Penn to reduce graduate admissions, rescind acceptances amid research cuts
thedp.com
thedp.com
"Between 1976 and 2018, full-time administrators and other professionals employed by those institutions increased by 164% and 452%, respectively. Meanwhile, the number of full-time faculty employed at colleges and universities in the U.S. increased by only 92%, marginally outpacing student enrollment which grew by 78%.
When we look at individual schools the numbers are just as striking. A recent report I authored found that on average, the top 50 schools have 1 faculty per 11 students whereas the same institutions have 1 non-faculty employee per 4 students. Put another way, there are now 3 times as many administrators and other professionals (not including university hospitals staff), as there are faculty (on a per student basis) at the leading schools in country."
https://www.forbes.com/sites/paulweinstein/2023/08/28/admini...
For example, there are more compliance costs around IRBs for human subjects, export controls of potentially sensitive data, companies we can't work with (e.g. in China), contracting with companies we can work with, intellectual property and startups, Title IX, discrimination, Federal funding do's and don'ts, cybersecurity requirements, travel to foreign countries (soon to be implemented), and a lot lot lot lot more. Also, like security, these things only ratchet upward, never down.
In the past, professors used to handle some of these things informally and part-time on top of their teaching and research, but it really has to be professionalized and be done full time because of risks and costs of getting it wrong.
Taking a step back, discussions about "too many admins" also feels not all that different from those threads on HN saying "I could build product XYZ in a weekend, why do they have so many employees?" Sure, but building the product isn't the hard part, it's sales, marketing, customer support, regulatory compliance, HR, data scientists, UX designers, and all the other functions needed to transform it from a product to a business.
Unlike product XYZ*, there was a time in very recent history when these same schools ran successfully with much smaller administrations. At some point you have to ask - do you want to save the cancer, or the patient?
*I am humoring your hypothetical, but there are in fact many cases where a small team outperforms bloated, ossified companies, e.g. the Britten V1000 motorcycle, or the recent article about wedding planning software (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43133174), or the older article on the windows terminal (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27725133)
Here is a book about it:
https://www.amazon.com/Compliance-Industrial-Complex-Operati...
I think people overcomplicated universities and that is what makes admins needed. Taking a step back, we need to make universities teaching places again, with 1 admin for 3 professors, not the other way around. Imagine savings, needing less grant money, less audits, less funding that comes with strings attached.
In the end I think people make up too much irrelevant work. And that needs to go away.
Most of those are not needed or are needed in drastically lower quantities. UX designers in many companies are very obviously just redesigning things for the sake of justifying their salaries.
I think this a gap that can be easily and fittingly addressed by explainable AI (XAI) hopefully with much cheaper cost using automation, reasoning and decision making with minimum number of expert staff in the loop for verification and validation.
I've got the feeling that Elon proposed DOGE as a trojan horse for doing this sneakily:
1) Reduced the budget to make govt more efficient so staff number reduction is inevitable
2) Sell and provide XAI based solutions for regulatory compliance, etc (accidentally his AI company name is xAI)
3) Repeat these with many govt's organization, research, academic institutions
4) Profit!
But apparently the US research universities like UPenn did not get the memo and cut the number of graduate research students instead of the admin staff.
The administrators are the school at this point, why would they choose to cut there?
For instance, one university has:
- faculty 6% (the actual professors and associate professors running things)
- postdocs 9% (faculty/staff scientist aspirants with a PhD)
- research staff 25% (e.g. research engineer, research scientist)
- other academic staff 12% (I imagine, technicians)
- admin staff 28%
So, while faculty is only 6% of the overall workforce, scientific employees still make up 52% of the lot. Add to that the PhD students who are not counted as employees in the US despite being paid and having employee duties towards their superior (a member of faculty). This same university has about 40% of the number of employees worth of graduate students (7k to the 17k), for instance.
In conclusion, what the statistics you report show, is rather how precarious research has become. There existed no such thing as a postdoc in the 70s; my advisor's advisor, who was recruited in that decade, had already signed a contract for tenured employment before his PhD was even over, as did many of his peers. Nowadays, it's typical to postdoc for a minimum of 3 years, and then play the odds, which are not in the candidate's favour as the 6% faculty to 9% postdoc hints at.
Administrators usually exist for specific reasons. As long as those reasons remain, it's difficult to cut administrators. If there are regulations governing what the university is allowed to do with federal money, the university needs administrators to ensure and report compliance. If students expect that the university will provide accommodation, the university needs enough staff to run a small city and all associated services.
I have a friend who’s a fairly established scientist in his field. The promised cuts to NIH indirect funding would have exactly the effect you’re describing by requiring them to spend time calculating everything as direct costs for every shared resource precisely enough to survive an audit. Trying to save money there will cost more than it’s worth because most of the shared people, equipment, and resources are paid for by NIH but they’d have to add accounting staff to document which fraction gets billed to which grant at that level of precision.
In my experience, they'll try find literally anyone else they can before laying off engineers. Both times I've been a part of it was like 10-20% of laid off employees were engineering. 80-90% recruiting, support, admin, HR, middle management, design, etc, etc. As much as possible leave sales, marketing, engineering functions alone.
No doubt you need admin to help accommodate students learning needs but I've come around to thinking that they should change the parameters around testing and give every student the opportunity to use "accommodations" rather than making them prove their disability. Everyone is being granted the same degree, if a significant number of the students in your program need accommodations, like extra time on the exam, why not grant it to everybody who asks? Or better yet, just give everyone the time they need. It seems silly to me that you need to prove your need before you can get things like extra time - I think it should be opened up to everybody
Eh, maybe. Part of me thinks this is making a spectacle out of having to tighten up the finances.
I’m reminded of when I was in school many years ago at a state university. The state called for a 2% budget cut. Or in other words, going back to what the budget was a year or two prior. The administration went on and on about how there was absolutely no fat to cut and started making loud public statements about how they would “need” to do ridiculous things like cut the number of offered sections for undergrad mathematics courses by 15%, eliminate the music department, etc. They whipped the students into a frenzy and the whole thing culminated with a protest march down to the capitol building, and the state relented.
I don't entirely know how much of this is attributable to each part, but my suggestions are that these administrators are driven by:
1. Increases in student services (ie sports)
2. Laws and regulations, like Title IX
3. Increased bureaucracy around government grants and research funding
4. Huge endowments that need managers
Unless your college is failing, it is hard to believe that the student population hasn’t changed significantly over the last 30 years, when the US population has almost grown by 30%.
I attended UCI over 25 years ago. The student population has since more than doubled. Tuition rates, interestingly have also almost doubled.
For instance, I can tell you right now with certainty that at any large university the number of software devs or database admins in the IT department far outpace the number of financial analysts working in foundation/endowment. Pick any large university at random, and I'll wager that without even knowing the spread.
But here's the thing, universities need IT divisions. They also need the other large operations level bureaucracies they typically have put in place. Facilities and plant, university police, housing, etc etc. You can't pull off a large university without these divisions nowadays. So saying, "Oh we can cut them" is very shortsighted.
Ye olde Sowell quote[1] about institutional priorities and budget cuts seems highly appropriate here.
[1] https://www.pennlive.com/opinion/2013/03/thomas_sowell_budge...
Much of that professional staff is geared toward corporate-style product development and marketing, because they've been forced to by a lack of public funding. And while a commercial corporation generally aims to retain and grow a customer base, gaining some economy of scale for those professional positions, universities are functionally capped at those small ratios you describe.
Of course there is administrative bloat, and the funding model doesn't do enough to self-regulate that, but lack of public investment causes more systemic inefficiencies than that.
There’s a separate factor at play here: colleges are increasingly using people who are not full-time tenured professors to teach classes. See, for example: https://acoup.blog/2023/04/28/collections-academic-ranks-exp...
It is a vicious feedback loop.
People act like a reseach faculty member should be conducting cutting edge research while writing findings applying from Grant's advising students on course course offerings and courting employers while also snoozing with alumni for donations.
Noone can do it all and thus there are specialist in these fields that usually cost a fraction of what a faculty member costs.
I'm a staunch supporter of higher education, but I think it's worth observing that the public university and college system educates people at a much lower cost. The huge cost disparity between private and public college challenges most simplistic explanations.
I'm drawn to the parallels between our "private" universities and our "private" health care system. Both face almost exactly the same criticism of costing twice as much while imposing barriers to access.
I don't think improving higher education is the present government's intention, but if it were my intention, I'd focus on supporting our public universities, colleges, community colleges, and trade schools. Both of my kids graduated from public colleges, debt free.
It's an example of how you can take something that's true, put it out of context, and be completely wrong.
On the campuses of today's major universities there are entire support divisions. Housing, Facilities and Plant, Foundation, and on and on. And all that is before we even get to the big new divisions to come online on campuses since 1976. ie - University Police and IT divisions. These divisions collectively employ thousands of people at a typical university. In fact, at most universities, the ratio of employees in the bureaucracies to academic staff is roughly between 15:1 and 20:1.
If we want to cut that appreciably, you have to take a hatchet to the biggest divisions. (For most universities that will be IT.) Which is exactly what some universities have done. For example, the University of Wisconsin got that ratio down to roughly 8:1 at one point. But there were still a whole lot of database admins over at UW DoIT.
Point being, when people say "administrators", they're talking about the flood of IT guys, facilities planners, and project managers hired long after 1976. Most universities are far more lean on deans than they are on software developers or database admins for instance. So it's not at all clear how to get rid of an appreciable number of these people and still have a functioning UCLA just as an example.
And here's the bad news, I've only mentioned a few of the operations level bureaucracies required to pull off something like the University of Texas, or University of Michigan, or University of Wisconsin. Or even Penn for that matter. It's not as easy a problem to solve as people make it out to be.
I might go even further and suggest that the problem is trying to figure out how a university works by counting job titles.
Administrators are typically paid out of tuition. Penn is cutting uses in line with sources.
They could presumably cut admin staff to some extent, and pay grad students out of the tuition funds freed up. But why would we expect the bosses to fire their friends?
- talk about academic "administrators"
- lazily generalize
- be intellectually honest
The answers you are seeking require reading at least a whole book of information!
I don't know if this equilibrium is natural or not since it's been the paradigm for centuries across a lot of life. I'm describing deep entitlement, the pure raw form of it.
I’ve heard the theory that more regulation leads to more admin needs but I don’t think higher education has been increasingly regulated for decades.
Penn has an army of postdocs and research staff too. Even though they aren’t paid out of indirects, they do need to get paid, have places to park, get safety training, etc, all of which do need admins.
Because things never made headlines and you never paid attention.
Maybe talk to a professor or an administrator, or ask ChatGPT before posting such ignorant comment.
Yes. You don't. But other people do.
I don’t think higher education has been increasingly regulated for decades
Every industry has. Education more than most.
Similar to teachers having to buy their own pencils etc but school administrators and their retirement funds never seemed to be cut.
This is not and was never supposed to increase American research productivity. Just the opposite actually, they want less science done in America, and as a bonus they “save” about $5 billion, that is, approximately one half the cost of a single aircraft carrier
I mentioned Chesterton's Fence in another post here, about really understanding a problem and why things are done in a certain way, before tearing everything down. I'd really encourage people to try to understand things better before jumping to conclusions, it's not all that different from the engineer's disease that often gets mentioned on HN.
Facilites are the cost of buildings, electricity, janitorial service, etc. Think of this as things that might be included in the rent if you were renting a place to do the research.
Administration costs are mostly salaries for people, administrative and clerical staff. Not the people directly doing the research (that's a direct cost), but the people in charge of safety/compliance/legal, etc.
Administrative costs have been capped at 25% for a few decades. Facilities costs are not capped.
For those who are questioning the validity of a 59% (or higher for some other institutions) overhead rate, your concerns are worth hearing and a review could be necessary, but oh my please not like this. This was an overnight (likely illegal!) change made with no warning and no consultation.
If the government decided that a cap was necessary it should be phased in to allow for insitutions to adjust the operational budgets gradually rather than this shock therapy that destroys lives and WASTES research money (as labs are potentially unable to staff their ongoing projects). A phased in approach would have nearly the same long-term budget implications.
Are there too many admin staff? Likely? Is this the right way to address that? Absolutely not.
For those who are unfamiliar with how career progress works in Academia, it is so competitive that even a year or two "break" in your career likely means you are forever unable to get a job. If you're on year 12 of an academic career, attempting to get your first job after your second (probably underpaid) postdoc and suddenly there are no jobs, you can't just wait it out. You are probably just done, and out of the market forever as you will lose your connections and have a gap in your CV which in this market is enough to disqualify you.
Why should the public believe that procedures that produced 59% overhead rates in the first place can be trusted to fix those overhead rates now? Sounds like a demand for an opportunity to derail needed reform by drowning it in red tape.
Also, what would be illegal about the change? Are the overhead rates in a statute somewhere? The grants certainly aren’t individually appropriated by Congress.
First some basic math: if a project is budgeted at a direct cost of $500,000, the indirect rate of 60% applies to the $500,000, i.e. $300,000.
The total grant is thus $500K + $300K = $800K. The $300K indirect costs are thus 37.5% of the total. This is an upper limit, as many direct costs such as equipment do not get indirect rates applied to them.
Second, these rates are painstakingly negotiated with the NSF and NIH. Yearly audits to ensure compliance must be passed if funding is to continue.
Third, these indirect cost go towards to items such as electricity, heat, building maintenance, safety training and compliance, chemical disposal, and last by not least laboratory support services such as histology labs, proteomics core, compute infrastructure, and some full time staff scientific staff. Only a relatively small portion goes to administration.
Finally, scientists generally would welcome review and reform of indirect costs to ensure they get the maximize benefit from the indirect rates. However, DOGE is not interested in reform. They are interested in raze and burn destruction.
If DOGE gets its way, it will knock the Unites States off its perch as the world’s technological leader.
For example I know at my institution every dollar, every piece of effort, is painstakingly tracked and attributed to funding sources. We have extensive internal checks to make sure we aren’t misusing funds. Audits happen at every major milestone. All of that effort is reported. It’s exhausting but the government requires it because we have to be good stewards of the funds we have been granted. No one believes it.
It's a funny thing. there is a distinct chauvinism to any citizen's nation. Every American is confident and absolutely positive that we are the best in so many categories. By what metrics? And who measures these? What about other nations who claim the top spot as well?
Before I travelled to Europe in 2008 I had some mental image of backwards, technologically inept populace that had old electronics and lagging standards and rickety brittle infrastructure. I mean you watch films and look at pictures and you see the roads and the old buildings and the funky cars and there's just a mix of things that are 500 years old or 1500 years back and thoroughly modern.
when I finally showed up in Spain I was completely disabused because all the electronics and the homes were totally modern and there were big box superstores that looked exactly like Target or safeway.
We went to shopping malls, watched normal first-run films in luxurious theaters that sold beer, and we rode around in cars/trains/boats, and I visited veterinarian and physician and hospital, and the medical treatment was indistinguishable from the American type.
I mean, this is one consumer's anecdata, but you've got to consider that we're ready to believe vague propaganda about #1 America First Outclassing The Solar System, and the fervent patriotism is perhaps not a 100% accurate lens.
Universities are designed to collect and disseminate knowledge worldwide. The top institutions and even the worst ones thrive on international collaboration. Think about how difficult it is to achieve and hold military superiority even. Schools are an effective equalizer, and globalist mindsets are the default.
2024 appropriations (and it showed in many years before then-- Public Law 118-47. Statutes at Large 138 (2024): 677.
SEC. 224. In making Federal financial assistance, the provisions relating to indirect costs in part 75 of title 45, Code of Federal Regulations, including with respect to the approval of deviations from negotiated rates, shall continue to apply to the National Institutes of Health to the same extent and in the same manner as such provisions were applied in the third quarter of fiscal year 2017. None of the funds appropriated in this or prior Acts or otherwise made available to the Department of Health and Human Services or to any department or agency may be used to develop or implement a modified approach to such provisions, or to intentionally or substantially expand the fiscal effect of the approval of such deviations from negotiated rates beyond the proportional effect of such approvals in such quarter.
> The negotiated rates must be accepted by all Federal awarding agencies. An HHS awarding agency may use a rate different from the negotiated rate for a class of Federal awards or a single Federal award only when required by Federal statute or regulation, or when approved by a Federal awarding agency head or delegate based on documented justification as described in paragraph (c)(3) of this section.
Subsection (c)(3), in turn, says:
> (3) The HHS awarding agency must implement, and make publicly available, the policies, procedures and general decision making criteria that their programs will follow to seek and justify deviations from negotiated rates.
Just based on a quick perusal it seems like the administration has a decent argument that the agency head can approve the 15% indirect by fiat as long as he or she comes up with a documented justification.
At the *very* least you should be following the administrative rules act (requiring you to solicit 45 days for comments by effected parties) before making such a dramatic change in policy.
Courts absolutely love striking down EOs (of both Dems and Reps Admins) when they should have been following the administrative rules act.
But the real question is why does the general public think 59% is too high? Irs an arbitrary number. Maybe an appropriate level of “overhead” is 1000%.
In reality the people who actually know anything about how this is calculated, across the board and across the political spectrum, do not think this is a major concern at all.
The only people who are complaining about it are the ones who hear the word overhead, have no concept of what it means other than taking a lay persons understanding that all overhead is unnecessary and are coming with the idea that anything above 0% is bad.
2. What is illegal about the change. The NIH overhead rate is actually negotiated directly between the institution and the NIH, following a process put into law. This is why a federal judge has blocked this order [1]. I'm far from a lawyer, but my read of this is that this is a change that would need to come through congress or a re-negotiation of the rates through the mandated process.
[1]: https://www.aamc.org/news/press-releases/aamc-lawsuit-result...
Besides the president screwing with the budget agreed upon by Congress that kicked all this off?
Instead, the grant is for $1.59M, and each individual charge to the grant pays an extra 59% to the university, conditionally, depending on the type of charge and the unbelievably messed up rules set by the university in concert with the government. Buying a $4000 laptop? Probably costs your grant balance $6360. Buying a $5000 laptop? Probably costs $5000 becuase it’s “capital equipment” or “major equipment” and is thus exempt. Guess who deliberately wastes their own and this also the university’s and government’s money by deliberately buying unnecessarily expensive stuff? It gets extra fun when the same research group has grants from different sources with different overhead rates: costs are allocated based on whether they are exempt from overhead!
And cost-plus disease is in full effect, too. If the research group doesn’t use all their awarded money because the finish the project early or below estimated cost, the university doesn’t get paid their share of the unspent money. This likely contributes to grantees never wanting to leave money unspent.
Of course, DOGE isn’t trying to fix any of the above.
For example:
- Complete elimination of federal workforce (RAGE)
- Full military withdrawal from NATO/Europe
- Dramatic cuts to essential services (eg, Social Security)
What potential actions would make you feel the downsides outweigh any benefits? I'm curious what your threshold is for acceptable vs. unacceptable changes.
Honest question. If the job market is that competitive, why are we guiding people down this path that requires investing their entire young adult life? To me, it seems you've inadvertently made a case for cutting funding.
If you focus on training PhDs, which is the American way, you get a steady stream of new people with fresh ideas. But then most PhDs must leave the academia after graduating.
If you focus on postdocs, you get more value from the PhDs you have trained. Most will still have to leave the academia, but it happens in a later career stage.
If you focus on long-term jobs, you have more experienced researchers working on longer-term projects. But then you are stuck with the people you chose before you had a good idea of their ability to contribute.
BTW, interesting thinking on the action for action's sake governing style:
"The cult of action for action’s sake. “Action being beautiful in itself, it must be taken before, or without, any previous reflection. Thinking is a form of emasculation."
https://www.openculture.com/2024/11/umberto-ecos-list-of-the...
If that action also hurts liberals working at traditionally liberal aligned institutions, all the better in their minds.
There is no reason students get a third of the grant money and live in poverty (30k per year) while the university hires a football coach for ten million and builds a new building every year.
This is exactly the way this has to be handled, the universities are intentionally making this look worse than it is for public sympathy.
You can make a strong argument these institutions require reform, but such reform should be done not overnight, and not through such broad strokes.
The kind of reform you are talking about does not work against quasi-government organizations with the GDP of small countries.
It'll be held up in courts for 50 years, and even then it'll be a game of whack a mole.
There's a reason things got so bad.
Most of the critics of the doge are arguing that the changes are too fast and that the system needs to gradually and systematically through a series of conferences and meetings come to a proposal that might be implemented sometime in the future.
No, when a major for-profit company outsources research they pay way more than a 50% “markup”. Unless they go to a research university: then they pay much less, and just like the federal government they are getting a fine deal.
Yes, some rich foundations (Gates, Ellison etc) exploit the situation and do not pay full overhead costs: They are essentially mooching on the research institutions and the federal government.
It's very easy to lie in budgets by only counting a subset of expenses.
In academia*
This comment encapsulates a big part of why people like Trump. They are sick of inaction in the name of careful consideration and nuance.
And I kinda understand it. By analogy, I've see this many times at different companies I've worked at. Whether it's a 20-year scripting engine or a hastily put together build system that barely works but the entire project depends on, whenever someone suggests to replace it you just get reason after reason for why you have to move slowly and consider all the fine details. Months and years pass and the core system never improves because an "old guard" shuts down every attempt to change it. Finally, someone new comes in and calls bullshit and says enough's enough, and rallies a team to rebuild it. After a difficult process, you finally have something that works better than the old system ever could.
Yeah, I understand the story doesn't always end well, but the analogy above helps me understand Trump's appeal.
Move fast and break things is fine in a competitive marketplace. It’s asinine for the government to do.
The answer is to elect better politicians who can nominate better heads and those department heads can drive the necessary change without succumbing to the old guard.
This NEVER works. It just doesn't.
Bureaucracies are self perpetuating, it's just their nature. Each person at the bureaucracy is 100% certain they are essential.
The only way to shrink them is to force them.
The end of that period of reduction was Clinton's Presidency. Clinton's National Performance Review (NPR) started at the beginning his term in '93. It had goals very similar to the stated goals of this efficiency effort, but it was organized completely differently. He said, "I'll ask every member of our Cabinet to assign their best people to this project, managers, auditors, and frontline workers as well."
GPT4o: The NPR's initial report, released in September 1993, contained 384 recommendations focused on cutting red tape, empowering employees, and enhancing customer service. Implementation of these recommendations involved presidential directives, congressional actions, and agency-specific initiatives. Notably, the NPR led to the passage of the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) of 1993, which required federal agencies to develop strategic plans and measure performance outcomes. Additionally, the NPR contributed to a reduction of over 377,000 federal jobs during the 1990s, primarily through buyouts, early retirements, natural attrition and some layoffs (reductions-in-force or RIFs).
Source: https://govinfo.library.unt.edu/npr/library/papers/bkgrd/bri...):
The recommendations that involved changes to law, the GPRA, were passed in both houses of Congress by unanimous voice vote.
I don't think the stated goals of the current efficiency drive are controversial. The problem is the method. I want to understand the basis for people supporting those methods, the "we've got to break some eggs" crowd, when the example of the NPR exists. In my opinion, it didn't cause conflicts between branches of government, didn't disrupt markets, and was wildly successful. It also caused much less disruption in people's lives, because the changes were implemented over several years with much more warning.
I, personally, don't think the real goals of this effort are the stated goals, but that's a different issue.
I get ads on X that are just videos of animals being slowly shot multiple times to death. There's also some for tools to slim jim car locks. None of the mainstream/normal accounts I used to follow (shout out SwiftOnSecurity) are there, and instead it's a hotbed of crypto scams and deranged vitriol. The site is still running, but is a shell of its former self, making so little money that Elon is trying to sue people (and now, abusing US govt payment systems) to force them to pay him for advertising.
I can see how if you think that's a success, that you would think similar actions with regard to the US government are successful. The necessary cuts he's making are not necessary, and I'm guessing you aren't impacted, so, given the general lack of theory of mind towards others, I'm not surprised you think they're ok. The rest of us out there who understand the idea of human suffering are concerned for our fellow citizens facing arbitrary and unnecessary pain as the result of a capricious court eunach's drug influenced decisions before the "restabilization" that will never happen.
Moreover, scientific R&D is a strange place to slash if cost savings are the goal. Medicare and Medicaid comprise over 50 times the NIH and NSF combined budget of approximately $50B. If we want to save costs, research into diseases like Alzheimer’s Disease is the way to go. Alzheimer’s currently costs the nation $412B per year [1], eight times the NIH annual budget. Therapies which delayed the onset of Alzheimer’s Disease by 20 years would nearly eliminate this cost.
Let’s be clear: DOGE is led by a self described autist who has little idea how government and broader society functions. The damage he will do if left unchecked is vast.
And to the extent Twitter is still limping along it’s because Twitter due to its very nature benefits immensely from the stickiness of social networks.
For example, Facebook is almost completely junk. It hasn’t improved or been relevant in a long time. And yet it survives and makes tons of money simply because people don’t want to rebuild their networks.
There are many other examples where even minor cuts have been devastating. The classic example is of course GE, the ultimate example of cutting a company to the bone, which worked for a decade or so, but set the company up to essentially cease to exist after.
Then you have Boeing, a company in an industry with less competition than probably any other in the world and it’s struggling to make money because of this thinking.
Twitter hardly ever made money before and after is in the same state now. Its contribution (anything?) to this country is far different than a government institution.
The comparison here isn’t encouraging and makes no sense.
Great euphemism for “In one month, we’re going to kill tens of millions by withholding food/medical care and permanently destroy institutions that took a century to build”.
I’m going to use that phrase.
Meanwhile, the companies Musk built that actually have dominated their space are big idea innovators like Tesla and SpaceX. Musk wasn’t successful because he’s a good penny pincher, he was successful by burning cash on big ideas and talented people.
But somehow we decided its case 1 that we’ll apply to the government.
Sure, if we detonate all nukes, I imagine 20% of humanity will survive. "We" won't die out that easily. Me and you are probably dead, though. Statistically speaking.
[0]: <https://www.cnn.com/2024/10/02/business/elon-musk-twitter-x-...>
US Government is not Twitter, but yeah, I can see some element of it. Now I suddenly remember, the various comments here convinced me that X/Twitter will be dead in just two months. Yet, it's still around. Not that I care to make account there or bother looking at it, but I figure if it kept crashing, it would show up in the news. Maybe everyone moved to bluesky and it just doesn't have any customers?
I, as a PI, am not directly admitting anyone into my group this year to ensure I have enough funding to pay existing group members. We're hunkering down and making sure those we have now will be funded through the rest of their Ph.D. While this article is talking about program-level decisions, there is a bottom-up aspect as well - at my program and many others, we (faculty) directly admit students into our group and are often responsible for their salaries from day one. Many faculty are, at an individual level, making the same decision I am, to reduce or eliminate any admissions offers this year.
Edit: For reference, I am not at UPenn, but at a "typical" state school engineering program.
if they do know that, they don’t realize how tightly each term’s stipend is tied to a specific funding source.
* (It was this one: U. of Pittsburgh pauses Ph.D. admissions amid research funding uncertainty - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43145483.)
Even if you subscribe to an America First policy, tearing down university research labs (which is the knock-on effect of cuts at the NIH, NSF, etc.) is one of the worst things you could do.
Want to actually cut gov spending? Look no further than the military budget (which the GOP Congress is proposing to _increase_, not decrease).
(That being said, yes, there is waste at universities. I'm all for some reform, but this is not reform, it's destruction.)
social security and medicaid, absolutely not (scrutiny, fine; cuts, no)
It makes not an iota of difference whether somebody "was chosen by the people" (the Felon), or not (the Husk).
We can all plainly see what's going on, and there isn't any need to steelman it, or contort ourselves to deduce what pretzel logic might cause Felon/Husk to choose these particular actions.
> If institutions don't push back together, they will cease to exist in the form they are now. I don't know how to say this more clearly.
And my heavens yes. This is the government threatening to end funding for universities. This movie here is no where anywhere near enough. This is an attempt to end the entire higher education system.
Does it need help & reform? Yes. But simply destroying education outright serves no good. This is a destruction of civilization by radical extremists. Universities need to be working together to defend against this mortal threat to the existence of higher education.
I've worked at a university, startup, and large company. In terms of efficiency, startup > university > large company. In other words, large companies are less efficient than universities and universities are less efficient that startups.
I agree the grant overhead is ridiculous and that Universities are bloated with administrators. It felt like every 6 months, an administrator would find a previously unnoticed rule that would indicate my office placement violated some rule, and I would have to move. I think I went through three office moves. Ugh. On the other hand, universities provided time and resources for real work to get done
I would love to have fewer vice presidents, etc., people who really are administrators / middle managers, on our campuses. But there really aren't as many of these positions as people seem to think. Articles like [0] (cited in one of the othe comments) seem to lump everyone who is not faculty or student an "administrator." Most such people are really staff; on the research side they help with accounting, compliance, etc. (On the student-facing side there's also a lot of staff -- students & families expect a lot more from universities now, everything from housing to fancy gyms to on-campus healthcare, and more. All that needs staff to run.) To confuse things more, some faculty (say at med schools) don't teach all that much, and some "administrators" do pitch in and teach from time to time.
Again, I don't disagree we can do better, but I also think any discussion of higher ed costs and inefficiencies really should start with the reality of what universities do.
[0] https://www.forbes.com/sites/paulweinstein/2023/08/28/admini...
> The professor added that the University “pulled the rug out” from many faculty members, some of whom had already offered acceptances to students they had thought were admitted — only to now face the possibility of having to cut those students from the program.
If students were informed they were accepted, by anyone at the university (even verbally by a professor), then it's time for the university to cover this (regardless of which budgets it was supposed to come out of), even if it has to draw down the endowment.
Unless the university is willing to ruin a bunch of students' lives in brinksmanship, and then deal with the well-deserved lawsuits.
It's nominally to fund general facilities, etc. At least at public universities, it does wind up indirectly supporting departments that get less grant money or (more commonly) just general overhead/funds. However, it's not explicitly for that. It's just that universities take at least half of any grant you get. There's a reason large research programs are pushed for at both private and public universities. They do bring in a lot of cash that can go to a lot of things.
This also factors a lot into postdocs vs grad students. In addition to the ~50% that the university takes, you then need to pay your grad student's tuition out of the grant. At some universities, that will be the full, out-of-state/unsupported rate. At others, it will be the minimum in-state rate. Then you also pay a grad student's (meager) salary out of the grant. However, for a post-doc, you only pay their (less meager, but still not great) salary. So you get a lot more bang for your buck out of post-docs than grad students, for better or worse. This has led to ~10 years of post-doc positions being pretty typical post PhD in a lot of fields.
With all that said, I know it sounds "greedy", but universities really do provide a lot that it's reasonable to take large portions of grants for. ~50% has always seemed high to me, but I do feel that the institution and facilities really provide value. E.g. things like "oh, hey, my fancy instrument needs a chilled water supply and the university has that in-place", as well as less tangible things like "large concentration of unique skillsets". I'm not sure it justifies 50% grant overhead, but before folks get out their pitchforks, universities really do provide a lot of value for that percentage of grant money they're taking.
Even in the defense industry, a cost-plus contract with a 10% margin is a lot. And it’s a federal crime to include costs in the overhead amount that aren’t traceable to the actual project.
Second, modern research needs a lot of people doing non-directly research adjacent stuff. Imagine looking at all the support people on an airbase, and saying why don’t we just cut them and let the pilots fly without all this logistics baggage.
If you are Bozo University that has no grants, you also have no overhead, because everything you spend is attributable to that first grant. You spend $50 for tiny little flasks of liquid nitrogen. You buy paper at Staples.
If you are UCSF, you have 80% "overhead" because everything is centralized. Your LN2 is delivered by barge. You buy paper from International Paper, net 20, by the cubic meter. You have a central office that washes all the glassware. Your mouse experiments share veterinarians. All of this costs much, much less because of the "overhead".
University 1 gets $100. $10 of it goes to admin, $90 to researcher. Researcher spends $60 on supplies and equipment. This is accounted for as 10% administrative overhead.
University 2 gets $100. $20 of it goes to admin, $40 to researcher, $40 to supplies and equipment. This is accounted for as 60% administrative overhead.
Is this an accurate characterization of your claim?
if a grant is the same $1M and Bozo University gets to spend all million on the actual research at hand, but UCSF only gets 200K, how is UCSF more efficient?
Wouldn't the LN2 be traceable to the project either way as direct non-overhead cost, but UCSF efficiency makes that cost lower, achieving the same overhead ratio but either a lower grant cost or more researcher stipend?
No, PhD students from areas where funding is not available are required to teach. The university pays them for the teaching. Considerably less than what they would have had to pay someone who teaches for a living.
Take the army for example, it's estimated 30~40% of the workforce is dedicated to logistics. This is equivalent to 42~66% overhead (in the same sense that overhead is discussed in the context of academia, as +% cost) if you were to count only combat personnel as the direct costs.
This is was universities do, they only count research expenses as the direct costs. Yet it's quite obvious a university can't run just on scientists.
This 59% overhead is equivalent to 37% of the expenses. So, unlike you, I'm positively surprised that 63% of expenses go directly to the core mission with only 37% "waste" (which is necessary to ensure the scientists can actually work, and work efficiently).
Not enough in the piggy bank to cover?
Penn is spending around $1 billion/year from their endowment, which is a fairly reasonably amount for an endowment of $22 billion.
Penn itself is older than the United States - they're not going to start blowing through their endowment because of political trends over the last couple months (or next 4 years), even if they legally could.
It's a rational move given the U.S. governments word on payments and commitments is no longer credible. If your employer started bouncing paycheques, your cutting back on expenses wouldn't be "intended to be used for rhetoric." It's simple self preservation.
I certainly don't think shutting down American research and having a country where there are no new graduate students is a really sane scenario. I think some research is definitely inexplicable when it comes to being taxpayer-funded, and some labs are bloated and can run a tighter ship. But everyone is basically paying the price because of a small minority of labs who are operating as though they aren't receiving taxpayer money, and are conducting research that is truly pointless. Of course those labs exist, but they are a small group of labs... Clearly no one wants to spend the time to look at all the grants and projects individually to find the bloat. The strange part is that doing this sort of mass-culling actually just invigorates many to double-down on what they are doing if it is somewhat politically unsavory right now. So it really isn't achieving much other than recruiting an opposition to republican power, which is probably worth more to prevent than the money that could be saved.
I think it's realistic to assume that the federal government is going to just wholesale cut a lot of the science funding, because compared to other nations, America actually funds a whole lot of science, and from what I can tell, that's much less true in other countries. The effects of that might be a bit abstracted from this event, these cuts might just result in less scientific innovation, which could cost billions of dollars added up over time easily. But, if this is just a sort of shock-and-awe thing, and then money starts becoming available again and the result is that "DEI" practices are expunged from criteria, then maybe the takeaway is just that labs just act with a lot more caution. From what I see, most labs already operate under large amounts of caution because the grant system is tricky enough.
The academia model is deeply, profoundly broken.
That's really depressing to be honest.
I don't think it's great the PhD programs disproportionately attract desperate talent willing to work for poverty wages.
I'm not saying the labs need to pay crazy BigTech wages. But the status quo is downright abusive. And nevermind all the perverse incentives around publishing.
A postdoc makes something close to the median wage. While not great, it's enough that people in general are expected to buy homes and start families with incomes like that. You can't reasonably expect more from an early career job that doesn't produce anything with a direct monetary value.
A PhD student earns much less, because the rest is used to cover tuition. And that is the root issue. Neither the federal government nor the states pay universities to train PhDs. The tuition must be paid by the student or from another source. The former does not make sense if you are not rich. If tuition is paid from grants, stipends will be low, as funding agencies don't want to pay more for trainees than qualified researchers. And if the PhD student works as a part-time teaching assistant, undergrads are effectively paying their tuition and stipend. Raising undergraduate tuition fees to pay PhD students more would not be very popular.
I had been lucky to supplement my phd stipend with big tech internships, but phd life was hell for most of my friends.
I have seen students living in slum-like conditions, 4-6 people sharing two bedroom apartments, having to get free canned food from the university, being forced to buy dangerous 20+ year old cars, and so on. These are the brightest minds of our generation.
It's sad to see so many of the comments coming out strongly in support of the status quo. Don't let your hatred for whoever the boogieman of the day is dictate your rational mind!
[1]https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39671991/#:~:text=Sixty%20st...
https://bsky.app/profile/luiszaman.bsky.social/post/3ljsazk6...
So exactly what they introduced, except not applying to current grants?
> forced universities find saving in admin/sports etc.
Aren't sports a net money generator for universities?
only for a select few; most are a loss
I was part of a research lab on grants like that. We had close to $1m in total funding, on top of that indirect was like 50% (so $500k/year) We maybe had 4000 sq. foot of lab space in an old building that wasn't maintained well. We had one bathroom for each gender on the floor for the research arm of two whole medical departments. Two admins for the whole research department of 7-8 labs totallying maybe 60-70 staff.
I ran the numbers and the lab space would have maybe cost $100k/year tops (probably more like $80k, depending on quality) if we were rent out equivalent industrial office space. On top of that you have electrical, heating, telecom, at most $10k. Support services such as HR, cleaning, IT support (of which we didn't use a whole lot) could have been contracted out, at most around $20k. So there was about $350k which I figured was mostly just a subsidy and went to "administration". Not that I was philosophically opposed to it, except maybe the admin.
Overhead isn't applied uniformly. For example, tuition for Ph.D. students isn't charged overhead, nor is (usually) equipment. So on $1m of funding, if you've got 4 Ph.D. students, that may be something like $200k/year of tuition that isn't subject to overhead. Add in another $100k of equipment and suddenly that 50% indirect cost rate is actually more like 35%, so you end up doing $1m of "work" on $1.35m of budget.
Departments often negotiate something called "overhead return", which is a way of returning a small amount of money to the individual departments -- some of this does things like supporting Ph.D. students if their advisor runs out of funds, or helping research faculty bridge short funding gaps. These things are reasonable and help the institution remain coherent through the uncertainty of grant-driven existence.
There's waste everywhere, but it's not quite as bad as it might seem without a deeper understanding of the university research funding model.
The money you complain about goes to run an org that has connections, does advertising, provides stable employment when grants fluctuate, has hiring and HR and payroll and a zillion other services, all making those doing the research more able to do research, and provides more channels to move results into production.
So it makes sense. You just haven’t thought through or had to perform all the pieces, so to you it doesn’t make sense.
It's significant that U. Pitt. chose to stop admitting students rather than starting to lay off administrators.
If you build a good lab which has versatile equipment to address many use-cases, the indirect costs will be high.
Private industry is charging/billing cost + margin for profit.
University is saying X is allocated for research, Y is allocated to keep the lights running for the facility and pay for students. The students are generally funded by research, not the University. No research money, no money for students.
Two S&P 100s, one 500.
Academia is not "private industry."
Those overhead fees go to fund that, so universities don’t have to be even mere full of nepo baby donor legacy admissions than they already are
I think there’s some truth to that criticism. I would prefer to see the institutions reformed democratically than destroyed by fiat. I contend that sacrificing rule of law is deeply counterproductive. But the core complaint that things aren’t working? There’s some truth to it.
> Yale University employs nearly one administrator per undergrad [1]
If Penn suffers from this same bloat, maybe they should be cutting adminstrators. I see no mention of such cuts in this article.
[1] https://www.thecollegefix.com/yale-university-employs-nearly...
1. If you want to have some perspective on what indirect costs actually cover I'd recommend this video (published 2 years ago) by AAU, AAMC, and other partner associations. -- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yxTDlFvkvio
2. The courts have temporarily blocked the indirect cuts to existing grants, but the Trump administration is using other backdoor means to further withhold funding. See this article in Nature -- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yxTDlFvkvio
The long and the short of it, is that NIH is not reviewing grants or making awards at anywhere near "normal". Study sections are being cancelled at the last minute without any certainty about when they will be held. Investigators with existing multi-year grants don't know what to expect at renewal time. Factor in the layoffs at NIH and NSF as well.
The administration has also said they intend to cut NSF budgets from $9B to about $3B dollars.
Under these circumstances it would be irresponsible for universities to admit normal numbers of graduate students.
Even if tomorrow the Trump administration said "Whoops, we messed up" and reversed all executive orders, I'd estimate they've cost the US research enterprise something like 12-18 months of productivity. And we're only 1 month into Trump 2.0.
Here's some other knock on effects I anticipate we'll see in the next 3-6 months:
1. Opportunities for undergrad research will be greatly reduced. If you have a college age kid who's interested in engaging in research of any kind (sciences, humanities, engineering) they will have many fewer opportunities and those opening that exist will be even more competitive to get into.
2. Universities will cut way back on lab renovations, new facilities, and delay upkeep. Few people understand just how many tradespeople work on a university campus every day. This includes both facilities staff but also many outside contractors. This will have a major impact on blue collar jobs.
3. IT companies, biotechs, and scientific suppliers for whom universities are key clients are going to be hit hard. Expect layoffs and small companies to close up shop in this sector as the effects of research cuts percolate through the system.
I'm grateful that I have enough funds to guarantee two more years here as a postdoc, but if things don't settle for the better there might not be a spot here anymore.
Sure, it's "only ~2%", but surely I don't need to tell you how the money, meant to _persist in perpetuity_, a _237_ year old institution has accumulated to educate _30,000_ students is a different measure than an annual income? - a drop large enough to, as I pointed out above, no longer make it a viable sum of money in perpetuity?
Here I'm imagining you, sitting on let's say, $500,000 and thinking it's no problem if you spend _an extra_ $10,000 more every year, it's only 2%, and then wondering after a while where all the money to invest went, but where your money went entirely. I think rather than comment on a university's finances, better make sure yours are in order first because I suspect there's a troubling fundamental lack of financial literacy on display here that's going to come back to haunt you at some point.
https://www.biospace.com/business/big-pharma-rushes-to-china...
Come on, are we supposed to discuss the finance of university administration as if this is some well-thought-out proposal to make America's universities be better and more efficient? Don't give in to the gaslighting. The barbarians have breached the gate and we're arguing whether torching down the main street would help us with next city council meeting.
But that's not what they're doing. They're dismantling the executive branch of the federal government because they want less regulation for all their corporate buddies, and they want to privatize lots of government functions to, again, benefit all their corporate buddies.
And on top of that, they want to cut taxes (for corporations and the wealthy, mainly) at a level that will reduce tax revenue beyond the spending cuts they want to make. So they won't be balancing the budget, or reducing the deficit. We'll still have a federal government that borrows more and more money every year, but provides less and less to the people of the country.
That's it. There's no noble plan here.
I think beneath Musk's buffoonery there is a political pivot happening. Part of me wonders if he is a heel to make Trump seem more normal.
The current state of academia paper mills, unreproducible research and rampant fraud are a direct result of the spigot of money and lack of accountability.
Higher education is in for a rude awakening under the Trump administration. All I can say is it’s a shame Doge can’t do layoffs and clean house at some of these universities. Do away with tenure and get rid of the dead weight!
Innovation isn't found by making faster horses, you can't treat tomorrows tech as you would yesterdays line budget.
These actions by the government are fucking over people who have dedicated years of their lives to pursue advanced research degrees and academic careers.
We've seen how this model plays out. One by one, big pharma shut down its antibiotics division, precisely when we most need to antibiotics to be developed. Instead they target low cost, high reward directions, such as figuring out how to put Ozempic into a pill (instead of a shot).
What if we screw all our allies, make them scared for their safety so that they start building their own weapons, dismantle completely the government apparatus by assigning clowns to lead it, gut the income by incapacitating IRS and bringing down all the institutions we built as a nation (universities, congress, courts etc).
I am trying to avoid conspiracies, but how would an enemy from within would look like, if not like this? The only thing not done yet is to point our own ICBMs at us.
It really does not seem like they paused all PhD admissions as an honest way to optimize their money. It seems like they are using their institutional power to protest Trump's policies, to create a sad state of academic research so that Trump is blamed for it until he reverts his policies.
I feel sad for the rejected PhD students that were caught in the crossfire of Pitt's protest.
[1] https://www.utimes.pitt.edu/news/pitt-s-endowment-2022-23
But to think that everyone is okay that solving it means Elon and a hand picked group of 25 year olds can just slash budgets and see top secret documents when none of them would pass a drug test or screen means we are know looking at the fall of the American system
Imagine having tds so bad you support fraud etc because someone managed to put a "legal" label on it.
Moreover, anyone who paid the slightest attention to Trump's own words knows these cuts aren't paying off a deficit.
Another example of the stupidity of Trump/Musk's actions.
These things lead to (very) low-quality threads, as seen below.
Cuba to this day spends more of its GDP on education than any other nation on Earth.
Syria (under Assad) spent more than South Korea, Afghanistan more than Greece, Iran more than the UK, Egypt more than Ireland, Iraq (under Sadam) more than Japan, Saudi Arabia more than Canada, etc.
You can look it up, the more totalitarian the government the higher the spend on education not less.
There's three big cohorts that heavily fund their University systems:
1. The Nordic States 2. Former British colonies 3. Dictatorships
That's why we have museums devoted exclusively to science and the study of science. It's why scientists tend to write great books about the human condition.
Jesus Christ.
Also. Define hard science please.
I find people who feel glee at the suffering of these families disturbing.
This country would literally fall apart within the week and people will beg them to return.
also, nitpick:
>aren’t programmers with a LinkedIn inbox full of recruiters to draw on.
It's not 2022 anymore. Those LinkedIn inboxes are empty for me. This market sucks.
A full on government walkout for a day would fix a ton. They won't care, but even their voter base wouldn't ignore the late payments, cancelled appointments, and overall confusion a day would do.
Without the production of knowledge, it will soon prove impossible to levy objective evidence against the despicable lies of the Trump administration.