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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A lot of US research funding has been absolute garbage. The STEM research too.

I look at recent research papers at my kids R1 school and 80% of social science papers are DEI garbage. We don’t need more of this junk.

Maybe you simply don't understand the research and are parroting right wing BS?

NP. I can't speak to the funding issue, but a ridiculous amount of social science research is ideologically motivated garbage. It may not be 80%, but whatever fraction it is, it's too much.

PSA: one good way to identify MAGA trolls is that they refer to medical research as “social science” research.

I'm not a MAGA troll, but NIH funds a lot of soft science research.

Social science is research is important! Among other things it supports the successful and cost effective application of a lot of hard science including health science, environmental science, etc. Labs are controlled environments, social science can help apply that to real world.

It is a shame that social science has been turned into a punching bag. I work in the weather field. There are serious social science questions about why people die in well-forecasted events (like hurricane landfalls) and whether different messaging or options could help. NOAA funds social scientists working on these topics, but I worry that they will just get caught up in the mess we are in.

Anything that can't be explained in sound bite is treated as suspect. These are the people who like to "it's common sense" when they have no substantive talking points. I know these low information people always existed, but now they are platformed and being constantly brainwashed online so they go along with all this. The rampant anti-intellectualism and billionaire=brilliant mentality is destroying us.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

except endowments and deep pocket alums can bridge the gap. there are unconstrained funds in the endowment.

stop acting arrogant with stupidity. dunning kruger in full effect

You should really just stop because you are totally without a clue.

this you kamala?

What’s your solution for when universities have spent their entire endowments in a year or two, genius?

Endowments are largely restricted. Harvard Law won't be spending their endowment to bail out Harvard Medical School research.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Yup. I am at Hopkins. We are in shock.

Hopkins will not get slaughtered. I doubt you are there. Internal contingency planning already underway without alarm.

Dp who works there. Absolutely not true, everyone is shocked and beyond alarmed.

They along with other universities will be impacted. See Penn and others. Stop making it sound like Hopkins will be disproportionately impacte. They have a separate medical endowment and revenue streams.

The ultra rich SLACs should muddle through.

Some kind of deal might save the public flagships.

All of the medical schools with midsize universities attached are toast. Harvard, Yale and Stanford will stumble forward, but most of the others will either have to get their goons to off Musk’s goons or face terrible pain.

The ultra rich SLACs hardly have grants at all. Their chem and bio faculty might not have the shiniest new tools, but there will be almost no change.

What are you going to do with your chem SLAC degree? Try to go get an advanced degree at some underfunded shrinking university stem department? Of course there will be a change.

Sure, but that is an issue with their graduate department, not their undergrad. The change you're speaking of is just an issue with research universities. The top SLAC grads will go on fine in their labs at Stanford and Uchicago.

Stanford and U-Chicago are atop the list of grants that are being cut. What was your point?

That it’s once again, not an LAC issue. This is really obvious.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Yup. I am at Hopkins. We are in shock.

Hopkins will not get slaughtered. I doubt you are there. Internal contingency planning already underway without alarm.

Dp who works there. Absolutely not true, everyone is shocked and beyond alarmed.

They along with other universities will be impacted. See Penn and others. Stop making it sound like Hopkins will be disproportionately impacte. They have a separate medical endowment and revenue streams.

The ultra rich SLACs should muddle through.

Some kind of deal might save the public flagships.

All of the medical schools with midsize universities attached are toast. Harvard, Yale and Stanford will stumble forward, but most of the others will either have to get their goons to off Musk’s goons or face terrible pain.

The ultra rich SLACs hardly have grants at all. Their chem and bio faculty might not have the shiniest new tools, but there will be almost no change.

What are you going to do with your chem SLAC degree? Try to go get an advanced degree at some underfunded shrinking university stem department? Of course there will be a change.

Sure, but that is an issue with their graduate department, not their undergrad. The change you're speaking of is just an issue with research universities. The top SLAC grads will go on fine in their labs at Stanford and Uchicago.

Stanford and U-Chicago are atop the list of grants that are being cut. What was your point?

That it’s once again, not an LAC issue. This is really obvious.

You make no sense. You carry on about sending the lac stem degrees off to Stanford when Stanford research is shrinking. But go off to your lac and be in lala land if you choose.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Yup. I am at Hopkins. We are in shock.

Hopkins will not get slaughtered. I doubt you are there. Internal contingency planning already underway without alarm.

Dp who works there. Absolutely not true, everyone is shocked and beyond alarmed.

They along with other universities will be impacted. See Penn and others. Stop making it sound like Hopkins will be disproportionately impacte. They have a separate medical endowment and revenue streams.

The ultra rich SLACs should muddle through.

Some kind of deal might save the public flagships.

All of the medical schools with midsize universities attached are toast. Harvard, Yale and Stanford will stumble forward, but most of the others will either have to get their goons to off Musk’s goons or face terrible pain.

The ultra rich SLACs hardly have grants at all. Their chem and bio faculty might not have the shiniest new tools, but there will be almost no change.

What are you going to do with your chem SLAC degree? Try to go get an advanced degree at some underfunded shrinking university stem department? Of course there will be a change.

Sure, but that is an issue with their graduate department, not their undergrad. The change you're speaking of is just an issue with research universities. The top SLAC grads will go on fine in their labs at Stanford and Uchicago.

Stanford and U-Chicago are atop the list of grants that are being cut. What was your point?

That it’s once again, not an LAC issue. This is really obvious.

You make no sense. You carry on about sending the lac stem degrees off to Stanford when Stanford research is shrinking. But go off to your lac and be in lala land if you choose.

Sure? Why are you so salty? A majority of lac grads don’t get phds. It is very difficult getting into a science PhD program and the type of person who can get into Stanford will be fine; Stanford isn’t going to burn- the undergraduate experience might be hurt a bit from the inability to find more grad students, but it’s not like there will be 0 grad students. Most people don’t go to academic grad school- they go to Law, MBA, and professional program.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Yup. I am at Hopkins. We are in shock.

Hopkins will not get slaughtered. I doubt you are there. Internal contingency planning already underway without alarm.

Dp who works there. Absolutely not true, everyone is shocked and beyond alarmed.

They along with other universities will be impacted. See Penn and others. Stop making it sound like Hopkins will be disproportionately impacte. They have a separate medical endowment and revenue streams.

The ultra rich SLACs should muddle through.

Some kind of deal might save the public flagships.

All of the medical schools with midsize universities attached are toast. Harvard, Yale and Stanford will stumble forward, but most of the others will either have to get their goons to off Musk’s goons or face terrible pain.

The ultra rich SLACs hardly have grants at all. Their chem and bio faculty might not have the shiniest new tools, but there will be almost no change.

What are you going to do with your chem SLAC degree? Try to go get an advanced degree at some underfunded shrinking university stem department? Of course there will be a change.

Sure, but that is an issue with their graduate department, not their undergrad. The change you're speaking of is just an issue with research universities. The top SLAC grads will go on fine in their labs at Stanford and Uchicago.

Stanford and U-Chicago are atop the list of grants that are being cut. What was your point?

That it’s once again, not an LAC issue. This is really obvious.

You make no sense. You carry on about sending the lac stem degrees off to Stanford when Stanford research is shrinking. But go off to your lac and be in lala land if you choose.

Sure? Why are you so salty? A majority of lac grads don’t get phds. It is very difficult getting into a science PhD program and the type of person who can get into Stanford will be fine; Stanford isn’t going to burn- the undergraduate experience might be hurt a bit from the inability to find more grad students, but it’s not like there will be 0 grad students. Most people don’t go to academic grad school- they go to Law, MBA, and professional program.

We are in different conversations or something. I am talking about stem. I am not aware of a single stem major at DC lac that is not planning on graduate education in medicine or health or stem. IMO, when those opportunities shrink, the wisdom and desirability of a lac stem degree will also shrink.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Yup. I am at Hopkins. We are in shock.

Hopkins will not get slaughtered. I doubt you are there. Internal contingency planning already underway without alarm.

Dp who works there. Absolutely not true, everyone is shocked and beyond alarmed.

They along with other universities will be impacted. See Penn and others. Stop making it sound like Hopkins will be disproportionately impacte. They have a separate medical endowment and revenue streams.

The ultra rich SLACs should muddle through.

Some kind of deal might save the public flagships.

All of the medical schools with midsize universities attached are toast. Harvard, Yale and Stanford will stumble forward, but most of the others will either have to get their goons to off Musk’s goons or face terrible pain.

The ultra rich SLACs hardly have grants at all. Their chem and bio faculty might not have the shiniest new tools, but there will be almost no change.

What are you going to do with your chem SLAC degree? Try to go get an advanced degree at some underfunded shrinking university stem department? Of course there will be a change.

Sure, but that is an issue with their graduate department, not their undergrad. The change you're speaking of is just an issue with research universities. The top SLAC grads will go on fine in their labs at Stanford and Uchicago.

Stanford and U-Chicago are atop the list of grants that are being cut. What was your point?

That it’s once again, not an LAC issue. This is really obvious.

Only underscores that there is no research going on at LACs

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Once NIH and DHS grant funding resumes it's safe to say that social science research will not be funded at the same level as the hard sciences.

So those schools with a STEM focus on research...MIT, CalTech, Harvey Mudd, CMU, Northeastern, Georgia Tech, VaTech should come out better.

There is going to be a lot of pain and budget issues at a variety of the less tech heavy departments.

For example, for NIH funding, some $8.5 billion was used in 2024 to fund Behavioral and Social Science grants. This was about the same as Biotechnology, $8.5 billion.

There is going to be a lot of pain in certain departments.

At the end of the day their will likely be acroos the board cuts. But not that bad.

My Alma mater is roughly equivalent to Tufts. My understanding is that the proposed cuts will slash total funding on research by more than 20 percent. So, a lot.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Yup. I am at Hopkins. We are in shock.

Hopkins will not get slaughtered. I doubt you are there. Internal contingency planning already underway without alarm.

Dp who works there. Absolutely not true, everyone is shocked and beyond alarmed.

They along with other universities will be impacted. See Penn and others. Stop making it sound like Hopkins will be disproportionately impacte. They have a separate medical endowment and revenue streams.

The ultra rich SLACs should muddle through.

Some kind of deal might save the public flagships.

All of the medical schools with midsize universities attached are toast. Harvard, Yale and Stanford will stumble forward, but most of the others will either have to get their goons to off Musk’s goons or face terrible pain.

The ultra rich SLACs hardly have grants at all. Their chem and bio faculty might not have the shiniest new tools, but there will be almost no change.

But the SLACs are going to be hit by the financial aid cuts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Yup. I am at Hopkins. We are in shock.

Hopkins will not get slaughtered. I doubt you are there. Internal contingency planning already underway without alarm.

Dp who works there. Absolutely not true, everyone is shocked and beyond alarmed.

They along with other universities will be impacted. See Penn and others. Stop making it sound like Hopkins will be disproportionately impacte. They have a separate medical endowment and revenue streams.

The ultra rich SLACs should muddle through.

Some kind of deal might save the public flagships.

All of the medical schools with midsize universities attached are toast. Harvard, Yale and Stanford will stumble forward, but most of the others will either have to get their goons to off Musk’s goons or face terrible pain.

The ultra rich SLACs hardly have grants at all. Their chem and bio faculty might not have the shiniest new tools, but there will be almost no change.

But the SLACs are going to be hit by the financial aid cuts.

Well we don’t know that financial will be cut as of yet. The actions thus far are illegal. Musk is taking actions under authority he doesn’t have.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Yup. I am at Hopkins. We are in shock.

Hopkins will not get slaughtered. I doubt you are there. Internal contingency planning already underway without alarm.

Dp who works there. Absolutely not true, everyone is shocked and beyond alarmed.

They along with other universities will be impacted. See Penn and others. Stop making it sound like Hopkins will be disproportionately impacte. They have a separate medical endowment and revenue streams.

The ultra rich SLACs should muddle through.

Some kind of deal might save the public flagships.

All of the medical schools with midsize universities attached are toast. Harvard, Yale and Stanford will stumble forward, but most of the others will either have to get their goons to off Musk’s goons or face terrible pain.

The ultra rich SLACs hardly have grants at all. Their chem and bio faculty might not have the shiniest new tools, but there will be almost no change.

What are you going to do with your chem SLAC degree? Try to go get an advanced degree at some underfunded shrinking university stem department? Of course there will be a change.

Sure, but that is an issue with their graduate department, not their undergrad. The change you're speaking of is just an issue with research universities. The top SLAC grads will go on fine in their labs at Stanford and Uchicago.

Stanford and U-Chicago are atop the list of grants that are being cut. What was your point?

That it’s once again, not an LAC issue. This is really obvious.

Only underscores that there is no research going on at LACs

That’s kinda…the point? There’s research, just not grants that fund grad students. It’s not that they have no research.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Yup. I am at Hopkins. We are in shock.

Hopkins will not get slaughtered. I doubt you are there. Internal contingency planning already underway without alarm.

Dp who works there. Absolutely not true, everyone is shocked and beyond alarmed.

They along with other universities will be impacted. See Penn and others. Stop making it sound like Hopkins will be disproportionately impacte. They have a separate medical endowment and revenue streams.

The ultra rich SLACs should muddle through.

Some kind of deal might save the public flagships.

All of the medical schools with midsize universities attached are toast. Harvard, Yale and Stanford will stumble forward, but most of the others will either have to get their goons to off Musk’s goons or face terrible pain.

The ultra rich SLACs hardly have grants at all. Their chem and bio faculty might not have the shiniest new tools, but there will be almost no change.

What are you going to do with your chem SLAC degree? Try to go get an advanced degree at some underfunded shrinking university stem department? Of course there will be a change.

Sure, but that is an issue with their graduate department, not their undergrad. The change you're speaking of is just an issue with research universities. The top SLAC grads will go on fine in their labs at Stanford and Uchicago.

Stanford and U-Chicago are atop the list of grants that are being cut. What was your point?

That it’s once again, not an LAC issue. This is really obvious.

Only underscores that there is no research going on at LACs

That’s kinda…the point? There’s research, just not grants that fund grad students. It’s not that they have no research.

Ok, no serious research.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Yup. I am at Hopkins. We are in shock.

Hopkins will not get slaughtered. I doubt you are there. Internal contingency planning already underway without alarm.

Dp who works there. Absolutely not true, everyone is shocked and beyond alarmed.

They along with other universities will be impacted. See Penn and others. Stop making it sound like Hopkins will be disproportionately impacte. They have a separate medical endowment and revenue streams.

The ultra rich SLACs should muddle through.

Some kind of deal might save the public flagships.

All of the medical schools with midsize universities attached are toast. Harvard, Yale and Stanford will stumble forward, but most of the others will either have to get their goons to off Musk’s goons or face terrible pain.

The ultra rich SLACs hardly have grants at all. Their chem and bio faculty might not have the shiniest new tools, but there will be almost no change.

What are you going to do with your chem SLAC degree? Try to go get an advanced degree at some underfunded shrinking university stem department? Of course there will be a change.

Sure, but that is an issue with their graduate department, not their undergrad. The change you're speaking of is just an issue with research universities. The top SLAC grads will go on fine in their labs at Stanford and Uchicago.

Stanford and U-Chicago are atop the list of grants that are being cut. What was your point?

That it’s once again, not an LAC issue. This is really obvious.

Only underscores that there is no research going on at LACs

That’s kinda…the point? There’s research, just not grants that fund grad students. It’s not that they have no research.

Ok, no serious research.

And yet creating serious academics. Something seems wrong here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A lot of US research funding has been absolute garbage. The STEM research too.

I look at recent research papers at my kids R1 school and 80% of social science papers are DEI garbage. We don’t need more of this junk.

Maybe you simply don't understand the research and are parroting right wing BS?

NP. I can't speak to the funding issue, but a ridiculous amount of social science research is ideologically motivated garbage. It may not be 80%, but whatever fraction it is, it's too much.

PSA: one good way to identify MAGA trolls is that they refer to medical research as “social science” research.

I'm not a MAGA troll, but NIH funds a lot of soft science research.

Social science is research is important! Among other things it supports the successful and cost effective application of a lot of hard science including health science, environmental science, etc. Labs are controlled environments, social science can help apply that to real world.

It is a shame that social science has been turned into a punching bag. I work in the weather field. There are serious social science questions about why people die in well-forecasted events (like hurricane landfalls) and whether different messaging or options could help. NOAA funds social scientists working on these topics, but I worry that they will just get caught up in the mess we are in.

Anything that can't be explained in sound bite is treated as suspect. These are the people who like to "it's common sense" when they have no substantive talking points. I know these low information people always existed, but now they are platformed and being constantly brainwashed online so they go along with all this. The rampant anti-intellectualism and billionaire=brilliant mentality is destroying us.

+1000

[Anonymous]

So who is safe ??