4 ms·

NSF funds tons of underpaid grad students who are the source of US research productivity per dollar.

by musicale 1y ago

sandworm101 1y ago
And they are the underpaid workforce that keeps the undergrad industrial complex so profitable.
- ModernMech 1y ago
  Speaking as someone who's seen a university budget: - Undergrad education breaks even - Research operates at a loss - Master's and professional programs makes a modest profit because most students pay full tuition. - Interest income off the endowment barely covers operating expenses - The remaining balance comes from donations. YMMV, but at the end of the day, what keeps many universities afloat is providing good experiences to students in their formative years so that when they get older and make money, they just give a portion of it back to their alma mater due to good vibes and nostalgia. That's the business model, not bilking grad students.
  - musicale 1y ago
    1. Undergraduate education benefits from low-paid lecturers and teaching assistants. 2. NSF's operating model is based on low-paid graduate students and postdocs. 3. Universities (at least until recently?) took a significant cut (for example 50%) off the top of NSF (and other) grants as overhead, but their overhead rate is significantly lower than typical government contractors in industry. 4. If you are a grad student and ever want to become (more) depressed (for both present and future prospects), read an NSF (or similar) grant for the project you are doing all the work for, and see how the funds are allocated. 5. Universities also underpay their professional athletes in "money" sports such as football and basketball. 6. Administration growth has outpaced enrollment growth (and faculty expansion etc.) for decades. So undergraduate education may "break even", but it's still paying an army of non-teaching administrators.[1] (Universities defend themselves by saying that regulatory compliance is more expensive now, etc.) [1] https://stanforddaily.com/2024/03/13/behind-stanfords-doubled-staff-to-student-ratio/ https://stanforddaily.com/2024/03/13/behind-stanfords-double...
    - ModernMech 1y ago
      1. Yes, and yet it still only breaks even. The claim was that it's hugely profitable. 2. NSF operating model is based on maximizing the number of supported graduate students, not maximizing support per student. As someone who was a low-paid graduate student, I have sympathy for the perspective they are low-paid. But I also support graduate students now and I understand how expensive it really is. 3. Yes, but at least at my university, the overhead they get from grant funding isn't enough to actually cover research overhead. So research operates at a loss despite the negotiated overhead rate. Research is very expensive. 4. In my experience, graduate students are often involved in writing grant proposals. They also tend to lack the depth of experience necessary to really interpret budgets. 5. Sure, but I didn't really talk about sports programs in relation to academic funding, because sports usually funds itself and proceeds don't go over to pay for academics. 6. Sure, but you say "non-teaching administrators" as if they don't serve the academic mission. For example, in my department we have a non-teaching administrator who helps with advising. In our college, we have an office of tutoring which is very popular with students, and includes many non-teaching administrators. Access to resources like these lead to better student outcomes, but they do cost money.
javiramos 1y ago
Different perspective... As an NSF grad student I didn't feel underpaid -- I felt extremely lucky that I got to do cutting-edge research while being paid a low but decent, livable salary. Of course, I could have made more money going into industry -- but at least we have a choice with institutions like the NSF willing to support risky projects that move humanity forward.
- jplusequalt 1y ago
  As someone who's friends with multiple grad students who are funded by the NSF ... this is not the opinion I've heard from them. They're all working on awesome research that could actually help people, and yet they struggle to get by.
  - birn559 1y ago
    Sounds like cutting the budget will make things worse.
    - footlose_3815 1y ago
      [flagged]
  - francisofascii 1y ago
    What is a typical annual stipend? $37K? Sounds barely livable depending on the location, roommate situation, your stage in life, etc.
    - javiramos 1y ago
      ~$50k at MIT. Barely livable but livable. You can also complement this stipend with internships and other opportunities.
    - lmwnshn 1y ago
      https://csstipendrankings.org/ https://csstipendrankings.org/
daveguy 1y ago
Not everything is about productivity per dollar. It's also the source of a pipeline of well trained research scientists who go into cutting edge fields with good pay.
- supertrope 1y ago
  When you’re trying to lobby the tax cut caucus you talk in dollars.
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]

NSF funds tons of underpaid grad students who are the source of US research productivity per dollar.

sandworm101 1y ago

And they are the underpaid workforce that keeps the undergrad industrial complex so profitable.

ModernMech 1y ago
Speaking as someone who's seen a university budget: - Undergrad education breaks even - Research operates at a loss - Master's and professional programs makes a modest profit because most students pay full tuition. - Interest income off the endowment barely covers operating expenses - The remaining balance comes from donations. YMMV, but at the end of the day, what keeps many universities afloat is providing good experiences to students in their formative years so that when they get older and make money, they just give a portion of it back to their alma mater due to good vibes and nostalgia. That's the business model, not bilking grad students.
- musicale 1y ago
  1. Undergraduate education benefits from low-paid lecturers and teaching assistants. 2. NSF's operating model is based on low-paid graduate students and postdocs. 3. Universities (at least until recently?) took a significant cut (for example 50%) off the top of NSF (and other) grants as overhead, but their overhead rate is significantly lower than typical government contractors in industry. 4. If you are a grad student and ever want to become (more) depressed (for both present and future prospects), read an NSF (or similar) grant for the project you are doing all the work for, and see how the funds are allocated. 5. Universities also underpay their professional athletes in "money" sports such as football and basketball. 6. Administration growth has outpaced enrollment growth (and faculty expansion etc.) for decades. So undergraduate education may "break even", but it's still paying an army of non-teaching administrators.[1] (Universities defend themselves by saying that regulatory compliance is more expensive now, etc.) [1] https://stanforddaily.com/2024/03/13/behind-stanfords-doubled-staff-to-student-ratio/ https://stanforddaily.com/2024/03/13/behind-stanfords-double...
  - ModernMech 1y ago
    1. Yes, and yet it still only breaks even. The claim was that it's hugely profitable. 2. NSF operating model is based on maximizing the number of supported graduate students, not maximizing support per student. As someone who was a low-paid graduate student, I have sympathy for the perspective they are low-paid. But I also support graduate students now and I understand how expensive it really is. 3. Yes, but at least at my university, the overhead they get from grant funding isn't enough to actually cover research overhead. So research operates at a loss despite the negotiated overhead rate. Research is very expensive. 4. In my experience, graduate students are often involved in writing grant proposals. They also tend to lack the depth of experience necessary to really interpret budgets. 5. Sure, but I didn't really talk about sports programs in relation to academic funding, because sports usually funds itself and proceeds don't go over to pay for academics. 6. Sure, but you say "non-teaching administrators" as if they don't serve the academic mission. For example, in my department we have a non-teaching administrator who helps with advising. In our college, we have an office of tutoring which is very popular with students, and includes many non-teaching administrators. Access to resources like these lead to better student outcomes, but they do cost money.

javiramos 1y ago

Different perspective... As an NSF grad student I didn't feel underpaid -- I felt extremely lucky that I got to do cutting-edge research while being paid a low but decent, livable salary. Of course, I could have made more money going into industry -- but at least we have a choice with institutions like the NSF willing to support risky projects that move humanity forward.

jplusequalt 1y ago
As someone who's friends with multiple grad students who are funded by the NSF ... this is not the opinion I've heard from them. They're all working on awesome research that could actually help people, and yet they struggle to get by.
- birn559 1y ago
  Sounds like cutting the budget will make things worse.
  - footlose_3815 1y ago
    [flagged]
- francisofascii 1y ago
  What is a typical annual stipend? $37K? Sounds barely livable depending on the location, roommate situation, your stage in life, etc.
  - javiramos 1y ago
    ~$50k at MIT. Barely livable but livable. You can also complement this stipend with internships and other opportunities.
  - lmwnshn 1y ago
    https://csstipendrankings.org/ https://csstipendrankings.org/

daveguy 1y ago

Not everything is about productivity per dollar. It's also the source of a pipeline of well trained research scientists who go into cutting edge fields with good pay.

supertrope 1y ago
When you’re trying to lobby the tax cut caucus you talk in dollars.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]