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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Misleading number because endowment money is typically restricted. Even if it wasn't you would be quickly depleting the endowment if you used it for general expenses.

They get yearly distributions

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

YUP. Experience in nonprofit world where indirect is often 10 to 15 percent...that does not cover overhead (building, heat, plowing, administrative infrastructure (eg HR, finance, compliance, legal, etc). And we're used to operating bare bones, nothing fancy or wasteful. People have no idea about things. Lots of pain coming.

[Anonymous]

This is for all of you who have zero clue how to run universities and endowments, nor know anything about grants.


Points 1+2 are wrt grants.

1. Direct costs (ex: 250k): goes to the lab to pay for science (chemicals, reagents, test tubes, plastics, animals, petri dishes, etc) and scientist salaries (maybe or maybe not the professor’s salary though, some or even all of that might be covered by their teaching department. Or not, in hospitals it might all come from direct costs).

2. indirect costs: a percent that goes to the university to pay for things like: lab space, water, gas, freezers, electricity, veterinary care, chemical waste disposal, radiation safety etc). Indirects are a % ON TOP OF the direct costs, and vary by location (as space, gas, power, labor vary by location). So if the uni charges 30% indirects on 250k is 250k to the lab, that’s 75k to the university.


So if you have 100 labs each with on avg two 250k grants and a 30% indirects rate, the university gets 15 million in indirects.

Now if you cut indirects to 15% without warning, you now have a 7.5 million budget shortfall happen overnight, and stretch onwards for the foreseeable future.

Take it from the endowment you say!

Ah but since this now an annual expense, we must have sufficient endowment for this for all future years going forward!

A rule of thumb is you need 25X more endowment than your annual expense, so that drawing out a stable 4% a year leaves the value unchanged assuming 2-3% inflation and 6-7% growth.

So we need 188M/yr in endowment.

Situation is even worse if the indirect rate is higher. If you’re at 60% (close to what most Ivies pay) you now need to close a 22.5M shortfall, so you just need about $600M endowed.

Even more worse if you’re big. A place like Harvard or Penn or Hopkins with a few hundred labs and a high indirect rate would need to devote a cool 1-3 BILLION to cover the new policy. PER YEAR.

It’s not that Harvard et al can’t “survive” without indirects, it’s just that they can’t support research activities to the same level on a 15% rate. The practical effect of this would be a massive reduction in research activities at nearly every institution. R.I.P. USA university rankings.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is for all of you who have zero clue how to run universities and endowments, nor know anything about grants.


Points 1+2 are wrt grants.

1. Direct costs (ex: 250k): goes to the lab to pay for science (chemicals, reagents, test tubes, plastics, animals, petri dishes, etc) and scientist salaries (maybe or maybe not the professor’s salary though, some or even all of that might be covered by their teaching department. Or not, in hospitals it might all come from direct costs).

2. indirect costs: a percent that goes to the university to pay for things like: lab space, water, gas, freezers, electricity, veterinary care, chemical waste disposal, radiation safety etc). Indirects are a % ON TOP OF the direct costs, and vary by location (as space, gas, power, labor vary by location). So if the uni charges 30% indirects on 250k is 250k to the lab, that’s 75k to the university.


So if you have 100 labs each with on avg two 250k grants and a 30% indirects rate, the university gets 15 million in indirects.

Now if you cut indirects to 15% without warning, you now have a 7.5 million budget shortfall happen overnight, and stretch onwards for the foreseeable future.

Take it from the endowment you say!

Ah but since this now an annual expense, we must have sufficient endowment for this for all future years going forward!

A rule of thumb is you need 25X more endowment than your annual expense, so that drawing out a stable 4% a year leaves the value unchanged assuming 2-3% inflation and 6-7% growth.

So we need 188M/yr in endowment.

Situation is even worse if the indirect rate is higher. If you’re at 60% (close to what most Ivies pay) you now need to close a 22.5M shortfall, so you just need about $600M endowed.

Even more worse if you’re big. A place like Harvard or Penn or Hopkins with a few hundred labs and a high indirect rate would need to devote a cool 1-3 BILLION to cover the new policy. PER YEAR.

It’s not that Harvard et al can’t “survive” without indirects, it’s just that they can’t support research activities to the same level on a 15% rate. The practical effect of this would be a massive reduction in research activities at nearly every institution. R.I.P. USA university rankings.

Thank you for that detailed explanation.

[Anonymous]

This is such a disaster and and it doesn't help anyone. What is the best way to respond to try to preserve science research?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is such a disaster and and it doesn't help anyone. What is the best way to respond to try to preserve science research?

This is a mechanism to force universities to gut all the pointless soft social science and dubious "STEM" affiliated research looking at DEI metrics in whatever science field first. Universities will have to decide what to prioritize. I'm not too worried.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is such a disaster and and it doesn't help anyone. What is the best way to respond to try to preserve science research?

This is a mechanism to force universities to gut all the pointless soft social science and dubious "STEM" affiliated research looking at DEI metrics in whatever science field first. Universities will have to decide what to prioritize. I'm not too worried.

i can tell you hopkins is doing medical research first and foremost. they arent doing much of those soft social science bs

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why are we giving up and accepting all the havoc Trump & co. are wrecking on our country?

Call your Senators ASAP to complain about what Trump is doing to grants, funding for education. Leave a message to let them know they will not have your vote if they go along with Trump's actions or do nothing to block him. This is especially relevant for Republican senators in your state, but ask your Dem senators to fight for our kids' futures too.

Senate numbers to call:
https://www.senate.gov/general/resources/pdf/senators_phone_list.pdf

Same for your Rep in the House:
https://www.house.gov/representatives/find-your-representative

Finally, the Republican Senators and Congress are following Trump's lead because they are scared they'll not be re-elected if they don't. Let them know in no uncertain terms that they will lose your vote if they don't block Trump on these key, detrimental measures. Deluge them with messages everyday!

We can spend hours on this DCUM College thread and years prepping to launch our kids into college, but none of those efforts will matter if we don't fight now to make the Congress hold him accountable as well as vote to block Trump's roll in the mid-terms.

There are so many parents from all kinds of states on DCUM, caring about our kids' futures is something we all have in common. Let's not give up and reduce our dreams for our kids or try to force them into fields that won't be destroyed by Trump. Let's get rid of Trump's horrible policies by contacting our Reps and then vote him and the congress people who agree with him OUT.

wont make a difference posting on a dc site

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is such a disaster and and it doesn't help anyone. What is the best way to respond to try to preserve science research?

There will be lawsuits. And this isn’t only a blue state issue. Plenty of star research schools are in red states: University of Texas-MD Anderson, Baylor College of Medicine, Case Western, Duke, Vanderbilt…….

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DEI funding is the reason my white, straight male son gets a livable stipend from his PhD program in physics. DEI funding is why his lab can run a very successful summer research internship for undergrads, who are mostly white students from predominately undergrad institutions, to get opportunities that arent available at their home institutions. DEI funding isn’t a boogeyman that harms us, it’s keeping much of the science academia industry afloat, and I fear the future of the field will only be for those who can afford a meager stipend for 5-6 years.

Amazing how we all managed to survive 20 years ago in higher education before DEI was even a thing

Your post also makes no sense.

“I don’t understand something” does not mean it makes no sense. PP was pretty clear.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is such a disaster and and it doesn't help anyone. What is the best way to respond to try to preserve science research?

This is a mechanism to force universities to gut all the pointless soft social science and dubious "STEM" affiliated research looking at DEI metrics in whatever science field first. Universities will have to decide what to prioritize. I'm not too worried.

You should be worried

There is no finesse to this and control has been given to those whose best interest doesn't lie in science research or they would talk the nonsense they do.

But they are right. You won't know what you are missing, since you aren't worried.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is such a disaster and and it doesn't help anyone. What is the best way to respond to try to preserve science research?

This is a mechanism to force universities to gut all the pointless soft social science and dubious "STEM" affiliated research looking at DEI metrics in whatever science field first. Universities will have to decide what to prioritize. I'm not too worried.

Motivated reasoning is an amazing thing.

You’re welcome to think social science research is worthless, but you need to confront that they’re going after all health/medicine/science research here.

This is a blunt instrument designed to decimate all scientific research. There is no nuance, no targeting certain types of research that you consider illegitimate. It’s everything, across the board.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

That is entirely up to the funder as to what costs will be allowable. Some RFPs allow personnel costs only if that person is directly involved in the deliverable costs. If you go to grants.gov and download an RFP and application instructions, these things are spelled out in enormous detail. Some of the application packages are 80 pages long. That’s the level of detail an institution has to respond to in securing funding.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For those of you who are currently research scientists, is there any point in our daughter who is interviewing a top school in biochemistry go ahead with her PhD at this point? Or is this just a futile exercise? It’s at a California school public university and we know how much the current admin hates CA.

It’s beyond horrifying to see what’s happening and to try and navigate family relationships right now

of course! If she's interested in a career in drug discovery, she'll be fine working for industry. The need for the educated will not subside but the number of people available will.

She should also try for an industry internship at some point.

Working for industry- no guardrails, not protection for human subjects, no oversight at all, really. This is a horrible day for anyone working in NIH funded clinical trials.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is such a disaster and and it doesn't help anyone. What is the best way to respond to try to preserve science research?

Call your Senator and Rep.