Latest Liberty and Power update - USM Forum -- Message Board

Date: Dec 12, 2004

RE: RE: Latest Liberty and Power update

Date: Dec 12, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Robert Campbell
" Scientist, Here's how I interpret what you're saying. They are expecting faculty members to bring in grant overhead--and using it to pay for assistanships and lab equipment. Also using some of it for buyouts of professor's teaching time. But, from what you've said, the salary and benefits for these faculty positions are all paid for out of "hard money"--state appropriations and tuition revenue primarily. In other words, if a tenured engineering faculty member is between grants, he or she may not be able to offer assistanships, but will still have a job--and a salary. They can take "hard money" faculty positions away from the arts, humanities, social sciences, etc., and convert them into engineering positions (although it may sometimes take the funds from two existing positions in these other disciplines to cover salary and benefits for one faculty line in engineering). But what happens when so many positions have been shifted out of the other disciplines into engineering that the net positive revenue produced by the administratively disfavored undergraduate programs begins to decline? Thames can't meet his enrollment goals with graduate students in engineering (most of whom don't pay anything like the sticker price for tuition anyway). Or with undegraduates in engineering, for that matter. At Clemson, which has an engineering tradition going back to 1890 rather than 1970, and grandiose and (so far) unrealizable goals for increased engineering enrollment are periodically announced, no one imagines that we are going to get 20,000 students enrolled in engineering programs. Follow the money... and I suspect you will find that an engineering program at USM is not truly self-supporting. Keep in mind that university administrators count grant income as pure gravy, and keep no track of the cost of becoming and remaining competitive for grants. Robert Campbell "

Robert,

I don't disagree with your assessment of the big picture. I was discussing what CoST was doing, apparently with SFT's backing. I also believe they expect patents and development of spin off companies down the road in addition to the overhead money. My take on this is SFT considers himself the ideal professor and is trying to make others in his image. All emphasis is on grant funding and less on academics. "Teaching" in this model refers to graduate students working in research labs, not classroom teaching.

Now to generate the enrollment you discussed, Arts and Letters will still be where the undergraduate numbers will be generated. However, they will use more adjuncts and on-line instruction. Of course, a good dose of grade inflation will help with retention and recruitment of those who wouldn't ordinary be at university. But I must admit that now I'm only guessing and getting somewhat cynical.

Date: Dec 12, 2004

Scientist,

One further wrinkle--if the Board really wants to drop USM one level down in the state university system, into the category that includes Delta State--engineering programs focused on graduate education, grant-funded research, and revenue from patents won't be kept at USM. It's the humanities and social sciences, staffed with lots of adjuncts and featuring lots of online courses, that will remain.

Of course, if some people on the Board have a Delta State plan for USM, you can be sure they aren't sharing it with their man SFT...

Robert

Date: Dec 13, 2004

The part of research that you must always remember is that the university is non-profit and that the federal government and agencies will assure that this is precisely true. No matter how much money you bring in for research, it will be exactly enough to carry out that research (at most). Even the overhead is not "additional." You must prove to the agency that you are actually spending this much to get the job done. Recently, the Regulatory Compliance requirements (Human Subjects, Animal Care and Use, Hazardous Waste, Rad Safety, Bio Safety, Misconduct) and security requirements (Secret, Top Secret, and protected industrial IP) that most universities are probably subsidizing research in a major way. Any univesity that thinks any scientific area will "pay for itself" is in for a rude surprise.

Date: Dec 13, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: VIew from a Distance
"The part of research that you must always remember is that the university is non-profit and that the federal government and agencies will assure that this is precisely true. No matter how much money you bring in for research, it will be exactly enough to carry out that research (at most). Even the overhead is not "additional." You must prove to the agency that you are actually spending this much to get the job done. Recently, the Regulatory Compliance requirements (Human Subjects, Animal Care and Use, Hazardous Waste, Rad Safety, Bio Safety, Misconduct) and security requirements (Secret, Top Secret, and protected industrial IP) that most universities are probably subsidizing research in a major way. Any univesity that thinks any scientific area will "pay for itself" is in for a rude surprise. "

VID, you are exactly right...your last sentence points out precisely what SFT & Co. just don't understand. Any university administrator worth her/his salt knows this to be the case when it comes to sponsored research.

Date: Dec 13, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: VIew from a Distance
"Even the overhead is not "additional." You must prove to the agency that you are actually spending this much to get the job done. "

There are a million stories in the Hub City about the use of overhead funds generated by research projects. Mine is only one of them.

Date: Dec 13, 2004

View from a distance,

Good point.

As a psychologist, I deal almost exclusively with Human Subjects regulations. No one has quantified their cost for our department or the university--but it has to be substantial. For instance, every time we teach undergraduate Experimental Psychololgy, we have to get Human Subjects approval for each student's research project! The Animal Research and Hazardous Materials regulations are far more onerous and expensive to comply with. Several years ago, for example, Clemson built an entire new facility to house animal labs so everything would be in compliance with the Animal Research regulations. And our department's animal behavior guy discontinued teaching the animal behavior lab, after he learned that under the regulations the rats would have get the same level of medical care as monkeys now do.

Administrators never factor these costs in when they treat income from grants as pure gravy.

While overhead income is sometimes diverted to questionable uses, the fact remains that the grants and contracts are there to pay for the research--not to support the university.

Robert Campbell

Date: Dec 13, 2004

If the feds moved in here and looked at what happened to overhead money, in the past at least, I believe they might be surprised. Maybe even unhappy.

Date: Dec 13, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Robert Campbell
"<snip>While overhead income is sometimes diverted to questionable uses, the fact remains that the grants and contracts are there to pay for the research--not to support the university. Robert Campbell"

Exactly--which is why it is typically difficult (if next to impossible) to get brick-and-mortar money from federal agencies (unless it is gotten through congressional earmarks, i.e. "pork"). And, from what I've heard from others more knowledgeable about this subject than me, overhead costs associated with grants don't even begin to cover to true costs of doing the research (in terms of electricity, tech support, etc. etc.). What I hear from those in the know is that sponsored research always costs the university more than it brings in, in terms of actual dollars. No one seems to have explained that to Shelboo and Co., unfortunately.

The only way to "make" money off of a federal grant is to "cook the books." Do Shelboo and Co. want to admit to that???

Date: Dec 13, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Robert Campbell
"

While overhead income is sometimes diverted to questionable uses, the fact remains that the grants and contracts are there to pay for the research--not to support the university.
"

Right. And faculty are supposed to be supported in the their research by the university, not expected to pay for all of it themselves, as member as members of CoAL have had to, since the humanities do not have the kinds of large grants that the sciences do. (Those of you who've been the board a long time will recognize my pet peeve, and I'm still peevish.)

Date: Dec 13, 2004

Assume that a faculty member writes into her successful research proposal 'X' dollars to pay for 1/4 "released time" for the time she spends on the grant. Then assum.e that 'X' dollars = $4,000. The $4,000 paid by the funding agency, presumably, goes to pay an adjunct to teach the course formerly scheduled to be taught by the funded researcher. Then assume that the department received only $1,500 from the university administration to pay the adjunct. That leaves $2,500 after the adjunct is paid their $1,500. Where does the $2,000 go? In the past it did not go back to our department. It seemed to disappear into the dome. Is that the way things are supposed to work?

Date: Dec 13, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Robert Campbell
"Of course, if some people on the Board have a Delta State plan for USM, you can be sure they aren't sharing it with their man SFT... "

About that "Delta State" plan.

Not that it matters much compared to the real issues (like whether we retain accreditation) but if USM is demoted to the same status as Delta State, (A fine school by the way and one for which I have much respect. How can you not love a school whose mascot is "Fighting Okra"? But I digress.) isn't it likely that USM will not be able to maintain Division 1-A status in athletics? You'd think that possibility would have the eagletalkers up in arms.

Date: Dec 13, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: former chair
"Assume that a faculty member writes into her successful research proposal 'X' dollars to pay for 1/4 "released time" for the time she spends on the grant. Then assum.e that 'X' dollars = $4,000. The $4,000 paid by the funding agency, presumably, goes to pay an adjunct to teach the course formerly scheduled to be taught by the funded researcher. Then assume that the department received only $1,500 from the university administration to pay the adjunct. That leaves $2,500 after the adjunct is paid their $1,500. Where does the $2,000 go? In the past it did not go back to our department. It seemed to disappear into the dome. Is that the way things are supposed to work? "

FChair, when I worked at USM, my understanding was that everyone on down from the Dome skimmed their part off the top of this money. So, the VP for Research took some, the Dean of the college took some, and what was left was given to the dept. chair. I don't know if this is still how it's done or not. (PS--I don't think this is entirely a bad system...at least not under a competent administration). My understanding was that the money would go toward other research projects (i.e. seed money for other researchers, matching money, etc.). This way, everyone gets to put something in the pot, and everyone should be able to take some out when needed (for matching $$, etc.).

Date: Dec 13, 2004

Former Chair and Truth4USM,

If $4,000 was budgeted for the one-course buyout and only $2,000 went to salary and benefits for the adjunct, then administrators at various levels are raking off some of the "direct cost" portion of the grant, in addition to their preallotted slices of the "indirect cost" or overhead portion.

I'm sure it happens, some places. I'm not so sure that the Federal agencies would be happy to learn about it happening.

Robert Campbell

Date: Dec 13, 2004

ram,

You have a point. There is a pretty strong correlation between being a national university and belonging to NCAA Division I. Whether busting USM down to Delta State status would be enough to drop into Division II or whatever is a question I will have to leave to keener minds...

Robert Campbell

Date: Dec 13, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Robert Campbell
"Whether busting USM down to Delta State status would be enough to drop into Division II or whatever is a question I will have to leave to keener minds... "

Even Division 1-AA would be considered by most a fate worse than death.

Date: Dec 13, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: truth4usm/AH
"FChair, when I worked at USM, my understanding was that everyone on down from the Dome skimmed their part off the top of this money. So, the VP for Research took some, the Dean of the college took some, and what was left was given to the dept. chair."

truth4usm/AH, the way it was done depended on which Vice President for Research was in office. It was done very much like you describe at one point. At another point it was basically "winner take all" - none for the department except by special allocation. What was happening to those funds seemed to be a mystery much of the time.

Date: Dec 13, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: ram
"
About that "Delta State" plan.
Not that it matters much compared to the real issues (like whether we retain accreditation) but if USM is demoted to the same status as Delta State, (A fine school by the way and one for which I have much respect. How can you not love a school whose mascot is "Fighting Okra"? But I digress.) isn't it likely that USM will not be able to maintain Division 1-A status in athletics? You'd think that possibility would have the eagletalkers up in arms."

Oh, that possibility has been a perennial point of discussion at EagleTalk for years. They do not love IHL over there & there the "conspiracy theory" is far more accepted on ET than it is here.

I plan to duck in there after Jamario dusts us tomorrow night & then make my annual nine month exit.

Date: Dec 22, 2004

Kick

Date: Jan 4, 2005

again

Date: Jan 4, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: Robert Campbell
"Former Chair and Truth4USM,
If $4,000 was budgeted for the one-course buyout and only $2,000 went to salary and benefits for the adjunct, then administrators at various levels are raking off some of the "direct cost" portion of the grant, in addition to their preallotted slices of the "indirect cost" or overhead portion.
I'm sure it happens, some places. I'm not so sure that the Federal agencies would be happy to learn about it happening.
Robert Campbell"

"Benefits for adjuncts" ??? There are NO benefits for adjuncts, not even free parking. The only cost is matching FICA.

Date: Jan 4, 2005

LVN,

OK, if only the employer contribution to Social Security needs to be counted as a benefit for each adjunct, then nearly $2000 out of the $4000 per course per semester actually budgeted for the gratn is getting raked off by various levels of the USM administration.

I don't know that USM's indirect cost percentage is, but I'm quite sure it isn't 100%...

Robert Campbell

Date: Jan 4, 2005

In my case, I don't think I was hired to replace anyone doing research. I was hired because the department had been decimated, and there was open enrollment at the same time. But your point is valid, nevertheless.