I agree with this! But the fact that these cruel, authoritarian bullies attacked universities this way lessens the likelihood of a good outcome in the wake of their wreckage.
Oh i think when all their most lake wobegon kids and grandkids in their 20s lose their internships and fellowships the republican voters may start to squawk.
You are not wrong. I'm sympathetic to the argument that gradual change is impossible, so you have to do crazy stuff to move the needle. But it's also possible that inaction is the right choice under such circumstances.
Do we know they are high? Naturally, I always wanted to be smaller, so I can get more of the pie. But, I actually can’t say they are very high. They are opaque to us, and very poorly named. That’s for sure.
We definitely know they are high. I agree we don't have a clear answer of why they are allowed to be so high.
They started at 5% after World War 2. They are now 60% at UCB, higher elsewhere. Why should it be 12x more expensive (inflation adjusted) to run a research lab now than in 1950?
They were uncapped in the 1960s and grew to 70 or more in the 1980s. But then the ONR did an audit and found that Stanford spent 200K of overhead money on a yacht.
This brought the rates down temporarily, and then they crept their way back up again.
Because you didn't have to do single cell sequencing, multiplex immunofluorescence, use organ-on-a-chip in vitro platform, and make genetically engineered mice that get a tumor in a very specific organ only (by breeding thousands of mice with different mutations) in a single project?
Sorry, I wasn't clear: indirect costs are not about any such equipment. they are about other facilities (lights, bathrooms, offices, etc.) where the research is done. also "administrative" costs. Here's how UC Berkeley (my institution) describes them:
I know for a fact that my research has lower indirect costs than 60%, and graduate school tuition, a direct cost that is actually an indirect cost, is also unjustifiable.
Comments
https://bsky.app/profile/tenanatc.bsky.social/post/3lhocrpuro22e
Academics complaining goes nowhere unless you can make a strategic argument the public and strong lobbies can support.
They started at 5% after World War 2. They are now 60% at UCB, higher elsewhere. Why should it be 12x more expensive (inflation adjusted) to run a research lab now than in 1950?
This brought the rates down temporarily, and then they crept their way back up again.
(Stanford folks aside: https://www.nytimes.com/1991/03/14/us/stanford-criticized-on-research-costs-alters-billing-system.html)
https://spo.berkeley.edu/guide/fa.html
Biomedical science has gotten orders of magnitude more expensive compared to 1950s.
And tuition inflation seems p unrelated to grant funding schemes, IMHO
my brother in christ, we type for a living
But more seriously, should the IDC of a bioinformatics researcher be the same as someone running mouse experiments?