23 ms·

Penn to reduce graduate admissions, rescind acceptances amid research cuts

• kitrose 2y ago
  According to Wikipedia, Penn has an endowment of over $22 billion. Not enough in the piggy bank to cover?
  • blackeyeblitzar 2y ago
    [flagged]
    • nielsbot 2y ago
      What is an "activist degree"? (Is activism bad?)
      • cyberax 2y ago
        Usually impractical and heavily politicized stuff like "colonialism studies". Activism is not necessarily bad, but the current university environment, for some reason, seems to produce activists who are just unbelievably cringe and naïve.
        • nielsbot 2y ago
          "Colonialism studies" is politicized? In what way? Sounds like a history class to me--but please tell me why it isn't.. I'm not familiar. > seems to produce activists who are just unbelievably cringe and naïve I'd be curious to see some examples.
          • juniperus 2y ago
            The idea that you can have an economically sound career talking about historical colonialism is a bit far-fetched. There are a few authors who probably scrape by a living writing books on this topic, but that's about it (and they don't need a degree to do this). If you get one of the handful of academic jobs where you teach this topic to other students, it is something of a racket, where you are teaching students to get a degree in a field where the only job is teaching other students this topic. There is certainly inherent value in some fields that don't have a direct application, like philosophy, but can still inform other pursuits. As for the politicization of the field of colonialism studies, generally, these sort of topics are viewed through a pseudo-religious lens today, the religion being utopianism, the idea that there can be survival and satisfaction for all. Under the utopianist worldview, practical concerns are ignored and the topic is judged under a lens of morality and dogma. That makes it an unserious field and marred by activism. Very true for many humanities and social graduate degrees. Might as well go to seminary and spend half a decade learning to be a theologian. The outcome is similar, dogmatic and removed from reality, makes it hard to transfer into a real world setting.
            • nielsbot 2y ago
              A lot of discuss here--sorry if my thoughts are a bit jumbled, but: > The idea that you can have an economically sound career talking about historical colonialism is a bit far-fetched I don't believe all careers need to have economic soundness as their pursuit. > the idea that there can be survival and satisfaction for all I feel that it's wrong to dispossess people of their lands and resources just because you can. I think that perspective is underrepresented in our society. I think there is usefulness in teaching "the other side" of history. I also believe a wealthy society should invest in jobs that are not "economically sound". > practical concerns are ignored and the topic is judged under a lens of morality and dogma What do you mean "practical concerns"? What other lens is there than morality? I don't believe morality can be dogma, but interested to hear your view. > dogmatic and removed from reality Present reality? No room for moral correctness or the study of it? Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems the thread of your comment is that everyone should have an "economically sustainable job". Why is that so important?
          • cyberax 2y ago
            > Sounds like a history class to me--but please tell me why it isn't.. History, in general, has always been a somewhat "activist" degree. But it's a huge area of research, and it's not _necessarily_ politically charged. "Colonialism studies" almost always degenerate into "all civilization bad, need to destroy all humans and return to the stone age" nonsense. That's not to say that real research in this area is impossible, this year's Nobel Prize in economics was given for the colonialism research. > I'd be curious to see some examples. Recent Gaza protests in Seattle, for example. The protesters were handing out communist propaganda. Not in any roundabout way, but literal Communist Manifestos. Or another example, Seattle's ex-councilmember campaigned _for_ Trump, to help speed up the "destruction of capitalist oppression" ( https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/a-big-seattle-name-is-in-the-election-battlegrounds-helping-trump/ https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/a-big-sea... ). I can go on, with more examples, but they are mostly local to the Seattle area. For less political examples, the "just stop using oil" protesters who keep defacing art.
            • nielsbot 2y ago
              > "Colonialism studies" almost always degenerate into "all civilization bad, need to destroy all humans and return to the stone age" nonsense. How does studying colonialism lead to that conclusion? "Almost always"? Based on what survey? > For less political examples, the "just stop using oil" protesters who keep defacing art. The essence of protest is grabbing attention, disruption. This means inconveniencing the comfortable. I concede that I'm not sure the anti-fossil fuel protesters defacing famous art are earning sympathy for their cause.
              • cyberax 2y ago
                > How does studying colonialism lead to that conclusion? "Almost always"? Based on what survey? Look at nonsense like this: https://www.dukeupress.edu/pollution-is-colonialism https://www.dukeupress.edu/pollution-is-colonialism Or pretty much anything featuring the word "decolonization". > The essence of protest is grabbing attention, disruption. That's not the point. The point is that shitheads think that "just stopping oil" at the drop of a hat (by 2030) _is_ an option. That governments can just "sign a treaty" and stop all the fossil fuel extraction in less time than it takes to design and build an average HVDC power line. I actually spoke with one of their members on WhatsApp, and they do believe that.
    • pclmulqdq 2y ago
      The administrators, athletic coaches, and non-productive tenured professors all cost a lot, and their hands were in the pie before these students' were. By the way, the students in question are for the "activist degrees" you mentioned - they seem to all be in the humanities.
    • apical_dendrite 2y ago
      Penn's budget is $4.7 billion (just the university, not including the hospitals). Even with a $22 billion endowment, they can only fund a fraction of that off of investment income. And what are you even talking about "coming back to the taxpayers"? This isn't like a sports team holding a city hostage to get a new stadium. They apply for competitive grants to do particular research projects, then they do those projects. They aren't asking for a handout, they are being paid to provide a much-needed service (health research).
    • kelnos 2y ago
      Penn has a $22B endowment, and pulls around 5% out of that annually. That seems to be a reasonably safe number that will give them a good chance of at worst keeping the endowment's size constant. Sure, they can take out more every year (they'd have to take out more than 4x that to match Penn's current budget), but then their endowment would reduce in value every year and eventually run out. That would not be a good outcome.
  • osnium123 2y ago
    Endowments can be very restrictive and thus it’s hard to shuffle money around.
    • bitlax 2y ago
      Oh I should try that one.
      • deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
    • nielsbot 2y ago
      What are they for then?
      • saulrh 2y ago
        Chronic traumatic encephalopathy and tax deductions, as far as I can tell.
        • disce-pati 2y ago
          this comment is funny and sad all at once
      • tomohelix 2y ago
        It is a trust fund basically. From what I uderstand, the principal is nearly impossible to use/withdraw and you can only use the interest/returns generated from investing the principle. Even that portion is also restricted. The purpose must be strictly academic and some part must be paid to the university, some must be reinvested, and then the final pieces can be used at the professor's discretion according to the rules set when the endowment is established. So generally, you are looking at 1-2% of the total amount that can be spent annually. Still a lot, but for research, tens of millions would still not be enough for something like Penn.
      • chatmasta 2y ago
        Endowments are investment funds that ideally generate sufficient returns to cover yearly operational expenses while also growing the principal.
  • binarycrusader 2y ago
    As the other poster mentioned, endowments / donations often come with conditions attached that significantly restricts how money from them can be used.
  • sethev 2y ago
    Penn's endowment distributed $1.1 billion last year. Endowments like this are managed to last a long time - indefinitely, even. Penn itself is older than the United States - they're not going to start blowing through their endowment because of political trends over the last couple months (or next 4 years), even if they legally could.
    • techright75 2y ago
      [dead]
  • tzs 2y ago
    The whole point of an endowment is to support whatever it was created to support in perpetuity. They do that by investing the endowment and using most of the income from those investments to support the endowment's mission, and a small part to grow the endowment over time. Penn is spending around $1 billion/year from their endowment, which is a fairly reasonably amount for an endowment of $22 billion.
• whippymop 2y ago
  [flagged]
• cozzyd 2y ago
  If only Penn had the richest and most powerful men in the world as alumni
  • Onavo 2y ago
    Yeah, move over Harvard and Yale. Two of Penn's alumni are currently running the country.
    • mizzao 2y ago
      As a Wharton grad, the place basically trains people to be ruthless and make money. Morality, history, and liberal arts are not part of the curriculum. It appears to have succeeded...?
      • HarryHirsch 2y ago
        Back then it used to be the running joke about economists: "if everyone takes care of himself, everyone is taken care of"
• deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
• forrestthewoods 2y ago
  I have zero sympathy for universities that work grad students to the bone, pay them a mere $25k stipend, and take >50% grant money for “overhead”. The academia model is deeply, profoundly broken.
  • pinkmuffinere 2y ago
    For what it’s worth, I remember well that I thought a 40k stipend in 2017 was an AMAZING opportunity, and was very excited to pursue a PhD for that reason (granted 25k today is significantly less). My requirements are different now, but at the time that was a great opportunity for me. Don’t knock the low-pay-opportunities too too hard, the most desperate people really want that offer, and it is still be a better stepping stone than a 0k stipend. Of course I’d also like if the offer was better.
    • forrestthewoods 2y ago
      > the most desperate people really want that offer I don't think it's great the PhD programs disproportionately attract desperate talent willing to work for poverty wages. I'm not saying the labs need to pay crazy BigTech wages. But the status quo is downright abusive. And nevermind all the perverse incentives around publishing.
      • SJC_Hacker 2y ago
        Unfortunately in many areas its the only way to have a viable career, even if you aren't planning on going in academia (very few can) a PhD is a definite plus / nearly required in many industries.
    • Tostino 2y ago
      That's like half of what I got hired for in the Tampa area (notoriously low pay) in 2011 with like 6 months of SQL experience and no college degree. That's really depressing to be honest.
      • pinkmuffinere 2y ago
• tptacek 2y ago
  Vanderbilt apparently iced its entire incoming biochemistry PhD headcount? My kid got a reject, and found out later that everybody else did too.
  • osnium123 2y ago
    There are going to be a lot of repercussions in the future given how many potential future scientists won’t get trained.
    • HarryHirsch 2y ago
      Where's the pharma lobby? Pharma is the only industrial science left in the country!
      • bglazer 2y ago
        They are currently on their way to Mar a Lago to ask Trump to roll back the drug price negotiation provisions that were instated by the Inflation Reduction Act https://www.fiercepharma.com/pharma/phrma-prepares-meet-trump-new-chair-albert-bourla-espouses-optimism https://www.fiercepharma.com/pharma/phrma-prepares-meet-trum...
        • HarryHirsch 2y ago
          If they are protected from competition they will end up like the US auto industry in the 1970's. They can try and do generics but Teva, Ranbaxy and Ratiopharm will eat them once patent protection runs out.
          • linksnapzz 2y ago
            Of course, that'll last until Ranbaxy kills off all of their patients.
      • icegreentea2 2y ago
        They're weighing the impact on their future workforce pipeline (and probably hoping this this only represents a ~4-8 year hiccup) against whatever other benefits they can get from cozying up with the administration (whacky regulation land). https://www.science.org/content/blog-post/pharma-ceos-speaking-damn-it https://www.science.org/content/blog-post/pharma-ceos-speaki... And who knows, with the right wacky regulatory scheme enacted, the workforce impact will be mitigated away. Probably also banking on the size and power of the American domestic economy to still allow them to siphon talent from across the western world to help make up some short falls.
• blindriver 2y ago
  It's pretty telling that schools like Penn don't cut their administrators, but instead they cut their admissions. "Between 1976 and 2018, full-time administrators and other professionals employed by those institutions increased by 164% and 452%, respectively. Meanwhile, the number of full-time faculty employed at colleges and universities in the U.S. increased by only 92%, marginally outpacing student enrollment which grew by 78%. When we look at individual schools the numbers are just as striking. A recent report I authored found that on average, the top 50 schools have 1 faculty per 11 students whereas the same institutions have 1 non-faculty employee per 4 students. Put another way, there are now 3 times as many administrators and other professionals (not including university hospitals staff), as there are faculty (on a per student basis) at the leading schools in country." https://www.forbes.com/sites/paulweinstein/2023/08/28/administrative-bloat-at-us-colleges-is-skyrocketing/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/paulweinstein/2023/08/28/admini...
  • tomohelix 2y ago
    Nobody would fire themselves or their close friends/colleagues. But they would also want less work and delegate responsibilities. So if left alone, admins would have all the incentive to hire more reports and try to cut cost elsewhere instead of themselves, which lead to reduced revenue and bloated institutions. It is a vicious feedback loop.
  • choxi 2y ago
    But why don’t they? Does anyone know what all these administrators do? I’ve heard the theory that more regulation leads to more admin needs but I don’t think higher education has been increasingly regulated for decades.
    • pj808 2y ago
      The common argument is that universities offer vastly more services to their students then in the past. Career centers, for example, are relatively new trend. This is in part because students also 'shop' for universities with the best perks - not necessarily the best faculty. The most egregious examples include Michelin star chefs, lazy Rivers, and very fancy scoreboards in their very fancy stadiums. Less egregious examples include better campus security and health support staff. As much as it's convenient to point to administrators as a problem, part of the problem is also the ongoing arms race to attract applicants and students' expectations.
• jslezak 2y ago
  [dead]
• bglazer 2y ago
  This ends with America’s domestic biotech and pharmaceutical industry functionally disappearing and being shipped offshore, similar to many previously American led industries. This is already happening [1], and will only accelerate as academic bio research is strangled. There are all kinds of cultural justifications being thrown around for this, all kinds of grievances being rehashed or invented in real time, but it’s the same old story as manufacturing in America. It’s just wealthy powerful people stripping an industry for parts, disinvesting and pocketing the remains. https://www.biospace.com/business/big-pharma-rushes-to-china-for-deal-prospecting-despite-regulatory-uncertainty https://www.biospace.com/business/big-pharma-rushes-to-china...
• trostaft 2y ago
  Most departments at the moment are choosing to be conservative with their funds. No one really knows how their capacity, whether through grants or through teaching, is going to change. As far as I know, many universities are also pausing hiring for full-time employees (which is probably wise, at least until the dust settles). Really tough time to be looking for an academic appointment... I'm grateful that I have enough funds to guarantee two more years here as a postdoc, but if things don't settle for the better there might not be a spot here anymore.
• deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
• etrautmann 2y ago
  It’s worth noting that Pitt’s indirect rates are normal for universities and this is how the system functions.
  • Animats 2y ago
    They are high relative to private industry. They're supporting all those administrators that colleges have accumulated. It's significant that U. Pitt. chose to stop admitting students rather than starting to lay off administrators.
    • chipgap98 2y ago
      Is there a stat or place I can read more about that? I hear people throw throw the idea of administrative bloat around a lot but would be interested to see data behind that
      • blindriver 2y ago
        https://www.forbes.com/sites/paulweinstein/2023/08/28/administrative-bloat-at-us-colleges-is-skyrocketing/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/paulweinstein/2023/08/28/admini...
    • jslezak 2y ago
      Private industry does not run campuses full of graduate courses and basic research that America’s technological prosperity depends on Those overhead fees go to fund that, so universities don’t have to be even mere full of nepo baby donor legacy admissions than they already are
      • SJC_Hacker 2y ago
        No, overhead doesn't pay for grad students or techs. That money comes out of the grant funding or tuition fees (if not funded off the grant)
        • 2y ago
• mjfl 2y ago
  This is likely a temporary move, intended to be used for rhetoric. Eventually the faculty will complain, because they rely on large pyramids of postdocs and grad students for almost all labor. There’s simply no way to continue the work of university research without a strong supply of grad students. Once this is realized, and the NIH doesn’t bend, then grad admissions will increase again, and admin cuts will start, as they should.
  • JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > this is likely a temporary move, intended to be used for rhetoric It's a rational move given the U.S. governments word on payments and commitments is no longer credible. If your employer started bouncing paycheques, your cutting back on expenses wouldn't be "intended to be used for rhetoric." It's simple self preservation.
    • benatkin 2y ago
      The tax cut ruins that, as would the DOGE dividend
      • JumpCrisscross 2y ago
        > tax cut ruins that Ruin what?
        • benatkin 2y ago
          Fiscal responsibility
  • osnium123 2y ago
    That or the volume of research will simply shrink and world class research will take place only in China.
  • sega_sai 2y ago
    Amazing commenters here -- for them people are like cattle. "Temporary move". Graduate students without an offered position -- it's nothing, they'll just wait a bit. Cut one funding one day, maybe release later.
• Merrill 2y ago
  59% indirect research costs for administrative overhead seems high. Could it be that these charges against grants are used to fund students in other subject areas where grants are not available?
  • forrestthewoods 2y ago
    59% is borderline criminal. Perhaps 15% is too low. But 59% is absurd and unacceptable.
    • cute_boi 2y ago
      FYI, Overhead don't include everything. Even in remaining 49% there are many overheads :)
    • linksnapzz 2y ago
      The Salk Institute's overhead rate, IIRC, is 90%. Yet, they keep getting funds, so they're doing something right.
      • forrestthewoods 2y ago
        Fraudulent orgs also keep getting funds. That don’t make it right.
        • johnnyanmac 2y ago
          So, what's the fraud? I'm a bit tired of that word as of late as some kind of catch-all for "I don't understand how this works and I don't like it".
          • forrestthewoods 2y ago
            I’m not accusing any particular organization of fraud. I am rejecting the notion that just because one institution historically receives funds that those funds were put to good use. I understand how grants and overhead rates work. It’s an embarrassment.
• jmclnx 2y ago
  [flagged]
  • dkjaudyeqooe 2y ago
    You can still get an education, you just have to be rich.
    • Gigachad 2y ago
      So the number of educated people in the country drops
      • rayiner 2y ago
        The america that put a man on the moon had only 10% of adults with a college degree.
        • gmm1990 2y ago
          Doge geniuses would have cut that 4% of the federal budget right before Apollo 11
          • anon7000 2y ago
            It’s an interesting question. Would doge suddenly have a change of heart if they were trying to compete with a serious enemy?
            • johnnyanmac 2y ago
              Given Trump's stances this week, I somehow think we've gone reverse red scare and would just work to spread communism in America. We're just so different from 50/60 years ago.
        • TychoCelchuuu 2y ago
          [dead]
• zombiwoof 2y ago
  amazing how many Americans can applaud this reduction when it is completely illegal. America works because of checks and balances and oversight. Obviously there are problems and grift. But to think that everyone is okay that solving it means Elon and a hand picked group of 25 year olds can just slash budgets and see top secret documents when none of them would pass a drug test or screen means we are know looking at the fall of the American system
  • blindriver 2y ago
    Imagine thinking that it's illegal to cut spending when you're $36 Trillion in debt. I think it should be illegal to NOT cut spending when you're at that debt level.
    • johnnyanmac 2y ago
      Yes, it is. In the constitution. Moreover, anyone who paid the slightest attention to Trump's own words knows these cuts aren't paying off a deficit.
    • beej71 2y ago
      There are legal ways to cut spending and illegal ways to cut spending.
  • CrimsonRain 2y ago
    You sound like this: blocking bribing your politicians is bad. How people can applaud this?!! Imagine having tds so bad you support fraud etc because someone managed to put a "legal" label on it.
  • johnnyanmac 2y ago
    Sadly, it'll have to hit their wallets directly before they realize they've been hoodwinked. I wish people would realize this sooner, but America's long been a country that reacted too late instead of taking preventative measure.
  • juniperus 2y ago
    I keep seeing people point out whether things are legal or illegal.. but my understanding is that the executive branch decides which crimes to prosecute, which makes this point fairly irrelevant save for judicial intervention, which is also tenuous at best when it comes to some of these moves.
• zombiwoof 2y ago
  [flagged]
  • DSingularity 2y ago
    [flagged]
    • johnnyanmac 2y ago
      given you attitude, people still don't see it. And I don't know. Why is it taking people so long to wake up? Does he have to bash more at social security until people realize he's not trying to give you more money?
      • DSingularity 2y ago
        Do you think there are systemic problems in the executive branch of the US government? Wasteful, bloated structures? Agency overreach? Criminal lack of transparency? War-mongering security services? Revolving doors? What do you think about the fact that neither political party ever tries to solve these issues in substantial ways when it is in power? Don’t you find it odd that once someone is in power and is actually trying to do something about it they are attacked from all sides? Could it be that they are imperfect but they are not being attacked for the flaws in their approach/execution but rather because they are threatening structures the ruling class are exploiting?
  • blindriver 2y ago
    Elon doesn't own a house and he drives a Tesla Model S (compare that to Sam Altman that has at least a $3 million Koenigsegg Regera supercar). His biggest extravagances are dumping/wasting/overpaying $45B for Twitter, his private jet for convenience, and 13 children. I don't think Elon cares very much about money or the trappings like other multi-billionaires.
    • dmix 2y ago
      > dumping/wasting/overpaying $45B for Twitter Apparently Twitter is much more profitable than before he bought it, despite revenue declining, so the banks/other investors are happy. https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2025/02/x-in-2024-doubled-highest-yearly-twitter-profits.html https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2025/02/x-in-2024-doubled-high... Might still be an overpay but not as dramatic as people predicted.
• codelion 2y ago
  It's a tough situation. I agree administrative bloat is a real problem in universities, but cutting indirect cost recovery so drastically seems like a really blunt instrument. It's going to disproportionately hurt research programs, and freezing admissions is a pretty drastic first step. Hopefully the temporary pause gives them some breathing room to figure things out.
• deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
• FpUser 2y ago
  Rich will get education anyways. Less fortunate will be squeezed out of opportunities. Nice.
  • johnnyanmac 2y ago
    "Roaring" 20's, amirite? It's just not us roaring.
• aurizon 2y ago
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oy-P17UwK4A https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oy-P17UwK4A
• jaco6 2y ago
  [dead]
• jostmey 2y ago
  I see a lot of comments about Universities being inefficient, bloated with administrators, and that the cap on indirect rates is justified. I agree, but it is not as simple as made out to be. I've worked at a university, startup, and large company. In terms of efficiency, startup > university > large company. In other words, large companies are less efficient than universities and universities are less efficient that startups. I agree the grant overhead is ridiculous and that Universities are bloated with administrators. It felt like every 6 months, an administrator would find a previously unnoticed rule that would indicate my office placement violated some rule, and I would have to move. I think I went through three office moves. Ugh. On the other hand, universities provided time and resources for real work to get done
• sega_sai 2y ago
  Now, imagine the alternative universe where the government was actually interested in reducing administrative bloat in universities. It could have introduced for example a limit on grant overhead on all future grants, which would have likely forced universities find saving in admin/sports etc. Obviously we don't live in that universe. We live in the world where capricious government with people like Musk who think they know everything better than everyone else just introduces arbitrary cuts. And then various commenters (including here) contort themselves trying to justify those cuts.
  • Domenic_S 2y ago
    > It could have introduced for example a limit on grant overhead on all future grants So exactly what they introduced, except not applying to current grants? > forced universities find saving in admin/sports etc. Aren't sports a net money generator for universities?
    • insane_dreamer 2y ago
      > Aren't sports a net money generator for universities? only for a select few; most are a loss
• neilv 2y ago
  > A Penn professor, who requested anonymity due to fear of retribution, told the DP that the decision appeared to be “last minute” and came after departments had already informed the University of the students who were selected for graduate programs. > The professor added that the University “pulled the rug out” from many faculty members, some of whom had already offered acceptances to students they had thought were admitted — only to now face the possibility of having to cut those students from the program. If students were informed they were accepted, by anyone at the university (even verbally by a professor), then it's time for the university to cover this (regardless of which budgets it was supposed to come out of), even if it has to draw down the endowment. Unless the university is willing to ruin a bunch of students' lives in brinksmanship, and then deal with the well-deserved lawsuits.
  • selimthegrim 2y ago
    I don’t think the relationship between departments and the central University is what you think it is
    • neilv 2y ago
      Will wronged parties who decide to sue, sue the department, or the university?
      • selimthegrim 2y ago
        They would sue the professors in their individual capacity as well as the university.
• lvl155 2y ago
  Federal workers should just quit en masse to teach these guys a lesson. And make them hire back for 2x the salary.
  • monero-xmr 2y ago
    Yes, do that! Quit ASAP!
  • fnordpiglet 2y ago
    Most people need their jobs to pay their rent and have health insurance and aren’t programmers with a LinkedIn inbox full of recruiters to draw on. They weren’t making a ton of money to begin with and many desperately need the job. Public service has nice long term benefits like a pension, but most federal employees are not well off by any measure. I find people who feel glee at the suffering of these families disturbing.
    • johnnyanmac 2y ago
      If we could all group together, such a resignation wouldn't even last a day. It's the ultimate prisoners dilemma and we're slowly running out of options less drastic. everyone would benefit and few would lose their jobs compared to this still-fast slashing. also, nitpick: >aren’t programmers with a LinkedIn inbox full of recruiters to draw on. It's not 2022 anymore. Those LinkedIn inboxes are empty for me. This market sucks.
      • juniperus 2y ago
        a general strike is great and all, but didn't Reagan call the bluff with those air traffic controllers and just hire all new ones? Replacing top scientists in all the institutions is basically impossible, but for the most part, a lot of positions would be certainly easy to fill. Park rangers? Forest service employees? lab techs? These are jobs that tons of people with a Bachelor's would be more than happy to fill. Government employees generally want to keep their job for life. So most are more inclined to hide under the covers and try to avoid the spotlight. Though I have seen many get antagonistic and incredulous with recent events but I think it should be clear that people need to keep up. With this recent email sent out saying "reply or you're fired," I mean it's cute some people think they aren't going to reply, but they must do that at their own peril. I'd be replying quick.
• colincooke 2y ago
  The entire academic industry is in turmoil, the uncertainty on how bad things could get is probably the worst of it as Universities are having to plan for some pretty extreme outcomes even if unlikely. For those who are questioning the validity of a 59% (or higher for some other institutions) overhead rate, your concerns are worth hearing and a review could be necessary, but oh my please not like this. This was an overnight (likely illegal!) change made with no warning and no consultation. If the government decided that a cap was necessary it should be phased in to allow for insitutions to adjust the operational budgets gradually rather than this shock therapy that destroys lives and WASTES research money (as labs are potentially unable to staff their ongoing projects). A phased in approach would have nearly the same long-term budget implications. Are there too many admin staff? Likely? Is this the right way to address that? Absolutely not. For those who are unfamiliar with how career progress works in Academia, it is so competitive that even a year or two "break" in your career likely means you are forever unable to get a job. If you're on year 12 of an academic career, attempting to get your first job after your second (probably underpaid) postdoc and suddenly there are no jobs, you can't just wait it out. You are probably just done, and out of the market forever as you will lose your connections and have a gap in your CV which in this market is enough to disqualify you.
  • rayiner 2y ago
    > For those who are questioning the validity of a 59% (or higher for some other institutions) overhead rate, your concerns are worth hearing and a review could be necessary, but oh my please not like this. This was an overnight (likely illegal!) change made with no warning and no consultation. Why should the public believe that procedures that produced 59% overhead rates in the first place can be trusted to fix those overhead rates now? Sounds like a demand for an opportunity to derail needed reform by drowning it in red tape. Also, what would be illegal about the change? Are the overhead rates in a statute somewhere? The grants certainly aren’t individually appropriated by Congress.
    • mlyle 2y ago
      > Also, what would be illegal about the change? Are the overhead rates in a statute somewhere? The grants certainly aren’t individually appropriated by Congress. 2024 appropriations (and it showed in many years before then-- Public Law 118-47. Statutes at Large 138 (2024): 677. SEC. 224. In making Federal financial assistance, the provisions relating to indirect costs in part 75 of title 45, Code of Federal Regulations, including with respect to the approval of deviations from negotiated rates, shall continue to apply to the National Institutes of Health to the same extent and in the same manner as such provisions were applied in the third quarter of fiscal year 2017. None of the funds appropriated in this or prior Acts or otherwise made available to the Department of Health and Human Services or to any department or agency may be used to develop or implement a modified approach to such provisions, or to intentionally or substantially expand the fiscal effect of the approval of such deviations from negotiated rates beyond the proportional effect of such approvals in such quarter.
• yongjik 2y ago
  The sudden cut on NIH funding is intended to maximize fear and chaos, and since this is NIH, the impact will be most felt in cutting-edge medical research. And I think that's precisely the point: Trump is in a rampage to destroy American institutions, his supporters hate higher education, and high-ranking research universities are a prime target. Come on, are we supposed to discuss the finance of university administration as if this is some well-thought-out proposal to make America's universities be better and more efficient? Don't give in to the gaslighting. The barbarians have breached the gate and we're arguing whether torching down the main street would help us with next city council meeting.
  • kelnos 2y ago
    This is the thing that really frustrates me: much of the discussion around the damaging effects of what Trump and Musk are doing seems to assume some sort of good-faith motivations on the part of Trump and Musk. But that's not what they're doing. They're dismantling the executive branch of the federal government because they want less regulation for all their corporate buddies, and they want to privatize lots of government functions to, again, benefit all their corporate buddies. And on top of that, they want to cut taxes (for corporations and the wealthy, mainly) at a level that will reduce tax revenue beyond the spending cuts they want to make. So they won't be balancing the budget, or reducing the deficit. We'll still have a federal government that borrows more and more money every year, but provides less and less to the people of the country. That's it. There's no noble plan here.
    • techright75 2y ago
      [dead]
    • pphysch 2y ago
      America has been a plutocracy for decades; Trump 2.0 isn't new in that sense. I think beneath Musk's buffoonery there is a political pivot happening. Part of me wonders if he is a heel to make Trump seem more normal.
• marcosfelt 2y ago
  This blog post gives some good context on why indirect rates exist and some more reasonable ideas for reforming the current system: https://goodscience.substack.com/p/indirect-costs-at-nih?utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web https://goodscience.substack.com/p/indirect-costs-at-nih?utm...
• iamleppert 2y ago
  Time for these universities to pick up the tab and run a sustainable business that isn’t dependent on government handouts. If their research is high quality and valuable, it will survive. The current state of academia paper mills, unreproducible research and rampant fraud are a direct result of the spigot of money and lack of accountability.
  • klysm 2y ago
    Complete bullshit. Research is high risk and frequently 0 return. It’s fundamentally not a sustainable business. Is it worth doing still? I would say yes. These actions by the government are fucking over people who have dedicated years of their lives to pursue advanced research degrees and academic careers.
    • techright75 2y ago
      [dead]
  • ks2048 2y ago
    They are not “running a business”. The American research Universities have been reaping great rewards for relatively small investments.
    • iamleppert 2y ago
      It’s about time they start running one. The American people are done subsidizing ivory towers, meanwhile they have endowments that could fund the entirety of it themselves. Higher education is in for a rude awakening under the Trump administration. All I can say is it’s a shame Doge can’t do layoffs and clean house at some of these universities. Do away with tenure and get rid of the dead weight!
      • naijaboiler 2y ago
        This is such a stupid and myopic view. It honestly is pathetic
• jauntywundrkind 2y ago
  Mike Caulfield says, > If institutions don't push back together, they will cease to exist in the form they are now. I don't know how to say this more clearly. And my heavens yes. This is the government threatening to end funding for universities. This movie here is no where anywhere near enough. This is an attempt to end the entire higher education system. Does it need help & reform? Yes. But simply destroying education outright serves no good. This is a destruction of civilization by radical extremists. Universities need to be working together to defend against this mortal threat to the existence of higher education.
• rKarpinski 2y ago
  U Pitt's endowment is 5.7 Billion! The funding cuts are big but it's only ~2% of the endowment, why are they pausing PHD admittance rather than using the resources they have readily available?
  • wraaath 2y ago
    endowment per student for the top universities runs mid-7 figures for places like Princeton (3.75M), Yale (2.7M), MIT (2.1M) etc. The endowment per student for UPitt in 2023: 172k, which really doesn't give it a lot of wiggleroom to spend while maintaining the purchasing power of the gift endowments over time.
  • quink 2y ago
    The endowment as of June 30th 2023 was $5.5 billion. A year later it was $5.8 billion. If you add inflation and this spending cut alone, it has not grown. Sure, it's "only ~2%", but surely I don't need to tell you how the money, meant to _persist in perpetuity_, a _237_ year old institution has accumulated to educate _30,000_ students is a different measure than an annual income? - a drop large enough to, as I pointed out above, no longer make it a viable sum of money in perpetuity? Here I'm imagining you, sitting on let's say, $500,000 and thinking it's no problem if you spend _an extra_ $10,000 more every year, it's only 2%, and then wondering after a while where all the money to invest went, but where your money went entirely. I think rather than comment on a university's finances, better make sure yours are in order first because I suspect there's a troubling fundamental lack of financial literacy on display here that's going to come back to haunt you at some point.
    • rKarpinski 2y ago
      This makes complete sense when the universities grand purpose is to perpetually aggregate money to manage as a tax exempt hedge fund.
      • quink 2y ago
        > perpetually aggregate money to manage as a tax exempt hedge fund Yes. That's the grand purpose. To do exactly that so they can exist in perpetuity. Do you also go around pointing at hearts as if it's all some grand revelation that that's the main reason we're all here, making it also very clear that you don't mean it in the loving, metaphorical sense, but simply referring to its function of pumping blood about? Sure, if you want to reduce a university down to simply existing for money's sake, then go ahead, but then you might as well say that about literally everything. Horrifyingly cynical. Is our grand purpose, in your eyes, the accumulation of money as well, simply because we want to live with a roof over our heads that costs money?
• ayakang31415 2y ago
  In the article, they did not specify if the funding cut is a result of re-structuring direct-indirect cost ratio (essentially no research cut but the administration cut only), or the fund granted to a fewer researchers. If they actually receive less money for the same current researches, there is no need to accept fewer students.
• qwertyuiop_ 2y ago
  This is nothing more than Administrators administering to protect their influence and cushy jobs. https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2024/05/bureaucratic-bloat-eating-american-universities-inside/678324/ https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2024/05/bureaucrat...
• pmags 2y ago
  Many of the comments here reveal a profound ignorance about the actual costs of conducting biomedical research, as well as a lack of knowledge what the Trump administration is doing to knee-cap NIH funding. 1. If you want to have some perspective on what indirect costs actually cover I'd recommend this video (published 2 years ago) by AAU, AAMC, and other partner associations. -- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yxTDlFvkvio https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yxTDlFvkvio 2. The courts have temporarily blocked the indirect cuts to existing grants, but the Trump administration is using other backdoor means to further withhold funding. See this article in Nature -- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yxTDlFvkvio https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yxTDlFvkvio The long and the short of it, is that NIH is not reviewing grants or making awards at anywhere near "normal". Study sections are being cancelled at the last minute without any certainty about when they will be held. Investigators with existing multi-year grants don't know what to expect at renewal time. Factor in the layoffs at NIH and NSF as well. The administration has also said they intend to cut NSF budgets from $9B to about $3B dollars. Under these circumstances it would be irresponsible for universities to admit normal numbers of graduate students. Even if tomorrow the Trump administration said "Whoops, we messed up" and reversed all executive orders, I'd estimate they've cost the US research enterprise something like 12-18 months of productivity. And we're only 1 month into Trump 2.0. Here's some other knock on effects I anticipate we'll see in the next 3-6 months: 1. Opportunities for undergrad research will be greatly reduced. If you have a college age kid who's interested in engaging in research of any kind (sciences, humanities, engineering) they will have many fewer opportunities and those opening that exist will be even more competitive to get into. 2. Universities will cut way back on lab renovations, new facilities, and delay upkeep. Few people understand just how many tradespeople work on a university campus every day. This includes both facilities staff but also many outside contractors. This will have a major impact on blue collar jobs. 3. IT companies, biotechs, and scientific suppliers for whom universities are key clients are going to be hit hard. Expect layoffs and small companies to close up shop in this sector as the effects of research cuts percolate through the system.
• yes_really 2y ago
  Pitt has an endowment of 5.5 BILLION dollars [1]. It really does not seem like they paused all PhD admissions as an honest way to optimize their money. It seems like they are using their institutional power to protest Trump's policies, to create a sad state of academic research so that Trump is blamed for it until he reverts his policies. I feel sad for the rejected PhD students that were caught in the crossfire of Pitt's protest. [1] https://www.utimes.pitt.edu/news/pitt-s-endowment-2022-23 https://www.utimes.pitt.edu/news/pitt-s-endowment-2022-23
• dang 2y ago
  All: some of the comments in this thread are about the University of Pittsburgh, not Penn, because there were two Pennsylvanian-university-pauses-admissions-due-to-funding-cuts threads duelling on the front page and we merged the Pittsburgh one hither. Sorry to any Pittsburghers; it was purely because this thread was posted earlier. * (It was this one: U. of Pittsburgh pauses Ph.D. admissions amid research funding uncertainty - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43145483 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43145483.)
• juniperus 2y ago
  I know in my state school, none of the labs expect to be able to take any student, period, at least for now. Some labs have even told students they might need to find a new lab to finish their degree, which I don't know how that works. Right now, the uncertainty is playing a major role. Advisors don't know if their money will evaporate/not be renewed, and are highly doubtful that new grants will roll in. The people running federal labs are saying basically that the expectation is to run a tight ship and do the research that is necessary, but not to expect being able to run wide-ranging projects as they have, that everyone needs to reduce their size and wind down what they're doing to only what is necessary. I certainly don't think shutting down American research and having a country where there are no new graduate students is a really sane scenario. I think some research is definitely inexplicable when it comes to being taxpayer-funded, and some labs are bloated and can run a tighter ship. But everyone is basically paying the price because of a small minority of labs who are operating as though they aren't receiving taxpayer money, and are conducting research that is truly pointless. Of course those labs exist, but they are a small group of labs... Clearly no one wants to spend the time to look at all the grants and projects individually to find the bloat. The strange part is that doing this sort of mass-culling actually just invigorates many to double-down on what they are doing if it is somewhat politically unsavory right now. So it really isn't achieving much other than recruiting an opposition to republican power, which is probably worth more to prevent than the money that could be saved. I think it's realistic to assume that the federal government is going to just wholesale cut a lot of the science funding, because compared to other nations, America actually funds a whole lot of science, and from what I can tell, that's much less true in other countries. The effects of that might be a bit abstracted from this event, these cuts might just result in less scientific innovation, which could cost billions of dollars added up over time easily. But, if this is just a sort of shock-and-awe thing, and then money starts becoming available again and the result is that "DEI" practices are expunged from criteria, then maybe the takeaway is just that labs just act with a lot more caution. From what I see, most labs already operate under large amounts of caution because the grant system is tricky enough.
  • beefnugs 2y ago
    Come on , stop being lazy, suck up to the king. Ask him what new color he wants his grandkids spray tans to be, maybe he will change heart from orange and BLAMO new research goals
• whatever1 2y ago
  The experiment that the US is running is unprecedented. What if we screw all our allies, make them scared for their safety so that they start building their own weapons, dismantle completely the government apparatus by assigning clowns to lead it, gut the income by incapacitating IRS and bringing down all the institutions we built as a nation (universities, congress, courts etc). I am trying to avoid conspiracies, but how would an enemy from within would look like, if not like this? The only thing not done yet is to point our own ICBMs at us.
• pbronez 2y ago
  To the extent that MAGA can be said to have a point, I think this is it. Deep underneath the arrogance and scapegoating, they’re calling bullshit on institutions that have become self-licking ice cream cones. I think there’s some truth to that criticism. I would prefer to see the institutions reformed democratically than destroyed by fiat. I contend that sacrificing rule of law is deeply counterproductive. But the core complaint that things aren’t working? There’s some truth to it.
  • insane_dreamer 2y ago
    The core complaint is by no means new, and the Trump/Musk "solution" is worse than the problem.
• insane_dreamer 2y ago
  The government's decision to cap the overhead rate for university grants requires _more_ administrational burden rather than less, so the only thing to cut are the actual researchers. Another example of the stupidity of Trump/Musk's actions.
• insane_dreamer 2y ago
  Hosting a large number of top universities which conduct research attracts the best and brightest minds from around the world, many of whom stay in the US after doing their PhD, and is a significant factor in what makes the US the biggest economy in the world. Even if you subscribe to an America First policy, tearing down university research labs (which is the knock-on effect of cuts at the NIH, NSF, etc.) is one of the worst things you could do. Want to actually cut gov spending? Look no further than the military budget (which the GOP Congress is proposing to _increase_, not decrease). (That being said, yes, there is waste at universities. I'm all for some reform, but this is not reform, it's destruction.)
  • umvi 2y ago
    Defense, social security, Medicaid should all have high scrutiny, but that would be unpopular so neither party will touch those; thus, serious deficit reduction won't happen because doing so requires making unpopular decisions
    • insane_dreamer 2y ago
      defense, yes social security and medicaid, absolutely not (scrutiny, fine; cuts, no)
      • umvi 2y ago
        social security/labor and medicaid/health are the biggest pieces of the pie in terms of budget though. You could cut defense to zero and still have a deficit > ~1T. Clearly they are not sustainable in their current state.
  • disqard 2y ago
    Via Occam's Razor, the simplest explanation is that this is a foreign agent demolishing US democracy from within. It makes not an iota of difference whether somebody "was chosen by the people" (the Felon), or not (the Husk). We can all plainly see what's going on, and there isn't any need to steelman it, or contort ourselves to deduce what pretzel logic might cause Felon/Husk to choose these particular actions.
• geekraver 2y ago
  Ph.D. programs being stopped: https://www.wesa.fm/health-science-tech/2025-02-21/university-pittsburgh-phd-pause-research-funding-uncertainty https://www.wesa.fm/health-science-tech/2025-02-21/universit...
• strangeloops85 2y ago
  OP here: I think the reason for reducing Ph.D. admissions is very simple and should be understandable to anyone who has ever been responsible for making payroll. We (at universities) have great uncertainty about future "revenue" (grants) with even funding for ongoing contracts/ grants not being guaranteed to come in next fiscal year. So we need to reduce expenses which are placed on the grants, the largest amount of which is paying for our trainees. The vast majority of universities in the US do not have extremely large endowments, and at least at the school I work at, the (very modest) endowment amounts that can be used for ongoing expenses already are. I, as a PI, am not directly admitting anyone into my group this year to ensure I have enough funding to pay existing group members. We're hunkering down and making sure those we have now will be funded through the rest of their Ph.D. While this article is talking about program-level decisions, there is a bottom-up aspect as well - at my program and many others, we (faculty) directly admit students into our group and are often responsible for their salaries from day one. Many faculty are, at an individual level, making the same decision I am, to reduce or eliminate any admissions offers this year. Edit: For reference, I am not at UPenn, but at a "typical" state school engineering program.
  • currymj 2y ago
    most of the general public doesn’t know PhD students get paid stipends. if they do know that, they don’t realize how tightly each term’s stipend is tied to a specific funding source.
  • skeeter2020 2y ago
    how many admin people are Penn and other unis cutting in "anticipation"?
    • KittenInABox 2y ago
      It's a different budgetary item. Unlike a household budget where people are given a general income and then asked to decide to spend it on housing, gas, groceries, etc. It's far more like SNAP, where the money given to you is legally bound to very specific things-- you can buy baby food but not diapers for your baby.
• kkylin 2y ago
  Not disagreeing there's bloat and inefficiencies at many US research universities, but something I think is missed in a lot of these discussions is that a lot of research funding works on a reimbursement basis: for relatively small things like travel, we (faculty, students) would spend first, then get reimbursed. For bigger items the university pays and charges the grant accordingly (after due diligence). None of this happens without armies of accountants; these are often classed as "administrators." I would love to have fewer vice presidents, etc., people who really are administrators / middle managers, on our campuses. But there really aren't as many of these positions as people seem to think. Articles like [0] (cited in one of the othe comments) seem to lump everyone who is not faculty or student an "administrator." Most such people are really staff; on the research side they help with accounting, compliance, etc. (On the student-facing side there's also a lot of staff -- students & families expect a lot more from universities now, everything from housing to fancy gyms to on-campus healthcare, and more. All that needs staff to run.) To confuse things more, some faculty (say at med schools) don't teach all that much, and some "administrators" do pitch in and teach from time to time. Again, I don't disagree we can do better, but I also think any discussion of higher ed costs and inefficiencies really should start with the reality of what universities do. [0] https://www.forbes.com/sites/paulweinstein/2023/08/28/administrative-bloat-at-us-colleges-is-skyrocketing/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/paulweinstein/2023/08/28/admini...
• muaytimbo 2y ago
  22.3 billion endowment. Maybe they can fund a little research without taxpayers?
  • wredcoll 2y ago
    For how many years, precisely? And also, why would they?
• zkmon 2y ago
  Though it might look like the effect of new gov, actually all this is just the wave of AI and excess technologies poisoning the very birth places of those technologies and science. The effect takes many forms and appears to be associated with other cause, but overall trend is clear. Humans don't need places of learning any more. Universities are heading into their ruins.
• drawkward 2y ago
  Defend the cathedral! Without the production of knowledge, it will soon prove impossible to levy objective evidence against the despicable lies of the Trump administration.
• lowbloodsugar 2y ago
  It’s ok. China is going to be doing all the research from now on. The US empire has fallen, like the British or Roman empires before it.
• jgalt212 2y ago
  At Yale > Yale University employs nearly one administrator per undergrad [1] If Penn suffers from this same bloat, maybe they should be cutting adminstrators. I see no mention of such cuts in this article. [1] https://www.thecollegefix.com/yale-university-employs-nearly-one-administrator-per-undergrad/ https://www.thecollegefix.com/yale-university-employs-nearly...
• standardUser 2y ago
  Half the nation is already functionally braindead, now we're defunding the other half? Good thing there isn't some giant nation with bottomless pockets ready to overtake us at the first opportunity.
• spanish1469 2y ago
  I just saw this on Reddit so now I am concerned as well- not sure Penn is a go to place this year. “I just heard from an insider all SAS phd students will keep getting their support cut over the next 5 years. Be careful if you accept an offer from Penn this year! Your package could be cut down as you move forward. I didn't want to believe it but who would have thought a school with this size endowment would face an epic collapse in Arts and Sciences. Im going w my second choice to be safe! Good luck everyone!” Anyone else hear this?