4 ms·

Universities spend ~$109 billion a year on research. ~$60 billion of that $109 billion comes from the National Institutes for Health (NIH) for biomedical resear

Universities spend ~$109 billion a year on research. ~$60 billion of that $109 billion comes from the National Institutes for Health (NIH) for biomedical research, National Science Foundation (NSF) for basic science, Department of War (DoW), Department of Energy (DOE), for energy/physics/nuclear, DARPA, NASA. Let's talk about the other $49B. I read or heard someplace that at many universities tuition paid by students in the social sciences is effectively subsidizing the STEM fields, as the history department or psychology professors are unlikely to require huge investments in new buildings, specialized equipment, etc., yet they pay the same tuition fees as STEM majors. Families/students paying full freight at a private university are looking at undergraduate degrees that cost $250k-$400k all in. That can't be the whole picture, as money also flows from rich donors, corporate partnerships of various types, and at some schools such as MIT licensing fees. It doesn't seem like tuition can keep growing at the rates that it has to make up the shortfall from government research cuts, but what about the other areas?

echelon 1y ago
> I read or heard someplace that at many universities tuition paid by students in the social sciences is effectively subsidizing the STEM fields Diploma mill universities in my state are consolidating the smaller STEM universities and trade schools to build football and sports programs, gyms, and "lifestyle" amenities. This university in particular [1] mints basket weaving degrees and has used consolidation to build sports programs [2] and lavish facilities for sports. It's also been a revolving door of politician to high-ranking, high-compensation executive staff positions. This university [3] has used funding to acquire properties from the state, such as the 1996 Olympic Stadium [4]. Neither of these universities does real, impactful research. The latter is ranked as an R1, but everyone at the "real" R1s in our state will tell you this is a fabrication. They're diploma mills and extract six figures from their student body. They turn this money into sports facilities and upper level faculty pay. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kennesaw_State_University https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kennesaw_State_University [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kennesaw_State_Owls_football https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kennesaw_State_Owls_football [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgia_State_University https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgia_State_University [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centennial_Olympic_Stadium https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centennial_Olympic_Stadium
- treis 1y ago
  This is absurd. These universities aren't diploma mills. They're solid institutions in the "directional state U" tier.
  - terminalshort 1y ago
    Georgia State has an average SAT score of 1070. Nobody with a brain goes there. Just a societally sanctioned diploma scam for people who would be much better served by starting work right out of HS.
    - treis 1y ago
      That's slightly above the average of SAT test takers which puts them top 1/3ish of high school students. Silly to think they don't have a brain
    - runako 1y ago
      National average SAT score is ~995. Georgia average is 1030. The Georgia university system has a set of goals for the advancement of the state of Georgia. It's difficult to make an argument that graduating seniors performing above average are unworthy of higher education, and that this would be best for the state. Georgia, like most states, recognizes that not every student will fit in every situation and has options to help most/all of them. Georgia Tech is very different from UGA. Both are very different from the network of community colleges.
      - terminalshort 1y ago
        It's very easy for me to make that argument because I think higher education is a complete waste of time and money for everyone who isn't going into a particular technical profession that requires focused training beyond HS, and that's maybe 5% of the population.
        runako 1y ago
        Thank you for adding that color, it is clarifying. I would suggest that your position is a minority position. In particular, that view is out of step with most employers, who generally require college degrees (even non-technical ones) for most white-collar jobs.
some_guy_nobel 1y ago
Raising (already record high) tuitions that have far, far outpaced wages and inflation should be a last resort. You can start by cutting bloated admin, reduce fraudulent procurement/graft (e.g. the $700k Berkeley Chancellor's fence: https://www.cbsnews.com/sanfrancisco/news/700k-iron-fence-constructed-around-uc-berkeley-chancellors-residence/ https://www.cbsnews.com/sanfrancisco/news/700k-iron-fence-co...), vanity construction, study abroad admin budgets that dwarf actual student grants, and the executive compensation/perks by admin. And this is just mentioning a sample of admin bloat, never mind the other areas.
- echelon 1y ago
  This. Cut spending on admin staff and facilities. Schools do not need amenities to attract students. They need lower tuition. You could teach students out of a tent and do away with all the flashy health spas and do a better job at the core mission of empowering students. No new buildings, no land acquisitions, no taking over facilities from the state for millions of dollars. University leadership does not need to make $300k, $600k salaries. They should make what the median professor makes. Universities will tell you they need all of this to compete with other universities. So to get the ball started, tax all of this as a negative externality and give it to the universities that do not spend in this way. Or turn it into scholarships. Speaking of scholarships, stop putting a cap on admissions. Let everyone that wants to come in do so if they meet academic thresholds. Let them stay if they maintain a good GPA. And make student loan debt dischargable. That might mean not everyone qualifies for a loan, but by making the system an "infinite money glitch", universities have grown into gluttons for tuition. They've taken this "free, unlimited money" to grow to obscene proportions. It's malinvestment propped up by an artificial quirk of economics.
  - thunderfork 1y ago
    I don't see how "uncap admissions" and "don't take on any new infrastructure" are compatible.
    - echelon 1y ago
clusterhacks 1y ago
> tuition paid by students in the social sciences is effectively subsidizing the STEM fields This is not true at my state flagship R1 institution. Tuition and fees make up a little over 10% of the institution's total revenue. General funding provided in our state budget provides a larger percentage of the total revenue to the university and federal research funding provides an even larger percentage than the state. The essential takeaway here is that our state taxes subsidize the actual cost of providing education to in-state students. In-state students are mandated to be at least 80%-ish of students. The professors in the STEM fields are required to raise a significant percentage of their salary via research grants ("soft" money), teaching, and service work. The non-STEM professors are more often funded via "hard" money - eg, the institution has committed to pay the salary of history professors. I googled and apparently a little more than 70% of undergraduate students in the US attend public schools. I don't know much about how funding works at the private universities that have the other 30% of undergraduate students.
rapatel0 1y ago
> I read or heard someplace that at many universities tuition paid by students in the social sciences is effectively subsidizing the STEM fields I'm very skeptical of this claim. In fact up until a recent funding method change from the Trump Administration, most grant money was subject to "overhead"--a nebulous nonsensical accounting trick that allowed the university administration to get upwards of 60% of the dollars that are earmarked for grants. If you invent something, the school will take 70% of the revenue from the innovation. Much like VC, some big wins can power the school for years. Actually, most highly productive research universities use the research as a prestige magnet and marketing tool to help grow endowments and keep up in the US News college rankings. I would be great if the funding weren't so opaque. We may be able to find accounting info for the public univeristies. I would bet money that, Liberal arts tuition likely goes into administration, endowments, and campus improvements for student life (better food in the dining halls...)
- uolmir 1y ago
  > In fact up until a recent funding method change from the Trump Administration, most grant money was subject to "overhead"--a nebulous nonsensical accounting trick that allowed the university administration to get upwards of 60% of the dollars that are earmarked for grants. We're better than this here. Don't spread misinformation. First of all overhead is listed as a percentage, such as 55% or 60% or whatever but the university doesn't get that fraction of the total grant. You work up the so called direct costs, ie the line item salaries of the researchers, the reagents, etc. and then the overhead is 60% of that figure. So it would work out to be 38% of the total dollars granted. It's also not a trick. It's a negotiated amount that is supposed to avoid each grant requesting some amortized fraction of the cost of office space and other necessary but shared expenses. I and most people agree that's it's possibly too high, but it's ignorant to treat it like a scam.
  - goodcanadian 1y ago
    I and most people agree that's it's possibly too high, but it's ignorant to treat it like a scam. The fact that it is so high is a scam. It really depends on the grant. For the larger grants, it may work somewhat like you describe. For the smaller grants, they literally do just take 60% of the money (and complain that it is not enough to administer the grant while providing absolutely no support whatsoever). In theory, it's paying for salary and office space and whatnot, but those are already covered by other budgets.

echelon 1y ago

> I read or heard someplace that at many universities tuition paid by students in the social sciences is effectively subsidizing the STEM fields Diploma mill universities in my state are consolidating the smaller STEM universities and trade schools to build football and sports programs, gyms, and "lifestyle" amenities. This university in particular [1] mints basket weaving degrees and has used consolidation to build sports programs [2] and lavish facilities for sports. It's also been a revolving door of politician to high-ranking, high-compensation executive staff positions. This university [3] has used funding to acquire properties from the state, such as the 1996 Olympic Stadium [4]. Neither of these universities does real, impactful research. The latter is ranked as an R1, but everyone at the "real" R1s in our state will tell you this is a fabrication. They're diploma mills and extract six figures from their student body. They turn this money into sports facilities and upper level faculty pay. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kennesaw_State_University https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kennesaw_State_University [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kennesaw_State_Owls_football https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kennesaw_State_Owls_football [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgia_State_University https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgia_State_University [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centennial_Olympic_Stadium https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centennial_Olympic_Stadium

treis 1y ago
This is absurd. These universities aren't diploma mills. They're solid institutions in the "directional state U" tier.
- terminalshort 1y ago
  Georgia State has an average SAT score of 1070. Nobody with a brain goes there. Just a societally sanctioned diploma scam for people who would be much better served by starting work right out of HS.
  - treis 1y ago
    That's slightly above the average of SAT test takers which puts them top 1/3ish of high school students. Silly to think they don't have a brain
  - runako 1y ago
    National average SAT score is ~995. Georgia average is 1030. The Georgia university system has a set of goals for the advancement of the state of Georgia. It's difficult to make an argument that graduating seniors performing above average are unworthy of higher education, and that this would be best for the state. Georgia, like most states, recognizes that not every student will fit in every situation and has options to help most/all of them. Georgia Tech is very different from UGA. Both are very different from the network of community colleges.
    - terminalshort 1y ago
      It's very easy for me to make that argument because I think higher education is a complete waste of time and money for everyone who isn't going into a particular technical profession that requires focused training beyond HS, and that's maybe 5% of the population.
      - runako 1y ago
        Thank you for adding that color, it is clarifying. I would suggest that your position is a minority position. In particular, that view is out of step with most employers, who generally require college degrees (even non-technical ones) for most white-collar jobs.

some_guy_nobel 1y ago

Raising (already record high) tuitions that have far, far outpaced wages and inflation should be a last resort. You can start by cutting bloated admin, reduce fraudulent procurement/graft (e.g. the $700k Berkeley Chancellor's fence: https://www.cbsnews.com/sanfrancisco/news/700k-iron-fence-constructed-around-uc-berkeley-chancellors-residence/ https://www.cbsnews.com/sanfrancisco/news/700k-iron-fence-co...), vanity construction, study abroad admin budgets that dwarf actual student grants, and the executive compensation/perks by admin. And this is just mentioning a sample of admin bloat, never mind the other areas.

echelon 1y ago
This. Cut spending on admin staff and facilities. Schools do not need amenities to attract students. They need lower tuition. You could teach students out of a tent and do away with all the flashy health spas and do a better job at the core mission of empowering students. No new buildings, no land acquisitions, no taking over facilities from the state for millions of dollars. University leadership does not need to make $300k, $600k salaries. They should make what the median professor makes. Universities will tell you they need all of this to compete with other universities. So to get the ball started, tax all of this as a negative externality and give it to the universities that do not spend in this way. Or turn it into scholarships. Speaking of scholarships, stop putting a cap on admissions. Let everyone that wants to come in do so if they meet academic thresholds. Let them stay if they maintain a good GPA. And make student loan debt dischargable. That might mean not everyone qualifies for a loan, but by making the system an "infinite money glitch", universities have grown into gluttons for tuition. They've taken this "free, unlimited money" to grow to obscene proportions. It's malinvestment propped up by an artificial quirk of economics.
- thunderfork 1y ago
  I don't see how "uncap admissions" and "don't take on any new infrastructure" are compatible.
  - echelon 1y ago

clusterhacks 1y ago

> tuition paid by students in the social sciences is effectively subsidizing the STEM fields This is not true at my state flagship R1 institution. Tuition and fees make up a little over 10% of the institution's total revenue. General funding provided in our state budget provides a larger percentage of the total revenue to the university and federal research funding provides an even larger percentage than the state. The essential takeaway here is that our state taxes subsidize the actual cost of providing education to in-state students. In-state students are mandated to be at least 80%-ish of students. The professors in the STEM fields are required to raise a significant percentage of their salary via research grants ("soft" money), teaching, and service work. The non-STEM professors are more often funded via "hard" money - eg, the institution has committed to pay the salary of history professors. I googled and apparently a little more than 70% of undergraduate students in the US attend public schools. I don't know much about how funding works at the private universities that have the other 30% of undergraduate students.

rapatel0 1y ago

> I read or heard someplace that at many universities tuition paid by students in the social sciences is effectively subsidizing the STEM fields I'm very skeptical of this claim. In fact up until a recent funding method change from the Trump Administration, most grant money was subject to "overhead"--a nebulous nonsensical accounting trick that allowed the university administration to get upwards of 60% of the dollars that are earmarked for grants. If you invent something, the school will take 70% of the revenue from the innovation. Much like VC, some big wins can power the school for years. Actually, most highly productive research universities use the research as a prestige magnet and marketing tool to help grow endowments and keep up in the US News college rankings. I would be great if the funding weren't so opaque. We may be able to find accounting info for the public univeristies. I would bet money that, Liberal arts tuition likely goes into administration, endowments, and campus improvements for student life (better food in the dining halls...)

uolmir 1y ago
> In fact up until a recent funding method change from the Trump Administration, most grant money was subject to "overhead"--a nebulous nonsensical accounting trick that allowed the university administration to get upwards of 60% of the dollars that are earmarked for grants. We're better than this here. Don't spread misinformation. First of all overhead is listed as a percentage, such as 55% or 60% or whatever but the university doesn't get that fraction of the total grant. You work up the so called direct costs, ie the line item salaries of the researchers, the reagents, etc. and then the overhead is 60% of that figure. So it would work out to be 38% of the total dollars granted. It's also not a trick. It's a negotiated amount that is supposed to avoid each grant requesting some amortized fraction of the cost of office space and other necessary but shared expenses. I and most people agree that's it's possibly too high, but it's ignorant to treat it like a scam.
- goodcanadian 1y ago
  I and most people agree that's it's possibly too high, but it's ignorant to treat it like a scam. The fact that it is so high is a scam. It really depends on the grant. For the larger grants, it may work somewhat like you describe. For the smaller grants, they literally do just take 60% of the money (and complain that it is not enough to administer the grant while providing absolutely no support whatsoever). In theory, it's paying for salary and office space and whatnot, but those are already covered by other budgets.