undefined | Better HN

0 pointslargbae1y ago0 comments

I am trying to follow this...

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?

0 comments

tarlinian1y ago

Plenty of actual research costs count as overhead to avoid the need to hire an army of accountants to allocate every single bit of spend.

For example, the electricity costs of the lab in which the research is run would typically be paid for by the university and would be considered overhead. It's not "administrative bloat". Most of the particularly gross administrative bloat is on the undergraduate side of things where higher tuition costs have paid for more "activities".

jeffbee1y ago

Note that the institution I used as an example doesn't even have undergrads. It is not using NIH grants to cross-subsidize a college. Medical research is the only thing they do. And they are the #2 recipient of grants, after Johns Hopkins.

selimthegrim1y ago

Caltech has undergrads.

rayiner1y ago

Well how do you know that if you aren’t accounting for it?

PhotonHunter1y ago

F&A rates (facilities and administration, “indirects”) are subject to negotiation every 4 (IIRC) years, where those costs are accounted for (perhaps not well enough, but that is a separate point). The administrative component of F&A been capped at 26% for years and R1 universities are maxed out, so the negotiations are over the facilities component.

mlyle1y ago

You can know what the research organization costs as a whole; and you can know what's "worth" charging to individual projects. The rest is indirect costs, which you can measure and use this data when negotiating indirect cost reimbursement with NSF or NIH.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse