Anonymous wrote:Train and educate Americans. Strive like JFK implored the US to do with NASA and a MAN on the Moon. Minimize the imports.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Exactly uplift our own citizens. How many American students get grants from China and India to study in their universities in science stem field. Probably could fit in a VW SUV because they won’t allow US cars into their closed markets. Enough!

I know for a fact China offers scholarships to Americans and other foreign nationals to study in their top universities.

As a scientist, I have been approached by China. I reported to my security manager as we have been trained to do. Have you heard of the 1000 talents program? It is entirely about poaching scientists.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:$57 billion says it all and don’t pay property taxes. Harvard’s got a great gig.

How does destroying Harvard help anyone? And the funding is cut across the board not just from Harvard.

Asking a federal funded institution to stay apolitical and non-racist is NOT destroying them!!!

It is not a federally funded institution. institutions compete for research grants and are awarded research grants based on the science, not based on some political ideology you're trying to impose. Or at least that's the way it should be. When you remove that, it is destructive.

The research itself may not be political, but they use the freed up cash to political stuff and become entitled to it. So now they need to lose the entitlement and fund their own research.

Ah so you are fine with the univ of Florida (say) being funded but not Harvard. Even if the UF prof is producing stuff at a lower quality level than the Harvard prof? You would be ok with your tax dollars undergoing some sort of political litmus test before you decide who to award? For the record, the UF professor often has a better proposal than the Harvard prof and is funded. But right now they win on merit and not some weird political scheme.

Exactly. They don’t want ALL politics cast down from the Ivory Tower - just the politics they don’t like.

It’s repulsive how transparent the hypocrisy is with these folks.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe Harvard can come clean and self fund. Total disgrace. Ga Tech could do a better job and be more cost efective. Disperse the money to NC State, Purdue, Ohio State etc. Harvard margins and overhead way too high.

Trump is cutting funding for science research. Not redistributing it. Harvard’s webpage details the amazing science research they do and Trump is killing that. Shameful but just one of the many shameful things Trump does each day.

People also miss that Saudi Arabia, Dubai, China and other countries are giving large research grants to US labs to export the US scientific advantage to their country. My PhD science lab at a large state school got the majority of its funding from China and the Saudis. We also had a small amount of DARPA (US defense grants) but those came with tons of strings, paperwork and restrictions. NSF, NIH, and EPA funding was there, but also restricted. The foreign funding was far more useful and flexible for us to follow discoveries. For the foreign funds, our PI (a Nobel Prize recipient) had to spend a chunk of time every year teaching in their country and had to take students and post docs from their country to train them. But that was more manageable for him than writing a million grant request and reports for paltry amounts from US funding agencies.

The US needs to fund science or it will end up owned abroad with talented scientists working in antagonist countries. The middle eastern countries all know the oil is going to dry up someday and they are using that cash to buy themselves a spot as a scientific leader. And China plans to dominate the planet. It's huge a national security risk to kill US science and engineering funding in the way the Trump administration has done.

If the US has research funding, most of that foreign talent really does choose to stay in the US. We want those folks to stay. Many are brilliant. We literally won the atomic bomb race because of immigrants and many other discoveries come from foreign born, US-developed talent.

Anonymous wrote:Focus on training US citizens and giving rural and city kids a chance. The US imports way too much foreign talent.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Focus on training US citizens and giving rural and city kids a chance. The US imports way too much foreign talent.

I agree in theory, but the US K-12 STEM curriculum is sh*t in most places. It is really hard/too late to correct for a poor foundation once the students are at the college and post-grad level, when you are talking about cutting edge research. That’s how you end up with school like Harvard having to add remedial math courses like pre-calculus to get some of their admits up to speed.

Anonymous wrote:Focus on training US citizens and giving rural and city kids a chance. The US imports way too much foreign talent.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My kid was planning to apply to SEAS at Harvard…. This just sucks

SEAS is not affected by this cut.

Per the article OP shared, the Phd admission cuts are in the Arts & Humanities dept and the Science dept.
SEAS is a different department within Harvard FAS.

Nor does it affect undergraduate SEAS admissions.

Anonymous wrote:Focus on training US citizens and giving rural and city kids a chance. The US imports way too much foreign talent.

Anonymous wrote:$57 billion says it all and don’t pay property taxes. Harvard’s got a great gig.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Exactly uplift our own citizens. How many American students get grants from China and India to study in their universities in science stem field. Probably could fit in a VW SUV because they won’t allow US cars into their closed markets. Enough!

I know for a fact China offers scholarships to Americans and other foreign nationals to study in their top universities.

As a scientist, I have been approached by China. I reported to my security manager as we have been trained to do. Have you heard of the 1000 talents program? It is entirely about poaching scientists.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:$57 billion says it all and don’t pay property taxes. Harvard’s got a great gig.

How does destroying Harvard help anyone? And the funding is cut across the board not just from Harvard.

Asking a federal funded institution to stay apolitical and non-racist is NOT destroying them!!!

It is not a federally funded institution. institutions compete for research grants and are awarded research grants based on the science, not based on some political ideology you're trying to impose. Or at least that's the way it should be. When you remove that, it is destructive.

The research itself may not be political, but they use the freed up cash to political stuff and become entitled to it. So now they need to lose the entitlement and fund their own research.

Ah so you are fine with the univ of Florida (say) being funded but not Harvard. Even if the UF prof is producing stuff at a lower quality level than the Harvard prof? You would be ok with your tax dollars undergoing some sort of political litmus test before you decide who to award? For the record, the UF professor often has a better proposal than the Harvard prof and is funded. But right now they win on merit and not some weird political scheme.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:$57 billion says it all and don’t pay property taxes. Harvard’s got a great gig.

How does destroying Harvard help anyone? And the funding is cut across the board not just from Harvard.

Asking a federal funded institution to stay apolitical and non-racist is NOT destroying them!!!

It is not a federally funded institution. institutions compete for research grants and are awarded research grants based on the science, not based on some political ideology you're trying to impose. Or at least that's the way it should be. When you remove that, it is destructive.

The research itself may not be political, but they use the freed up cash to political stuff and become entitled to it. So now they need to lose the entitlement and fund their own research.

Ah so you are fine with the univ of Florida (say) being funded but not Harvard. Even if the UF prof is producing stuff at a lower quality level than the Harvard prof? You would be ok with your tax dollars undergoing some sort of political litmus test before you decide who to award? For the record, the UF professor often has a better proposal than the Harvard prof and is funded. But right now they win on merit and not some weird political scheme.