Schools most harmed and those most benefiting once NIH, DHS funding resumes?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not sure why you think STEM research will be spared. The issue isn’t social sciences research—it’s research, period. The list of “forbidden words” includes things like “female” and “inclusion,” words that are used in many contexts and types of research.

A lot of you are not seeing the forest for the trees, here. This is about destroying state capacity, and it’s about eliminating any threats to or competition for Elon Musk’s empire. They are using a sledgehammer, not a scalpel.

You sound paranoid. Harvard, MIT, Stanford, etc have huge endowments they can dip into without burdening the taxpayers, many who never attended university.

Science and science research is not valued by Trump's voters. In fact higher education is not valued by Trump voters. They want to give the tax payer money to billionaires, not to education or research.

Nor is lower education valued. they want everyone dumb and without critical thinking skills so all truth is ensconced in "daddy" or "deal leader" or whatever the kind is to be dubbed. And the result? Outrbreaks of formerly contained diseases in Kansas and Texas (so far)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Federal funding accounts for 55% of university research expenditures. At John's Hopkins, it is 87%.

As of June 2024, Johns Hopkins University's (JHU) endowment was roughly $13.5 billion.

doesn't understand the difference between an endowment and annual operational funding. sad.

[Anonymous]

Can someone list the schools that get the most funding and will be hit hardest from this?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:UChicago is so so so screwed.

OH LOL. I know a few Trumpers whose kids ED'd there.
Morons.

The University of Chicago's endowment ended FY24 at $10.4 billion as of June 30, 2024 with a 8.4% return on investments.

and?

that has nothing to do with the cuts these edict will impact.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ok. College grant writer here. Every institution that applies for federal funds has three options for budgeting for indirect costs. First, the individual RFP may set a cap on indirect costs. For example, Department of Education often caps indirect costs at 8%. That means most colleges have to absorb the actual indirect cost associated with that grant. Second, many institutions have a federal negotiated indirect cost rate, called a NICRA, which involves an extensive review of the institution prior to award. That rate is assigned by a cognizant agency. When allowed by the funding proposal, the institution can charge this to the grant and subsequently recover these costs. Finally, if the institution doesn’t have a NICRA, then the funder may allow them to charge a diminimus rate, usually 8-10%. Usually colleges will have a mix of grants in their portfolio that vary in recovery of indirect costs, and part of my job as a grant administrator is to make sure that the portfolio is balanced and we aren’t actually loosing money by accepting grant funds. Yes, if you have too many grants with capped indirect costs, we loose $$$. Also, fyi - any institution with over 7.5m in federal funds has to submit to single audits, in addition to their regular audit, to ensure that funds are used appropriately. Maybe their is waste and fraud, but their are many mechanisms of control in place to ensure fiscal compliance.

So if you are familiar with the university research environment.... Is there a mechanism for endowment money to be used to replace the loss of this NIH and NSF funding? Are universities with large endowments going to be able to weather this and continue supporting all of the research going on at their institutions? Or is this going to significantly shrink scientific research across the board?

That isn't how endowments work. You can't just draw from them to cover costs like that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Can someone list the schools that get the most funding and will be hit hardest from this?

Someone posted a link around page 3 or 4 of this thread. the CiC schools were generally at the top of the list.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ok. College grant writer here. Every institution that applies for federal funds has three options for budgeting for indirect costs. First, the individual RFP may set a cap on indirect costs. For example, Department of Education often caps indirect costs at 8%. That means most colleges have to absorb the actual indirect cost associated with that grant. Second, many institutions have a federal negotiated indirect cost rate, called a NICRA, which involves an extensive review of the institution prior to award. That rate is assigned by a cognizant agency. When allowed by the funding proposal, the institution can charge this to the grant and subsequently recover these costs. Finally, if the institution doesn’t have a NICRA, then the funder may allow them to charge a diminimus rate, usually 8-10%. Usually colleges will have a mix of grants in their portfolio that vary in recovery of indirect costs, and part of my job as a grant administrator is to make sure that the portfolio is balanced and we aren’t actually loosing money by accepting grant funds. Yes, if you have too many grants with capped indirect costs, we loose $$$. Also, fyi - any institution with over 7.5m in federal funds has to submit to single audits, in addition to their regular audit, to ensure that funds are used appropriately. Maybe their is waste and fraud, but their are many mechanisms of control in place to ensure fiscal compliance.

So if you are familiar with the university research environment.... Is there a mechanism for endowment money to be used to replace the loss of this NIH and NSF funding? Are universities with large endowments going to be able to weather this and continue supporting all of the research going on at their institutions? Or is this going to significantly shrink scientific research across the board?

No, almost all endowment funds are restricted, meaning that they have to be used for a specific purpose designated by the initial donor. That’s why the size of an endowment can be misleading to the general public: funds have a restricted purpose - such as scholarships, and the corpus cannot be touched, just the interest it generates.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I guess you'd be better off applying to colleges that aren't in the AAU, but still well-regarded. They aren't as dependent on research expenditures.

Those schools are more dependent on tuition, which makes them also vulnerable in the long run.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I guess you'd be better off applying to colleges that aren't in the AAU, but still well-regarded. They aren't as dependent on research expenditures.

Those schools are more dependent on tuition, which makes them also vulnerable in the long run.

+1 as the economy worsens, these schools will have a hard time meeting enrollment quotas.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So can someone please explain the IMPACT this will have on T-100 colleges and universities in the short-term (2025-2030)?

Assuming a sharp and massive decrease in federal funding per Musk/Project 2025:

- What will change on the ground at these schools in the next year, in the next five years? How exactly will it affect applicants and undergraduate students?

- Which schools (or types of schools) are likely to be the relative “winners,” and who are likely to be the relative “losers”?

(Assume I have no personal experience with either federally-funded research or college/university budgets. Because I don’t. 😂 But I do have kids applying to college in 2026 and 2029 and am having trouble getting my head around the short-term implications for them.

Thanks!

I have PhD in STEM field and have been a college professor and funding program manager. Most of these grants should be contracts as OIs need to be more responsible for the results. Second, I support overheard or indirect cost cap of 15%. The amount of wastage I see on the name of overhead costs is crazy. My experience is that PI receives only 1/3 of every $ spent by federal Govt and he/she has to manage everything from hiring Grad students to equipment, etc from these $s. Universities need to put more skin in the game because they get to keep all the instruments and everything else once funding is done.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I guess you'd be better off applying to colleges that aren't in the AAU, but still well-regarded. They aren't as dependent on research expenditures.

Those schools are more dependent on tuition, which makes them also vulnerable in the long run.

+1 as the economy worsens, these schools will have a hard time meeting enrollment quotas.

?? The University of Oregon, Arizona State, U of Missouri, U of South Florida are in the AAU...these are schools without high endowment/capitas that are dependent on tuition. But Wake, BC, William & Mary are the unstable, tuition dependent schools? Please.

Oregon: 65,000/student
ASU: 13,000/Student
Missouri: 50,000/Student
South Florida: 14,000/Student

Wake: 226,000
William & Mary: 153,000
BC: 275,000

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Can someone list the schools that get the most funding and will be hit hardest from this?

Every public flagship and most of the private colleges in thr T50.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So can someone please explain the IMPACT this will have on T-100 colleges and universities in the short-term (2025-2030)?

Assuming a sharp and massive decrease in federal funding per Musk/Project 2025:

- What will change on the ground at these schools in the next year, in the next five years? How exactly will it affect applicants and undergraduate students?

- Which schools (or types of schools) are likely to be the relative “winners,” and who are likely to be the relative “losers”?

(Assume I have no personal experience with either federally-funded research or college/university budgets. Because I don’t. 😂 But I do have kids applying to college in 2026 and 2029 and am having trouble getting my head around the short-term implications for them.

Thanks!

I have PhD in STEM field and have been a college professor and funding program manager. Most of these grants should be contracts as OIs need to be more responsible for the results. Second, I support overheard or indirect cost cap of 15%. The amount of wastage I see on the name of overhead costs is crazy. My experience is that PI receives only 1/3 of every $ spent by federal Govt and he/she has to manage everything from hiring Grad students to equipment, etc from these $s. Universities need to put more skin in the game because they get to keep all the instruments and everything else once funding is done.

My spouse is directly involved with the budget at a major academic medical center and your experience is too limited. Even at current overhead reimbursement rates, they break even or lose money on research. This is going to result in layoffs and less research period.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not trying to sound like a Cassandra, but there are no “winners” with such a capricious approach and attitude towards research funding of any kind.

Securing grants from the NIH, DOD, etc. has always been a touch-and-go proposition. No guarantees. But in an environment where all funding can be halted or altered based on the fleeting whims of people who lack curiosity or training, nobody will feel secure or optimistic.

Make no mistake about it, all universities and research institutions will experience operational and foundational losses in the long term. There may be some that will be opportunistic, but this will not last.

This was never about issues such as DEI. This has always been about control and grievance. That will be the subject line for all proposals in this administration.

Okay, so this administration is having the temper tantrum about research that their voters wanted.

But what does that actually mean for scientific research? Where will it be conducted and how?

There just will be a lot less research conducted in the U.S. Other countries will become more attractive for top researchers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So it begins.

NIH lowers allowable indirect costs from 60% to 15%.

Seismic.

Indirect costs pay for the building maintenance, admin salaries, utilities, etc.

Johns Hopkins going to get slaughtered.

I just said it in another thread, but this will result in more direct billing. You'll have grant applications with budget lines for electricity, grant specialist support, admin support, etc.

This is not what most think will happen