Question for those outraged about funding cuts

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^PP again. The bottom line:
"In 1978, Harvard University had a $1.4 billion endowment and admitted 2,200 incoming students.

In 2023, the endowment sits at $50.7 billion—with 1,942 students admitted. That’s a 3,521% increase to their endowment and a 12% decrease to their admissions. And the same is true for the rest of Ivy League."

Why do you care? Only because you are interested in destroying excellence. Go to Truth Social to find your crew.

I'm not MAGA. At all. I'm not the OP. But Harvard is hoarding wealth in opposition to its stated and historical mission. You can't be so starry-eyed about ivy league schools that you don't call them out for this insane hypocrisy.

But it is a MAGA talking point to yell about Harvard's endowment. Slashing NIH funding will hurt West Virginia University, Pitt, University of Maryland, and so on. And you didn't give those as an example. You picked the instituion in the BEST position to weather this storm.

Also, if you were genuinely asking, when you ask schools to dig in to their endowments to fund research, you're asking universities to pay for the research the public needs. University of Maryland doesn't need us to cure lukemia, the public does. Which is why the public invests in research. Universities won't see it as their jobs to cover the public need for health research.

I'm in research, and every biomedical health researcher I know thinks this is going to drastically impact our progress. People who are actually in the field and know how things work. It's astounding to me that either people outside of the system think they know better - either that of they don't even care that health innovations will be drastically cut. Clinical trials won't be funded at anywhere near the same pace.

Those of you in red states, please call your congressional representatives. PLEASE.

I am also in research and I agree, it will drastically impede progress. And excellent points about the public needing these things, not the universities. NIH funds these things because they can't do it all. The research grant process is not easy, by any stretch either. And comes with a lot of oversight. The amount of people who think they understand how it works just don't.

Also agree with all of the above.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why supposed liberals are so enamored of cheap or "free" grad student labor, I'll never understand. Grad students should be paid a living wage.

I cannot stop laughing at your hypocrisy! Let me give a little hint about living wages… Republicans refuse to pay a living wage to working class people with families. The federal minimum wage is $7.25…and you are advocating for a “living wage” for grad students for a summer. Oh, Republicans don’t EVER change.

What are you even talking about? Walk and chew gum at the same time.

I want a higher minimum wage (double would be start). I want a living wage for grad students. I'm not a Republican. I'm also not a strident boot-licker of prestigious institutions.

Graduate school is different than a job, though. There is a part of it that is a job, and a part of it that is career building and education. The first year or two is primarily coursework (and students rarely/never pay tuition for that), plus attending some group meetings, with limited productive output for the univeristy. Should undergrads also be paid a living wage for attending school? Undergrads even pay tuition for the opportunity to get an education.

I agree about "living wage" to a degree, some students are taken advantage of and do a ton of teaching and research labor without being fairly compensated, and don't have promising career prospects. That shouldn't happen. But being a grad student is something of a sacrafice and a priviledge, not a basic right.

You forgot about the part where these same grad students are, you know, acting as TA's and RA's for their professors and programs.

Yeah you definitely went to a university that had no business running a Ph.D. program. That's on you. Fully-funded programs through NIH do not require TA requirements. I advise my trainees to only apply to programs that don't require a TA-ship.

This is the kind of shrill caveat-emptor capitalism that is supposed to reside on the right, not the left. "You spent the best years of your life in a poorly-funded grad program and got fckd. That's your problem. You shoulda known better." You're a d!ck.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why supposed liberals are so enamored of cheap or "free" grad student labor, I'll never understand. Grad students should be paid a living wage.

I cannot stop laughing at your hypocrisy! Let me give a little hint about living wages… Republicans refuse to pay a living wage to working class people with families. The federal minimum wage is $7.25…and you are advocating for a “living wage” for grad students for a summer. Oh, Republicans don’t EVER change.

What are you even talking about? Walk and chew gum at the same time.

I want a higher minimum wage (double would be start). I want a living wage for grad students. I'm not a Republican. I'm also not a strident boot-licker of prestigious institutions.

Graduate school is different than a job, though. There is a part of it that is a job, and a part of it that is career building and education. The first year or two is primarily coursework (and students rarely/never pay tuition for that), plus attending some group meetings, with limited productive output for the univeristy. Should undergrads also be paid a living wage for attending school? Undergrads even pay tuition for the opportunity to get an education.

I agree about "living wage" to a degree, some students are taken advantage of and do a ton of teaching and research labor without being fairly compensated, and don't have promising career prospects. That shouldn't happen. But being a grad student is something of a sacrafice and a priviledge, not a basic right.

You forgot about the part where these same grad students are, you know, acting as TA's and RA's for their professors and programs.

Yeah you definitely went to a university that had no business running a Ph.D. program. That's on you. Fully-funded programs through NIH do not require TA requirements. I advise my trainees to only apply to programs that don't require a TA-ship.

This is the kind of shrill caveat-emptor capitalism that is supposed to reside on the right, not the left. "You spent the best years of your life in a poorly-funded grad program and got fckd. That's your problem. You shoulda known better." You're a d!ck.

Yep, hit a nerve.

Now back to NIH-funded programs...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why supposed liberals are so enamored of cheap or "free" grad student labor, I'll never understand. Grad students should be paid a living wage.

I cannot stop laughing at your hypocrisy! Let me give a little hint about living wages… Republicans refuse to pay a living wage to working class people with families. The federal minimum wage is $7.25…and you are advocating for a “living wage” for grad students for a summer. Oh, Republicans don’t EVER change.

What are you even talking about? Walk and chew gum at the same time.

I want a higher minimum wage (double would be start). I want a living wage for grad students. I'm not a Republican. I'm also not a strident boot-licker of prestigious institutions.

Graduate school is different than a job, though. There is a part of it that is a job, and a part of it that is career building and education. The first year or two is primarily coursework (and students rarely/never pay tuition for that), plus attending some group meetings, with limited productive output for the univeristy. Should undergrads also be paid a living wage for attending school? Undergrads even pay tuition for the opportunity to get an education.

I agree about "living wage" to a degree, some students are taken advantage of and do a ton of teaching and research labor without being fairly compensated, and don't have promising career prospects. That shouldn't happen. But being a grad student is something of a sacrafice and a priviledge, not a basic right.

You forgot about the part where these same grad students are, you know, acting as TA's and RA's for their professors and programs.

Yeah you definitely went to a university that had no business running a Ph.D. program. That's on you. Fully-funded programs through NIH do not require TA requirements. I advise my trainees to only apply to programs that don't require a TA-ship.

This is the kind of shrill caveat-emptor capitalism that is supposed to reside on the right, not the left. "You spent the best years of your life in a poorly-funded grad program and got fckd. That's your problem. You shoulda known better." You're a d!ck.

Yep, hit a nerve.

Now back to NIH-funded programs...

…let’s just keep ignoring the massive endowments….because, Elon.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why supposed liberals are so enamored of cheap or "free" grad student labor, I'll never understand. Grad students should be paid a living wage.

I cannot stop laughing at your hypocrisy! Let me give a little hint about living wages… Republicans refuse to pay a living wage to working class people with families. The federal minimum wage is $7.25…and you are advocating for a “living wage” for grad students for a summer. Oh, Republicans don’t EVER change.

What are you even talking about? Walk and chew gum at the same time.

I want a higher minimum wage (double would be start). I want a living wage for grad students. I'm not a Republican. I'm also not a strident boot-licker of prestigious institutions.

Graduate school is different than a job, though. There is a part of it that is a job, and a part of it that is career building and education. The first year or two is primarily coursework (and students rarely/never pay tuition for that), plus attending some group meetings, with limited productive output for the univeristy. Should undergrads also be paid a living wage for attending school? Undergrads even pay tuition for the opportunity to get an education.

I agree about "living wage" to a degree, some students are taken advantage of and do a ton of teaching and research labor without being fairly compensated, and don't have promising career prospects. That shouldn't happen. But being a grad student is something of a sacrafice and a priviledge, not a basic right.

You forgot about the part where these same grad students are, you know, acting as TA's and RA's for their professors and programs.

Yeah you definitely went to a university that had no business running a Ph.D. program. That's on you. Fully-funded programs through NIH do not require TA requirements. I advise my trainees to only apply to programs that don't require a TA-ship.

This is the kind of shrill caveat-emptor capitalism that is supposed to reside on the right, not the left. "You spent the best years of your life in a poorly-funded grad program and got fckd. That's your problem. You shoulda known better." You're a d!ck.

Yep, hit a nerve.

Now back to NIH-funded programs...

…let’s just keep ignoring the massive endowments….because, Elon.

Did you read the rest of the thread? About how we're talking about state flagships without massive endowments? Why don't YOU stop ignoring that.

[Anonymous]

Harvard will. It’s the land grant State Universities that are screwed. Big public universities are going to lose.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why supposed liberals are so enamored of cheap or "free" grad student labor, I'll never understand. Grad students should be paid a living wage.

I cannot stop laughing at your hypocrisy! Let me give a little hint about living wages… Republicans refuse to pay a living wage to working class people with families. The federal minimum wage is $7.25…and you are advocating for a “living wage” for grad students for a summer. Oh, Republicans don’t EVER change.

What are you even talking about? Walk and chew gum at the same time.

I want a higher minimum wage (double would be start). I want a living wage for grad students. I'm not a Republican. I'm also not a strident boot-licker of prestigious institutions.

Graduate school is different than a job, though. There is a part of it that is a job, and a part of it that is career building and education. The first year or two is primarily coursework (and students rarely/never pay tuition for that), plus attending some group meetings, with limited productive output for the univeristy. Should undergrads also be paid a living wage for attending school? Undergrads even pay tuition for the opportunity to get an education.

I agree about "living wage" to a degree, some students are taken advantage of and do a ton of teaching and research labor without being fairly compensated, and don't have promising career prospects. That shouldn't happen. But being a grad student is something of a sacrafice and a priviledge, not a basic right.

You forgot about the part where these same grad students are, you know, acting as TA's and RA's for their professors and programs.

Yeah you definitely went to a university that had no business running a Ph.D. program. That's on you. Fully-funded programs through NIH do not require TA requirements. I advise my trainees to only apply to programs that don't require a TA-ship.

This is the kind of shrill caveat-emptor capitalism that is supposed to reside on the right, not the left. "You spent the best years of your life in a poorly-funded grad program and got fckd. That's your problem. You shoulda known better." You're a d!ck.

Yep, hit a nerve.

Now back to NIH-funded programs...

…let’s just keep ignoring the massive endowments….because, Elon.

Give it time. The ivies will fallback on their endowments while state universities become backwaters. You just made the Ivies more elite.

[Anonymous]

NP here. I think the question is who is responsible for “keeping the lights on” and other such overhead costs. Seems like the institutions should be responsible for most of this. It’s worth noting that most private foundations limit their overhead payments to 15%. Grants are for the actual research. Institutions have responsibilities for overhead and can’t put it all on the grantor.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:NP here. I think the question is who is responsible for “keeping the lights on” and other such overhead costs. Seems like the institutions should be responsible for most of this. It’s worth noting that most private foundations limit their overhead payments to 15%. Grants are for the actual research. Institutions have responsibilities for overhead and can’t put it all on the grantor.

And this is why most big research centers will have very few of any of such grants.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^PP again. The bottom line:
"In 1978, Harvard University had a $1.4 billion endowment and admitted 2,200 incoming students.

In 2023, the endowment sits at $50.7 billion—with 1,942 students admitted. That’s a 3,521% increase to their endowment and a 12% decrease to their admissions. And the same is true for the rest of Ivy League."

Why do you care? Only because you are interested in destroying excellence. Go to Truth Social to find your crew.

I'm not MAGA. At all. I'm not the OP. But Harvard is hoarding wealth in opposition to its stated and historical mission. You can't be so starry-eyed about ivy league schools that you don't call them out for this insane hypocrisy.

But it is a MAGA talking point to yell about Harvard's endowment. Slashing NIH funding will hurt West Virginia University, Pitt, University of Maryland, and so on. And you didn't give those as an example. You picked the instituion in the BEST position to weather this storm.

Also, if you were genuinely asking, when you ask schools to dig in to their endowments to fund research, you're asking universities to pay for the research the public needs. University of Maryland doesn't need us to cure lukemia, the public does. Which is why the public invests in research. Universities won't see it as their jobs to cover the public need for health research.

I'm in research, and every biomedical health researcher I know thinks this is going to drastically impact our progress. People who are actually in the field and know how things work. It's astounding to me that either people outside of the system think they know better - either that of they don't even care that health innovations will be drastically cut. Clinical trials won't be funded at anywhere near the same pace.

Those of you in red states, please call your congressional representatives. PLEASE.

I would love to know if anyone is reading these well reasoned arguments about NIH funding and listening. Are any folks who have digested MAGA talking points open enough to say "Oh I didn't think of it that way. Geez I guess this is a big deal." I would feel so much better if I heard of ONE person who approached this with humility and didn't blindly accept right wing rhetoric (rhetoric offered mostly by people who have spent no time understanding the complex issues here).

Would you grant the same courtesy and justify all the funding and not just listen to the left-wing propaganda?

Of course, every researcher whose income is in some way tied to this funding has a massive incentive to say the sky is falling if not funded. You know, it is like asking a barber if you need a haircut. You know what the answer is going to be.

I voted for Hillary, Biden, and Kamala. Cannot get myself to vote for someone who instigated Jan 6th and many such atrocious behaviors. So, not MAGA at all.

But I fully support these cuts.

Not because it does not do good, it does, but because there is so much waste. I had a front row seat to this waste.

This is where many of you are exact carbon copies of MAGA. You are just 100% convinced you are right and that this funding is absolutely needed and anyone who questions this must be most charitably called "un-educated".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For those having a breakdown over the protection funding cuts-
why doesn’t Harvard and others open up their coffers? Harvard has how much? $53 BILLION??? Maybe it’s time these greedy institutions start using their money to offset possible increases in tuition?

For every 1 letter you send to Congress, send 20 to Harvard and the others.

Thinly veiled MAGA attack on the universities. Existing system works well, no reason to change except your irrational hatred for excellence.

If you asked Syria's ex-president Assad he would have said the same thing "Existing system works well, no reason to change except your irrational hatred for..."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For those having a breakdown over the protection funding cuts-
why doesn’t Harvard and others open up their coffers? Harvard has how much? $53 BILLION??? Maybe it’s time these greedy institutions start using their money to offset possible increases in tuition?

For every 1 letter you send to Congress, send 20 to Harvard and the others.

Thinly veiled MAGA attack on the universities. Existing system works well, no reason to change except your irrational hatred for excellence.

If you asked Syria's ex-president Assad he would have said the same thing "Existing system works well, no reason to change except your irrational hatred for..."

Could this argument be any stupider?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^PP again. The bottom line:
"In 1978, Harvard University had a $1.4 billion endowment and admitted 2,200 incoming students.

In 2023, the endowment sits at $50.7 billion—with 1,942 students admitted. That’s a 3,521% increase to their endowment and a 12% decrease to their admissions. And the same is true for the rest of Ivy League."

Why do you care? Only because you are interested in destroying excellence. Go to Truth Social to find your crew.

I'm not MAGA. At all. I'm not the OP. But Harvard is hoarding wealth in opposition to its stated and historical mission. You can't be so starry-eyed about ivy league schools that you don't call them out for this insane hypocrisy.

But it is a MAGA talking point to yell about Harvard's endowment. Slashing NIH funding will hurt West Virginia University, Pitt, University of Maryland, and so on. And you didn't give those as an example. You picked the instituion in the BEST position to weather this storm.

Also, if you were genuinely asking, when you ask schools to dig in to their endowments to fund research, you're asking universities to pay for the research the public needs. University of Maryland doesn't need us to cure lukemia, the public does. Which is why the public invests in research. Universities won't see it as their jobs to cover the public need for health research.

I'm in research, and every biomedical health researcher I know thinks this is going to drastically impact our progress. People who are actually in the field and know how things work. It's astounding to me that either people outside of the system think they know better - either that of they don't even care that health innovations will be drastically cut. Clinical trials won't be funded at anywhere near the same pace.

Those of you in red states, please call your congressional representatives. PLEASE.

I would love to know if anyone is reading these well reasoned arguments about NIH funding and listening. Are any folks who have digested MAGA talking points open enough to say "Oh I didn't think of it that way. Geez I guess this is a big deal." I would feel so much better if I heard of ONE person who approached this with humility and didn't blindly accept right wing rhetoric (rhetoric offered mostly by people who have spent no time understanding the complex issues here).

Would you grant the same courtesy and justify all the funding and not just listen to the left-wing propaganda?

Of course, every researcher whose income is in some way tied to this funding has a massive incentive to say the sky is falling if not funded. You know, it is like asking a barber if you need a haircut. You know what the answer is going to be.

I voted for Hillary, Biden, and Kamala. Cannot get myself to vote for someone who instigated Jan 6th and many such atrocious behaviors. So, not MAGA at all.

But I fully support these cuts.

Not because it does not do good, it does, but because there is so much waste. I had a front row seat to this waste.

This is where many of you are exact carbon copies of MAGA. You are just 100% convinced you are right and that this funding is absolutely needed and anyone who questions this must be most charitably called "un-educated".

You know the thing is I don’t have to defend every $ spent by a university because there is a right way to make cuts and a wrong way.

You want to debate what the proper overhead % is, that’s fine. Let’s have that discussion and maybe we’ll end up with a different one after airing all the viewpoints.

But right now Congress has specified the overhead % and those grants have been awarded and no ahole gets to come along and announce that as of tomorrow the % is being cut down to 15% because project 2025 or whatever

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^PP again. The bottom line:
"In 1978, Harvard University had a $1.4 billion endowment and admitted 2,200 incoming students.

In 2023, the endowment sits at $50.7 billion—with 1,942 students admitted. That’s a 3,521% increase to their endowment and a 12% decrease to their admissions. And the same is true for the rest of Ivy League."

Why do you care? Only because you are interested in destroying excellence. Go to Truth Social to find your crew.

I'm not MAGA. At all. I'm not the OP. But Harvard is hoarding wealth in opposition to its stated and historical mission. You can't be so starry-eyed about ivy league schools that you don't call them out for this insane hypocrisy.

But it is a MAGA talking point to yell about Harvard's endowment. Slashing NIH funding will hurt West Virginia University, Pitt, University of Maryland, and so on. And you didn't give those as an example. You picked the instituion in the BEST position to weather this storm.

Also, if you were genuinely asking, when you ask schools to dig in to their endowments to fund research, you're asking universities to pay for the research the public needs. University of Maryland doesn't need us to cure lukemia, the public does. Which is why the public invests in research. Universities won't see it as their jobs to cover the public need for health research.

I'm in research, and every biomedical health researcher I know thinks this is going to drastically impact our progress. People who are actually in the field and know how things work. It's astounding to me that either people outside of the system think they know better - either that of they don't even care that health innovations will be drastically cut. Clinical trials won't be funded at anywhere near the same pace.

Those of you in red states, please call your congressional representatives. PLEASE.

I would love to know if anyone is reading these well reasoned arguments about NIH funding and listening. Are any folks who have digested MAGA talking points open enough to say "Oh I didn't think of it that way. Geez I guess this is a big deal." I would feel so much better if I heard of ONE person who approached this with humility and didn't blindly accept right wing rhetoric (rhetoric offered mostly by people who have spent no time understanding the complex issues here).

Would you grant the same courtesy and justify all the funding and not just listen to the left-wing propaganda?

Of course, every researcher whose income is in some way tied to this funding has a massive incentive to say the sky is falling if not funded. You know, it is like asking a barber if you need a haircut. You know what the answer is going to be.

I voted for Hillary, Biden, and Kamala. Cannot get myself to vote for someone who instigated Jan 6th and many such atrocious behaviors. So, not MAGA at all.

But I fully support these cuts.

Not because it does not do good, it does, but because there is so much waste. I had a front row seat to this waste.

This is where many of you are exact carbon copies of MAGA. You are just 100% convinced you are right and that this funding is absolutely needed and anyone who questions this must be most charitably called "un-educated".

You know the thing is I don’t have to defend every $ spent by a university because there is a right way to make cuts and a wrong way.

You want to debate what the proper overhead % is, that’s fine. Let’s have that discussion and maybe we’ll end up with a different one after airing all the viewpoints.

But right now Congress has specified the overhead % and those grants have been awarded and no ahole gets to come along and announce that as of tomorrow the % is being cut down to 15% because project 2025 or whatever

This is precisely why Musk is doing what he is doing. There is no incentive for anyone in the system to agree to anything but the barest of bare minimum cuts.

Swamp would never agree to drain itself.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Harvard will. It’s the land grant State Universities that are screwed. Big public universities are going to lose.

Lucky there are none of those in the red states.