When "strategically smart" people don't want to work with someone, they give you the worst possible offer. That way you decline. In your case, the response you received has more to do with market conditions and leadership strategy. You should not take it personal, specially if your degree is not funded (you did not mention that, so we don't know the financial situation) and your professional future is uncertain.

When you get to a leadership position in academia or industry, you will realize how incredibly difficult is to turn down people. Why? Because, life is cyclical. You could be doing well today, but tomorrow you may not (it is never guarantee you will do well forever).

Instead of closing doors, you have to be strategically shrewd. If you don't want to work with someone at the moment, you give a response that leaves the possibility open for future collaboration in case market conditions change.

Answer 15

Because there are expectations that if you are in academia, you usually, normally

A) have genuine interest in research that means internal motivation and you would do it even without pay

B) have financial means. Accepting you to some program doesn't authomatically mean that you are entitled to scholarship. More likdly, you will have to take a loan and even pay interest.

There is no such "rule" that anyone gets paid for doing research, so the guy isn't acting unethical. Understand that noone has to pay you for doing things you like. let's say playing music. Noone even has to listen to it. No matter how hard you practice. There is no such obligation, period. You can't make anyone pay for it by insulting them or otherwise trying to get your wicked way. If they want your research, they will specifically indicate this, that they are unable to get anyone do this for them for free and they are genuinely desperate.

If your personal values disagree with this reality, you should not even be in academia! Consider other fields of employment, like business. Academia is non-profit by default, and many people donate their time and money. I think you should respect this because this is one of the academic values, so this makes sense.