3 ms·
Yes. But there is variability per institute and so was trying to be conservative in the lower threshold of the percentage cut. The university cut does make som
by SubiculumCode 10y ago
Yes. But there is variability per institute and so was trying to be conservative in the lower threshold of the percentage cut.
The university cut does make some sense. There are a lot of services on which PI's rely. Administration to handle hiring processes. Building maintenance and plumbing. But per usual, instead of just covering costs, it is viewed as revenue on which to grow the university (and admin pay).
Actually, I am not sure whether university cut factors into funding decisions at NIH and the like.
- mattkrause 10y agoSure, I just wanted to put the actual numbers out there because 20% or so actually seems pretty fair for keeping the lights on, taking out the trash, etc, while 70+% is....a lot. On top of this, a lot of the....infrastructure is still fee-for-service. The university may fund the initial purchase of an MRI scanner (or whatever) out of overhead, but individual labs still pay $400+ an hour to use it. I don't know if the NIH or NSF takes overhead into account, but many of the most successful grantees also have some of the highest overhead so probably not. On the flip side, I've heard someone claim that their department chair strongly encouraged applying for NIH grants, because the NIH-negotatied overhead rate is much higher than other funders (also, allegedly more prestigious, but you'd think $500,000 spends about the same, regardless of where it comes from).