5 ms·
> then I realized that the way universities run, half of anything Uber gave the universities for research would go to fund their management costs. I think hal
by chimeracoder 11y ago
> then I realized that the way universities run, half of anything Uber gave the universities for research would go to fund their management costs.
I think half is a bit of an overstatement in the typical case, but this same criticism can be levied at pretty much any research- or cause-oriented work, like charities and foundations.
Usually this cut is intended in part to fund the process that actually procures this funding and these grants in the first place, so under that assumption, it more than pays for itself.
You can't run an organization with literally zero overhead; it's not possible.
- 3JPLW 11y ago> I think half is a bit of an overstatement Nope, it's pretty typical. Most grants have a negotiated ~50% overhead in "indirects". I was surprised, though, to find a Nature report[1] that found the actual overhead was typically ~20% below the negotiated rate. Which is pretty wonderful. 1. http://www.nature.com/news/indirect-costs-keeping-the-lights-on-1.16376 http://www.nature.com/news/indirect-costs-keeping-the-lights...
- pkaye 11y agoA poster below mentioned that 50% overhead was taken from his grant. Many of the universities have way too much overhead with many management layers and many of them don't bring in any money but get compensated well. Meanwhile these researchers get below industry standard and a sizable chunk of whatever they bring in is taken from them. The university can do what they want to do but so can the researchers.