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

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.

Anonymous wrote:People in red states need to call their reps and senators. Democrats cannot stop the mayhem caused by unelected, unvetted billionaires running amok. We need science research for all of our health and we need to maintain our best in world science education for our children.

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.

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

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

Talk about projecting. You are completely wrong and I am not the poster you’ve been arguing with.

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

Anonymous wrote:

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?

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.

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!

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.

Agree. Public schools sand R1 Universities will be the hardest hit. There are so few tenured professors as it is, and without federal funding a lot of them are going to be scrambling.

The Publics should fare better than the privates because the members of the house don't want to face their voters. In this instance they have better advocacy. Ironically Publics in mostly blue states will likely get hurt worse less than those in red states because they have vulnerable representatives. With the tiny hose majority at risk republicans reps from CA, NY, PA, VA, etc. can dictate the shape of anything going through congress. Contrary to what he believes, Elon does not control spending. The representatives in NY and NJ whose jobs are on the line if there are big cuts at Stony Brook and Rutgers control the spending in this case.