3 ms·

You can tell people the truth all day long. They don’t want to hear it. They’re convinced that academia is rotten to the core and none of your facts and figures

by a2tech 2y ago

You can tell people the truth all day long. They don’t want to hear it. They’re convinced that academia is rotten to the core and none of your facts and figures will dissuade them. For example I know at my institution every dollar, every piece of effort, is painstakingly tracked and attributed to funding sources. We have extensive internal checks to make sure we aren’t misusing funds. Audits happen at every major milestone. All of that effort is reported. It’s exhausting but the government requires it because we have to be good stewards of the funds we have been granted. No one believes it.

BenFranklin100 2y ago
We must keep trying. It’s frustrating but we can’t give up. Scientific progress depends on us.
addicted 2y ago
I’m not part of academia but was heavily involved in funding because of my position in student government while still in college. While I won’t argue there isn’t waste (what endeavor doesn’t have waste?) it’s an incredibly tiny percentage (except in cases where there was actual fraud, which we also discovered and the Feds prosecuted and convicted people for). The irony is that academia is so afraid of “waste” that I wouldn’t be surprised if colleges spend more money on the auditing and the compliances, etc than the actual waste they prevent.
- BenFranklin100 2y ago
  I’ve had to deal with NIH audits up close. The amount of work devoted to compliance can make one question if the grant money is even worth it in the first place. A big part of the reason indirect rates evolved is because the administrative burden to track direct costs is immense. How do you split up direct costs on an electric bill? Do you place a meter on each wall outlet and try to assign each amp to a specific job? Or safety training? Divide the safety meeting minutes by ….. ? It’s impossible. Which is why Vannevar Bush pioneered indirect costs. See the history section here: https://www.cogr.edu/sites/default/files/Droegemeier%20Full%20Written%20Testimony%20FINAL.pdf https://www.cogr.edu/sites/default/files/Droegemeier%20Full%...
johnnyanmac 2y ago
A bit stupid on a community like this because many people at least spent 4 years in school.

by a2tech 2y ago

BenFranklin100 2y ago

We must keep trying. It’s frustrating but we can’t give up. Scientific progress depends on us.

addicted 2y ago

I’m not part of academia but was heavily involved in funding because of my position in student government while still in college. While I won’t argue there isn’t waste (what endeavor doesn’t have waste?) it’s an incredibly tiny percentage (except in cases where there was actual fraud, which we also discovered and the Feds prosecuted and convicted people for). The irony is that academia is so afraid of “waste” that I wouldn’t be surprised if colleges spend more money on the auditing and the compliances, etc than the actual waste they prevent.

BenFranklin100 2y ago
I’ve had to deal with NIH audits up close. The amount of work devoted to compliance can make one question if the grant money is even worth it in the first place. A big part of the reason indirect rates evolved is because the administrative burden to track direct costs is immense. How do you split up direct costs on an electric bill? Do you place a meter on each wall outlet and try to assign each amp to a specific job? Or safety training? Divide the safety meeting minutes by ….. ? It’s impossible. Which is why Vannevar Bush pioneered indirect costs. See the history section here: https://www.cogr.edu/sites/default/files/Droegemeier%20Full%20Written%20Testimony%20FINAL.pdf https://www.cogr.edu/sites/default/files/Droegemeier%20Full%...

johnnyanmac 2y ago

A bit stupid on a community like this because many people at least spent 4 years in school.