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

[Anonymous]

I think JHU gets the most

[Anonymous]

To state it simply, all universities and research institutions will be negatively impacted by this anti-science approach.

Nobody benefits from a world view that values dogma over discovery.

[Anonymous]

There will still be research.

It will focus on the hard sciences.

If applicants thought that it was hard to get a grant before, well it just magnified in size.

Some of the NIH, DHS, DoD, Energy Dep't grants will look obscene to the general public.

I'd rather be MIT, NEU, CMU, GA Tech, Harvey Mudd than UVA. A school like Rutgers is going to be absolutely shellacked.

I'm not offering an opinion if this is right or it is wrong, just that it is inevitable.

Unfortunately there will not be a lot of sympathy out there for a good percentage of the population.

Higher education took it on the chin with the protests and the general public loves when an onion is being peeled back.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:To state it simply, all universities and research institutions will be negatively impacted by this anti-science approach.

Nobody benefits from a world view that values dogma over discovery.

I absolutely agree, of course. This is 100% destructive and terrible.

Maybe because we feels so powerless at the moment, we’re trying to figure out if there’s anything we can or should “do” to reframe our DC’s college research process re 2026.

At the moment, DC is looking at a mix of public flagships and mid-sized privates. Should we be looking at the schools’ financials - endowments, dependence on federal funding etc - to try to identify those that may weather the storm better than others? Or is that like rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic?

[Anonymous]

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.

Kennedy said he wants to “pause” infectious disease research for four years.

With Avian Flu spreading rapidly!

Terrifying

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To state it simply, all universities and research institutions will be negatively impacted by this anti-science approach.

Nobody benefits from a world view that values dogma over discovery.

I absolutely agree, of course. This is 100% destructive and terrible.

Maybe because we feels so powerless at the moment, we’re trying to figure out if there’s anything we can or should “do” to reframe our DC’s college research process re 2026.

At the moment, DC is looking at a mix of public flagships and mid-sized privates. Should we be looking at the schools’ financials - endowments, dependence on federal funding etc - to try to identify those that may weather the storm better than others? Or is that like rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic?

Absolutely. Forbes has a list of the financial ratings of each college. Cross reference that with NSF, NIH, and other departments. For example, NIH is here:

https://report.nih.gov/funding/categorical-spending#/

Each school will list their total federal funding through research, through all modalities. Some competitive grants, others non-competitive.

This is an earthquake followed by a Tsunami.

[Anonymous]

I’m in STEM research, not social science research, and we’re not doing well either. Lots of concerns about funding.

[Anonymous]

Some numbers include med school. Which will be very different than undergrad research numbers.

[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’m a big proponent of flagship state universities, but I think LACs with large endowments are best able to weather this. It will impact faculty ranks as a lot of T1 professors are partially funded by grants and affect PHD programs as there’s less funding for research. Yes, the OP is right that fundamental science has better prospects, but a lot of it still touches things his admin doesn’t believe in.

[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!

No one knows. That’s the issue. I work at a research university, and it’s a disaster—some things have been canceled outright, while others are in a sort of purgatory with minimal information—which is the same as denying funding because you can’t pause research.

Everyone is a loser. Wealthier schools have more cushion, and philanthropy might make up some of the gap. So I guess look at endowments and go from there. But don’t fool yourself into the believing that any schools will be winners here.

[Anonymous]

This is really depressing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:^^^In case you don’t believe me, check out the list of words NSF is using to flag suspicious research:

https://gizmodo.com/the-list-of-trumps-forbidden-words-that-will-get-your-paper-flagged-at-nsf-2000559661

A few highlights: status, women, systemic, diversify, barrier, excluded

Insane.

[Anonymous]

I think they will try to route money to red states and schools. I really don’t want to see Hillsdale, Liberty and Patrick Henry become the bastions of research. Red state flagships might get more money, but there will also be more programming and canceling curriculum.

The target is education. The goal is indoctrination.

[Anonymous]

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

[Anonymous]

I am a research scientist and yes! Tell her to choose a well-funded lab to weather the storm for her PhD (HHMI funding would be ideal). We still need a pipeline of young scientists and science as a whole is not going to die, just shrink for a while. She can go to Europe or Canada if all hell really does break loose.