<p>From today's MIT newspaper, written by a Boston Globe reporter:</p>
<p>"The physics department at MIT accepted only 25 graduate students this year, down from 50 in years past. Several job candidates turned down the prestigious school for work in other countries where science funding is considered more stable. And two MIT contracts with NASA that PhD candidates rely on to pay for their work were trimmed by 91 percent."</p>
<p>I've read so many articles lately about how the US school system is failing our children in math and science, leaving our students ranked much lower than other countries. Many programs have sprung up for high schoolers to boost interest in studying the sciences, but what will happen to these students once they graduate? How do we, as tax-paying voters, fix this problem of funding for the sciences?</p>
<p>Over the last 5 years the top research schools have seen HUGE increases in funding--around 10% per year so that total funding is now about 50% higher than it was 5 years ago. Universities have unquenchable appetites for $$$ and will complain bitterly at the smallest cut. While a few programs may disappear others will be growing. The picture is not that bad overall.
For a concrete example Wisconsin's total research funding went from $594 million in 2000 to $910 Million in 2004. 2005 figures are not yet out. While not all of that $$$ if Federal, the majority is. That's a 53% increase.</p>
<p>Yes, but you have to look at where the funding is going. Of course, the blame lies as much on universities as it does the government. Duke just built a huge new engineering facility, but many of the other departments didn't see a penny. Zoology and botany experienced enormous growth in the early 1990s. Funding for these programs is now so slim that most universities have eliminated the departments altogether! If you're interested in biotechnology, the trend in biology is encouraging. If not, your choices are rather limited. Geology has managed to hold its own, but a great deal of research is funded by oil and gas companies, which cannot provide funds indefinitely. Astronomy and astrophysics are actually in decline, with fewer jobs available each year. As recent as 10-20 years ago most oceanography departments at universities had their own ship (or more). Nowadays it's so expensive that the vast majority are owned by the navy (which means a lot of paperwork to get funding :rolleyes: ).</p>
<p>Yes the focus does change over time. Like everything else we have limited money and many needs. Space funding is nice but is it truly a high priority or a luxury?</p>
<p>An issue not often discussed is the amount off the top Universities take for "indirect costs." This figure varies widely, from lows of 50% of the amount necessary for the research to more than 110%. So, if one needs $100,000 for a research proposal, one would have to ask for $210,000. The extra often goes into the school's general fund and may not be used to support research at all. There has been a steady increase in what universities require over the years, which is why research and grad students supported have not matched the growth of the $$ allocated.</p>
<p>Thank you for posting that. My kid's been straddling math/econ/ and physics, and I've had some regret that instead of pursuing knowledge about the basic make up of the universe he might end up working for a hedge fund. Now, I see I should be glad. :)</p>
<p>The physical sciences seem to be the ones losing out. (Does this have anything to do with the scaling back of the nuclear arms race?) Biologists got their equivalent of Manhattan Project funding for deciphering the genome. On the other hand, I remember that the physicists did not get funding for some collider (super-collider?) and that one was built in Europe, which might be why those potential faculty turned MIT down. I know my kid's physics profs seem to keep disappearing to Switzerland for part of the year.</p>
<p>I believe Fed funded research has clamped down on the indirect cost recovery number so that it is hard to exceed 50%. Even at 50% the ICR can generate huge amounts of money for the university. Using my UW example, $910 Million would generate $455 Million to the general fund of the UW. If you assume an endowment spending rate of 5.5% of the total endowment, it's like having over $8 Billion in endowment. ICR money cannot be used quite as freely but with a little creativity it can free up other funds that the university has more control over.
Now you know why schools are after faculty to generate research funding.</p>
<p>I recently read this</a> article in Science magazine.
<a href="The%20bill">quote=Science</a> would give $4000 per year to low-income juniors and seniors majoring in science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) or a foreign language critical to national security... The bill allocates $3.75 billion over 5 years for the initiative, dubbed Science and Math Access to Retain Talent (SMART), and another program that will grant $750 and $1300 respectively to freshmen and sophomores from low-income families, regardless of their major. It will be funded at $790 million in 2006.
[/quote]
I have every sympathy for funding low-income college students, but part of me can't help but wonder what's going to happen to me once I get my PhD. Science grad students live below the poverty line in many areas of the country (I know that in Massachusetts, I'll be eligible for subsidized housing), and things don't get any better once you get your PhD and enter an academic postdoctoral fellowship.</p>
<p>From a recent article in the UChicago Maroon:</p>
<p>National politics could also play a role at the college admissions level. Last month the Senate passed a bill that not only included a $3.75 billion student aid program, but also will allow the federal government to rate academic rigor of the countrys 18,000 high schools. The program would provide $750 to $1,300 grants to low-income first- and second-year college students who have fulfilled a rigorous secondary school program of study.</p>
<p>ONeill is wary of the initiative: I think we should have real reservations about this administration, this Department of Education, or any administration trying to determine local school policy, he said.</p>
<p>The program would also give larger grants to college upperclassmen majoring in math, science, and other critical fields, according to The New York Times.</p>
<p>Whos to say that [the U of Cs] English majors arent as important to the health of America as computer science majors or electrical engineers? Im not willing to concede that, ONeill said [Dean of Admissions]. Why should our students suffer for not having accessibility to these funds? It seems to me short-sighted and an oddly top-down approach for an allegedly free-market government.</p>
<p>idad, I posted that article last week but it fell in the 3-day black hole. I certainly had it in mind as I read this one today. </p>
<p>Has O'Neill not been paying attention? "Reservations about . . . trying to determine local school policy." According to the principals, teachers and administrators I've talked to, this is exactly what NCLB does.</p>