5 ms·
I know there's insane complexity here, but why exactly would it be bad to remove a fictitious cost from a grant? The grant can still pay their stipend, for a lo
by rspeer 9y ago
I know there's insane complexity here, but why exactly would it be bad to remove a fictitious cost from a grant? The grant can still pay their stipend, for a lower total amount because $50K of it isn't set aside for the university to move from one pocket to another.
I know other people in the university need to get paid, but isn't that why there is a huge, nebulous cost called "overhead" anyway? Fictional tuition is definitely not the only thing with "overhead" attached to it.
- fhood 9y agoOverhead isn't nebulous, it pays for the operating cost of the lab. At least in the case of the lab my parents worked at, that money was crucial.
- rspeer 9y agoI said "nebulous" because it's such a vague line item. It's probably fine that a grant doesn't have to itemize how much is paying the utility bills, how much is paying the janitorial staff, how much is paying middle management... and grant funders are fine with this too. I am not protesting the concept of overhead. I'm just saying, as long as there already is this line item called "overhead" that pays for the university's operating expenses out of the grant, why does there also need to be a line item called "tuition" for the same purpose?