Members Login
Username 
 
Password 
    Remember Me  
 
USM Forum -- Message Board -> AAUP-USM MESSAGE BOARD -> Rate of USM Research Funding on the Decline?
Post Info TOPIC: Rate of USM Research Funding on the Decline?
Just the facts, 'mam

Date:
Rate of USM Research Funding on the Decline?
Permalink Closed

From the USM Fact Book: USM Research Funding
 
1999 $30 million
2000 $40 million
2001 $50 million
2002 $63 million
2003 $67 million
2004 $69 million
 
These data show that the rate of research funding has slowed greatly.
 
The last five year-to-year changes declined as follows: $10 million, $10 million, $13 million, $4 million, $2 million.
 
Am I missing something? Is the USM Fact Book wrong? Are my eyes playing tricks on me? I thought the rate of research growh at USM was progressing quite nicely. Isn't MIDAS working? Is the reorganization not working?
 
 
 

__________________
Isaac Newton

Date:
Permalink Closed

Looks like the 2nd derivative has switched signs to me.  Wonder when the 1st derivative will switch?  It would be funny to see Ms. Mader work this out.

__________________
Kudzu King

Date:
Permalink Closed

I know this will sound pretty abstract here, but do you think the economic downturn we had in 2001, had anything to do with this? I would think that maintaining and growing in funding over the past three years is quite an accomplishment.

But, once again, I am looking at this with a bidness mind, and comparing it to what I have seen in my industry.

__________________
Joker

Date:
Permalink Closed

quote:
Originally posted by: Just the facts, 'mam
"From the USM Fact Book: USM Research Funding   1999 $30 million 2000 $40 million 2001 $50 million 2002 $63 million 2003 $67 million 2004 $69 million   These data show that the rate of research funding has slowed greatly.   The last five year-to-year changes declined as follows: $10 million, $10 million, $13 million, $4 million, $2 million.   Am I missing something? Is the USM Fact Book wrong? Are my eyes playing tricks on me? I thought the rate of research growh at USM was progressing quite nicely. Isn't MIDAS working? Is the reorganization not working?      "

It's post such as this that required us to shut down the fact book and redo the figures. See the thread "USM Fact Book ACT Data?" 



__________________
Credibility Gap

Date:
Permalink Closed

quote:
Originally posted by: Kudzu King
"I know this will sound pretty abstract here, but do you think the economic downturn we had in 2001, had anything to do with this? I would think that maintaining and growing in funding over the past three years is quite an accomplishment. But, once again, I am looking at this with a bidness mind, and comparing it to what I have seen in my industry."
But then, why would the biggest jump have been in the year after the downturn--which was arguably the last year before Shelby could make any difference?

__________________
Bandit with a briefcase

Date:
RE: RE: Rate of USM Research Funding on the Declin
Permalink Closed

quote:
Originally posted by: Kudzu King
"I know this will sound pretty abstract here, but do you think the economic downturn we had in 2001, had anything to do with this? I would think that maintaining and growing in funding over the past three years is quite an accomplishment.

But, once again, I am looking at this with a bidness mind, and comparing it to what I have seen in my industry."


For starters, the #1 source for external funding isn't the Carnegie Foundation or the Pew Charitable Trust; it's the federal government. That means politics gets involved. So it's a bit more complicated than simply following the economy, since the funding levels for federal agencies are set by Congress. Yes, some federal agencies have been cut. Others haven't.

There's plenty of irony in the external funding racket. The "no new taxes" crowd believes that universities should obtain more funding from "external sources." The #1 external source is the federal government & guess what? It's money comes from taxes. How about twisting your bidness mind around that & let me know what it means, because it has always confused the devil out of me.

__________________
Robert Campbell

Date:
Permalink Closed

quote:
Originally posted by: Bandit with a briefcase
" There's plenty of irony in the external funding racket. The "no new taxes" crowd believes that universities should obtain more funding from "external sources." The #1 external source is the federal government & guess what? It's money comes from taxes. How about twisting your bidness mind around that & let me know what it means, because it has always confused the devil out of me. "

Good point, B with a B!


RC



__________________
Spin Doctor

Date:
RE: Rate of USM Research Funding on the Decline?
Permalink Closed

There's been talk of this slow down regarding the rate of research funding for a while but this is the first time I've seen the numbers to verify it. Thanks, folks.  Have MSU and Ole Miss seen the same rate decline even given their much larger numbers?

__________________
ram

Date:
Permalink Closed

quote:
Originally posted by: Kudzu King
". . . do you think the economic downturn we had in 2001, had anything to do with this? "

KK-


The economic downturn in my industry started in at the end of the first quarter 2000 and ran until first quarter 2003.  For the most part, the rest of 2003 and all of 2004 were kind. Maybe there is some lag time in your industry.


BTW, the decreasing rate is just as marked when expressed as a percentage:


1999 to 2000   33.3%
2000 to 2001   25%
2001 to 2002   26%
2002 to 2003   6.3%
2003 to 2004   3%


Maybe we need to take a cue from our friends in forestry and start targeting a sustainable growth rate.  This business model of ever increasing rates of growth is not sustainable, in my opinion.



__________________
Eagle Rock Bottom

Date:
Permalink Closed

1999 to 2000   33.3%
2000 to 2001   25%
2001 to 2002   26%
2002 to 2003   6.3%
2003 to 2004   3%

If this rate of grant funding keeps declining, USM will soon be owing the granting agencies money rather than the other way around.


__________________
The scent of money

Date:
Permalink Closed


quote:




Originally posted by: ram


"This business model of ever increasing rates of growth is not sustainable, in my opinion."




 
 
The reason these data are significant is that USM's policies and incentives are tailored to growing the amount of grant funding. Traditional areas of the university and instruction have been downgraded. Large financial incentives have been given to recipients of grants. Non- acdemicians, reputed to be good at generating income, have been hired. Hasn't this activity has been applauded by Mr. Klumb and others as the wave of the future? Now it would appear that the policy has been a dismal failure and that the damage (Metaphor alert) to other aspects of the university have been for naught.
 
One can see why State and Ole Miss knew better.
others as the wave of the future.  

__________________
Obviousman

Date:
Permalink Closed

It is obvious that the drop in increases resulted from the lack COAL faculty from getting on board!!! If they had dropped their students and their service classes they could dedicate themselves to getting as much as the Kings in CoST!

__________________
palindrome

Date:
Permalink Closed

quote:
Originally posted by: Just the facts, 'mam
"From the USM Fact Book: USM Research Funding
 
1999 $30 million
2000 $40 million
2001 $50 million
2002 $63 million
2003 $67 million
2004 $69 million
 
These data show that the rate of research funding has slowed greatly.
 
The last five year-to-year changes declined as follows: $10 million, $10 million, $13 million, $4 million, $2 million.
 
Am I missing something? Is the USM Fact Book wrong? Are my eyes playing tricks on me? I thought the rate of research growh at USM was progressing quite nicely. Isn't MIDAS working? Is the reorganization not working?
 
 
 "

The IHL posts these data for all the universities. It is interesting that UM has a very unstable funding rate; MSU's numbers show more consistent growth. Here's my attempt to post the relevant data:
   FY 00   01   02   03    04
MSU 93M 112M 123M 126M 150M
UM 44M 73M 65M 78M 64M
USM 40M 50M 63M 67M 69M


with growth rates MSU: +20 +10 +3 +19% UM: +65 -10 +20 -18
USM +25 +25 +7 +3.

These sorts of data seem to be very useful when combating the disinformation from the dome.

__________________
stephen judd

Date:
Permalink Closed

quote:
Originally posted by: palindrome
" The IHL posts these data for all the universities. It is interesting that UM has a very unstable funding rate; MSU's numbers show more consistent growth. Here's my attempt to post the relevant data:    FY 00   01   02   03    04 MSU 93M 112M 123M 126M 150M UM 44M 73M 65M 78M 64M USM 40M 50M 63M 67M 69M with growth rates MSU: +20 +10 +3 +19% UM: +65 -10 +20 -18 USM +25 +25 +7 +3. These sorts of data seem to be very useful when combating the disinformation from the dome."
I'm inept where numbers are concerned -- you guys that are running these things, isn't there a way t get the word out? A good letter to the editor with the figures will at least force the university to have to defend its use of the numbers and its choices.

__________________
volatility hound

Date:
Permalink Closed

The UM numbers demonstrate why a university should not be budgeting around these uncertain funds. Endowment dollars are far less volatile.

__________________
Page 1 of 1  sorted by
 
Quick Reply

Please log in to post quick replies.
USM Forum -- Message Board -> AAUP-USM MESSAGE BOARD -> Rate of USM Research Funding on the Decline?
Tweet this page Post to Digg Post to Del.icio.us


Create your own FREE Forum
Report Abuse 		Powered by ActiveBoard