Pros and Cons of the MIDAS Program - USM Forum -- Message Board

Date: Jul 17, 2005

Pros and Cons of the MIDAS Program

Date: Jul 17, 2005

Thinking about it

Date: Jul 17, 2005

RE: Pros and Cons of the MIDAS Program

Date: Jul 17, 2005

In response to scm from the other thread:

i'm not sure what your problem is with #1 (buyout provisions). i know faculty here for years (10+) who got competitively selected grants (NIH and others) with buyout provisions. i suspect gary stringer's NEH grant had buyout. the logic being that they couldn't conduct the research in the grant without a teaching load reduction. because MIDAS didn't exist in the cases i'm familiar with, they didn't receive a bonus--although they could get paid for the summer at about 1/3 of their 9-month salary instead of the usual summer school rate.

Buyouts per se I have no problem with. But why differentially reward those who get grants with buyout provision versus those who get grants without them?

Robert Campbell

PS. Do we actually know whether any of this year's MIDAS recipients was on an NSF grant? Might it be time for a FOIA or Public Records Act request?

Date: Jul 17, 2005

Robert Campbell wrote:

Do we actually know whether any of this year's MIDAS recipients was on an NSF grant?

I asked that question a while back. Their lips seem to be sealed.

Date: Jul 17, 2005

anon wrote:

Robert Campbell wrote:
Do we actually know whether any of this year's MIDAS recipients was on an NSF grant?
I asked that question a while back. Their lips seem to be sealed.

Is the list of MIDAS recipients public? I think so.

Working from that, if it's that big a deal, why not call the research office & ask. They ought to be able to tell you who has NSF grants. And despite what USM officials might like to trumpet, it's probably not that long a list to read...

Date: Jul 17, 2005

for a long time, including last year i believe, the vp for research's office has produced a book that shows who got what grant money from what source. typically is done at the end of a fiscal year, i think.

Date: Jul 17, 2005

stinky cheese man wrote:

for a long time, including last year i believe, the vp for research's office has produced a book that shows who got what grant money from what source. typically is done at the end of a fiscal year, i think.

It would seem logical that such a listing would be something the VP for Research would probably put out to document its achievements. I can't imagine a university wanting to keep that sort of information secret, unless of course some of the research was military-related & classified. (Something tells me USM doesn't do a heckuva lot of that

)

Date: Jul 17, 2005

The NSF webpage allows you to search for active grants by institution (and lots of other variables).

This link should take you to USM's list of active NSF grants. I was struck by the interesting work being done in a number of departments.

Date: Jul 17, 2005

If a USM humanities professor gets an NEH grant (they pay the first $40,000 of one's salary), and that prof. makes $50,000, would he or she be eligible for MIDAS?

Date: Jul 17, 2005

Invictus wrote:

anon wrote:
Robert Campbell wrote:
Do we actually know whether any of this year's MIDAS recipients was on an NSF grant?
I asked that question a while back. Their lips seem to be sealed.

Is the list of MIDAS recipients public? I think so.

Working from that, if it's that big a deal, why not call the research office & ask. They ought to be able to tell you who has NSF grants. And despite what USM officials might like to trumpet, it's probably not that long a list to read...

Having invested all of five minutes in searching the NSF website( and including a break midway through to check my email), I learned that USM has 29 active grants with awarded amounts totaling just under $16 million. I also checked Ole Miss. They have 20 active grants, totaling a bit over $8 million. Mississippi State comes in with the grand prize, 46 active grants for about $26 million. Still, USM comes in second. Go USM!

Date: Jul 18, 2005

qwerty and web wizard,

Thanks for the pointers on NSF grants to researchers at USM.

A cross-check with the list of MIDAS recipients (if we can get it) should be easy enough, though allowance will have to be made for some individuals who have multiple grants.

Robert Campbell

Date: Jul 18, 2005

I think this MIDAS name-hunt has gone far enough. You are seeking to embarass USM faculty who probably have done little other than exploit a system that has been put into place. It's like they won they lottery...they have the opportunity to do funded research and get extra rewards for it.

I am especially interested that Robert Campbell, who is not even on faculty at USM, is so caught up in finding out these names. What is the point? Do you intend to publish them on Liberty and Power? Do you intend to write a letter to the HA "outing these" MIDAS recipients? Or would you rather burn something in their yards in a clandestine effort to make them stop?

Date: Jul 18, 2005

John Proctor wrote:

I think this MIDAS name-hunt has gone far enough. You are seeking to embarass USM faculty who probably have done little other than exploit a system that has been put into place. It's like they won they lottery...they have the opportunity to do funded research and get extra rewards for it.

I am especially interested that Robert Campbell, who is not even on faculty at USM, is so caught up in finding out these names. What is the point? Do you intend to publish them on Liberty and Power? Do you intend to write a letter to the HA "outing these" MIDAS recipients? Or would you rather burn something in their yards in a clandestine effort to make them stop?

I don't think that's the point, Proctor. I think the point is that NSF doesn't permit MIDAS type rewards. I'm not sure about that, so RC or someone more knowledgeable about NSF regs will have to clarify, but that's the impression I got from things said up-thread from here.

My impression about USM faculty's objections to MIDAS has always been that it's an inherently biased & inequitable system. A person who happens to work in a discipline where there is ready grant money can get a bonus award for getting grants. I do have enough background to know that a run-of-the-mill science professor can get grants that are utterly unavailable to the very best humanities professor.

Personally, I think the money that's being given away for MIDAS might be better used as seed money to help those in harder-to-fund research areas develop better proposals & get their research projects off the ground.

Date: Jul 18, 2005

invictus--i read the report from san diego state about their run-in with NSF. it's not automatically clear to me (and i'm no expert in this area at all) that MIDAS is not allowed by NSF. from my cursory reading it seems to involve whether MIDAS money comes from grant money (NSF money) as opposed to some other source and/or whether the MIDAS money was charged against the NSF grant. again, i'm sure some of the experts on this can clarify the problems NSF had with SDSU (and really the entire Cal State system) on this issue.

Date: Jul 18, 2005

stinky cheese man wrote:

invictus--i read the report from san diego state about their run-in with NSF. it's not automatically clear to me (and i'm no expert in this area at all) that MIDAS is not allowed by NSF. from my cursory reading it seems to involve whether MIDAS money comes from grant money (NSF money) as opposed to some other source and/or whether the MIDAS money was charged against the NSF grant. again, i'm sure some of the experts on this can clarify the problems NSF had with SDSU (and really the entire Cal State system) on this issue.

Then grant indirects -- at least any indirect money from NSF grants -- could not be used for a MIDAS-type award program? Is that the idea?

Date: Jul 18, 2005

invictus--don't know. that's where my expertise runs dry. why couldn't it merely come from salary recovery? NSF pays your salary, USM doesn't, the MIDAS money comes from a faculty's recovered salary?

Date: Jul 18, 2005

stinky cheese man wrote:

invictus--don't know. that's where my expertise runs dry. why couldn't it merely come from salary recovery? NSF pays your salary, USM doesn't, the MIDAS money comes from a faculty's recovered salary?

Isn't it a simple accounting trick to get around any restrictions? Let the funding agency pay the profs salary. That frees up the state money for the prof's salary . Now use part of the state money to give the bonus. Since no agency money was used, the agency can't say there was a violation of policy. Of course, now the state money that was budgeted for instruction can be used as the administration wants. It gives power to administrators to get around state budget. If the state complains that money for instruction is being used for something else (paving?), they can be told that state is paying the salary and the agency money is used for the project. Is it a shell game?

Date: Jul 18, 2005

John Proctor wrote:

I think this MIDAS name-hunt has gone far enough. You are seeking to embarass USM faculty who probably have done little other than exploit a system that has been put into place. It's like they won they lottery...they have the opportunity to do funded research and get extra rewards for it. I am especially interested that Robert Campbell, who is not even on faculty at USM, is so caught up in finding out these names. What is the point? Do you intend to publish them on Liberty and Power? Do you intend to write a letter to the HA "outing these" MIDAS recipients? Or would you rather burn something in their yards in a clandestine effort to make them stop?

JP,

I didn't publish the names of the 2004 recipients (which were publicized at the time the MIDAS awards were given out). Why would I want to publish a list of the 2005 MIDAS recipients?

My concern is with the bad incentives created by the program, not with individuals who benefited from it.

I would make an exception, however, for any MIDAS recipients who were given bonuses after their buyouts were paid for out of "earmarks" (i.e., pork barrel appropriations). However, I have yet to see evidence that researchers at pork-barrel-funded centers and institutions get their salaries (partly) paid out of Federal appropriations.

Robert Campbell

Date: Jul 18, 2005

scm, Invictus, and Accountant,

I found the NSF report about SDSU very clear on the crucial point.

NSF grants with buyouts cannot be used to pay researchers "overload compensation." The buyouts are of percentages of the researcher's base salary. They are not supposed to be a means of getting paid more than 100% of base salary during the Fall or Spring semesters.

If MIDAS bonuses have been awarded to anyone at USM because of an NSF grant, USM will be in violation of NSF rules. If NSF is informed about such bonuses, it will demand to be repaid the full dollar amounts.

Robert Campbell

PS. After last year's MIDAS awards, I heard from an administrator at MSU, who was the first to alert me to the report on SDSU. Apparently one of the reasons MSU has not adopted a MIDAS-style program is concern about violating NSF rules.

Date: Jul 18, 2005

stinky cheese man wrote:

invictus--don't know. that's where my expertise runs dry. why couldn't it merely come from salary recovery? NSF pays your salary, USM doesn't, the MIDAS money comes from a faculty's recovered salary?

Ah, the old "supplant" vs "supplement" distinction raises its ugly head. I think accountant is on to the deal, though -- it's a shell game.

Date: Jul 18, 2005

Invictus wrote:

I don't think that's the point, Proctor. I think the point is that NSF doesn't permit MIDAS type rewards. I'm not sure about that, so RC or someone more knowledgeable about NSF regs will have to clarify, but that's the impression I got from things said up-thread from here.

My impression about USM faculty's objections to MIDAS has always been that it's an inherently biased & inequitable system. A person who happens to work in a discipline where there is ready grant money can get a bonus award for getting grants. I do have enough background to know that a run-of-the-mill science professor can get grants that are utterly unavailable to the very best humanities professor.

Personally, I think the money that's being given away for MIDAS might be better used as seed money to help those in harder-to-fund research areas develop better proposals & get their research projects off the ground.

You've made my point here. Your gripe is that it's "biased." I could argue that the NFL, NBA, MLB, PGA, etc., are biased against people with different skill sets than an athletic one.

Again, your srgument boils down to "sour grapes" because you're not in a grant-friendly discipline. Instead of being happy for those who benefit, you complain. Reminds me of a child who wants another child's better toy and throws a fit until all toys get taken away. Then, the jealous child is happy because nobody has more than he does.

Date: Jul 18, 2005

robert--as i said i'm out of my league at this level. it's not clear to me that the MIDAS money is overload compensation. as i read the SDSU report, i felt that NSF doesn't want their money going for such compensation. at some point the report notes that the overload compensation paid in the Cal State system amounted to some figure like $24 million and that was money the NSF felt they could not give to other researchers. i don't know where MIDAS money comes from, but if it comes from state money salary recoveries, then there may not be a problem. but again, i haven't paid much attention to the program, and given my discipline, probably won't.

Date: Jul 18, 2005

stinky cheese man wrote:

robert--as i said i'm out of my league at this level. it's not clear to me that the MIDAS money is overload compensation. as i read the SDSU report, i felt that NSF doesn't want their money going for such compensation. at some point the report notes that the overload compensation paid in the Cal State system amounted to some figure like $24 million and that was money the NSF felt they could not give to other researchers. i don't know where MIDAS money comes from, but if it comes from state money salary recoveries, then there may not be a problem. but again, i haven't paid much attention to the program, and given my discipline, probably won't.

scm,

My understanding is that NSF doesn't want its grants with buyout provisions providing a way to increase a researcher's Fall and Spring semester compensation beyond 100% of base salary. I don't think NSF cares exactly where the money for the bonuses might come from.

Robert Campbell

Date: Jul 18, 2005

John Proctor wrote:

You've made my point here. Your gripe is that it's "biased." I could argue that the NFL, NBA, MLB, PGA, etc., are biased against people with different skill sets than an athletic one.

Again, your srgument boils down to "sour grapes" because you're not in a grant-friendly discipline. Instead of being happy for those who benefit, you complain. Reminds me of a child who wants another child's better toy and throws a fit until all toys get taken away. Then, the jealous child is happy because nobody has more than he does.

JP,

I'm not opposed to MIDAS because it rewards professors who get grants. Universities reward professors who get grants all the time. Most commonly, this done by increasing their base salaries. I would like to see university administrations pay more attention to the costs of getting grants than they presently do, but there are still obvious reasons for such rewards.

MIDAS, however, rewards only those researchers who get grants with buyout provisions. It gives researchers an incentive to seek grants with buyout provisions over grants that don't buy out part of their teaching time.

Is this an appropriate incentive--or just Shelby Thames' way of rewarding faculty members who fit his personal model of a professor? You know, the only kind he thinks isn't lazy or whining?

MIDAS is supposed to promote growth in grant-funded research. But such growth has been markedly anemic at USM under the Thames regime. Other universities that don't give out MIDAS-style bonuses have demonstrated much higher rates of growth than USM. Meanwhile, Thames has run off some researchers who could have raised USM's grant-funding total, while deterring others from taking jobs at USM.

The single action that Thames could take that would most effectively promote growth in grant and contract-funded research at USM would be to resign his post, now.

Once Thames is replaced by a competent, fair-minded president, under whom productive reseachers want to work, it will become clear really quickly that MIDAS was never needed.

Robert Campbell

Date: Jul 18, 2005

John Proctor wrote:

Again, your srgument boils down to "sour grapes" because you're not in a grant-friendly discipline. Instead of being happy for those who benefit, you complain. Reminds me of a child who wants another child's better toy and throws a fit until all toys get taken away. Then, the jealous child is happy because nobody has more than he does.

Don't make any assumptions about my discipline. Or where I work or what I do where I do work.

Again, I don't think the folks here have a beef with the individuals who received MIDAS awards. What they have a beef with is the mechanism -- salary buyouts.

This isn't a witch hunt.

Date: Jul 18, 2005

I probably said much of this before, but let me try again. NSF (and NIH) are quite clear that they do not want to turn universities into "research shops" (their words). They want to sponsor researchers already in process.

They offer to purchase a portion of the researcher's time. If the researcher's salary suddenly increases, then either a) Their cost just increased for the same amount of time or b) Their percentage of time just decreased. They are absolutely against any mechanism that ties salary increases and decreases to specific grants arriving and ending.

Things that are okay:

1) Reward a professor for being a strong researcher (can be once per year), using criteria that may include $, but should not be exclusively $.

2) Preferred option - pay them what they are worth. If they are worth more, pay them more, but make it a permanent raise. After that the school can make grantsmanship a performance measure, or even decrease percent on the job if the grants drop off.

This is from face-to-face conversations with OMB, NSF, NIH and HHS.

Date: Jul 18, 2005

View from a Distance wrote:

This is from face-to-face conversations with OMB, NSF, NIH and HHS.

Then is it your impression that the MIDAS program as practiced conforms or does not conform to the policies of those funding agencies?

Date: Jul 18, 2005

View from a Distance wrote:

I probably said much of this before, but let me try again. NSF (and NIH) are quite clear that they do not want to turn universities into "research shops" (their words).

...This is from face-to-face conversations with OMB, NSF, NIH and HHS.

Isn't it clear from this that respected national funding agencies consider programs such as the MIDAS bad policy? It is not healthy for the long-term development of research and scholarship. In fact at USM much of what is called research is actually contractual service. Why is it that SFT can only find a way to get ahead by stretching the rules of the game?

Date: Jul 18, 2005

A Researcher wrote:

In fact at USM much of what is called research is actually contractual service.

The MIDAS program seems to condone the use of state property for what was formerly private consulting. It seems to be a convenient way to circumvent the university consulting policies that prohibit the use of university resources for private gain. It also seems to circumvent the policy of limiting consulting to one day per week. That's the way I see it. Am I wrong? I'm open to correction.