He neglects a huge factor here which makes his case more appalling. Most NSF and NIH grants go to universities, and most universities skim off 50% or more of the grant as “overhead.” If you write a half million dollar grant (and I have), you the researcher actually get $250,000 to spend. The rest vanishes straight down the university’s general income hopper, poof.
So actually if we take his conclusion that NSF and NIH actually only spend 50% of their budget on grants, then we need to divide by 2 once again, for the university’s “overhead,” and it’s only 25% of the money (at most) that goes to actual research.
You have no idea what a huge cash cow research overhead is for universities, or how shamelessly they whore after it. It is their lifeblood. At big places it can exceed 40% or more of the whole budget, and normally dwarfs money that comes from tuition. It’s great stuff, because the university administration and staff don’t have to do a thing to get it (the faculty, particularly the young faculty desperate for tenure) sweat out the proposals, and unlike tuition or bequests or alumni money there are no strings at all on it. They can spend it on whatever they want.
Awright , class, a little pop quiz to see if you’re paying attention: what interests groups would Our Friend in the White House like to pay off? If you said teachers and academic support staff (a big university typically has 10 times more staff than teachers), you win!
Remember, it’s easy to tell when this President is swindling you and your descendants to the 4th generation. Just check to see if his lips are moving and he’s looking you straight in the eye with that particularly honest, manly, thoughtful look.
Yea, I lasted a year in grad school. Then I decided if I was going to work 80 hours a week, at night, and whenever someone snaps their fingers, I’d rather get paid for it silicon valley style.
That is receiver-side overhead which I account for here:
“… so those on the admin side for contractors/grantees are overhead on their part and carried as part of the budget.”
Burdening for contractors is done in their proposals, so all awarded contracts have burdened costs built-in.
Grants are a different matter as there are fewer things to be held accountable for in a grant. Even basic work performance can be left out… thus making grants just that: a grant of funds without work being necessary for them. Most, if not all, NSF grants (in memory talking to them) have some necessary compliance to them, but the overhead to the grantee is minimal. As NSF is into grants more than contract payment, these become direct payments to students/professors/scientists with little admin overhead on the receiving side.
Basically the nature of work at NSF (providing grants, some contracts and a small portion of investment into other organizations) means you get a closer to 1:1 payout to a grantee per grant. The organizations they work for may have other stipulations, and those organizations are often the grant recipient so their work is burdened as part of the grant.
That is the simplified version that I toned down even more for a general audience piece so one could get the flavor of how an overhead burden of 41% on the part of government was, and is, very good. Of course that pales in comparison to private industry where the drive is to keep overhead low…
He neglects a huge factor here which makes his case more appalling. Most NSF and NIH grants go to universities, and most universities skim off 50% or more of the grant as “overhead.” If you write a half million dollar grant (and I have), you the researcher actually get $250,000 to spend. The rest vanishes straight down the university’s general income hopper, poof.
So actually if we take his conclusion that NSF and NIH actually only spend 50% of their budget on grants, then we need to divide by 2 once again, for the university’s “overhead,” and it’s only 25% of the money (at most) that goes to actual research.
You have no idea what a huge cash cow research overhead is for universities, or how shamelessly they whore after it. It is their lifeblood. At big places it can exceed 40% or more of the whole budget, and normally dwarfs money that comes from tuition. It’s great stuff, because the university administration and staff don’t have to do a thing to get it (the faculty, particularly the young faculty desperate for tenure) sweat out the proposals, and unlike tuition or bequests or alumni money there are no strings at all on it. They can spend it on whatever they want.
Awright , class, a little pop quiz to see if you’re paying attention: what interests groups would Our Friend in the White House like to pay off? If you said teachers and academic support staff (a big university typically has 10 times more staff than teachers), you win!
Remember, it’s easy to tell when this President is swindling you and your descendants to the 4th generation. Just check to see if his lips are moving and he’s looking you straight in the eye with that particularly honest, manly, thoughtful look.
Yea, I lasted a year in grad school. Then I decided if I was going to work 80 hours a week, at night, and whenever someone snaps their fingers, I’d rather get paid for it silicon valley style.
That is receiver-side overhead which I account for here:
“… so those on the admin side for contractors/grantees are overhead on their part and carried as part of the budget.”
Burdening for contractors is done in their proposals, so all awarded contracts have burdened costs built-in.
Grants are a different matter as there are fewer things to be held accountable for in a grant. Even basic work performance can be left out… thus making grants just that: a grant of funds without work being necessary for them. Most, if not all, NSF grants (in memory talking to them) have some necessary compliance to them, but the overhead to the grantee is minimal. As NSF is into grants more than contract payment, these become direct payments to students/professors/scientists with little admin overhead on the receiving side.
Basically the nature of work at NSF (providing grants, some contracts and a small portion of investment into other organizations) means you get a closer to 1:1 payout to a grantee per grant. The organizations they work for may have other stipulations, and those organizations are often the grant recipient so their work is burdened as part of the grant.
That is the simplified version that I toned down even more for a general audience piece so one could get the flavor of how an overhead burden of 41% on the part of government was, and is, very good. Of course that pales in comparison to private industry where the drive is to keep overhead low…