amateur gene ecologist said:

---

mpl35 said:

---

amateur gene ecologist said:

---

mpl35 said:

---

amateur gene ecologist said:

---

Bradley.Kohr.II said:

---

I was in a meeting at TAMU, where various researchers were grumbling about losing corporate research opportunities to UC Davis - and also talking about how it would be at least 6 months to make a decision to take a research contract and 2 years to start it, if they hurried - for a project where all of the infrastructure was already in place and idle.

Now, that's not really on DC, TMK, but it is disgusting how wasteful the management is at TAMU, and we are supposed to be a fairly economically efficient school.

---

"We" (I have been but am not employed in a research capacity at A&M currently) are relatively efficient by academia standards, but when you get down to the nuts and bolts of it, we waste money and time in many obvious ways that staff are extremely discouraged from pointing out. I don't work for them anymore, so they can't fire me for saying it.

Couple that with many of the labs having to resort to maintaining outdated equipment that hampers the research process or scaling back on the scope of what each project could accomplish since 51% of any grant to the university going to pay for indirect costs (salaries for multiple layers of administration who take 6 months to 2 years to approve those contracts) and we get to what you are talking about.

I have toyed with the idea of starting a nonprofit to process donations in a way that could circumvent that 51% IDC rule. Like, say you want to donate $10k to a particular lab but didn't want $5,100 going to the department head for their pet projects, donate to my nonprofit with instructions and we could make sure $9k actually made it to that lab by way of materials and paying for their advertised services. But I like my job more than I like circumventing bureaucracy.

I hadn't heard about losing out to UC Davis. That stings when a california school is more efficient than we are.

---

you don't understand IDC I see

---

Didn't feel like breaking down every paperclip and staple it buys, just listed the part I had the biggest problem with. We have one of the larger IDC percentages that I know of. Lots of places are between 20 and 30%.

But, feel free to explain it to me.

---

what do you need me to educate you on? Universities don't have 20-30 percent. UC davis is 61%. Tamu is 52.5. The feds can't consider IDC when awarding grants. Places with medical schools are much higher. IDC is a real cost I could get into it more but you seem to have your mind made up.

---

I just wanted you to explain your point of view. You came in hot with 6 words and left it at that like that's supposed to mean something. I'm still not sure you're right because you list 2 schools and then talk about feds not caring about IDC when the post I quoted was talking about corporations.

You're a stranger on the internet. Odds are you're an idiot. Odds are I'm an idiot. Not offering an explanation for your opinion because someone else feels strongly about their own is lazy. I'm willing to admit when I'm wrong, but for that to happen you've gotta prove your point.

---

Fair enough. I was busy putting out fires related to federal spending cuts so I apologize for the tone. I have about 75 million in my portfolio for federally funded research. There are few areas I claim to know my stuff on but chopping cedar, oiling mesquites, paver patios, and research administration are the 4 I have the experience with. I have led trainings in IDC and have spent about 1/2 my professional life dealing with this area.

TAMU is basically middle of the road for IDC. I can promise you they didn't lose out to UC Davis based on the IDC rate. Corporations tend to be lower because they direct cost more expenses. You and I are probably the only folks that have an inkling about what we are talking about on this board. Happy to chat more if you want.

Again sorry for the tone i was slammed and just posted without giving it my full time. I'll admit i sounded like a dick