9 ms·

There are staff researchers, but at least at my university such people were mostly soft money and were responsible for bringing in their own funding, which the

by mjhay 4y ago

There are staff researchers, but at least at my university such people were mostly soft money and were responsible for bringing in their own funding, which the university then proceeded to take 56% off the top for overhead. At any rate, their numbers were insignificant compared to the administration, which occupied numerous buildings, including an entire skyskcraper. They didn't help us, and in fact made our jobs more difficult.

whakim 4y ago
I'd love to see the data on "insignificant compared to the administration," because it doesn't fit my actual experience in any way. (I'm not saying you're definitely wrong, but I hope you might slightly re-evaluate your priors here.) And no, many staff researchers don't bring in their own funding; like PhD students they're funded by a combination of the university and grants (which they often help write).
- mjhay 4y ago
  That's what I meant by "soft money." By administration, I am talking about more stereotypical bureaucracy, such as the ever-expanding number of various kinds of deans. I worked with soft-money people, who were called "research professors" in my department. They worked hard and brought in much more money for the university than they cost.
  - whakim 4y ago
    Thanks very much for clarifying. My original point was that these staff and their salaries are often lumped in with "stereotypical bureaucracy" when discussing administrative bloat, and I think they're a greater percentage than many people realize :)
- hedora 4y ago
  In UC, grant overhead was 50% the last time I took. That’s money the administration takes out before the professor gets it. Staff researchers, equipment, students, etc come out of the other half. Assuming the professor is using 20% of their grant money on staff researchers (this is likely a high estimate), $5 is going to administration for every $1 spent on staff researchers. Edit, also some admins are paid out of the professors’ budgets, after overhead is taken out.

by mjhay 4y ago

whakim 4y ago

I'd love to see the data on "insignificant compared to the administration," because it doesn't fit my actual experience in any way. (I'm not saying you're definitely wrong, but I hope you might slightly re-evaluate your priors here.) And no, many staff researchers don't bring in their own funding; like PhD students they're funded by a combination of the university and grants (which they often help write).

mjhay 4y ago
That's what I meant by "soft money." By administration, I am talking about more stereotypical bureaucracy, such as the ever-expanding number of various kinds of deans. I worked with soft-money people, who were called "research professors" in my department. They worked hard and brought in much more money for the university than they cost.
- whakim 4y ago
  Thanks very much for clarifying. My original point was that these staff and their salaries are often lumped in with "stereotypical bureaucracy" when discussing administrative bloat, and I think they're a greater percentage than many people realize :)
hedora 4y ago
In UC, grant overhead was 50% the last time I took. That’s money the administration takes out before the professor gets it. Staff researchers, equipment, students, etc come out of the other half. Assuming the professor is using 20% of their grant money on staff researchers (this is likely a high estimate), $5 is going to administration for every $1 spent on staff researchers. Edit, also some admins are paid out of the professors’ budgets, after overhead is taken out.