ADVERTISEMENT

“Penn State's research expenditures top $1 billion mark”

BobPSU92

Well-Known Member
May 6, 2015
44,692
58,335
1
See the link below. From the article:

UNIVERSITY PARK, Pa. – Penn State’s research expenditures exceeded the $1 billion mark in fiscal year 2019-20. The total figure, $1.01 billion, places Penn State among a select group of research universities nationally, and reflects the interdisciplinary strength built over three decades. It represents a $40 million increase over last year’s number, and includes a record $633 million in federal funding, as well as $375 million from a combination of private funders, the commonwealth of Pennsylvania and University sources. 

“This milestone reflects both the strength of external support for the University’s research activity and the broad impact of that activity on solving complex societal problems,” said Penn State President Eric J. Barron. “From advancing health, to addressing food security and sustainable energy solutions, to contributing to economic development, Penn State’s research enterprise is dedicated to improving the overall quality of life for people in our communities, our nation and our world.”

“It’s a testament to the world-class quality and teamwork of our dedicated faculty, students and staff, and a statement of our continuing commitment,” said Senior Vice President for Research Lora Weiss. “These expenditures also reflect the continued confidence our sponsors have in us and the extensive breadth and depth of our research portfolio.” In the most recent NSF HERD (Higher Ed R&D) expenditures report, she noted, Penn State had 18 research fields ranked in the top 10, more than any other university.”



I hate us.
 
And here you have what academics believe to be the core mission of major research universities. Not the training of high level student athletes and certainly not the quality education of undergraduates.
Quality undergraduate education in the STEM fields does go hand in hand with research. I was able to gain valuable laboratory work experience while an undergrad at PSU. It is much harder to do that at a smaller school that focuses on "teaching only". Without this experience, I would have had a harder time getting into grad school and certainly would have taken longer to get up to speed.

Additionally, while undergraduate education is certainly important, graduate education absolutely is as well. PSU has approximately 14,000 graduate students who absolutely benefit from PSU's success in bringing in research $$.

Finally, this is absolutely a good thing for the local economy as research $$ also means more research assistants, research faculty (soft $$), lab managers, etc (more jobs for the area).

Anyone who reads this article as a bad thing is delusional.
 
See the link below. From the article:

UNIVERSITY PARK, Pa. – Penn State’s research expenditures exceeded the $1 billion mark in fiscal year 2019-20. The total figure, $1.01 billion, places Penn State among a select group of research universities nationally, and reflects the interdisciplinary strength built over three decades. It represents a $40 million increase over last year’s number, and includes a record $633 million in federal funding, as well as $375 million from a combination of private funders, the commonwealth of Pennsylvania and University sources. 

“This milestone reflects both the strength of external support for the University’s research activity and the broad impact of that activity on solving complex societal problems,” said Penn State President Eric J. Barron. “From advancing health, to addressing food security and sustainable energy solutions, to contributing to economic development, Penn State’s research enterprise is dedicated to improving the overall quality of life for people in our communities, our nation and our world.”

“It’s a testament to the world-class quality and teamwork of our dedicated faculty, students and staff, and a statement of our continuing commitment,” said Senior Vice President for Research Lora Weiss. “These expenditures also reflect the continued confidence our sponsors have in us and the extensive breadth and depth of our research portfolio.” In the most recent NSF HERD (Higher Ed R&D) expenditures report, she noted, Penn State had 18 research fields ranked in the top 10, more than any other university.”



I hate us.

LEADERSHIP. o_O
 
OK great, you're bragging about spending a lot of money.

What is the ROI on that billion?
 
I noticed they didn't reference the ranking among other institutions. They did state "The total figure, $1.01 billion, places Penn State among a select group of research universities nationally," but didn't let us know where we placed among our peers.

I couldn't find the latest list, but I did find the NSF rankings from 2017. Interestingly, PSU was ranked 14th in 2010 and fell to 23rd by 2017.

I always find it to be interesting when someone talks about growth but not with respect to peers/competition or the overall market. When the market grows 8% and you grew 3% you've lost market share.

Edit: This thread is another example of where this board needs Barry. Mods, come on and invite him back.
 
OK great, you're bragging about spending a lot of money.

What is the ROI on that billion?

Who here is bragging? I merely referenced the Penn State article. Plus, I said above that I hate us. That’s from the heart.

As for the ROI. o_O , I’m sure you could look up Penn State’s ECONOMIC. IMPACT. o_O in PA. Penn State regularly publishes such figures. Besides, the goal is to get money, spend early, often, and in large sums, and get more money. Penn State does all that very well. o_O
 
I noticed they didn't reference the ranking among other institutions. They did state "The total figure, $1.01 billion, places Penn State among a select group of research universities nationally," but didn't let us know where we placed among our peers.

I couldn't find the latest list, but I did find the NSF rankings from 2017. Interestingly, PSU was ranked 14th in 2010 and fell to 23rd by 2017.

I always find it to be interesting when someone talks about growth but not with respect to peers/competition or the overall market. When the market grows 8% and you grew 3% you've lost market share.

barren’s got this.
 
Quality undergraduate education in the STEM fields does go hand in hand with research. I was able to gain valuable laboratory work experience while an undergrad at PSU. It is much harder to do that at a smaller school that focuses on "teaching only". Without this experience, I would have had a harder time getting into grad school and certainly would have taken longer to get up to speed.

Additionally, while undergraduate education is certainly important, graduate education absolutely is as well. PSU has approximately 14,000 graduate students who absolutely benefit from PSU's success in bringing in research $$.

Finally, this is absolutely a good thing for the local economy as research $$ also means more research assistants, research faculty (soft $$), lab managers, etc (more jobs for the area).

Anyone who reads this article as a bad thing is delusional.
I agree with you in principle. H O W E V E R instead of listing actual, tangible benefits Barron references common generalities. There in lies the problem with the mentality of academic administrators. Being able to spend huge amounts of cash somehow is the main criteria for success.
 
I'm guessing you aren't a STEM person.

You also realize that this is not $$ from the PSU regular operating budget, right?

I am, and I do.

Doesn't mean there shouldn't be more quantitative ways to brag about spending money.
 
I am, and I do.

Doesn't mean there shouldn't be more quantitative ways to brag about spending money.
There isn't one clean "monetized" metric.

You could list:
graduate students who achieve degrees from said funds
OR
peer reviewed publications
OR
patents
OR
jobs created
OR
abstract improvement to society from increased knowledge of the world around us

etc.

And I'm sure those numbers exist, but it's not as easy for the residents of the "140 character" world we live in to digest.
 
I agree with you in principle. H O W E V E R instead of listing actual, tangible benefits Barron references common generalities. There in lies the problem with the mentality of academic administrators. Being able to spend huge amounts of cash somehow is the main criteria for success.
Perhaps because Barron is a STEM person himself (geosciences) he wrongly assumed that most people understand that having this kind of research budget is a good thing. But I guess he (and I) was wrong about that.
 
Perhaps because Barron is a STEM person himself (geosciences) he wrongly assumed that most people understand that having this kind of research budget is a good thing. But I guess he (and I) was wrong about that.
Why are you getting pissy? I agree that revenue ( from whatever source) devoted to research is a vital component of any good university. But once again Barron and company in statements such as this appear to be prouder of expenditures than results. Foolishly I assumed that both people and organizations would be more interested in touting their actual achievements rather than the amount of money available for disbursement.
 
See the link below. From the article:

UNIVERSITY PARK, Pa. – Penn State’s research expenditures exceeded the $1 billion mark in fiscal year 2019-20. The total figure, $1.01 billion, places Penn State among a select group of research universities nationally, and reflects the interdisciplinary strength built over three decades. It represents a $40 million increase over last year’s number, and includes a record $633 million in federal funding, as well as $375 million from a combination of private funders, the commonwealth of Pennsylvania and University sources. 

“This milestone reflects both the strength of external support for the University’s research activity and the broad impact of that activity on solving complex societal problems,” said Penn State President Eric J. Barron. “From advancing health, to addressing food security and sustainable energy solutions, to contributing to economic development, Penn State’s research enterprise is dedicated to improving the overall quality of life for people in our communities, our nation and our world.”

“It’s a testament to the world-class quality and teamwork of our dedicated faculty, students and staff, and a statement of our continuing commitment,” said Senior Vice President for Research Lora Weiss. “These expenditures also reflect the continued confidence our sponsors have in us and the extensive breadth and depth of our research portfolio.” In the most recent NSF HERD (Higher Ed R&D) expenditures report, she noted, Penn State had 18 research fields ranked in the top 10, more than any other university.”



I hate us.

I worked with PSU ARL, and they have earned an excellent reputation. Their programs were technically successful and well managed, a combination that is uncommon in both university research programs and the private sector. There are many times when the US government spends money on research and doesn't get value for the dollar. In my experience, that was not the case with PSU.
 
Why are you getting pissy? I agree that revenue ( from whatever source) devoted to research is a vital component of any good university. But once again Barron and company in statements such as this appear to be prouder of expenditures than results. Foolishly I assumed that both people and organizations would be more interested in touting their actual achievements rather than the amount of money available for disbursement.
I'm pretty sure results are bragged about in other press releases. It is very difficult to quantify "lumped" results in a satisfying way. You can't just list "sales numbers" or "gross revenue". PSU, in general, does a good job of publicizing their research accomplishments.
 
It should be noted that Dr. Eric Walker had a vision that all Penn State undergraduate education would take place at the branch campuses and the main campus would only be graduate education and research, with an emphasis on research. I still believe the BoT was more worried about putting the research budget at risk when Sandusky bomb exploded and that is why they shifted blame/focus to the football program and JVP.
 
Penn State publishes all of their research metrics which includes patents generated, etc. Their five year strategic plan is also easily found. The emphasis is on growing privately sponsored research and the cross discipline Materials Research Institute is one example of global renowned excellence. Lockheed, 3M, etc. would not commit major dollars there without excellent results. The work done in those labs is nothing short of amazing. NASA has a team of PSU Aerospace faculty working on the Saturn mission. All great stuff offering graduate students and faculty very rewarding work and opportunity.
 
I noticed they didn't reference the ranking among other institutions. They did state "The total figure, $1.01 billion, places Penn State among a select group of research universities nationally," but didn't let us know where we placed among our peers.

I couldn't find the latest list, but I did find the NSF rankings from 2017. Interestingly, PSU was ranked 14th in 2010 and fell to 23rd by 2017.

I always find it to be interesting when someone talks about growth but not with respect to peers/competition or the overall market. When the market grows 8% and you grew 3% you've lost market share.

Edit: This thread is another example of where this board needs Barry. Mods, come on and invite him back.
Something important to keep in mind, too, is that Penn State is always going to be at a pretty decent disadvantage because of the relative weakness of Penn State's med school as a research engine - especially compared to Penn State's peer schools in the B1G and otherwise. A lot of other schools are getting massive amounts of grant funding in medical research that Penn State just isn't getting in the same numbers, and that money has to be created elsewhere - for example, if I were to guess, PSU gets way more in defense research than a lot of peer schools. But that's a lot harder than just getting bunches in NIH funding.
 
My son-in-law got his PhD in biomedical eng from Duke about 6 years ago. Had a 5 year full ride plus living stipend. I would ask him how his classes were going and he'd just laugh... eventually told me that PhD students are basically indentured servants working 12+ hour days in a lab on research projects funded by wherever, basically owned by the person getting the research funding... they earn their PhD on the side basically. The stipend is just enough to live on.
 
  • Like
Reactions: LionJim
See the link below. From the article:

UNIVERSITY PARK, Pa. – Penn State’s research expenditures exceeded the $1 billion mark in fiscal year 2019-20. The total figure, $1.01 billion, places Penn State among a select group of research universities nationally, and reflects the interdisciplinary strength built over three decades. It represents a $40 million increase over last year’s number, and includes a record $633 million in federal funding, as well as $375 million from a combination of private funders, the commonwealth of Pennsylvania and University sources. 

“This milestone reflects both the strength of external support for the University’s research activity and the broad impact of that activity on solving complex societal problems,” said Penn State President Eric J. Barron. “From advancing health, to addressing food security and sustainable energy solutions, to contributing to economic development, Penn State’s research enterprise is dedicated to improving the overall quality of life for people in our communities, our nation and our world.”

“It’s a testament to the world-class quality and teamwork of our dedicated faculty, students and staff, and a statement of our continuing commitment,” said Senior Vice President for Research Lora Weiss. “These expenditures also reflect the continued confidence our sponsors have in us and the extensive breadth and depth of our research portfolio.” In the most recent NSF HERD (Higher Ed R&D) expenditures report, she noted, Penn State had 18 research fields ranked in the top 10, more than any other university.”



I hate us.
Expenditures is sort of an interesting metric. What if they are wildly inefficient. Give me ip licensing revenue.
 
My son-in-law got his PhD in biomedical eng from Duke about 6 years ago. Had a 5 year full ride plus living stipend. I would ask him how his classes were going and he'd just laugh... eventually told me that PhD students are basically indentured servants working 12+ hour days in a lab on research projects funded by wherever, basically owned by the person getting the research funding... they earn their PhD on the side basically. The stipend is just enough to live on.
This varies a little bit by STEM field, but is basically correct.

The key is to find a funded project that can also double as your PhD research so you aren't working on your advisor's stuff unless is also for your dissertation.

Classes are definitely a minor component of a STEM PhD (which in IMHO, OK, so long as you had sufficient foundational coursework as an undergrad...hands on learning is much better than classroom learning).

In terms of the stipend being enough to live on...it kind of depends where you live. My take home was $900 a month (this was a few years back) which was definitely a pay check to pay check situation.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ralphster
Before anyone goes off on my comments about the academic enterprise, let me set the record straight. I am a PhD physical chemist with 20+ years of industrial experience before coming to Penn State in the Eberly College of Science. My comments were meant to point out the difference between the reality of a research university and the expectations of many board members.
My criticism is that the research universities have never recognized the grants they receive have morphed into low margin “products”. Originally grants allowed universities the resources to invest in new research arenas and improve. Now most grants have matching contribution requirements that reduce the value to the university. However, universities continue to incentivize all grant generating activity not just those that actual add to the university’s resources.
 
See the link below. From the article:

UNIVERSITY PARK, Pa. – Penn State’s research expenditures exceeded the $1 billion mark in fiscal year 2019-20. The total figure, $1.01 billion, places Penn State among a select group of research universities nationally, and reflects the interdisciplinary strength built over three decades. It represents a $40 million increase over last year’s number, and includes a record $633 million in federal funding, as well as $375 million from a combination of private funders, the commonwealth of Pennsylvania and University sources. 

“This milestone reflects both the strength of external support for the University’s research activity and the broad impact of that activity on solving complex societal problems,” said Penn State President Eric J. Barron. “From advancing health, to addressing food security and sustainable energy solutions, to contributing to economic development, Penn State’s research enterprise is dedicated to improving the overall quality of life for people in our communities, our nation and our world.”

“It’s a testament to the world-class quality and teamwork of our dedicated faculty, students and staff, and a statement of our continuing commitment,” said Senior Vice President for Research Lora Weiss. “These expenditures also reflect the continued confidence our sponsors have in us and the extensive breadth and depth of our research portfolio.” In the most recent NSF HERD (Higher Ed R&D) expenditures report, she noted, Penn State had 18 research fields ranked in the top 10, more than any other university.”



I hate us.
My Bad...I mistakenly thought this $1 billion figure was referring to the anticipated cost overrun associated with the Barron Louvre Art Museum....
 
It should be noted that Dr. Eric Walker had a vision that all Penn State undergraduate education would take place at the branch campuses and the main campus would only be graduate education and research, with an emphasis on research. I still believe the BoT was more worried about putting the research budget at risk when Sandusky bomb exploded and that is why they shifted blame/focus to the football program and JVP.
Of course they were. They are at those troughs. Everyone in the alumni association with a brain knew the drive to get research dollars brought in those who could care less about the university. The university is a tool for Ira, Kenny, Potato Head, Suhey and Peetz and all of their flunkies. The ridiculous thing is Graham thought he was invited to the party and was one of them. They jettisoned him in record time.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Fox Chapel Lion II
So somehow you think board members are somehow skimming off the top of research funds committed to the university by the private and public sector? Have you ever sponsored a research project or written a grant proposal ? Only this board can turn a really positive story into this pile of BS.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nittany Ned2
So somehow you think board members are somehow skimming off the top of research funds committed to the university by the private and public sector? Have you ever sponsored a research project or written a grant proposal ? Only this board can turn a really positive story into this pile of BS.
The level of ignorance on this board is beyond measure. I think I will solicit some government funds to study it anyway.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nittany Ned2
I agree with you in principle. H O W E V E R instead of listing actual, tangible benefits Barron references common generalities. There in lies the problem with the mentality of academic administrators. Being able to spend huge amounts of cash somehow is the main criteria for success.
Please. Penn State is constantly publishing news stories on the impact of its research. Nice try but do some freaking research yourself.
 
  • Like
Reactions: lionbacker
Now most grants have matching contribution requirements that reduce the value to the university.
Perhaps this differs by field, but it has not been my experience that most funding requires a true "match". In kind support (e.g. "we already have a mass spec so we don't have to buy a new one for this project" or "Professor XX already gets 12 months salary from other sources so she won't charge her time on this project") usually helps an application, but true match (i.e. PSU contributes $$ directly) isn't common in my field.

However, what is a huge problem is indirect costs (overhead). For those who don't know, these are funds that get siphoned off the top of any grants to pay for administrative assistants, grants officers, lab equipment refreshes, etc. These are necessary to keep a research university running, but they have, IMHO, become excessive.

When I was in graduate school, Somewhere around 30% was common. I wrote a proposal with UNH earlier this year and the overhead was 50%. I believe PSU's is similar. So if PSU is bringing in $1 billion in grants, only $500M is being used for actual scientific research (full disclosure: it's not clear to me if their $1B accounting excludes overhead expenditures or not).
 
Please. Penn State is constantly publishing news stories on the impact of its research. Nice try but do some freaking research yourself.
I never said that PSU doesn’t release positive articles on its research. They do a pretty good job of that. I also said that research is an integral part of any good university. I merely remarked that touting expenditures without giving specific positive examples in the same press release was not a good look. Especially in difficult economic times. And yes I’m aware of independent funding sources. But thank you for your concern and interest Mrs. Barron.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 91Joe95
I never said that PSU doesn’t release positive articles on its research. They do a pretty good job of that. I also said that research is an integral part of any good university. I merely remarked that touting expenditures without giving specific positive examples in the same press release was not a good look. Especially in difficult economic times. And yes I’m aware of independent funding sources. But thank you for your concern and interest Mrs. Barron.
How could they possibly list examples that wouldn’t piss of those who are left out? And it’s not a bad look to brag about expenditures given that it isn’t their money and it’s a tribute to the faculty who brought that money in. You have no idea of higher education. Go lay down.
 
ADVERTISEMENT