4 ms·

15% is wildly far from reasonable. More than that, it's an entirely made up number.

by Fomite 2y ago

dekhn 2y ago
When I was an academic, I did all my work in the cloud. I didn't use copy paper, or even really need to be in the office (it had slower networking, and less comfortable chairs). The university had a multi-billion dollar endowment and got billions from the state to run its educational mission. Why should I be raising 50% on top of my money (which was so high, NIH often wanted to give money to people at "cheaper" universities).
- Fomite 2y ago
  A 50% indirect rate both isn't particularly high. The idea that "You're raising" an extra 50% isn't really fair either - the effort into writing a grant is the same regardless of the indirect rate. There are arguments to be made that university budgets are too high (I don't agree, but they exist). So renegotiate indirect rates. There's a framework for doing this. An across the board, utterly devoid of context arbitrary cut to 15% isn't a sane policy. Your institution might have a large endowment. Mine is a rural state school.
- StevenXC 2y ago
  It's very unclear to me how you seem to expect medical research to be done in the cloud. Overhead is crucial to create and maintain research infrastructure necessary to advance medicine and science.
  - dekhn 2y ago
    I work in pharma and we do tons of medical research in the cloud and it was done before in academia; it typically wasn't my own university that developed (on its own from direct funding) the necessary infrastructure, but universities under contract, or NIH itself, or a consortia funded through grants. The university IT department itself struggled with just keeping wifi up, or giving us 10BT networks on a hub in an age when gigabit switches were common. Note: I was not typical. I set up as a digital nomad a long time ago. A scientist with a lab on campus who pulls power, AC, and other resources from central services, must have some way of compensating the university, and you could argue that instead of a prenegotiated (and amortized) overhead, it could instead be a cost center billing (scientist gets contract, uses campus resources, gets billed directly for their consumption). Don't forget also that because of Bayh Dole, the university gets monetize the IP generated by their scientists (who typically do not see any direct revenue; instead, they have to make a startup that licenses the tech from the university). My experience with overheads showed that the universities I worked at had the highest (50-75%) while less prestigious regional universities were more like 30%. Oh! This is new: I just looked up Berkeley's rates now and they explicitly have an off-campus rate that is 25%, while the on-campus is 60%. Apparently the federal government was already capping off-campus at 25%! I also see that funding agencies like Gates, Chan-Zuckerberg, etc, already cap at around 10-15%. Man, the deans must be furious
    - Fomite 2y ago
      The rules for off campus rates are pretty strict, and not just “I’m not in my office.” They get used for Extension, stuff like that. Ironically, prohibiting “breaks” to Gates, Chan-Zuckerberg, etc. and saying the rate they get is the same as your NIH rate would probably go over well. Most people I know in research admin are perpetually annoyed that private foundations act like being subsidized is their right.
    - secabeen 2y ago
      > I just looked up Berkeley's rates now and they explicitly have an off-campus rate that is 25%, while the on-campus is 60%. Apparently the federal government was already capping off-campus at 25%! Off-campus is capped because the grant is then paying for rent on the lab space from the private landlord. Universities don't charge research labs for power, cooling, rent, janitorial, Internet, etc. Maybe they will start now.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
xqcgrek2 2y ago
It is not made up, it is what private foundations allow for grantees overhead.
- acdha 2y ago
  It is made up: nobody sat down and did the analysis to see whether the existing levels are reasonable or how best to restructure things, they’re trying to cut even pre-approved funding to an arbitrary number. Some private foundations do charge less, but they’re usually not providing the bulk of the funding for a given lab. There are generations of researchers and American industries based on the model where NIH/NSF provide a stable foundation for research, and while that can change it’s incredibly disruptive to try to break existing agreements. To put it in HN terms, do you know anyone who take lower paying non-profit work because they’re married to someone with a tech job which means they never worry about their mortgage or health insurance? This is like that spouse’s employer saying they’re getting a 30% pay cut.
- Fomite 2y ago
  And the foundations made up that rate - our institution loses money on every Gates grant, etc.
- secabeen 2y ago
  Yes, but private foundations are only paying for the incremental cost of their funding, not the base cost. If you are flying a plane from LA to Chicago, the incremental cost of flying that plane on to Detroit is pretty low; a low overhead on the direct costs of that additional leg makes some sense. The private foundations are like the additional leg, they aren't paying for the fixed costs of running the airline. When looking at the whole system it clearly becomes woefully inadeqate. To extend the example, the only direct costs of an airplane flight are the crew, the fuel/food, and any airport fees. Could you run the rest of an airline (training, ground staff, scheduling, booking, IT, maintenance) on 15% of the crew+fuel costs? Not even close. If you look at federal contractors and other companies, the overhead on staff is probably closer to 100-200%, so 50-60% is very defensible.

15% is wildly far from reasonable. More than that, it's an entirely made up number.

by Fomite 2y ago

15% is wildly far from reasonable. More than that, it's an entirely made up number.

When I was an academic, I did all my work in the cloud. I didn't use copy paper, or even really need to be in the office (it had slower networking, and less comfortable chairs). The university had a multi-billion dollar endowment and got billions from the state to run its educational mission. Why should I be raising 50% on top of my money (which was so high, NIH often wanted to give money to people at "cheaper" universities).

Fomite 2y ago
A 50% indirect rate both isn't particularly high. The idea that "You're raising" an extra 50% isn't really fair either - the effort into writing a grant is the same regardless of the indirect rate. There are arguments to be made that university budgets are too high (I don't agree, but they exist). So renegotiate indirect rates. There's a framework for doing this. An across the board, utterly devoid of context arbitrary cut to 15% isn't a sane policy. Your institution might have a large endowment. Mine is a rural state school.
StevenXC 2y ago
It's very unclear to me how you seem to expect medical research to be done in the cloud. Overhead is crucial to create and maintain research infrastructure necessary to advance medicine and science.
- dekhn 2y ago
  I work in pharma and we do tons of medical research in the cloud and it was done before in academia; it typically wasn't my own university that developed (on its own from direct funding) the necessary infrastructure, but universities under contract, or NIH itself, or a consortia funded through grants. The university IT department itself struggled with just keeping wifi up, or giving us 10BT networks on a hub in an age when gigabit switches were common. Note: I was not typical. I set up as a digital nomad a long time ago. A scientist with a lab on campus who pulls power, AC, and other resources from central services, must have some way of compensating the university, and you could argue that instead of a prenegotiated (and amortized) overhead, it could instead be a cost center billing (scientist gets contract, uses campus resources, gets billed directly for their consumption). Don't forget also that because of Bayh Dole, the university gets monetize the IP generated by their scientists (who typically do not see any direct revenue; instead, they have to make a startup that licenses the tech from the university). My experience with overheads showed that the universities I worked at had the highest (50-75%) while less prestigious regional universities were more like 30%. Oh! This is new: I just looked up Berkeley's rates now and they explicitly have an off-campus rate that is 25%, while the on-campus is 60%. Apparently the federal government was already capping off-campus at 25%! I also see that funding agencies like Gates, Chan-Zuckerberg, etc, already cap at around 10-15%. Man, the deans must be furious
  - Fomite 2y ago
    The rules for off campus rates are pretty strict, and not just “I’m not in my office.” They get used for Extension, stuff like that. Ironically, prohibiting “breaks” to Gates, Chan-Zuckerberg, etc. and saying the rate they get is the same as your NIH rate would probably go over well. Most people I know in research admin are perpetually annoyed that private foundations act like being subsidized is their right.
  - secabeen 2y ago
    > I just looked up Berkeley's rates now and they explicitly have an off-campus rate that is 25%, while the on-campus is 60%. Apparently the federal government was already capping off-campus at 25%! Off-campus is capped because the grant is then paying for rent on the lab space from the private landlord. Universities don't charge research labs for power, cooling, rent, janitorial, Internet, etc. Maybe they will start now.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

xqcgrek2 2y ago

It is not made up, it is what private foundations allow for grantees overhead.

acdha 2y ago
It is made up: nobody sat down and did the analysis to see whether the existing levels are reasonable or how best to restructure things, they’re trying to cut even pre-approved funding to an arbitrary number. Some private foundations do charge less, but they’re usually not providing the bulk of the funding for a given lab. There are generations of researchers and American industries based on the model where NIH/NSF provide a stable foundation for research, and while that can change it’s incredibly disruptive to try to break existing agreements. To put it in HN terms, do you know anyone who take lower paying non-profit work because they’re married to someone with a tech job which means they never worry about their mortgage or health insurance? This is like that spouse’s employer saying they’re getting a 30% pay cut.
Fomite 2y ago
And the foundations made up that rate - our institution loses money on every Gates grant, etc.
secabeen 2y ago
Yes, but private foundations are only paying for the incremental cost of their funding, not the base cost. If you are flying a plane from LA to Chicago, the incremental cost of flying that plane on to Detroit is pretty low; a low overhead on the direct costs of that additional leg makes some sense. The private foundations are like the additional leg, they aren't paying for the fixed costs of running the airline. When looking at the whole system it clearly becomes woefully inadeqate. To extend the example, the only direct costs of an airplane flight are the crew, the fuel/food, and any airport fees. Could you run the rest of an airline (training, ground staff, scheduling, booking, IT, maintenance) on 15% of the crew+fuel costs? Not even close. If you look at federal contractors and other companies, the overhead on staff is probably closer to 100-200%, so 50-60% is very defensible.