Grants and such - USM Forum -- Message Board

Date: Jun 26, 2005

Grants and such

Date: Jun 26, 2005

Thanks, Dr. Thames.

Date: Jun 26, 2005

so would stringer have been eligible for midas money?

Date: Jun 26, 2005

Research/scholarship has been part of USM's system of rewards ever since I can remember. Labeling it "MIDAS" makes it neither new nor creative. Don't be thrown by the clever term "Midas."

Date: Jun 26, 2005

I'm willing to bet that fifty or a hundred years from now, the Donne Variorium will be the one piece of research produced at USM that will definitely still be getting major use and recognition. Good research in the humanities has that kind of lasting value.

(I'm confident that by then someone else will have invented an even less stinky form of paint -- Shelby's major contribution to the human legacy.)

Date: Jun 26, 2005

Black and Gold Standard wrote:

Research/scholarship has been part of USM's system of rewards ever since I can remember. Labeling it "MIDAS" makes it neither new nor creative. Don't be thrown by the clever term "Midas."

With all due respect "Black and Gold Standard", the "Midas" program is new at USM. SFT is the author of this program. It has nothing to do with research and scholarship, but rather is a bonus program based only on the academic year "buy-out" time a professor can get. The buy-out could be for contractual service rather that research that increases the knowledge of their discipline. It is not connected to scholarship since publications has nothing to do with the Midas program.

This program is in addition to the reward system based on teaching, research/scholarship and service. Even if a prof gets many grants the Midas program only benefits people who can get academic year buy-out.

Date: Jun 26, 2005

LeftASAP wrote:

the "Midas" program is new at USM. SFT is the author of this program. It has nothing to do with research and scholarship, but rather is a bonus program based only on the academic year "buy-out" time a professor can get. The buy-out could be for contractual service rather that research that increases the knowledge of their discipline. It is not connected to scholarship since publications has nothing to do with the Midas program. This program is in addition to the reward system based on teaching, research/scholarship and service. Even if a prof gets many grants the Midas program only benefits people who can get academic year buy-out.

Yes, I understand that, LeftASAP. But I view MIDAS as merely an unorthodox and unacceptable way of defining research/scholarship. Much to my consternation I discovered shortly after arriving at USM that some chairs mistakenly equate contractual services with scholarship. Under the MIDAS plan, USM seems well on its way to becoming a factory rather than an institution of discovery.

Date: Jun 26, 2005

Black and Gold Standard wrote:

Yes, I understand that, LeftASAP. But I view MIDAS as merely an unorthodox and unacceptable way of defining research/scholarship. Much to my consternation I discovered shortly after arriving at USM that some chairs mistakenly equate contractual services with scholarship. Under the MIDAS plan, USM seems well on its way to becoming a factory rather than an institution of discovery.

I may have misunderstood your earlier post. I agree with what you state here. Many years ago I noticed that the USM administration was equating "research" with money, no matter how the money was acquired.

Date: Jun 26, 2005

LeftASAP wrote:

Black and Gold Standard wrote:
Yes, I understand that, LeftASAP. But I view MIDAS as merely an unorthodox and unacceptable way of defining research/scholarship. Much to my consternation I discovered shortly after arriving at USM that some chairs mistakenly equate contractual services with scholarship. Under the MIDAS plan, USM seems well on its way to becoming a factory rather than an institution of discovery.

I may have misunderstood your earlier post. I agree with what you state here. Many years ago I noticed that the USM administration was equating "research" with money, no matter how the money was acquired.

Yup. When Shelby issued those "stealth raises" two Christmas breaks back, one of the people in my dept. who got one was a Dvorak crony with lots of grant money and not a single publication in 5 years (maybe there were 5-10 in pipeline, but I sort of doubt it).

Date: Jun 26, 2005

The Midas Scheme is rampant with slippery slopes. Here is one not mentioned previously.

For many years some medical schools had the practice of paying a certain portion of some of their faculty member's salaries (i.e., 25% or 50%) but requiring that the faculty member bring in the remainder (i.e., 25% or 50%) through private practice endeavors. Sometimes the school established what was called a "private practice fund" in order to carry out the plan. This model provided the faculty member with an offfice in which to see their patients, and with certain supporting resources. The 50% of the time spent seeing patients, of course, was not available for scholarly research except to the extent that seeing patients might be incorporated into some sort of research endeavor. The faculty members had highly marketable skills, of course, and the model worked out very well for many of them. Others, however, reported they had to hustle very hard in order to generate sufficient income for this "buy out." Ask some of the oldtimers at the University of Mississippi Medical Center about that model. I can see USM's MIDAS scheme expanding to the the point where faculty members, at least in some departments, are hired on a quarter-time or half-time basis, provided with an office and some other resources, and required to generate the remaining one-quarter or one-half of their salary by engaging in contractual projects.

Date: Jun 26, 2005

anon wrote:

had highly marketable skills . . . .they had to hustle very hard in order to generate sufficient income . . . . provided with . . . .resources . . . .required to generate the remaining . . . .by engaging in contractual projects.

Highly marketable skills? Hustle to generate sufficient income? Profit sharing? Hey, anon, it sounds like you are talking about my profession

.Is that sort of how this Midas thing works?

Date: Jun 26, 2005

Congratulations to Gary. We miss him.

Date: Jun 26, 2005

fomer colleague wrote:

Congratulations to Gary. We miss him.

Gary Stringer was on the Midas program?

Date: Jun 26, 2005

Arnold wrote:

Many years ago I noticed that the USM administration was equating "research" with money, no matter how the money was acquired.

When a contract to develop a square-hole widget for the Ajax Widget Corporation takes front seat to a research grant from NSF something is seriously wrong.

Date: Jun 26, 2005

Gold in them thar hills wrote:

so would stringer have been eligible for midas money?

If he had a certain type of funding from the National Endowment for the Humanities. He could also qualify by writing poetry on a contractual basis I suppose.

Date: Jun 26, 2005

anon wrote:

The Midas Scheme is rampant with slippery slopes. Here is one not mentioned previously. For many years some medical schools had the practice of paying a certain portion of some of their faculty member's salaries (i.e., 25% or 50%) but requiring that the faculty member bring in the remainder (i.e., 25% or 50%) through private practice endeavors. Sometimes the school established what was called a "private practice fund" in order to carry out the plan. This model provided the faculty member with an offfice in which to see their patients, and with certain supporting resources. The 50% of the time spent seeing patients, of course, was not available for scholarly research except to the extent that seeing patients might be incorporated into some sort of research endeavor. The faculty members had highly marketable skills, of course, and the model worked out very well for many of them. Others, however, reported they had to hustle very hard in order to generate sufficient income for this "buy out." Ask some of the oldtimers at the University of Mississippi Medical Center about that model. I can see USM's MIDAS scheme expanding to the the point where faculty members, at least in some departments, are hired on a quarter-time or half-time basis, provided with an office and some other resources, and required to generate the remaining one-quarter or one-half of their salary by engaging in contractual projects.

Having worked in both med school and universities, I can say that this is a limited analogy-most profs at med schools spend little time "classroom" teaching (tuition is a small part of the overall budget), and more time supervising clinical services or doing research (the latter generate big "soft money" income). It is not at all unusual to have the insititution support x amount of research time for x years until research funding is in place; and if research funding is not obtained, the faculty contributes by additional clinical work or supervision to meet the contract. Here our baseline salary is all "hard money"--hence teaching pays our way. We buy back our teaching when we are paid on grant (as they do at med schools also--except they buy out other obligations).

Many med schools also have MIDAS like programs--and this is an especially important incentive for med school faculty where the 12 month contract is the norm. A typical example would be a 10% bonus above 12 month base for a multiyear R-01 research award.

Following your med model. new USM faculty would be asked to teach about 1 course per year initially, and supported for three years of research and minor service work before any external funding is required to appear. Failure to do so would result in an increased teaching load and more service. It's would be a sweet deal for new faculty, but it is high pressure, and would not be workable at USM because of the number of courses we offer. Keep in mind also that the pay is much better for med school faculty than it is for us, as well as the costs of running a med school.

Date: Jun 26, 2005

Black and Gold Standard wrote:

Arnold wrote: Many years ago I noticed that the USM administration was equating "research" with money, no matter how the money was acquired. When a contract to develop a square-hole widget for the Ajax Widget Corporation takes front seat to a research grant from NSF something is seriously wrong.

I had this conversation with our SPA director, who I much respect, several years ago, when explaining (in the context of choosing research awardees) why a small but competitive NSF or NIH or NEA research grant as prinicipal investigator is much more prestigious than receiving a subcontract on an NSF or NIH grant or industry contract, or contract work overall (where we might not even have proprietary rights to data-such as drug company bucks), or on a line-item Thad or Trent bring our way (the "who you know" grant program). But, on the other hand, one of my department mates who I also respect and has done great FS work, has brought in over $1 mill in state and local contracts to provide services in the schools. This effort also needs to be honored and respected and rewarded-they piggy back much research off these contracts, support grad students at a living wage, provide support to their program, and, most important, do good for the community. Unfortunately, he receives no monetary "bonus" for this because of the way the contracts and MIDAS is structured (maybe the next prez will correct this). I don't say all green is created equal in terms of research prestige, but most of the folks I know who bring in the cash put it to good and honorable use--and this needs to be respected and applauded.

Date: Jun 26, 2005

You Donne well wrote:

Gary Stringer was on the Midas program?

No. Never.

Date: Jun 26, 2005

anon2 wrote:

and would not be workable at USM because of the number of courses we offer.

It would be terrible for USM for more reasons than that. Further, there are as many funding models at medical school faculty as there are medical schools.

Date: Jun 26, 2005

ANON2 wrote:
why a small but competitive NSF or NIH or NEA research grant as prinicipal investigator is much more prestigious than . . . . . contract work . . . . .

The answer is not complex. It is because an NSF, HIH or NEA research grant supports creative scholarship and the award is subject to intensive peer review. A contract, on the other hand requires only that an agreed upon task be conducted for an agreed upon pay.

Date: Jun 26, 2005

anon wrote:

anon2 wrote: and would not be workable at USM because of the number of courses we offer. It would be terrible for USM for more reasons than that. Further, there are as many funding models at medical school faculty as there are medical schools.

I also agree that the med school model would not work for additional reasons. But, I would like to see us move to a model whereby junior faculty were valued and mentored better than we do it at USM. Newbies come here, and instead of given the time and resources needed to develop their scholarship, they are overwhelmed with teaching and service.

I also agree that there are many funding models at med schools, and they often differ across disciplines (MD versus MSW employees for example). But there are also many commonalities across schools, especialty for MDs on the "academic/research" track (some folks are strictly clinical profs, and do little research). But 12 month contracts, incentive money for attracting grants, and varying degrees of clinical or clinical supervision obligations are fairly typical at med schools for MDs with research obligations.

Date: Jun 26, 2005

Yup. When Shelby issued those "stealth raises" two Christmas breaks back, one of the people in my dept. who got one was a Dvorak crony with lots of grant money and not a single publication in 5 years (maybe there were 5-10 in pipeline, but I sort of doubt it).

I've always wondered how SFT truly had the oafish nerve to award his own daughter the largest raise (I'll leave her dismal attempts at publication out of this). I'm almost out of the dept. thank goodness -- it is the biggest mess I've ever encountered and the most morale defeating atmosphere I've ever been subject to. With the exception of 3 people, no one wants to be there. People stay only until they can find Any position other than the one in USM's CISE.

Date: Jun 26, 2005

ANON2 wrote:

But, on the other hand, one of my department mates who I also respect and has done great FS work, has brought in over $1 mill in state and local contracts to provide services in the schools. This effort also needs to be honored and respected and rewarded-they piggy back much research off these contracts, support grad students at a living wage, provide support to their program, and, most important, do good for the community.

Within the traditional academic system of evaluation (teaching/research/service) that is referred to as "service."

Date: Jun 26, 2005

Black and Gold Standard wrote:

ANON2 wrote:why a small but competitive NSF or NIH or NEA research grant as prinicipal investigator is much more prestigious than . . . . . contract work . . . . . The answer is not complex. It is because an NSF, HIH or NEA research grant supports creative scholarship and the award is subject to intensive peer review. A contract, on the other hand requires only that an agreed upon task be conducted for an agreed upon pay.

It's a bit more complex in most academic environments (having sat on over 10 different grant panels, I'm pretty conversant with public and foundation granting agencies in the US, Canada, and Europe). NIH or other subcontracts typically (but not always) go to people with a good research track and a history of competitive grant funding. I have had (and have now) both competitive research money (about 1 mill in the past 10 years as PI) and consulting/contractual funds. I don't think I would have the latter if I didn't have the former. The latter supports research and grad students, and fits into my overall research and training program needs. I think they are much less "prestigious" from a scholar's point of view, but, hey, they help my students eat and to pay the light bill. And as I mentioned before, many contracts do lead to outstanding scholarship. My take home message is that in this area, we need to be cautious about painting with too broad strokes. Funding and publication value judgments need to be made in the overall context of a scholar's contribution to her or his field.

Date: Jun 26, 2005

Gary Stringer never was on MIDAS. That certainly was intended as irony.

His work, however, has been supported by the NEH for many years. This renewal is further affirmation of its value.

Date: Jun 26, 2005

Anon2 wrote:

Newbies come here, and instead of given the time and resources needed to develop their scholarship, they are overwhelmed with teaching and service.

I suggest that somebody speak with your department chair about that. I assume that chairs determine teaching loads. Ask him or her to do like the big boys do: give new faculty members a reasonable course load reduction while they're getting their research program established.

Date: Jun 26, 2005

Hortense wrote:

I wrote:

But, on the other hand, one of my department mates who I also respect and has done great FS work, has brought in over $1 mill in state and local contracts to provide services in the schools. This effort also needs to be honored and respected and rewarded-they piggy back much research off these contracts, support grad students at a living wage, provide support to their program, and, most important, do good for the community.

Hortense responded:

Within the traditional academic system of evaluation (teaching/research/service) that is referred to as "service."

Hortense:

The "good for the community" part of my post is clearly service. But, this situation is more complex. His practicum students benefit by the major and formal educational experiences provided by these contracts (hence, it supports teaching). Plus, they collect a tremendous amount of data used for top-end pubs in the field (including masters theses and doc dissertations). Without these contracts, it would be very difficult for his group to do the level of scholarship they do. Plus, the contracts are not give-me's--they undergo quite a bit of expert review at different levels, and are often in response to state RFAs. We had this discussion years ago in my department, and the consensus was that efforts at this level involving significant funding for research deserves a greater level of acknowledgment than "service" efforts. I have also had this discussion several times with administrators at higher tier universities that I have site-visited for accreditation purposes, and sub-contracts (e.g., NSF or NIH) and contracts with a heavy research component were not viewed as service by those institutions.

Date: Jun 26, 2005

anon2 wrote:

Following your med model. new USM faculty would be asked to teach about 1 course per year initially, and supported for three years of research and minor service work before any external funding is required to appear. Failure to do so would result in an increased teaching load and more service.

I don't think anon said anything about supporting the medical school teaching model at USM. But it is not unusual for good doctoral-level universities to require two courses per semester as a normal teaching load. It would not be unreasonable to give new faculty members a course reduction of one course per semester for a limited period of time.

Date: Jun 26, 2005

some depts at USM do that already.

Date: Jun 26, 2005

Anon2 wrote:

We had this discussion years ago in my department, and the consensus was that efforts at this level involving significant funding for research deserves a greater level of acknowledgment than "service" efforts.

How about service efforts where a department chair is PI simply by virtue of holding the title of chair? I do know that some chairs or other administrators get credit for certain courses they don't actually teach.