<p>Doesn’t schools like HYP have endowment in the billions? Maybe they should put it into funding reserach instead of letting it sit around.</p>
<p>I fail to see how pumping money into research can be bad. It has huge positive externalities.</p>
<p>Battons, research lab and lab equipment capital expenses are included as direct costs per OMB Circ 21A. If the lab is fully utilized for funded research cost recovery can be quick indeed. Some specialized equipment also generates rental income. Add to that the recoupment of institute F&A costs and myriad other expenses included as indirect costs by Fed guidelines and star faculty more than earn their keep through funded research.</p>
<p>I assume you meant barrons as the r and t are next to each other. Anyway, yes for existing facilities the recovery is pretty generous. But if you spend $20 million on a new lab for a star it will take some time to recover that kind of money as most grants ar in the six figures and even large ones might be $5,000,000 over five years so you can’t charge off any more than that, can you?</p>
<p>I want to remind everyone that the research study that I originally posted was not my work. This study was done by a scholar of economics from Willams College in response to a disturbing trend that he saw was happening in higher education back in 1999. Everything he warned about seems to not only be true for 1999, but is in fact getting tremendously more excessive as each academic year passes.</p>
<p>The question for research universities is where do we go from here? The US Senate is now taking action to try and get a handle on this situation. The Spellings Report was also highly critical of higher education on the national scene as well. Also keep in perspective that for the first time the Higher Education Act is no longer being renewed for 2007.</p>
<p>Notice that NYU, and numerous other top institutions are now setting up franchises around the world. We are not talking about minor branch campuses, but entirely new institutions. This is not only interesting but it has profound impacts on higher education as we know it.</p>
<p>Eternitygoddess, it seems you don’t know how an endowment works. An endowment is invested, and the interest generated from these investments is spent on various things, including ** research **, improving or expanding the physical plant, professorships, salaries, financial aid etc. This can be in the hundreds of millions of dollars for schools like Harvard, Yale, Princeton and Stanford.</p>
<p>Take a look at this information from Princeton:
<a href=“Facts & Figures”>Facts & Figures;
<p>I think you’ll get a better idea of how the money in endowments actually works.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Perhaps my perspective is different from yours, but I just don’t see why this competition for research prowess is a bad thing. Research and innovation has tremendous spillover benefits from society. As a consumer and citizen, I want these institutions to compete as vigorously as possible in terms of research, because that will ultimately mean better knowledge being generated. Imagine we lived in a country where competition for research dollars wasn’t vigorous - i.e., a world where researchers who aren’t that good and/or don’t work that hard get plenty of funding anyway just because there’s nobody better to give the money. It would mean that scientific progress would slow. It would almost certainly also mean that the mantle of scientific leadership would quickly pass to some other country that did run vigorous research competitions.</p>
<p>I agree with you that not all of these universities will be winners and that many of them do not have sustainable plans. But why is that bad? After all, the free market dictates that not all firms will ‘win’, and in fact, that many firms will lose. The free market is not just a profit allocation system. It is a profit and loss allocation system in which those firms that are performing inefficiently will lose money and if they persist in their ways, they will eventually be forced to stop via bankruptcy. In pro sports, those athletes who play poorly will receive less “resources” (i.e. they will get less playing time), and if they persist in playing poorly, they will eventually be cut from the team. I think that’s exactly the way it ought to be. If you’re not playing well, then you don’t deserve resources. It is a winner and loser system. Tautologically speaking, you compete hard not just to win, but also to avoid losing. If I’m a player in the NFL, then I will want to train and play hard if, for no other reason, to avoid losing my job. </p>
<p>Similarly, I think there probably are some universities that are not efficient, and hence, deserve to be shut down (or at least, have their research departments shut down). I know that sounds harsh, but think about it - why not? After all, no company has the “right” to exist. Companies exist only to the extent that they generate profit. Those companies who don’t generate profit will eventually disappear, and deservedly so. So why do we automatically assume that all university reseach departments have the “right” to exist? </p>
<p>Now, to be fair, I agree that there are some disciplines (i.e. many humanities) that are not research-intensive. Hence, it is perhaps not fair to judge these departments by their research acumen. But if we’re talking about a heavily research-focused discipline like, say, biology or chemistry, then I think it is entirely fair to expect that department of a research university to actually garner sufficient research dollars. If it can’t or won’t do that, then maybe it should no longer be a research department anymore (i.e. maybe it should convert itself into just a teaching department). But no research department can just rest on its laurels and expect to get research funding.</p>
<p>People forget that research is part of an international competition. And the US unis – even in schools ranked at 100 or lower – are outbidding most places around the world. Given that there are geographical returns to bringing top scholars together, the payoffs to the US are quite large. The lack of funding at many of the “top” schools in Europe leads many scholars to go to mid level places in the US. Moreover, the fierce competition even in the US for top scholars [my European colleagues are routinely astonished that places like UCSB, GMU, or Arizona State are able to attract Nobel laureates away from higher ranked departments] means that the hierarchy of scholarship is more fluid, more dispersed, and dissenting voices are given more of a chance to flourish. The race for high endowments helps on that dimension as well.</p>
<p>Rarely do universities decide to use a shotgun approach and decide to enter the top tier of colleges across the board with respect to research. Rather they typically assess their current strengths, consider emerging areas of research where competition is just beginning and focus on them.</p>
<p>Our ds attends Rensselaer and they have adopted a master plan to focus additional resources to five specific areas: microelectronics-photonics-microsystem technologies, advanced materials, modeling- simulation of complex systems, biotechnology, and information technology. And even within these areas there is specialization to set themselves apart from other institutions. In information systems they are focusing on pervasive computing. The biotech initiative has increased NIH funding by 6666%(that is not a typo) in six years to where it now represents about 1/3rd of all funded research compared to less than 2% six years earlier.</p>
<p>barrons, ah I spelled it correctly, let me give you a specific example of payback possibilities. At our DS’s college they invested millions in biotechnology, building a new biotech center which opened in 2004 and recruited a number of focused faculty hires. The increase in NIH funded research alone during the past 3 years compared to the funding of 8 years previous has exceeded the construction cost of this new biotech center.</p>
<p>Yes, a significant percentage of the grant funding goes to indirect costs not associated with the biotech center but it goes into the university’s coffers to help fund a wide range of university wide expenses which would otherwise have to be paid for by other sources like tuition, gifts and endowments.</p>
<p>Arms race = better Uni’s in the US = better for the US</p>
<p>So I like it. I want us to focus on foreign prof’s though. Don’t eat yourself, eat your enemies(that’s right China, Japan, etc.)</p>
<p>*by enemies I mean places that we are competing against</p>
<p>Sakky I like the laissez-faire/free-market approach you take to this issue. I agree with you, but you have to realize that increasingly in the US, research is not the only thing that is driving colleges. As more and more people attend colleges in the US, every decision colleges make is going to be under the scrutiny of more and more students, parents, and other benefactors. This means that is not just an academic arms race in terms of research funding, its also a race to grab the best and brightest students in this US, and as top colleges know, the physical plant and “undergraduate experience” is key to that. A favorable review by the numerous guides, websites and other college literature I believe can translate into capital, and will become much more true as the college industry bubble expands. The “arms” race is great for students because they will see, and are already seeing:
- Huge increase in construction of new facilities
- Upgrades of existing facilities, especially dormitories, and residential/dining options
- Increases in institutional scholarships, grants, and improved financial aid, which will bring greater diversity, socio-economic and otherwise.
- Increase in professors who will be committed to some teaching
- Administrations under national pressure to have greater social/environmental/educational responsibilities
- and much more…</p>
<p>Originaloog–many schools have tries to play that game and lost. The established competition is severe. UVa tried the exact same approach and lost millions while their total Federal research funding was flat to down. It truly is a zero sum game as the total grant money changes only a little year to year and more schools are trying to get it.</p>
<p>^And a few schools play this game well and succeed. Much of the success of a school is not just good, but very good PR. </p>
<p>CMU’s recent DARPA win for the “Urban Challenge”, gardnered them $2,000,000. The resulting recognition is compounded on their 2nd place win, 2 years ago and which was featured on NOVA. Stanford is good but little PR. </p>
<p>So what is a school to do. Buy the buildings and staff and they will come, or advertise the school and the rest will follow? Chicken or Egg?</p>
<p>I think the game is already lost for many schools and will be only a question of time.</p>