Comments on: Budget Alternatives for UC http://universityprobe.org/2008/12/latest-budget-alternatives-for-uc/ - a critical forum on Research Universities, their finances, their governance, ..., their future Thu, 17 May 2012 14:49:08 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 By: charlie schwartz http://universityprobe.org/2008/12/latest-budget-alternatives-for-uc/comment-page-1/#comment-9 charlie schwartz Fri, 19 Dec 2008 01:45:22 +0000 http://universityprobe.org/?p=148#comment-9 Warren; Thanks for joining this conversation. If you are correct (that most of that Indirect Cost Recovery money goes to top campus administrators rather than to research faculty), then it is even more correct to pinch a portion of those fund to serve the pressing needs of the University's core priorities. Warren;

Thanks for joining this conversation.

If you are correct (that most of that Indirect Cost Recovery money goes to top campus administrators rather than to research faculty), then it is even more correct to pinch a portion of those fund to serve the pressing needs of the University’s core priorities.

]]> By: Warren M. Gold http://universityprobe.org/2008/12/latest-budget-alternatives-for-uc/comment-page-1/#comment-8 Warren M. Gold Wed, 17 Dec 2008 18:08:28 +0000 http://universityprobe.org/?p=148#comment-8 Charlie We have had this discussion before, in the 90's when I was Chair of UCORP. Your assumption that indirect costs come back to the PI is wrong. At least at UCSF. My analysis in 1995 was that less than 3% comes back to the PI; the rest is sucked up by OP, the Chancellor, the Dean, and the Dept Chair or ORU director. They argue, in turn, that their tax on these funds is used to support contracts and grants, or again at UCSF, to pay for research infrastructure like the development of Mission Bay. In fact, when UCORP recommended that 30% of indirect costs go back to the PI, the Academic Council changed the recommendation to 20% back to Dept or ORU. And that change was instituted. But at UCSF, the Chancellor took half of that increased for Mission Bay and continues to do so. My guess is that the PI still gets no more than 3% of the total indirect cost returns. Warren Gold Charlie
We have had this discussion before, in the 90′s when I was Chair of UCORP.
Your assumption that indirect costs come back to the PI is wrong. At least at UCSF.
My analysis in 1995 was that less than 3% comes back to the PI; the rest is sucked up by OP, the Chancellor, the Dean, and the Dept Chair or ORU director. They argue, in turn, that their tax on these funds is used to support contracts and grants, or again at UCSF, to pay for research infrastructure like the development of Mission Bay. In fact, when UCORP recommended that 30% of indirect costs go back to the PI, the Academic Council changed the recommendation to 20% back to Dept or ORU. And that change was instituted. But at UCSF, the Chancellor took half of that increased for Mission Bay and continues to do so.
My guess is that the PI still gets no more than 3% of the total indirect cost returns.

Warren Gold

]]> By: Latest - Budget Alternatives for UC | forexrecommendation.com http://universityprobe.org/2008/12/latest-budget-alternatives-for-uc/comment-page-1/#comment-7 Latest - Budget Alternatives for UC | forexrecommendation.com Wed, 17 Dec 2008 07:49:14 +0000 http://universityprobe.org/?p=148#comment-7 [...] Source [...] [...] Source [...]

]]>