<p>
</p>
<p>This is doubtful. Someone should just look up the grant and find how they split up the funds. Otherwise, there is no point to speculation. </p>
<p>You have to request the full grant. Feel free. $1.6 million over 7 years to “Allow for versatile training of students from high school, undergraduate, graduate through the post-doctorate to develop necessary skills for achieving professional careers in science and engineering.” The high school students are being paid $1000 for a summer? How does that chew up $1.6 million? Unless this field is insanely expensive, which it doesn’t appear to be from the size of the other grants, that says postdoc and grad student salaries to me. </p>
<p>The NSF explains Broader Impacts more specifically here - <a href=“US NSF - : Broader Impacts Review Criterion -- Dear Colleague Letter nsf07046”>http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2007/nsf07046/nsf07046.jsp</a>. In particular, this part seems to suggest that mentoring undergraduate students (and high school students too I would assume) count towards Broader Impacts. Maybe I am missing something though?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I have no affiliation with Stonybrook. None. But I am finding it hard that a professor could essentially commit financial fraud by taking Federal funds and laundering them through a bunch of HS kids. (I’m not talking about claiming that a HS kid cured cancer when all he did was to identify a chemical mechanism by which a healthy cell became malignant. Only a moron or the people who write headlines in local newspapers believe that one equals the other). Universities have auditors. Checks get cut by a payroll department which monitors which buckets of money are fungible and which have a specifically designated purpose.</p>
<p>This is possibly the craziest thread on CC I have ever read. A mid-career professor is going to risk his or her career over a bunch of teenagers??? You guys are nuts.</p>
<p>If we all agree that the professors are not altruistic and that from a financial perspective the HS kids pay for themselves over time (even given the amount of time that the post-doc’s need to spend supervising and mentoring them) will this thread go away? Even though I believe that in the real world- there is still a substantial investment of time and opportunity cost invested by the professors?</p>
<p>@mathyone :
Well first of all, research grants for undergraduate-focused LACs do not to my knowledge have funds available to hire postdocs, so I find it unbelievable that a grant for training high school students would.</p>
<p>How many students are in the program? Xiggi makes it sound like there is a huge number of people in it. Are they paid just in the summer or are they also paid for working during the school year? How much is spent on salaries for administrative staff specific to this mentoring program? There may also be funds allowed for reagents. 1.6 million over 7 years is slightly over $200,000 a year. It all depends on the numbers whether this is feasible or not. </p>
<p>The grant info is likely online somewhere. Its incumbent on those making the accusations to find it.</p>
<p>@shravas : Well, it looks like that statement supports that “broader impact” may also encompass training. However, in practice, this usually doesn’t impact how a grant is scored even when there is a statement like that included as a criterion.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Oh please. You have to be kidding me.</p>
<p>People get these grants because of THE WORK THEY DO not because they are mentoring high school students.</p>
<p>Now, what is funny about this, is that if you go with your argument that they get the grants because of the work they do for kids, then it must mean that those kids were doing really great research.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Go look up RSI.
Use the internet and google, it is your friend.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Why don’t you use google? It is your friend.</p>
<p>(hint: mid March)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>FWIW, the majority of people here look at the overall programs and see that it has a positive impact.</p>
<p>There are other people who hurl accusations about “rigging the outcomes” and accuse the participants of not presenting their own research.</p>
<p>As far as changing the deadline, I commented about the timeline earlier which you didn’t comment about. You can use google to figure out the timeline, the process, the potential conflict with AP exams and finals, if you don’t want to read my post.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I agree with you.
Not only that but claims about “rigging the outcomes” and accusing students of not representing their work in the Intel and SIemens applications…all to get multimillion dollar grants.</p>
<p>Oh, and don’t forget all those Intel Factories in the Bay area that seem to be breaking down since they barely produce any finalists and even fewer top 10 winners. </p>
<p>Your analogy to RSI is incorrect. RSI is an application- only program so that the folks who run it can make sure that the fakes and poseurs that are allegedly clogging the labs at Stonybrook are kept out.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>or </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Please keep my “accusations” in the correct context. </p>
<p>**I never intimated, suggested, or accused SBU to commit fraud in the NSF applications for grants. Never! **</p>
<p>Again, I (hesitantly) posted the information about the NSF grant in answer to a “laughing comment” and to support my point that not all the activities of the mentors is as altruistic as some might think. </p>
<p>I remain steadfast in my opinion that running the HS programs at SBU is a matter of self-interest to the most active mentor. And one that has been described in the past as the Intel racket. But there is a world of difference between “fraud” and engaging in self-promotion and self-interest. And none of what I mentioned might remotely ruin the career of an educator. The reputation in the eyes of objective observers, perhaps, but that is another story. </p>
<p>I leveled the accusation that mentors were running a program that attracts many students from the region because it offers the opportunity to participate in research projects, and that projects will be presented and promoted to the students by willing faculty and mentors. I have made that point again and again. And so far what I have written has been twisted in a slew of strawmen argumentation and the occasional moronic comments from teenagers that really do not need to be addressed. </p>
<p>OK, for what it’s worth, I meant “fraud” in a non-legal sense. I was referring to your allegations of unethical behavior.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No need for a hint. Since you now know that the presentations are in March, you can figure out how many presentations to judges (and defenses) take place for the selection of the semi-finalists. Do I have to repeat once more that the shenanigams and misrepresentation takes place at the preliminary level? Do I have to repeat that the judging of the finalists is a different ballgame? </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I understand and that is why I grouped your comment with Blossom’s point that including the words “laundering money.” As I wrote, most of my points here have been twisted well beyond their original intent. </p>
<p>Even the definition on “unethical behavior” reaches further than my comments about making a mockery of the competition by placing the pedestrian participation onto an inflated pedestal. Despite my points about the sharing of projects that are well-beyond the capabilities of the HS students, ultimately it would be up to the judges to stop rewarding the projects that are from the pre-canned sort. One cannot blame mentors to return to the same well, and this as long as it works as intended. </p>
<p>Ok, so again let me re-state.</p>
<p>Your beef with the program is that professors exaggerate the contribution that the HS kids have made to projects which were clearly led by Post-Doc’s and professors, and that the judges are too stupid to tease out the legitimate contributions made by the kids and therefore often reward projects which shouldn’t be rewarded- either because they are too pedestrian or canned to constitute real science, or because the kids didn’t do all the work themselves.</p>
<p>Is that the gist of your argument?</p>
<p>If so, I would suggest that you go back and re-read some of your posts. Your indignation is highly misplaced if I’ve accurately summarized your beef with the program, and the discussion around NIH and NSF is a complete red herring. There is nothing wrong with a lab offering a research stipend of $1K to anyone who commits time and energy into showing up for work, whether or not the work is “award worthy”, and as long as no Federal laws are broken, there is nothing wrong with offering a stipend and then having the work get submitted as a research project. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You started reciting my arguments with a good degree of accuracy, albeit also leaving out several elements of my “beef.” However, the next paragraph deviates from the gist of my points as you draw conclusions about points I never made or are taken entirely out of their context. My indignation is hardly misplaced as I have stated facts that have been corroborated by the students who … did well. Those students did freely admit the limitations of their participation in setting up the hypothesis and using the equipment to conduct the research. In a previous post, I asked to point out to the rididule part of my allegations, and rather tham I having to re-read my own posts, I would invite you to do the same and, perhaps, point out to the inaccuracies that might poison them. I think I have been repeating a consistent point. </p>
<p>Lastly, the last sentences are indeed a red herring but again you are reciting points I NEVER made. I never discussed the merits of earning a stipend nor did I mention federal laws. For the nth time, I pointed to the 1,6 MM grant as an exhibit to the indirect benefit the mentors at SBU do derive. If you happen to think that the issues are not related, that is OK by me. We do not have to agree, but I stand by my conclusions. </p>
<p>Fwiw, all we are now doing in going in circles. I have a very clear argument that is supported by the evidence as I see it. I have no problems with other having different opinions, and disagreeing with my conclusions or observations. Well as long as people do not misrepresent what I have written or dismiss it based on elements that are totally foreign to the argument I presented. </p>
<p>In the end, nothing will change. I am not trying to convince anyone. The facts should speak for themselves. I happen to know that it is hardly difficult to step into existing academic or scientific research as long as one possesses the right connections and resources. </p>
<p>@collegealum314, you keep telling other people to read the grant (which has to be special-requested from NSF) and yet you don’t look at the abstract, or even the sentence I quoted in my post. “Allow for versatile training of students from high school, undergraduate, graduate through the post-doctorate…” They say upfront in the abstract they are using money to support grad students and postdocs. The money going to undergrads is a tiny drop in the bucket. I’m not making an accusation, just saying this appears to be a training grant which includes high school students, most don’t. They probably put that in so they could pay those $1000 stipends. Most of the money probably goes to undergrad and postdoc salaries and for supplies and small equipment for anyone working on the projects described in the grant.</p>
<p>Well Xiggi, I think we made some progress in seeing eye-to-eye on page 9. </p>
<p>As for the recent point about the million dollar NSF grant, I could propose a reasonable budget. 1.7 million over 6 years is roughly $200,000 a year. For a program that large, they probably need a full-time staff person. So that would account for $50,000 a year. $1000 a summer per student has already been mentioned as a stipend. I have no idea how many students there are–50? 100? If it’s 50, then that’s $50,000. If 100, then that’s $100,000. If the students are paid during the year, then more money would be spent on them. Let’s assume conservatively that they have 50 students there from all high school grades working per year, but that some of them are paid something for working on weekends during the school year. So I’ll say that would account for $75000. OK, programs for undergrad research do sometimes have a small amount of money allowed for reagents–like $500 for one summer. So let’s multiply this $500 *50 students = $25000. This accounts for your entire budget. The only area of possible abuse could be the amount for reagents, which could be used by other people. However, keep in mind that $500 is not even enough to buy two antibodies; it is not a lot of money in terms of a research budget–a drop in the bucket.</p>
<p>@mathyone : I didn’t see any reference to an abstract or description other than your quote.</p>
<p>Your quote is kind of confusing. It sounds like the money for the grant can go for training of postdocs, grad students, and undergrads, in addition to high school students. This is opposed to money for postdocs/grad students to train high school students.<br>
As I mentioned, even undergrad-oriented research grants don’t have money earmarked for salaries of postdocs/grad students. </p>
<p>I’d like to see a fuller description of the grant.</p>
<p>@collegealum314, you can find the abstract of the grant on the links xiggi provided a few pages back. The quote came from the $1.6 million NSF grant. Yes, I believe it can go for all of that. Anyone with the designation “student” or postdoc is technically considered to be getting trained. They can in turn be training people with less experience.</p>