Research Spending
- Thread starter Leonard23
- Start date
Will be interested to seee how that number grows now that the medical school is fully integrated. Presume there is a few year lag in the figures?
Regardless – this shows how neglected the state’s flagship university has been. Based on location alone the availability of capital and inability to leverage speaks to the ongoing failure of leadership at the state and university level.
Weak sauce for one of the oldest and most established institutions in the country.
Regardless – this shows how neglected the state’s flagship university has been. Based on location alone the availability of capital and inability to leverage speaks to the ongoing failure of leadership at the state and university level.
Weak sauce for one of the oldest and most established institutions in the country.
A 100 year head start as a B1G school in the CIC most likely is the reason.
Better question is how are Arizona and Arizona St. ahead of us...same for Michigan St? On the flip side, I was pleasantly surprised we're higher than UVA, Illinois and Princeton.
I posted on this topic earlier this year, looking at data from 2013 to 2022. The data series begins in 2013. I don't know where Altimore got the 2023 figures.
Holloway testified to the state lawmakers earlier this year that Rutgers is at a disadvantage when competing with other universities when competing for research grants, calling out Ohio State, Michigan, Penn State and Maryland as universities in an advantageous position.
Conference rank 2022 , University, National Rank 2013-2022 Average, National Rank 2022
1 Michigan 2 4
2 Washington 4 5
3 Wisconsin 7 8
4 Maryland 7 19
5 UCLA 9 6
6 Minnesota 17 20
7 Penn State 22 27
8 Ohio State 20 11
9 USC 27 27
10 Northwestern 29 29
11 Illinois 34 39
12 Michigan State 36 40
13 Rutgers 37 46
14 Purdue 38 41
15 Iowa 50 52
16 Indiana 54 42
17 Nebraska 81 87
18 Oregon 152 146
Source: National Science Foundation https://ncsesdata.nsf.gov/profiles/site?method=rankingBySource&ds=herd
Note: Data presented for flagship campuses, for example Rutgers-New Brunswick and Penn State-University Park; data for other campuses such as Rutgers-Newark available in source file
Holloway testified to the state lawmakers earlier this year that Rutgers is at a disadvantage when competing with other universities when competing for research grants, calling out Ohio State, Michigan, Penn State and Maryland as universities in an advantageous position.
Conference rank 2022 , University, National Rank 2013-2022 Average, National Rank 2022
1 Michigan 2 4
2 Washington 4 5
3 Wisconsin 7 8
4 Maryland 7 19
5 UCLA 9 6
6 Minnesota 17 20
7 Penn State 22 27
8 Ohio State 20 11
9 USC 27 27
10 Northwestern 29 29
11 Illinois 34 39
12 Michigan State 36 40
13 Rutgers 37 46
14 Purdue 38 41
15 Iowa 50 52
16 Indiana 54 42
17 Nebraska 81 87
18 Oregon 152 146
Source: National Science Foundation https://ncsesdata.nsf.gov/profiles/site?method=rankingBySource&ds=herd
Note: Data presented for flagship campuses, for example Rutgers-New Brunswick and Penn State-University Park; data for other campuses such as Rutgers-Newark available in source file
Why is Rutgers at a disadvantage? Trying to understand – is it geography, competition from private laboratories, lack of political clout among their elected officials and congressional delegation, etc.?
I would think the money and connections would put RU at or near the top.
But again, as I mentioned earlier, not having the medical school as part of the university for so many years, likely play a major role as so much funding is in that arena anymore.
I would think the money and connections would put RU at or near the top.
But again, as I mentioned earlier, not having the medical school as part of the university for so many years, likely play a major role as so much funding is in that arena anymore.
Holloway makes clear why Rutgers is at a disadvantage in his testimony I linked to in post #8.
"The near 80-percent fringe benefit rate is a major detriment for every grant application competed for by Rutgers and every other research university in New Jersey. The competition - Ohio State, Michigan, Ohio State, Maryland and beyond - all have fringe rates that are less than half the rate of New Jersey."
Holloway goes on to blame the state for imposing an uncompetitive fringe rate on New Jersey universities and asks the state to eliminate the overcharge.
Fringe rate = fringe benefits / base salary
80% = $80,000 / $100,000
That equates to $180,000 for a researcher.
At a university with a, say, 30% fringe rate, the cost for the same researcher would be $130,000.
Fringe benefits include costs such health insurance and pension contributions.
Other than Maryland, UCLA, USC and Washington, RU is always going to be a leader in that figure given the COL here. And other than Berkeley and Stanford I think the B1G is going to take the cake in that category.
U Oregon doesn’t have a medical school. That’s where a big % of funding goes at the research intensive universities. Rutgers didn’t either until a decade ago, at which time the governor forced the RU-UMDNJ merger,
More to the point, research at RU is more expensive for sponsors because of the higher fringe rate applied to salaries in project budgets.
If a faculty member making $200k is 50% effort on a project ($100k), salary and fringe would be $180k on it. Sponsors could pay other universities with lower fringe less $ to do the same actual research.
Not remotely the same thing. Fringe is a direct cost on research budgets based on a rate applied to salaries to proportionally cover benefits.
Overhead is not a direct cost. It’s cost not directly applicable to individual studies (Compliance staff, computers, electricity, university administration etc. ) The fed govt is cutting off funding for these necessary things…
Federal Overhead rates are determined by cost analyses by fed govt accountants for each university.
Cutting overhead by more than half cripples research capability.
not really. it cripples federally funded biomedical research everywhere.
It’s an anti-science, anti-education flex and sticking it to NIH for the Covid recommendations, all for the low IQ yahoo voter base despite the obvious benefits and truths of those things.
Last edited:
All research including medical was heavy-hampered by DEI.
You practically had to know research results in order to stay in the sandbox
Hiring, study design, results, staffing and more had to fit the DEI straightjacket.
Research was less and less about "science" and more about a full on rush to Lysenkoism.
Research was already craptacular with politics/marketing pretending to be science
Common sense:
"DEI has gradually morphed from supporting worthy and broadly accepted goals to promoting increasingly ideological and politicized goals that include participation and outcomes for groups based on criteria such as racial and sexual identity that are proportional to their representation in the population. This approach is neither morally justified nor legal under existing civil rights employment law.
The details of DEI requirements for research funding proposals vary across agencies and programs. But common features include vaguely described goals and lack of relevant outcome assessments, along with an implicit expectation of expressed allegiance to a politicized litmus test that is, in effect, compelled speech on a controversial issue in violation of academic freedom."
You practically had to know research results in order to stay in the sandbox
Hiring, study design, results, staffing and more had to fit the DEI straightjacket.
Research was less and less about "science" and more about a full on rush to Lysenkoism.
Research was already craptacular with politics/marketing pretending to be science
Common sense:
"DEI has gradually morphed from supporting worthy and broadly accepted goals to promoting increasingly ideological and politicized goals that include participation and outcomes for groups based on criteria such as racial and sexual identity that are proportional to their representation in the population. This approach is neither morally justified nor legal under existing civil rights employment law.
The details of DEI requirements for research funding proposals vary across agencies and programs. But common features include vaguely described goals and lack of relevant outcome assessments, along with an implicit expectation of expressed allegiance to a politicized litmus test that is, in effect, compelled speech on a controversial issue in violation of academic freedom."
Diversity statements should not be required for federal STEMM grant funding
DEI considerations are now a part of federal funding decisions for science research. They shouldn't be.
www.statnews.com
Diversity statements should not be required for federal STEMM grant funding
DEI considerations are now a part of federal funding decisions for science research. They shouldn't be.
www.statnews.com
Yes cancer research was I focused on DEI. LolAll research including medical was heavy-hampered by DEI.
You practically had to know research results in order to stay in the sandbox
Hiring, study design, results, staffing and more had to fit the DEI straightjacket.
Research was less and less about "science" and more about a full on rush to Lysenkoism.
Research was already craptacular with politics/marketing pretending to be science
Common sense:
"DEI has gradually morphed from supporting worthy and broadly accepted goals to promoting increasingly ideological and politicized goals that include participation and outcomes for groups based on criteria such as racial and sexual identity that are proportional to their representation in the population. This approach is neither morally justified nor legal under existing civil rights employment law.
The details of DEI requirements for research funding proposals vary across agencies and programs. But common features include vaguely described goals and lack of relevant outcome assessments, along with an implicit expectation of expressed allegiance to a politicized litmus test that is, in effect, compelled speech on a controversial issue in violation of academic freedom."
Diversity statements should not be required for federal STEMM grant funding
DEI considerations are now a part of federal funding decisions for science research. They shouldn't be.www.statnews.com
The cutting is a disaster for high ed, science and students. Some schools it means hundreds of millions of dollars. Poof gone.
