Okay, why are these in four groups? Four colleges? All of them but CoAL? (See my sixty or so other posts about how this grants model doesn't work for arts and humanities, also truth's great explanation on the incentives thread).

The pattern is set, and it means everything.

I hope everyone understands that faculty have been getting grants with "buy out" released time for years. No one complained then.

The only difference now is that the university doesn't keep ALL of the release time money. In an effort to provide incentive to others who MAY be able to get these kind of grants, the university now gives back some of the "buy out" funds to the individual researchers.

If I understand the arguments of colleagues in Arts & Letters, they would rather the university just keep this money and not even inform anyone that some researchers are providing financial support to the university during these tough times. And their reasoning for this is that "most faculty can't get buy out released time, so MOST can’t get the bonus, so it isn't fair.

I may be wrong about this. If so, PLEASE explain your logic again for my handicapped brain.

quote:

---

Originally posted by: Coffee
"I hope everyone understands that faculty have been getting grants with "buy out" released time for years. No one complained then. The only difference now is that the university doesn't keep ALL of the release time money. In an effort to provide incentive to others who MAY be able to get these kind of grants, the university now gives back some of the "buy out" funds to the individual researchers. If I understand the arguments of colleagues in Arts & Letters, they would rather the university just keep this money and not even inform anyone that some researchers are providing financial support to the university during these tough times. And their reasoning for this is that "most faculty can't get buy out released time, so MOST can’t get the bonus, so it isn't fair. I may be wrong about this. If so, PLEASE explain your logic again for my handicapped brain. "

Ok - here's the COAL complaint as I understand it.  1. It is questionable whether faculty receiving "buy out time" really save or make the university money - the university must find someone else to teach that professor's courses, and even if that new person comes cheaper (or the research professor's colleagues have to cover the teaching with more work for no more pay) the quality of instruction likely declines (remember the students are supposed to be our focus); the research professor's salary that is now given back to the university almost never goes anywhere other than the VP for Research's budget, so it is hard to see how that helps the whole university in these difficult budget times - why doesn't some of it go to the library, for example, to help everyone's research, including students?   2. The entire focus of SFT's university is public funds for private profit: faculty are encouraged to use state/federal tax dollars anyway possible to build up their private research initiatives to then be turned into profit-generating vehicles for that same faculty member - giving them additional bonuses for doing that adds insult to injury and smacks strongly of corruption, lack of ethics, and so forth.  We seem to be teaching students that getting research dollars is about making money for yourself rather than benefitting society.  

That said, we need active researchers at a university - the issue is whether we should be so nakedly encouraging their greed as opposed to their efforts to positively impact the largest number of people possible (thus my earlier post about the hundreds of thousands of dollars in federal and private grants received by the English and History departments with little/no recognition and no financial benefit to any particular professor).  The only way this is fair if you buy into the radical notion that making profits are the only laudable goals in society and the only "skills" we should be teaching our students.  Doesn't sound like a university to me.

quote:

---

Originally posted by: Angeline
Ok - here's the COAL complaint as I understand it. 1. It is questionable whether faculty receiving "buy out time" really save or make the university money - the university must find someone else to teach that professor's courses, and even if that new person comes cheaper (or the research professor's colleagues have to cover the teaching with more work for no more pay) the quality of instruction likely declines (remember the students are supposed to be our focus); the research professor's salary that is now given back to the university almost never goes anywhere other than the VP for Research's budget, so it is hard to see how that helps the whole university in these difficult budget times - why doesn't some of it go to the library, for example, to help everyone's research, including students? 2. The entire focus of SFT's university is public funds for private profit: faculty are encouraged to use state/federal tax dollars anyway possible to build up their private research initiatives to then be turned into profit-generating vehicles for that same faculty member - giving them additional bonuses for doing that adds insult to injury and smacks strongly of corruption, lack of ethics, and so forth. We seem to be teaching students that getting research dollars is about making money for yourself rather than benefitting society.

That said, we need active researchers at a university - the issue is whether we should be so nakedly encouraging their greed as opposed to their efforts to positively impact the largest number of people possible (thus my earlier post about the hundreds of thousands of dollars in federal and private grants received by the English and History departments with little/no recognition and no financial benefit to any particular professor). The only way this is fair if you buy into the radical notion that making profits are the only laudable goals in society and the only "skills" we should be teaching our students. Doesn't sound like a university to me.

""

---

Thanks Angeline. I consider your points 1) and 2) above to be completely separate issues.

The only sources of funds for the VP-research (afaik) are "overhead" and "release time buy out".
I may be wrong, but I believe these funds ARE used to benefit the whole university by providing seed money, travel, summer research grants, research awards etc. etc.

Now your second point I believe only refers to the "engineering departments" that may have a product to sell. Of course, only Poly.Sci has engineering on our campus right now, but USM is trying to get into the engineering business. The reason for this is (I believe) SFT is trying to get funding from private sources as MIT, CalTech, etc do. These schools have huge engineering programs that "spin off" private companies from inventions. The institution then gets royalties from the patents.

Again, all of this is driven by the fact the state will not /cannot support so many institutions. I too fear, that in financially saving the institution named “USM”, the policies may destroy the UNIVERSITY.

I wish colleagues would focus the debate on the PRINCIPLES of the university rather than attack things like the MIDAS program because of philosophical programs with other issues.

quote:

---

Originally posted by: Coffee
"Oops! That last line should have read: I wish colleagues would focus the debate on the PRINCIPLES of the university rather than attack things like the MIDAS program because of philosophical PROBLEMS with other issues. "

---

Coffee:

As Derek Bok points out, the vast majority of schools that get patent license royalties get right at $1 million per year from them.  How's that going to get us to be self-sufficient? 

quote:

---

Originally posted by: Coffee
" The only sources of funds for the VP-research (afaik) are "overhead" and "release time buy out". I may be wrong, but I believe these funds ARE used to benefit the whole university by providing seed money, travel, summer research grants, research awards etc. etc. "

---

Coffee,

You're making a standard claim about funds derived from the indirect cost components of grants.

But... is there any evidence that indirect cost return money has gone to  travel money, summer research grants, research awards, etc.-- in COAL?  Clearly little or none has gone to "seed money," for reasons already explained by other contributors: seed money is invested in projects that have the potential for future grant funding.  If indirect cost returns really benefit the whole university, it should be easy to document that by tracking the money.

Meanwhile, it's obvious that none of this money has gone to the library.

Grant funding will not keep an entire university going.  At state universities, the pursuit of grant funding was, until recently, bolstered by the expectation that state legislatures would reward institutions that did a lot of grant-funded research by substantially upping their direct appropriations.  This is no longer the case...so instead you see desperate attempts to replace state appropriations with grant money.

If the current projections about fall enrollment are on target, Thames is about to get a lesson in the true importance of tuition money, even when the rates are held low for political reasons.   The Trent Lott Center fiasco has already made clear what happens when private fund raising is neglected.

Robert Campbell

quote:

---

Originally posted by: Robert Cambpell
"
Coffee,
You're making a standard claim about funds derived from the indirect cost components of grants.
But... is there any evidence that indirect cost return money has gone to  travel money, summer research grants, research awards, etc.-- in COAL?  Clearly little or none has gone to "seed money," for reasons already explained by other contributors: seed money is invested in projects that have the potential for future grant funding.  If indirect cost returns really benefit the whole university, it should be easy to document that by tracking the money.
Meanwhile, it's obvious that none of this money has gone to the library.
Grant funding will not keep an entire university going.  At state universities, the pursuit of grant funding was, until recently, bolstered by the expectation that state legislatures would reward institutions that did a lot of grant-funded research by substantially upping their direct appropriations.  This is no longer the case...so instead you see desperate attempts to replace state appropriations with grant money.
If the current projections about fall enrollment are on target, Thames is about to get a lesson in the true importance of tuition money, even when the rates are held low for political reasons.   The Trent Lott Center fiasco has already made clear what happens when private fund raising is neglected.
Robert Campbell"

---

Robert, I agree with most of this and will respond only to a few points.

Faculty must apply each year for summer research support from the VP-Research office. Surely faculty from CoAL do this and receive awards. Likewise for research awards, they must be nominate and supply data to be eligible. I recall awards from several colleges announced each year.

The "Seed money" I mentioned was referring to "start-up" funding. It can be very expensive in some departments (science) or very little (Math or English)) because some need expensive lab equipment while others only need a computer.
As I mentioned earlier, even in CoST excellent researchers/scholars are not being hired when the "pay back" from potential grants will take too long to make up for their "seed" or start-up cost.
If money is that tight, it would be difficult to justify "investing" in a scholar with no chance for a return on the money. (Yes, I know that universities should be for the knowledge, not the money. And most state instititions ARE supported by the sate, but not here.)

I believe at least one dept.(Chem?) in CoST used "returned indirects" to maintain their library journals when the library was cut, of course that doesn't benefit Arts & Letters. But I thought I would mention it.

In summary, what would you do? (Remember your plan can't produce another drain on resources.) I agree the university can't be self sufficient by this, but that is no reason not to give a MIDAS incentive. That is all I'm saying.

quote:

---

Originally posted by: Coffee
". . . the state can't support so many institutions and Community Colleges. We have to support ourselves. Money is no longer being sought to do scholarship, but rather researchers are being sought who can bring in money . . ."

Those who seem to insist on taking to its final absurdity this innane "business model" (the "university-for-hire" model") of running USM should consider this: When an industry (e.g., Chrysler Corporation) discovers that it can't support itself, it eliminates one of its less profitable products (e.g., the Desoto Firedome 8). If that doesn't work, and all of its products cost more to produce than the corporation is bringing in, it takes one or more of these actions: (a) declares bankruptcy, (b) obtains government support until it gets on its feet [which is precisely what Chrysler did], (c) fires its current management in hopes of bringing in new management which can turn a profit [remember Lee Iococa], (d) engages in "outsourcing" (e.g., builds the Plymouth in Mexico), (e) finds a new product to manufacture (the Mini-Van brought Chrysler back]. I wonder if those supporting the "university-for-hire" model would recommend (a) [bring the university into bankruptcy and shut it down entirely], (b) [obtain more state support] (fat chance of that), (c) [fire its management] (no comment here), (d) run the university by "outsourcing" its instruction by using cheaper labor elsewhere thru internet, or (e) get out of the education business entirely and find a new product. If a new product, which product? The manufacture of paint? Turn the place into an upscale retirement center run by those who chose to remain? So why don't the folks who are so bent on turning USM into a profit-making industry, where "teaching, research, and service" is only secondary, sit down at that large conference table over at the Dome and decide if you want to remain in the education field, or whether you prefer to enter an industry which might enable you to become millionaires. If you prefer to enter industry, look in the "help wanted" section of the newspaper and see if you can't find a job appropriate to your talents and interests. If not, then stay at USM and start behaving like true academicians.

 

I believe at least one dept.(Chem?) in CoST used "returned indirects" to maintain their library journals when the library was cut, of course that doesn't benefit Arts & Letters. But I thought I would mention it.

This is the biology department and is the reason biology and other science departments with very expensive library journal subscriptions are being squeezed by the CoST Dean taking 40% of the indirects that previously went to the departments.

quote:

---

Originally posted by: tvscene
"
Coffee:
As Derek Bok points out, the vast majority of schools that get patent license royalties get right at $1 million per year from them.  How's that going to get us to be self-sufficient?  "

---

An additional 250 students bring in close to one million dollars in tuition alone. Academic programs which are attractive to prospective students bring in substantial tuition income. Departments which teach large numbers of students with poorly paid faculty members and minimal equipment costs are very profitable for the university.

quote:

---

Originally posted by: The Shadow
" An additional 250 students bring in close to one million dollars in tuition alone. Academic programs which are attractive to prospective students bring in substantial tuition income. Departments which teach large numbers of students with poorly paid faculty members and minimal equipment costs are very profitable for the university."

---

The Shadow made what is one of the best points yet. If we're talking money alone, the economic contributions made to the university by the Arts and Letters faculty is staggering, compared with that made by some low enrollment expensive equipment-laden departments. Why is the Arts and Letters faculty, and others, denied the financial "bonus" for their economic contributions which The Shadow describes?

quote:

---

Originally posted by: Coffee
"
So what can be done? When finances are dictating everything, how do we pay both teachers and researchers the same? When finances are dictating everything, how do we keep researchers who can and will move for better salaries?
"

---

Universities already pay researchers and grant getters more, often much more. The issues are the wisdom of cash bonuses on top of that and the failure to recognize the economic contribition of high enrollment teaching in higher education.

The article in the HA tells it all concerning MIDAS. If CRK got the most money - there is something wrong with the system, That is cronyism, folks. If RK and DT made a profit on this enterprise, again, it smacks of cronyism.  When MW's trial finally happens - all will be revealed. The MIDAS idea is great - the touch itself makes everything shabby.