“Penn State research expenditures again reach record high, topping $968 million”

[BobPSU92]

See the link below. From the article:

“UNIVERSITY PARK, Pa. — Penn State’s research expenditures reached a record high for the third year in a row in fiscal year 2018-19, according to incoming Senior Vice President for Research Lora Weiss. The total figure of $968 million represents a $47 million increase over last year’s figure, and includes a record $593 million in federal funding, as well as $375 million from a combination of private funders, the commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and University sources.

Weiss noted that a 13% increase in the Applied Research Laboratory's research expenditures was a major factor in achieving the record total.”

https://news.psu.edu/story/590015/2019/09/30/research/penn-state-research-expenditures-again-reach-record-high-topping

No doubt this is a bad thing. I hate us.

 

[Achowalogan]

Was this $ spent on research OR $ pledged for research?

 

[BobPSU92]

Was this $ spent on research OR $ pledged for research?

As my dad would say, “If they were better at research and didn’t make so many mistakes, they would spend a lot less.”

 

[BobPSU92]

NOT. FOOTBALL.

PENN. STATE. DOES. OTHER. THINGS.

 

[PSU2UNC]

Was this $ spent on research OR $ pledged for research?

Not sure I understand the question. What does "pledged for research" mean?

I assume they are totaling up grant $$ from external sources (NSF, DoD, USDA, etc). Those aren't pledges...

 

[Achowalogan]

Not sure I understand the question. What does "pledged for research" mean?

I assume they are totaling up grant $$ from external sources (NSF, DoD, USDA, etc). Those aren't pledges...

When presenting data for support (and $ the BOT wants to spend) there is a record of reporting $ pledged vs $ actually received...

 

[MtNittany]

Exceeded only by administrative expenditures?

 

[PSU2UNC]

When presenting data for support (and $ the BOT wants to spend) there is a record of reporting $ pledged vs $ actually received...

Understood, but counting up alumni pledged donations and counting up federal grants are two very, very different things.

 

[BobPSU92]

Exceeded only by administrative expenditures?

I should hope so.

 

[BobPSU92]

Understood, but counting up alumni pledged donations and counting up federal grants are two very, very different things.

It’s more “F*ck us”. You know, we aren’t good at anything.

 

[ericstratton-rushchairman]

Well, i sat as a student rep on the Penn State BOT 1985-87 representing all Branch campus students. I can tell you back then, as now, the board views the University as a large research facility disguised as an institution for higher learning. They don't give a shit about undergrads one bit. This is why they so quickly dumped the whole JS thing on the football program and paid whatever it took to protect the $1B research business. In fact Eric Walker's original plan for Penn State was all undergrads would go to Branch campuses and main campus wood be only graduate students and research. I know this because I met Dr. Walker and he told me this.

 

[PSU2UNC]

Well, i sat as a student rep on the Penn State BOT 1985-87 representing all Branch campus students. I can tell you back then, as now, the board views the University as a large research facility disguised as an institution for higher learning. They don't give a shit about undergrads one bit. This is why they so quickly dumped the whole JS thing on the football program and paid whatever it took to protect the $1B research business. In fact Eric Walker's original plan for Penn State was all undergrads would go to Branch campuses and main campus wood be only graduate students and research. I know this because I met Dr. Walker and he told me this.

I'm not saying this is a good thing, but this is true of any large state university. Undergraduate education is pretty far down the list of priorities for adminstrators and professors alike.

 

[ericstratton-rushchairman]

I'm not saying this is a good thing, but this is true of any large state university. Undergraduate education is pretty far down the list of priorities for adminstrators and professors alike.

Yes and no. If you look at the make up of the BOT vs. other large state and/or land grant institutions you will find our BOT is 2-3 times the size. Ohio State is about 20, Texas A&M is 10, and Michigan is 8. Our BOT is heavily bloated to business leaders, the ones who most benefit from R&D.

 

[PSU2UNC]

Yes and no. If you look at the make up of the BOT vs. other large state and/or land grant institutions you will find our BOT is 2-3 times the size. Ohio State is about 20, Texas A&M is 10, and Michigan is 8. Our BOT is heavily bloated to business leaders, the ones who most benefit from R&D.

While I completely agree with you that our BOT is far, far too big, I don't think that is the issue with research $$. (also, research $$ and R&D $$ aren't exactly the same thing. You are implying that our BOT members have financial interests that encourage them to promote research at the expense of education; while I'm not saying that's impossible, the research portfolio at PSU is so diverse, that this isn't really a likelihood in any sort of meaningful way).

Or are you implying that the overhead gained from research $$ is funding the bloated administration at PSU (which isn't confined just to the BOT?)

Maybe someone on campus can refresh my memory, but I think our research overhead % (this is the "tax" that PSU charges on all incoming research $) is very similar to other major research universities (our is 56%; I just looked up Northwestern 58% and Michigan 56%), so I don't think PSU is an outlier there either.

 

[hotmetal]

I talked to a research guru once who told me that a big slice of the money goes to university overhead, not research. Classroom teaching always takes a back seat to pursuing research money, I'm told by some professors.
I think Stanford spent research money on a yacht a few years ago.
I'd also,like to know what type of research is being done and whether it has any long term value.

 

[flash86]

Yes and no. If you look at the make up of the BOT vs. other large state and/or land grant institutions you will find our BOT is 2-3 times the size. Ohio State is about 20, Texas A&M is 10, and Michigan is 8. Our BOT is heavily bloated to business leaders, the ones who most benefit from R&D.

And probably real estate.

 

[PSU2UNC]

I talked to a research guru once who told me that a big slice of the money goes to university overhead, not research. Classroom teaching always takes a back seat to pursuing research money, I'm told by some professors.
I think Stanford spent research money on a yacht a few years ago.
I'd also,like to know what type of research is being done and whether it has any long term value.

This is the overhead "tax" I am referring to.

So to explain further, 56% of all research dollars doesn't go to the researcher it goes to the university. This helps to pay for the support staff who process grants, build/maintain/retrofit labs, extra maintenance/janitorial folks to take care of lab space, some probably goes into a kitty for new professors "start up money" etc.

None of these research dollars would ever go to classroom stuff, so that's not my concern (that's not what they are for).

I had not heard the story of Stanford buying a yacht, but it is very possible they bought a used boat as a research vessel. I know some school have gotten creative with buying large boats (yachts, if you like) at auction (i.e. seized from drug dealers) to retrofit as oceanographic research platforms.

Years ago, FAU's marine lab bought (at auction) a former drug kingpin's mansion. They moved it to the marine lab campus and renovated it as the new library and housing for visiting researchers. I toured it before they reno'd it. The master bathroom was black marble and had a shower that you could have fit 30 people in. LOL.

 

[flash86]

This is the overhead "tax" I am referring to.

So to explain further, 56% of all research dollars doesn't go to the researcher it goes to the university. This helps to pay for the support staff who process grants, build/maintain/retrofit labs, extra maintenance/janitorial folks to take care of lab space, some probably goes into a kitty for new professors "start up money" etc.

None of these research dollars would ever go to classroom stuff, so that's not my concern (that's not what they are for).

I had not heard the story of Stanford buying a yacht, but it is very possible they bought a used boat as a research vessel. I know some school have gotten creative with buying large boats (yachts, if you like) at auction (i.e. seized from drug dealers) to retrofit as oceanographic research platforms.

Years ago, FAU's marine lab bought (at auction) a former drug kingpin's mansion. They moved it to the marine lab campus and renovated it as the new library and housing for visiting researchers. I toured it before they reno'd it. The master bathroom was black marble and had a shower that you could have fit 30 people in. LOL.

For NIH grants, overhead monies to the University are more in the 30-35% range, and are added onto the grant money to the investigator. This is why the ideal situation for research universities are when their faculty fully fund their salary from research and also bring in the overheads for the school.

 

[flash86]

This is the overhead "tax" I am referring to.

So to explain further, 56% of all research dollars doesn't go to the researcher it goes to the university. This helps to pay for the support staff who process grants, build/maintain/retrofit labs, extra maintenance/janitorial folks to take care of lab space, some probably goes into a kitty for new professors "start up money" etc. ... .

This is why the ideal situation for research universities are when their faculty fully fund their salary from research and also bring in the overheads (“Indirect Costs”) for the school.

 

[PSU2UNC]

For NIH grants, overhead monies to the University are more in the 30-35% range, and are added onto the grant money to the investigator. This is why the ideal situation for research universities are when their faculty fully fund their salary from research and also bring in the overheads for the school.

This is true; some funding sources have overhead "caps" that limit the amount of overhead a school can charge. Schools handle this differently. Some departments get cranky if one researcher gets multiple "capped" grants at a time. End of the day, I am of the opinion that overhead rates are way too high.

 

[Nitwit]

Overhead costs are highly regulated (at least on Federal grants and contracts) by the Federal Acquisition Regulations. They are also subject to Federal audit for allowability. Since there is competition between applicants for these funds, there is little incentive to have overhead costs (and rates) which are above those considered in the competitive range for fear of losing out on funding opportunities. The grant price is one of the important factors considered by the awarding agency when evaluating grant or contract proposals, and overhead is an important component of the price. The funds do not always go to the low bidder however as technical ability is also weighted in the proposal evaluation.

 

[L.A.Lion]

All that money spent on research and not a single Ig Nobel winner on the faculty? I hate us.

 

[PSU2UNC]

All that money spent on research and not a single Ig Nobel winner on the faculty? I hate us.

Excellent!

In case some people didn't get that reference, I'd strongly encourage you to look at the list of winner:

https://www.improbable.com/ig-about/winners/

 

[PSUQBKeeper]

janitors.....PSU is spending way too much on the damned janitors...

 

[ralphster]

The higher the number, the better. More research dollars going to PSU is good, not bad, you numbskulls. And it certainly doesn't hurt the undergrad experience. Some undergrads actually participate in research. I worked for two and a half years in a molecular biology lab as an undergrad doing research on cell membranes. I can tell you that pennies were pinched. Many conversations involved efficient use of grant monies. Some responses in this thread smack of the current anti-science, anti-intellectual climate currently predominating in our culture. We need more science money, not less. And not all research should be with specific practical ends in mind. Basic science research is important, whether some yahoo politician thinks it is "useful" or not.

 

[Nitwit]

Adding that the availability of research funding attracts the best professors. The best professors attract the best students. Anyone (with obvious exceptions) can teach. Finding a cure for cancer, advancing agriculture to aid world hunger, or developing a new cyberwar defense system is not so easy.

 

[hotmetal]

The higher the number, the better. More research dollars going to PSU is good, not bad, you numbskulls. And it certainly doesn't hurt the undergrad experience. Some undergrads actually participate in research. I worked for two and a half years in a molecular biology lab as an undergrad doing research on cell membranes. I can tell you that pennies were pinched. Many conversations involved efficient use of grant monies. Some responses in this thread smack of the current anti-science, anti-intellectual climate currently predominating in our culture. We need more science money, not less. And not all research should be with specific practical ends in mind. Basic science research is important, whether some yahoo politician thinks it is "useful" or not.

Who are you to be calling people names?
Somebody who questions the research boondoggle is anti-science?
As an intellectual you should learn to engage in a discussion without name calling.

 

[MacNit07]

Well, i sat as a student rep on the Penn State BOT 1985-87 representing all Branch campus students. I can tell you back then, as now, the board views the University as a large research facility disguised as an institution for higher learning. They don't give a shit about undergrads one bit. This is why they so quickly dumped the whole JS thing on the football program and paid whatever it took to protect the $1B research business. In fact Eric Walker's original plan for Penn State was all undergrads would go to Branch campuses and main campus wood be only graduate students and research. I know this because I met Dr. Walker and he told me this.

Interesting.

 

[Art]

Adding that the availability of research funding attracts the best professors. The best professors attract the best students. Anyone (with obvious exceptions) can teach. Finding a cure for cancer, advancing agriculture to aid world hunger, or developing a new cyberwar defense system is not so easy.

No, the "best professors" are hired because they bring research funding with them. It's not as if it's all tossed into one big pool and shared.

 

[Nitwit]

They often do but they mentor more junior professors. It takes perhaps 10 years before a professor becomes senior enough to have a cv and professional reputation which is significant enough to attract funding on their own. The gestation period can be quite long. At first they might be able to win small grants, maybe $100k. But more often they begin their careers assisting the established professors on larger projects of $1m or more. Eventually they can be the key person themself. Without the best professors in place, you can’t develop the next cadre of rain makers.

 

[BobPSU92]

Adding that the availability of research funding attracts the best professors. The best professors attract the best students. Anyone (with obvious exceptions) can teach. Finding a cure for cancer, advancing agriculture to aid world hunger, or developing a new cyberwar defense system is not so easy.

Didn’t you hear? Penn State students are stoopid.

 

[Art]

They often do but they mentor more junior professors. It takes perhaps 10 years before a professor becomes senior enough to have a cv and professional reputation which is significant enough to attract finding on their own. The gestation period can be quite long. At first they might be able to win small grants, maybe $100k. But more often they begin their careers assisting the established professors on larger projects of $1m or more. Eventually they can be the key person themself. Without the best professors in place, you can’t develop the next cadre of rain makers.

Which, of course, is not what you said.

 

[Nitwit]

I did actually but you didn’t understand the concept of mentoring. What a surprise! You can hire rainmakers or build them. Penn State does both successfully.

 

[Art]

I did actually but you didn’t understand the concept of mentoring. What a surprise! You can hire rainmakers or build them. Penn State does both successfully.

Get off of it. Should be enough that PSU has achieved a high level of research funding, but you have to make it into something more and demonstrate that you have little clue. Quit while you're ahead, Cheerleader in Chief.

 

[Nitwit]

I’m way ahead- farther than you know. I’ve run this business model as CFO In the private sector for a living for 30 years and was extremely successful, professionally and financially. I still sit on several boards including one as chair. I don’t need to prove my qualifications or expertise to you. But if you would listen rather than criticize all the time you might learn something. Don’t criticize what you don’t know. Control your fragile ego.

 

[Art]

I’m way ahead- farther than you know. I’ve run this business model as CFO In the private sector for a living for 30 years and was extremely successful, professionally and financially. I still sit on several boards including one as chair. I don’t need to prove my qualifications or expertise to you. But if you would listen rather than criticize all the time you might learn something. Don’t criticize what you don’t know. Control your fragile ego.

Ain't you sumpin? Same business model for 30 years? Sounds like a really dynamic organization.

 

[Nitwit]

The model evolved over time as it needed to be, usually quickly. We stayed nimble and made constant changes and promotions to our leadership team and senior staff as needed. We also expended a lot of effort to strategic planning and long term leadership development.

My stock went from $1.14 to $1456. as I built revenue, expanded the number of researchers (senior and junior), and won so many proposals our contract backlog increased exponentially to increase the value of the organization. That’s how I’ve funded my “very comfortable retirement”.
An independent Trustee appointed a valuation firm to conduct an annual valuation of company so management had no part in it. I owned more than the CEO based on longevity.

We generally had more work than people, and grew about 20% per year. Under my leadership revenue increased from $7M to $200M plus. Staff went from 75 to over 1000, Even our librarian retired a millionaire. Our success was attributable to hiring the smartest people in the world and giving them the salaries, benefits, and freedom to pursue their own research agendas. They became the owners of the company though allocations of company stock into their retirement plan and many became independently wealthy. It benefited our corporate culture tremendously and differentiated us from our competitors (employing other PHDs who we frequently hired the best of as they wanted to come work for us). The ones that didn’t work out left us with some urging.

Some competitors were professors and some PHDs or MDs in the private sector. We hired both. I knew how to manage overhead and provide attractive work amenities for staff in order to win proposals and we did it the best in the world (based in our $ win rate)..

I’ve retired and rolled over all my shares and am happy to report the company is continuing to have tremendous success with the woman I mentored as CFO.

I now serve on Boards of similar companies, one as its chair, who want me to help them achieve the same success for them.

I think I know this business better than Art or his deranged friends.

 

[Art]

The model evolved over time as it needed to be, usually quickly. We stayed nimble and made constant changes and promotions to our leadership team and senior staff as needed. We also expended a lot of effort to strategic planning and long term leadership development.

My stock went from $1.14 to $1456. as I built revenue, expanded the number of researchers (senior and junior), and won so many proposals our contract backlog increased exponentially to increase the value of the organization. That’s how I’ve funded my “very comfortable retirement”.
An independent Trustee appointed a valuation firm to conduct an annual valuation of company so management had no part in it. I owned more than the CEO based on longevity.

We generally had more work than people, and grew about 20% per year. Under my leadership mrevenue increased from $7M to $200M plus. Staff went from 75 to over 1000, Even our librarian retired a millionaire. Our success was attributable to hiring the smartest people in the world and giving them the salaries, benefits, and freedom to pursue their own research agendas. They became the owners of the company though allocations of company stock into their retirement plan and many became independently wealthy. It benefited our corporate culture tremendously and differentiated us from our competitors (employing other PHDs who we frequently hired the best of as they wanted to come work for us). The ones that did t work out left us with some urging.

Some competitors were professors and some PHDs or MDs in the private sector. We hired both. I knew how to manage overhead and provide attractive work amenities for all l staff in order to win proposals and we did it the best in the world (based in our $ win rate)..

I’ve retired and rolled over all my shares and am happy to report the company is continuing to have tremendous success with the woman I mentored as CFO.

I now serve on Boards of similar companies, one as its chair, who want me to help them achieve the same success for them.

I think I know this business better than Art or his deranged friends.

Are you running for something? LMFAO.

 

[PSU2UNC]

Some of your data is not accurate...… I expect it is dated (as some of those numbers look accurate as of a couple years ago)

I literally just googled this yesterday, so unless the PSU (and Michigan and Northwestern) websites are wrong, my overhead numbers are correct.

 

[Nitwit]

No thanks. I’m busy enough as it is and enjoying retirement and my board activities in addition to some volunteer work. Life if good.