5 ms·

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)
    - jslezak 2y ago
      Dude this IS the grant funding they’re slashing. The NIH (and other grantmakers) make research grants and the overhead fee from that goes to the university. This is precisely what they’ve cut
      - SJC_Hacker 2y ago
        Direct costs, not indirect. Grad students and techs don't see that money, unless in rare instances for a grad student the grant funding is suddenly cut off for one reason or another (private grants or some sequester by the NIH)
        jslezak 2y ago
        You are saying words. They make little sense however. The total cost of running these institutions can be broken down however you want. If the total doesn’t add up to the necessary amount they can’t operate
- sightbroke 2y ago
  Not really, and it's not really how things work either. Private industry is charging/billing cost + margin for profit. University is saying X is allocated for research, Y is allocated to keep the lights running for the facility and pay for students. The students are generally funded by research, not the University. No research money, no money for students.
  - SJC_Hacker 2y ago
    I guess you need to compare universities to research institutes like Howard Hughes (HHMI). Unfortunately only academic institutions are eligible for grants from NIH/NSF, so they don't break down their costs like that.
    - PhotonHunter 2y ago
      This is incorrect: while some NIH and NSF grants require an academic institution as the prime or sole awardee there are many that are open to private organizations and others that are mandated to be specific to small businesses (SBIR).
      - costigan 2y ago
        Research funding awarded to universities and to performers internal to NASA (back when there was a reasonable amount of that) had overhead rates that were similar to the NIH rates. When I worked at Xerox PARC, we would perform research for other parts of the company and charged overhead too, although the rate was a little lower (around 40%). Institutional overhead has been a regular feature of how research has been organized and funded for 60 years. Change is fine, but most of the costs are legitimate, and it takes time for the rest of the system to adjust to changes in one part of it. Doing it abruptly is damaging the system and will negatively impact the careers of many students and young researchers.
    - jhbadger 2y ago
      Most non-university non-industry non-government research institutes in the US (eg. Salk Institute, J. Craig Venter Institute, Sanford Burnham Prebys) rely on their researchers applying and getting grants from the NIH and NSF just as university scientists do. And their overhead costs are generally even higher than universities because they have no other source of income other than grants (I used to be faculty at JCVI). HHMI is unusual in that it is funded by a rich person's estate and doesn't need this.
- mlyle 2y ago
  Administrative bloat is a concern, but these indirect costs include things like equipment, too. If you build a good lab which has versatile equipment to address many use-cases, the indirect costs will be high.
  - SJC_Hacker 2y ago
    BS they include equipment. Everything we needed was either bought by us on grant money, or was part of some collaborative grant for the whole department. E.g. and imaging lab that maybe had a SEM or two-photon, etc.
    - mlyle 2y ago
      What you bought on one grant, and then is lab equipment being maintained and serviced afterwards is now "facilities" costs.
      - SJC_Hacker 2y ago
        The university definitely doesn't "service" it at all. If it breaks, you call up the company and hope its under warranty, or you pay someone to fix it, again off the grant funds.
        mlyle 2y ago
        I guess it's fairies performing all those calibrations and restocking all those consumables that can't easily be charged to individual projects.
        SJC_Hacker 2y ago
        They did jack crap. Anything more complicated than a light-bulb or a toilet that broke, the lab handled it internally somehow (either getting the company to fix it or doing it ourselves). There were a few department-wide resources. Again, ultimately funded off someone (or a bunch of people's) grants
- AdieuToLogic 2y ago
  > They are high relative to private industry. Academia is not "private industry."
- ks2048 2y ago
  Do you know that “overhead” costs are not equivalent to payouts to administrators?
- insane_dreamer 2y ago
  If my tax dollars are supporting research, I'd rather they go to universities even if that means some bloat in the form of more people hired than otherwise, rather than corporate shareholders.
- angry_moose 2y ago
  The overhead rate at every corporation I've worked for is between 70-80%. Two S&P 100s, one 500.
SJC_Hacker 2y ago
Its "normal" because its generally accepted, not because it makes any sense. I was part of a research lab on grants like that. We had close to $1m in total funding, on top of that indirect was like 50% (so $500k/year) We maybe had 4000 sq. foot of lab space in an old building that wasn't maintained well. We had one bathroom for each gender on the floor for the research arm of two whole medical departments. Two admins for the whole research department of 7-8 labs totallying maybe 60-70 staff. I ran the numbers and the lab space would have maybe cost $100k/year tops (probably more like $80k, depending on quality) if we were rent out equivalent industrial office space. On top of that you have electrical, heating, telecom, at most $10k. Support services such as HR, cleaning, IT support (of which we didn't use a whole lot) could have been contracted out, at most around $20k. So there was about $350k which I figured was mostly just a subsidy and went to "administration". Not that I was philosophically opposed to it, except maybe the admin.
- SideQuark 2y ago
  The parts you list result in wasted research money. The system you complain about results in more R&D getting out into the world. The money you complain about goes to run an org that has connections, does advertising, provides stable employment when grants fluctuate, has hiring and HR and payroll and a zillion other services, all making those doing the research more able to do research, and provides more channels to move results into production. So it makes sense. You just haven’t thought through or had to perform all the pieces, so to you it doesn’t make sense.
  - monero-xmr 2y ago
    Ah yes, we need a fudge factor to subsidize a bunch of unquantifiable woo like “advertising” and “stable employment”. I’m sick and tired of elites telling me basic business operations of profit and loss, value for money, quantifiable results are beyond my peasant brain to understand.
    - vkou 2y ago
      > Ah yes, we need a fudge factor to subsidize a bunch of unquantifiable woo like “advertising” and “stable employment”. Try convincing the AC guys to work for parts cost + a skilled worker wage * number of hours worked, see how well that goes over. They'll laugh you out of the room, and you'll be left sitting on your ass without air. The entire world charges overhead for work done. Most of it way more than 25% of the sticker price.

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)
  - jslezak 2y ago
    Dude this IS the grant funding they’re slashing. The NIH (and other grantmakers) make research grants and the overhead fee from that goes to the university. This is precisely what they’ve cut
    - SJC_Hacker 2y ago
      Direct costs, not indirect. Grad students and techs don't see that money, unless in rare instances for a grad student the grant funding is suddenly cut off for one reason or another (private grants or some sequester by the NIH)
      - jslezak 2y ago
        You are saying words. They make little sense however. The total cost of running these institutions can be broken down however you want. If the total doesn’t add up to the necessary amount they can’t operate
sightbroke 2y ago
Not really, and it's not really how things work either. Private industry is charging/billing cost + margin for profit. University is saying X is allocated for research, Y is allocated to keep the lights running for the facility and pay for students. The students are generally funded by research, not the University. No research money, no money for students.
- SJC_Hacker 2y ago
  I guess you need to compare universities to research institutes like Howard Hughes (HHMI). Unfortunately only academic institutions are eligible for grants from NIH/NSF, so they don't break down their costs like that.
  - PhotonHunter 2y ago
    This is incorrect: while some NIH and NSF grants require an academic institution as the prime or sole awardee there are many that are open to private organizations and others that are mandated to be specific to small businesses (SBIR).
    - costigan 2y ago
      Research funding awarded to universities and to performers internal to NASA (back when there was a reasonable amount of that) had overhead rates that were similar to the NIH rates. When I worked at Xerox PARC, we would perform research for other parts of the company and charged overhead too, although the rate was a little lower (around 40%). Institutional overhead has been a regular feature of how research has been organized and funded for 60 years. Change is fine, but most of the costs are legitimate, and it takes time for the rest of the system to adjust to changes in one part of it. Doing it abruptly is damaging the system and will negatively impact the careers of many students and young researchers.
  - jhbadger 2y ago
    Most non-university non-industry non-government research institutes in the US (eg. Salk Institute, J. Craig Venter Institute, Sanford Burnham Prebys) rely on their researchers applying and getting grants from the NIH and NSF just as university scientists do. And their overhead costs are generally even higher than universities because they have no other source of income other than grants (I used to be faculty at JCVI). HHMI is unusual in that it is funded by a rich person's estate and doesn't need this.
mlyle 2y ago
Administrative bloat is a concern, but these indirect costs include things like equipment, too. If you build a good lab which has versatile equipment to address many use-cases, the indirect costs will be high.
- SJC_Hacker 2y ago
  BS they include equipment. Everything we needed was either bought by us on grant money, or was part of some collaborative grant for the whole department. E.g. and imaging lab that maybe had a SEM or two-photon, etc.
  - mlyle 2y ago
    What you bought on one grant, and then is lab equipment being maintained and serviced afterwards is now "facilities" costs.
    - SJC_Hacker 2y ago
      The university definitely doesn't "service" it at all. If it breaks, you call up the company and hope its under warranty, or you pay someone to fix it, again off the grant funds.
      - mlyle 2y ago
        I guess it's fairies performing all those calibrations and restocking all those consumables that can't easily be charged to individual projects.
        SJC_Hacker 2y ago
        They did jack crap. Anything more complicated than a light-bulb or a toilet that broke, the lab handled it internally somehow (either getting the company to fix it or doing it ourselves). There were a few department-wide resources. Again, ultimately funded off someone (or a bunch of people's) grants
AdieuToLogic 2y ago
> They are high relative to private industry. Academia is not "private industry."
ks2048 2y ago
Do you know that “overhead” costs are not equivalent to payouts to administrators?
insane_dreamer 2y ago
If my tax dollars are supporting research, I'd rather they go to universities even if that means some bloat in the form of more people hired than otherwise, rather than corporate shareholders.
angry_moose 2y ago
The overhead rate at every corporation I've worked for is between 70-80%. Two S&P 100s, one 500.

SJC_Hacker 2y ago

Its "normal" because its generally accepted, not because it makes any sense. I was part of a research lab on grants like that. We had close to $1m in total funding, on top of that indirect was like 50% (so $500k/year) We maybe had 4000 sq. foot of lab space in an old building that wasn't maintained well. We had one bathroom for each gender on the floor for the research arm of two whole medical departments. Two admins for the whole research department of 7-8 labs totallying maybe 60-70 staff. I ran the numbers and the lab space would have maybe cost $100k/year tops (probably more like $80k, depending on quality) if we were rent out equivalent industrial office space. On top of that you have electrical, heating, telecom, at most $10k. Support services such as HR, cleaning, IT support (of which we didn't use a whole lot) could have been contracted out, at most around $20k. So there was about $350k which I figured was mostly just a subsidy and went to "administration". Not that I was philosophically opposed to it, except maybe the admin.

SideQuark 2y ago
The parts you list result in wasted research money. The system you complain about results in more R&D getting out into the world. The money you complain about goes to run an org that has connections, does advertising, provides stable employment when grants fluctuate, has hiring and HR and payroll and a zillion other services, all making those doing the research more able to do research, and provides more channels to move results into production. So it makes sense. You just haven’t thought through or had to perform all the pieces, so to you it doesn’t make sense.
- monero-xmr 2y ago
  Ah yes, we need a fudge factor to subsidize a bunch of unquantifiable woo like “advertising” and “stable employment”. I’m sick and tired of elites telling me basic business operations of profit and loss, value for money, quantifiable results are beyond my peasant brain to understand.
  - vkou 2y ago
    > Ah yes, we need a fudge factor to subsidize a bunch of unquantifiable woo like “advertising” and “stable employment”. Try convincing the AC guys to work for parts cost + a skilled worker wage * number of hours worked, see how well that goes over. They'll laugh you out of the room, and you'll be left sitting on your ass without air. The entire world charges overhead for work done. Most of it way more than 25% of the sticker price.