5 ms·

Now would be a good time to donate all of the money spent on the administration instead on to paying postdocs well?

trashtester 4y ago
Agree. I would also prefer if universities focused their funds into subjects that leads to long term benefits, whether that is economic growth, better social cohesion (less polarization), etc. In other words: - More funding to STEM, at least the profitable parts. - More funding to the parts of humanities, socal science and law schools, who's work help bring the nation together, find common ground and reduce conflict. - Partly cut funding to institutions that do not provide such benefits, and to institutions with too much administrative overhead. - Completely cut funding to institutions that actively promote social conflicts. To make it easier to reach these goals, without interpreting each goal in a politcal light, change the funding process as follows: - Add an x% corporate tax, earmarked for science & education. - Set up a board, where representatives chosen by those companies that pay the above tax (proportionally to the tax paid) make up 60%, former highly trusted academics 20% and representatives chosen by the sitting government 20%. - Have this board govern the expenditure in the ways that maximize the benefits defined in the charter above, while having some checks and balances to prevent corruption. - Encourage grants to be given in larger chunks than today. Direct grants to students should be the exception, and not something a student would apply for. Rather such grants should be awarded in a similar way to how the military grants medals for exceptional performance. When a research leader identifies a particularly deserving candidate, he/she can recommend that this candidate is granted a special individual scholarship, due to exceptional performance and ability. Leaders who repeatedly send spurious recommendations should be discouraged from doing so. - Instead, institutions or high profile reasearch leaders should be given grants based on historical performance, and be trusted to be able to find the right students themselves. (Within some framework to prevent corruption.) - Once granted, funds should only be revoked in the case of breech of confidence. Renewal should happen early enough to allow continuity. The goal of the above proposals, would be: - Prevent public money from being wasted on wasteful or destructive activities - Reduce time spent on research grant applications, so that students and employees can focus on the actual science. - Encourage academic freedom and promote integrity. - Make sure institutions educate the kinds of students that are in demand in the job market, and the scientific results needed to promote economic growth as well as a more robust state.

Agree. I would also prefer if universities focused their funds into subjects that leads to long term benefits, whether that is economic growth, better social cohesion (less polarization), etc. In other words: - More funding to STEM, at least the profitable parts. - More funding to the parts of humanities, socal science and law schools, who's work help bring the nation together, find common ground and reduce conflict. - Partly cut funding to institutions that do not provide such benefits, and to institutions with too much administrative overhead. - Completely cut funding to institutions that actively promote social conflicts. To make it easier to reach these goals, without interpreting each goal in a politcal light, change the funding process as follows: - Add an x% corporate tax, earmarked for science & education. - Set up a board, where representatives chosen by those companies that pay the above tax (proportionally to the tax paid) make up 60%, former highly trusted academics 20% and representatives chosen by the sitting government 20%. - Have this board govern the expenditure in the ways that maximize the benefits defined in the charter above, while having some checks and balances to prevent corruption. - Encourage grants to be given in larger chunks than today. Direct grants to students should be the exception, and not something a student would apply for. Rather such grants should be awarded in a similar way to how the military grants medals for exceptional performance. When a research leader identifies a particularly deserving candidate, he/she can recommend that this candidate is granted a special individual scholarship, due to exceptional performance and ability. Leaders who repeatedly send spurious recommendations should be discouraged from doing so. - Instead, institutions or high profile reasearch leaders should be given grants based on historical performance, and be trusted to be able to find the right students themselves. (Within some framework to prevent corruption.) - Once granted, funds should only be revoked in the case of breech of confidence. Renewal should happen early enough to allow continuity. The goal of the above proposals, would be: - Prevent public money from being wasted on wasteful or destructive activities - Reduce time spent on research grant applications, so that students and employees can focus on the actual science. - Encourage academic freedom and promote integrity. - Make sure institutions educate the kinds of students that are in demand in the job market, and the scientific results needed to promote economic growth as well as a more robust state.