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

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

No one is resuming funding king musk will never allow it

[Anonymous]

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.

[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.

As someone who does work in this space this will just make more administrative burden and more paperwork. So the opposite purpose of the new order.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Hard to understand how red state house and senate members will stand for this, but I guess the dumb will get dumber.

I dont think the red state people realize how dependent they are on federal dollars.

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

My DD has applied to PhD programs for applied math for the fall and is very worried about how this will impact her plans.

can she add a little comp sci to her degree? Again, industry will need her skills. If she can make it (meaning, if there's still a program and professors). Good luck to her and I love reading about all these women in stem

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

None....send your kids abroad.

US education is done and going to tank.

[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!

There are some colleges that have private research endowments for professors, this is how they attract talent. Some department chairs at universities are partially funded privately interns if salary.
Wait and see, but some univs won’t survive and may change drastically. Penn state, for example.

Sorry Penn State but the voters of Pennsylvania do not love you.

neither do their alums...

As of the end of fiscal year 2023, the total endowment assets for Pennsylvania State University (Penn State) were valued at $4.57 billion.

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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!

There are some colleges that have private research endowments for professors, this is how they attract talent. Some department chairs at universities are partially funded privately interns if salary.
Wait and see, but some univs won’t survive and may change drastically. Penn state, for example.

Sorry Penn State but the voters of Pennsylvania do not love you.

neither do their alums...

As of the end of fiscal year 2023, the total endowment assets for Pennsylvania State University (Penn State) were valued at $4.57 billion.

This administration does not value scientific research and is making significant cuts to the funding for scientific research. This is what the people voted for in Pennsylvania and a lot of other places.

[Anonymous]

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.

The NSF is cutting funding by 66%. So GT, VaT, CMU etc aren't safe. Caltech and MIT will be fine due to their endowments.

[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.

So what are they going to do...pull out millions from their endowment? Universities rely on DISTRIBUTIONS. Endowments aren't piggy banks.

[Anonymous]

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?