5 ms·
59% is borderline criminal. Perhaps 15% is too low. But 59% is absurd and unacceptable.
by forrestthewoods 2y ago
59% is borderline criminal. Perhaps 15% is too low. But 59% is absurd and unacceptable.
- cute_boi 2y agoFYI, Overhead don't include everything. Even in remaining 49% there are many overheads :)
- linksnapzz 2y agoThe Salk Institute's overhead rate, IIRC, is 90%. Yet, they keep getting funds, so they're doing something right.
- forrestthewoods 2y agoFraudulent orgs also keep getting funds. That don’t make it right.
- johnnyanmac 2y agoSo, 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 agoI’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.
- johnnyanmac 2y ago"you're not literally saying fraud, but you're also not NOT saying it's fraud" Serious accusations need serious evidence. I'm not a fan of this sowing of doubt without a solid basis to back it up. That's very much the DOGE modus operandi, and it's a lazy and dangerous form of argumentation. I'll call it out wherever I can. You're just saying "thing bad" and expecting agreement without putting any legwork in. The onus is on the accuser, not the accused.
- forrestthewoods 2y ago> The Salk Institute's overhead rate, IIRC, is 90%. Yet, they keep getting funds, so they're doing something right. I do not agree with this statement. Take from that what you will. > The onus is on the accuser, not the accused. In criminal law I agree. When it comes to budgeting I do not. The onus is on every program to prove every year that they’re worth funding. I don’t accept the notion that just because something was funded in the past that it was wise then and that it’s wise to continue to fund. So when someone says “this org has a 90% indirect cost rate and keeps getting funded” I do not think “they must be doing something right”. I instead think “wow they better have a frickin spectacular argument as to how that is possibly justifiable, and I’d bet $3.50 they don’t”.
- wredcoll 2y agoAnd yet in all your replies you've yet to make an actual substantial point. All you said was "I think this is bad and they should prove they aren't". Find something real to criticize and do it with actual facts.
- forrestthewoods 2y agolol
- aaronharnly 2y agoIt’s worth clarifying that the 59% overhead rate doesnt mean 59% of the funds go to overhead. If you have a $1m grant, you add on $590k for overhead. Then the total grant is $1.59m, so actually 37% of the total funds are for overhead.
- MITSardine 2y agoI'm curious, why do you find this so high? Take the army for example, it's estimated 30~40% of the workforce is dedicated to logistics. This is equivalent to 42~66% overhead (in the same sense that overhead is discussed in the context of academia, as +% cost) if you were to count only combat personnel as the direct costs. This is was universities do, they only count research expenses as the direct costs. Yet it's quite obvious a university can't run just on scientists. This 59% overhead is equivalent to 37% of the expenses. So, unlike you, I'm positively surprised that 63% of expenses go directly to the core mission with only 37% "waste" (which is necessary to ensure the scientists can actually work, and work efficiently).