59% is borderline criminal. Perhaps 15% is too low. But 59% is absurd and unacceptable.
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).
I understand how grants and overhead rates work. It’s an embarrassment.
Serious accusations need serious evidence. I'm not a fan of this sowing of doubt without a solid basis to back it up. That's very much the DOGE modus operandi, and it's a lazy and dangerous form of argumentation. I'll call it out wherever I can.
You're just saying "thing bad" and expecting agreement without putting any legwork in. The onus is on the accuser, not the accused.
I do not agree with this statement. Take from that what you will.
> The onus is on the accuser, not the accused.
In criminal law I agree. When it comes to budgeting I do not. The onus is on every program to prove every year that they’re worth funding. I don’t accept the notion that just because something was funded in the past that it was wise then and that it’s wise to continue to fund.
So when someone says “this org has a 90% indirect cost rate and keeps getting funded” I do not think “they must be doing something right”. I instead think “wow they better have a frickin spectacular argument as to how that is possibly justifiable, and I’d bet $3.50 they don’t”.
Find something real to criticize and do it with actual facts.