I thought the mission of universities was to teach/guide students. Am I wrong?

quote:

---

Originally posted by: truth4usm/AH
"
Don't you think that it's just a little bit COINCIDENTAL that the MIDAS program was structured to reward not one, not two, but at least 4 of SFT's relatives/cronies? (Dana Thames, Ken Malone, Carolyn Reeves-Kazelskis, Richard Kazelskis)??????  Are we to assume that because you are a relative/crony of SFT, then you are just a damn good researcher?  I think not....
NO QUARTER!"

---

I don't have any information on these people's research and "release buyout" so I can't make statements as strong as you Truth. Please be true to your name and provide evidence for your assertions of "structured to reward ...relative/cronies" .

Do you have reason to believe they were rewarded based on criteria different from the other researchers? Please understand I'm not saying anyone is doing high quality research. The bonus was only for paid buyout.

quote:

---

Originally posted by: Invictus
" I thought indirects existed to support all the "infrastructure" (buildings, utilities, administrative overhead and libraries) that is needed for a grant to succeed. So, why wasn't the library receiving a chunk of these indirects before the departments "returned indirects" were calculated?Or if the library did get a portion of the indirects, why wasn't it used to purchase what the department needed? Indirect costs are funny money anyway. I understand that. But shouldn't some indirect money be used for what indirect money is allegedly supposed to be used?"

---

25% of the indirects go to the general fund, which I suppose includes the library in some obscure way. Departments already have journal allocations. Whether they are sufficient is another issue. When departments were getting 25% of the indirects they had the flexibility to supplement journal allocations as I mentioned BSC does already. They could also hire support staff (like Truth).

Indirect costs are real money and, in my opinion, are used appropriately. The funny money is the "in kind" stuff the University sometimes uses as match.

For some of those looking in from outside, indirect costs have nothing to do with the MIDAS plan, which is based on cash buyout as a part of the direct cost of a grant.

quote:

---

Originally posted by: Coffee
" I don't have any information on these people's research and "release buyout" so I can't make statements as strong as you Truth. Please be true to your name and provide evidence for your assertions of "structured to reward ...relative/cronies" . Do you have reason to believe they were rewarded based on criteria different from the other researchers? Please understand I'm not saying anyone is doing high quality research. The bonus was only for paid buyout. "

---

The facts will reveal themselves soon enough. Truth enough to tell the truth.  She is telling it correctly.

Coffee,

Now that you have gotten your a** kicked, I still have the data on the kids who got MIDAS.  I guess yours came out of the paper.  Mine didn't.  It came from the source.  And, it has all the numbers attached to it.  And it is different from the paper. 

P. S.  Don't attack Truth, you can't win! Somehow Truth will always prevail.  Maybe there is something to be said for THE TRUTH.

quote:

---

Originally posted by: King Midas
"Coffee,
Now that you have gotten your a** kicked, I still have the data on the kids who got MIDAS.  I guess yours came out of the paper.  Mine didn't.  It came from the source.  And, it has all the numbers attached to it.  And it is different from the paper. 
P. S.  Don't attack Truth, you can't win! Somehow Truth will always prevail.  Maybe there is something to be said for THE TRUTH."

---

Yes, my list came from HA. And I didn't get my a** kicked. I just didn't see any more progress in that discussion since all of the important points had been made. (Except for this "inside" info you claim.)


Don't forget that truth isn't Truth until it is OBJECTIVE.
Where's the evidence, numbers etc. Give it up King.

(The lord tells me you are wrong.)

quote:

---

Originally posted by: truth4usm/AH
" Real "world-class" universities understand that research is done primarily for research's sake (to help humanity, provide new knowledge, etc.), not to make the university richer.  "

---

That is one of the most naive statements I have ever heard.  I am at a "world class" university and I promise you, grant money talks louder than anything.  That is just a fact of life when you are at a research university.  If you want to be rewarded for just teaching, go to a 4 year college.  Don’t get me wrong, there are very talented faculty at 4 year schools and you can get a great education, but they serve a different function than research universities.  If you do not want to worry about research or the grant game, Millsaps or William Carry is more the type college you should teach at rather than USM.

Let me clarify my statement above...there are separate reasons why an individual researcher wants to get grants and why a university wants to get grants.  At a research university, an individual researcher (in certain fields) needs to get grants in order to "keep up" (much like publishing articles and books in other fields) with the status quo, and pay for extra equipment, grad students, etc.

A university would also like to get grants for the indirects that they provide, but more importantly for the prestige these grants bring.  Most grants (at least those from federal agencies) do not provide for things like "brick and mortar" $$--the big bucks to build infrastructure.  Where does that kind of money come from?  Private donations!  (and, possibly, congressional pork, as in the case of the Polymer Palace at USM).  My point is that these larger undertakings are not paid for with indirects from grants.  Never have and never will be...unless the feds change the rules.

So, I'm not downplaying the importance of grants.  I'm just saying that, monetarily-speaking, they could be seen as more important to the individual PI than to the larger university.

But, as always, I'm willing to hear what others think.

quote:

---

Originally posted by: qwerty
"If you do not want to worry about research or the grant game, Millsaps or William Carry is more the type college you should teach at rather than USM."

---

I reread what I wrote and I was afraid some people would take this as a "if you don't like it, then leave."  I didn't mean it that way.  I was just trying to distinguish between different types of colleges. 

 

Truth, I agree those private donations are very important for buildings and such.  University endowments can help to augment the general budget or special projects.  What ever happened to wanting to sell school names to start endowments for individual colleges?  What happened to the capital campaign that AL was leading?

From Coffee:

"Didn't part of the indirects and buy out go to the VP-Research? You explained how the "returned money" was used and I agree totally with what you explained. It is the same in my college.

But didn't the money to the VP-Research benefit ALL colleges in the university? And isn't it part of THAT money which is being returned to researchers as the MIDAS bonus? So none of the "returned money" that you discussed is being affected. (Except, I know, the percent returned changed this year.)"

Coffee, I can't answer most of your questions. I have been gone for two years, so I was just reporting on information I knew personally from how we used the money that came back to the Departmental/School level. I did not know where the Midas money was coming from. I also don't know, nor did I at the time, how the rest of the money was spent. I thought at one time it all went to the VP for Research. I can remember there being some discusson about the need for there to be closer collaboration between that person and the Graduate School and the Provost, so there would be a hollistic approach to the enhancement of research/teaching/learning at the University. I don't think that collaborative approach ever occurred.

I do believe that the money that was controlled by the VP for Research was in the old days used to benefit the entire University. Many grants that are extremely valuable in the social sciences, the arts, the humanities, demand a match from the grantee. Faculty time, facilities, and overhead, were sometimes acceptable for that match. At other times, real dollars were required. The loss of a pool of money to use for match definitely impacts the research potential of the University as a whole.

Other general benefits of the research money was, I believe, to help fund the ORSP, which assisted all faculty in seeking gunding sources, preparing proposals, and managing grants. I know there are many other benefits, but I was not in the loop in order to articulate them more specifically.

Anita

quote:

---

Originally posted by: Coffee
" Anita, thanks for your response, and continued interest in our problems."

---

I spent 25 years at USM in addition to two years as a grad student here. I have a daughter who just graduated and a high school junior who thinks she may go to USM if I can't convince her to do otherwise. I was on faculty when two of the major players in the dome, Thames and Moore, were in power in other positions. I know from bitter experience how they operate and they things they are capable of doing. I will always have a very special interest in what happens at USM, and I am especially sorry to see what has happened in so little time. It has been my experience that destruction is very easy and rapid. Construction is difficult and slow.

kick it, six wrote:

---

Here's last year's discussion of the Midas program. A lot of it still seems to be pertinent.

---

I guess you'll listen to me next time.