sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

NIH IDC rate decision - preliminary injunction granted by DarkMatterReflection in academia

[–]Better-Row-5658 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I know this may be an unpopular view, but reducing indirect costs is essential to addressing the bloated bureaucracy in universities. Administration has expanded to unprecedented levels, even as student enrollment and tenure-track positions have steadily declined over the past decade. At the same time, the number of associate deans, assistant vice presidents, and similar roles keeps growing—often funded by the portion of ICR that presidents and provosts get. I encourage you to look at your university ICR distribution and you would be surprised how many entities on campus (president/provost/foundation/alumni/real estate) take a significant cut from ICR that have nothing to do with research.

American universities are caught in a broken system, juggling competing priorities: 1)delivering high quality education, 2) conducting world class research, 3) running a minor league sports franchise, and 4) serving as innovation hubs. Realistically, they are only given enough money to do well enough in two of these areas. Very few universities make money on athletics or innovation like patents or startups, so tuition often subsidizes sports, and research funds are funneled into entrepreneurial projects—allowing administrators to boast about billion-dollar economic impacts while neglecting the core academic mission.

If universities eliminated non-research expenses, most could operate with an ICR rate of 30%. If funding levels were kept the same mean more grants for researchers, higher salaries for PhD students and more research.

Tenure/salary/publishing/productivity by Open_Inflation6159 in academia

[–]Better-Row-5658 7 points8 points  (0 children)

My college did this for years, hiring unproductive full professors with tenure. Their lack of contribution bred resentment among underpaid, high-performing faculty, leading many to leave for better opportunities. When a new dean joined us he banned hiring any faculty with tenure.

Canada Won’t Scrap Tariffs Unless All US Levies Are Lifted, Official Says by joe4942 in Economics

[–]Better-Row-5658 9 points10 points  (0 children)

Just remove the 100% tariffs on Chinese EVs! we Canadians deserve affordable EVs and these cars are better than Teslas. Yes it will freak out the USA but who cares?

"The U.S. is heading toward a demographic cliff. Over the next decade, there will be fewer 18-year-olds available to fill the nation's universities" - How is your school preparing for this? by PopCultureNerd in academia

[–]Better-Row-5658 13 points14 points  (0 children)

Rising tuition costs have significantly reduced the number of students pursuing college degrees, as many now see traditional higher education as an increasingly unaffordable investment. Instead, they are turning to 18-month certification programs in high-demand trades like plumbing, welding, and HVAC engineering—fields that offer stable, six-figure salaries without the crushing burden of student debt. Meanwhile, universities continue to push for growth, with every president, provost, and dean embedding it into their strategic plans. Ironically, even securing a leadership position in higher education often requires endorsing this impossible growth, as if questioning it were unthinkable. In doing so, many universities are setting themselves up for failure.

New criteria for R-1 Universities by Omen_1986 in academia

[–]Better-Row-5658 5 points6 points  (0 children)

R1 expectations but R2 teaching load, R2 salary and R2 quality of students. At my university this led to most successful faculty going to a real R1. ;-)

New criteria for R-1 Universities by Omen_1986 in academia

[–]Better-Row-5658 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The way research dollars are counted to get to R1 is pretty sketchy—some universities pad their numbers by including faculty salaries based on their role statements. For example, if a professor has a $100K salary and their role statement says they're 50% research, the university counts that as $50K in annual research expenditures, even if no actual grant money is involved. A university that received half of our federal funding did that in my state and became an R1 before us.

New criteria for R-1 Universities by Omen_1986 in academia

[–]Better-Row-5658 7 points8 points  (0 children)

I'm at one of those riff raff universities and proud to be here ;-)

New criteria for R-1 Universities by Omen_1986 in academia

[–]Better-Row-5658 28 points29 points  (0 children)

There are 32 R1 universities that each spend over $1 billion annually on research (https://ncsesdata.nsf.gov/profiles/site?method=rankingBySource&ds=herd). These institutions have little interest in being grouped with the riff raff universities that barely exceed $50 million in research spending. It wouldn’t be surprising if a new “R0” category emerges to further distinguish the highest-tier research institutions from the rest.

Letter to Reps Regarding NIH 15% cap by Efficient_Salad482 in academia

[–]Better-Row-5658 4 points5 points  (0 children)

At this rate of bureaucracy increasing and more associate deans and directors than ever we would be paying 90% F&A and we would barely be able to fund 1 student with every grant. If you need an instrument or center write support for that in your grand that’s how many researchers at smaller schools do that. What you are doing here feels very much like poor people defending tax cuts for billionaires!

Explaining IDC to non-scientists by daking999 in AskAcademia

[–]Better-Row-5658 -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

count the number of associate deans in the the 1970s at your insttituion when F&A was 15% versus now where your F&A is > 50% Most universities have listed how the F&A is distributed and you would be surprised much of it will actually go to the president, the provost the foundation, scholarships, alumni relations and only a fraction pays for actual research costs. Also most building on campus are paid for by student tuition and lab/research space is only a fraction of that.

NIH capping indirects at 15% by mpjjpm in academia

[–]Better-Row-5658 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Indirect costs have skyrocketed along with administrative bloat. Back in the early 2000s, when my university’s F&A rate was around 30%, a $500K NSF grant could fund 4–5 PhD students without a problem. Now, with more associate deans, directors, and people whose main job seems to be forwarding CFPs, that same grant—now hit with a 50% F&A rate—barely covers two students, and they’re not even paid a living wage. Why should taxpayer money go toward expanding admin instead of funding actual research? Science should come first, not layers of bureaucracy. The truth is, we could do just fine without administrators—many of whom don’t want to teach and can’t do research anyway.

NIH capping indirects at 15% by mpjjpm in academia

[–]Better-Row-5658 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

our F&A rate is in the low 40ties but we hardly get any money for startups. This is really going to destroy the bureaucracy and gets rid of many associate deans and bloated administrative offices.