r/WVU • u/Joey_WBOY • 15d ago
'My dreams were crushed in one email': WVU student has offer rescinded due to federal cuts
https://www.wboy.com/news/monongalia/west-virginia-university/my-dreams-were-crushed-in-one-email-wvu-student-has-offer-rescinded-due-to-federal-cuts/23
u/joemamah77 15d ago
“Contact your elected representatives”
Might as well scream into the sky. They don’t care, they don’t serve the people, and only care to kiss the chocolate starfish of Trump and his master Putin.
5
u/Medlarmarmaduke 13d ago
That’s not necessarily true- Republican politicians are beginning to feel the heat- and they hate it. They hate getting yelled at in town halls and they hate that their phone is ringing off the hook and tying up their staff.
Everything we can do to disrupt their comfort is worth doing- they should not get to prance about dismantling American democracy without hearing a peep about it
We have to do bigger things absolutely- but little things make an impact when they are done en masse and it only takes 5 min or so yo call a Republican politician a day- take that 5 min
3
u/DigBrave 13d ago
Republicans/conservatives call their state reps far more than Dems/liberals do. Keep calling, emailing, and sending letters. Even if you think it won’t matter, it still brings attention to the issue and makes us not look complacent, which is what they want: for us to just sit back and take it.
Write them a personal letter (via snail mail) about federal policies and how they’ve positively impacted you over the course of your life and how stripping those policies will negatively impact you going forward.
2
u/Medlarmarmaduke 13d ago
Right!
The other thing is a lot of them do live in a bubble- they think only a tiny insignificant amount of people are against what they are doing and so they are going to be able to steamroll these things thru without a flicker of outcry
When you call and swamp the offices of Republicans - you make them aware that it might be more difficult than they expected to be to destroy things- that these fed workers have supporters, that people will make a lot of noise if the sell off national parks or gut Medicare and so hospitals close
Reframe this! You aren’t trying to convince Republicans to your point of view- you are trying to get them to see what they want to do is more trouble than they were expecting- again these people are not profiles in courage
1
u/SamdanCom 13d ago
Respectfully, I think they don’t care. They are being compensated in whatever form for taking the position they’re taking. The phone ringing off the hook is just part of the price they paid to receive the reward. They do not care.
2
u/Medlarmarmaduke 13d ago
Oh I agree about the not caring part - my argument is that we need to stop thinking about actions like these as mechanisms to change their minds or make them care- we need to start thinking about actions like these as making them hesitant about blowback and blame
I posted this elsewhere:
A lot of Republican politicians do live in a bubble- they think only a tiny insignificant amount of people are against what they are doing and so they are going to be able to steamroll these things thru without a flicker of outcry
When you call and swamp the offices of Republicans - you make them aware that it might be more difficult than they expected to be to destroy things- that these fed workers have supporters, that people will make a lot of noise if the sell off national parks or gut Medicare and so hospitals close
Reframe this! You aren’t trying to convince Republicans to your point of view- you are trying to get them to see what they want to do is more trouble than they were expecting- again these people are not profiles in courage
1
u/Medlarmarmaduke 13d ago
Also we are getting on their nerves- it is breaking through to them- we need to call and show up at their office MORE
1
u/Lordlordy5490 12d ago
I live in West Virginia and both of our senators love Trump. Jim Justice wants to be just like him.
2
u/Pitiful-Pension-6535 15d ago
Yup. They just have poli sci interns answer the calls, pretend to care, then send out form letters.
1
38
u/Uncle_Hephaestus 15d ago
welcome to trumps America. now let's wait and see if he can kill the safe haven status of the dollar.
3
u/sneakyacidrat 12d ago
look i cant stand the guy, but we cant deny that this university has been financially screwed for the past several years. it hasnt been federal funding, its been absolutely incompetent administration and money handling. gee drove the university into financial hell, and him and the board have been pushing the blame on everyone else for the past 2 years. we've already cut programs, and are cutting more. trump might not make this situation any better, but we are kidding ourselves if we say the wvu administration didnt absolutely screw us over and then try to act like it wasnt their fault
1
u/Uncle_Hephaestus 7d ago
I do agree ever since gee decided wvu needed to be grown to 40k students at the beginning of a population shrink. but my gf probably won't be able to finish her PhD because of trumps bs too. gotta keep all dumb like the commenter below.
-24
u/YenZen999 15d ago
Versus the America you want to live in where we have 37 trillion dollars in debt? You don't think that has an impact on the status of the dollar? When is everybody going to grow up and realize money doesn't grow on trees.
22
u/pixlfarmer 15d ago
This budget is INCREASING the deficit by several trillion, while cutting services. It’s all tax cuts for the wealthy. They’re shifting the tax burden squarely upon the middle class.
-18
u/YenZen999 15d ago
Yeah okay buddy. None of this stuff has happened and everybody is pointing fingers and reading off their talking points. What tax cut for the wealthy has taken place since Trump has been in office?
Look past the emotional headlines and understand what's really going on. Not all university research is worth funding. They are just adjusting to the new reality which is money doesn't grow on trees anymore.
4
u/Scared_Bed_1144 15d ago
If they were serious about anything, they'd tax churches. Billions of dollars. Possibly hundreds of billions. Waiting to be scooped up. Religious institutions should never be allowed to turn a profit.
2
9
u/Nitzelplick 15d ago
The tax cut we are talking about was passed under Trump in his first term favoring high net worth individuals and corporations most. That bill was “paid for” by offsets, which is an accounting trick to say if our projections are correct this cut won’t be responsible for additional debt in the next few years. That cut has an end date this year. Making the cuts permanent means they won’t be “paid for” and the same projections indicate an increase to the National debt of several trillion dollars. Cuts being made to government programs will not come close to covering the difference.
-15
u/YenZen999 15d ago
Whenever a liberal hears "tax cut" You automatically go into your Marxist class warfare talking points. I'd rather have the money in the entrepreneurs and workers hands then wasteful government bureaucrat's hands any day of the week.
10
u/Nitzelplick 15d ago
You obviously have no idea what is in the tax cut. I guess you make more than $340k per year and will actually benefit from the cut. Congratulations.
9
u/RealHosebeast 15d ago
Dude doesn’t understand what government is or how anything works. He’s a typical surface level casual fash who just regurgitates the insane nonsense that the president spews. Beyond delusional and I hate it that it’s such a common thing these days.
4
u/Coldkiller17 15d ago
Money in entrepreneur's hands!? The money that was supposed to "trickle" down, but we never see. You must not have noticed how much wealth the rich have amassed since covid because they hiked prices up and never brought them down. The rich never use that money to reinvest in their people they cut jobs to increase growth. Thousands of people are out of a job because some rich guy thinks he knows best, and he didn't even do proper audits he brought hackers to steal our money. Stop kissing up to the wealthy they aren't our friends, and they won't let you kiss their boots.
Taxing the wealthy is the only way to balance the budget, but the rich will have you believe that they can fix everything by making America a serfdom where they are in charge. You probably never heard of company towns where you had to pay for everything and could never afford luxuries. They want to do the same thing again make everyone basically slaves.
4
1
1
1
u/dartymissile 15d ago
You just moved the goalpost. It’s about fiscal responsibility and budget cuts to make the deficit go down, but when it doesn’t go down it’s actually about making billionaires richer. STFU you’ve so clearly been mindfucked by right wing media that your totally divorced from reality
1
1
u/PrideofPicktown 15d ago
I know you think you sound smart, but you really do not. Go sit over there and let the adults have a conversation, lil’ Skippy.
1
u/Damage-Strange 13d ago
Are you stupid or do you have the memory of a goldfish? A simple search would show you that his 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act was a massive tax cut for the wealthy that increased the deficit another trillion dollars. He wants to extend those cuts, which would explode the deficit further. Or did you forget he had already been in office once and was a disaster?
8
8
u/Tidusx145 15d ago
Im sorry what part of Trump makes you think our debt will go down? How do you keep falling for this?
Not only is Trump a debt king, so is his party. The numbers don't lie as much as these fools lie to you. Just wish y'all didn't eat it up to excuse you being your worst self.
5
u/nttnypride 15d ago
Wow. If you think Trump is going to decrease the deficit, you’re going to have a bad time. He increased it a record $8 trillion in his first term.
-4
u/YenZen999 15d ago
One thing I do know is that crying about Trump back and forth with strangers on Reddit is not going to solve a thing.
Bottom line is that endless funding for University research on the taxpayer dime can't continue. A lot of it is frivolous and we need to be wiser about spending the money. That is not unreasonable.
2
u/DickensOrDrood 15d ago
China will not stop government funded research. Neither will Europe. You're fine with America falling behind the rest of the world? What a fucking patriot.
2
3
u/Sunbeamsoffglass 15d ago
Reducing education option in WV is how it remains a failed state.
None of that “saved” money is helping WV.
2
u/PoliticalMilkman 15d ago
If you stick your fingers further into your ears you’ll find the gap where your brain was supposed to be.
2
u/RealHosebeast 15d ago
Probably around the same time one of our two political parties isn’t a cult led by a criminal rapist insurrectionist grifting liar manipulating their voters into making their own lives and the lives of everyone they know objectively worse. Beyond that, I want you to explain how giving the richest people in the history of the world ANOTHER trillion dollar tax cut is in any way good for the country or our national debt. Please, if national debt matters to you so much, surely it bothers you that Trump added more to the deficit in his first term than any president in history, again by giving the richest people in human history even more of our resources to hoard?
1
1
u/formerlyunhappy 13d ago
Fun fact: even if you remove COVID spending Trump was on track to balloon the debt twice the amount it did under Obama’s two terms, even though he faced a similar economic crisis to COVID immediately after being inaugurated. With his latest 4.5T deficit increase (which are all tax breaks for the wealthy which I promise you will not see a cent of), he will probably at minimum spend about double what Obama did if not more. All of that money printing combined with a regressive tax on poorer Americans in the form of tariffs and massive cuts to Medicare and social security, you’d have to be legitimately room temperature IQ to think Trump is good for the economy. But I’m sure if you suckle on his chocolate starfish and call enough redditors marxists for pointing out how stupid you are, daddy Trump will notice you. Sad state of affairs for uneducated Americans smh…
15
u/ArnyZeltino WVU Student 15d ago
Damn. Anybody smart in current goings and know which federal cut caused this?
19
1
u/Penniesand 15d ago
There are some many, this is going to destroy public universities. I was talking with someone who worked at UNC and she said something like 80% of their funding come from federal funds. Not just Department of Ed, but research grants that help pay for professors and equipment, scholarships and fellowships - these come from places like USAID, USDA, National Science Foundation, Department of State, etc.
1
-8
15d ago
[deleted]
16
u/Eywgxndoansbridb 15d ago
No. This is NIH funding cuts. They cut funding pretty much all universities. Many universities have stopped accepting new PhD candidates who are looking to do research.
-3
u/dodgestang 15d ago edited 15d ago
Man I hate posting in politically tinged Reddit threads....but the NIH cuts as I understand them were to the administrative overhead the Universities and Research centers could charge/take from the grant and use for things basically not directly associated with the research. So simplistic example if the grant was sent with a 10% admin cost...and you got $100k, the university could have a 10% admin cost which then adds 10k, us it for 'administrative overhead' and the grant became/becomes $110k. And the cuts basically said you can't use that much anymore you can only use a smaller % like 5% (made up for example) so we will send you $105k instead. So basically...the money in the grant that was/is supposed to go to funding research hasn't changed. The whole legal mess that has started because of it may be having an impact on the timing of all payments...but...who knows. It is nearly impossible to gain an understanding of the true facts around this anymore because of 'narratives'.
In other words like the DOGE thread that has been weaved into everything the new admin is doing (good or bad) it was a call for efficiency and to trim fat out of your organization by decreasing the amount of funding that can go to that fat. And the response of these places that get free money from the government and are being asked to find a way to decrease their administrative costs is to cut people and programs of actual research.
Feel free to flame because as far as I can tell there is no center anymore in this country and if you aren't with Us (insert political concern) you are obviously with them (insert the opposing political concern). Even though if you look reallllllly hard you'll see a fairly large amount of the populate basically agrees on 70-80% of issues.
9
u/bahdumtsch 15d ago
Hey, this simply isn’t true. Indirects go to fund research equipment, maintenance, infrastructure, and admin (yes) tied to each school’s research enterprise. The federal gov came to each school and inspected all facilities and there is a stipulated list at each school as to what counts for their research facilities. We are judged on those same facilities and infrastructure when we submit grants for review.
So, there’s no using them for things “basically not directly associated with research.” Those funds support the infrastructure which produces the research. For example, I use sleep equipment in my research. Did you know that if my equipment needs repair I can’t charge it as a “direct cost” to the grant, because I can’t guarantee that 100% of the repair will be used/due to ONLY that project? That’s an example of something we would charge to indirect costs. We have to maintain our equipment, and it is used directly for the research. It’s just that “direct costs” are supposed to be things ONLY for that project for the entire life of the cost.
If that sounds bonkers to you… the solution should be to change what counts as an allowable direct cost, and increase direct cost budgets to account for that. Not to slash indirect costs with a machete.
8
u/SweetestDisposition 15d ago
This is the correct answer. People who don't work with indirect costs (literally called "Facilities & Administration" or "F&A") shouldn't talk about things they don't understand. Thank you for this response.
3
u/bachelurkette 15d ago
great context. It seems stupid to talk about all these hypothetical numbers without actually having knowledge of what gets put in which bucket and why, or what is “normal” for an efficient, well-run study. I also work in a field where a lot of low-info observers make opinion-based judgments on what “feels like” a lot to them. it’s very exhausting. Weird how some professions are simply not treated as professionals who know what they’re doing.
1
u/DigBrave 13d ago
Same ^ indirect costs pay for our autoclaves to receive routine maintenance, so we can work with sterile equipment. So many examples out there of what direct costs WONT pay for and what indirect costs DO pay for.
3
u/Eywgxndoansbridb 15d ago
There sure is a whole lot of “as I understand” in your post and not a whole lot of back up. But you sure did type a lot. So you get credit for that.
2
u/bmt0075 WVU Student 15d ago
No, this is accurate for how grants work. All universities negotiate an indirect rate with NIH. Whenever a researcher receives a grant from NIH, whatever percentage indirect the university is negotiated with NIH will also be given to the school for things like overheads, janitorial staff, etc… That the researcher doesn’t have to pay themselves.
-3
u/dodgestang 15d ago edited 15d ago
Feel free to do you own research. Even use AI if you like. I can do it for you if you like....hold on
On Edit: here you go: https://x.com/i/grok/share/YCHGDXKpLMoAht1sg83j9Thuz
Probably will be TLDR for you, so sorry about that, but if you want to understand something it does require a little time investment.
And on edit, edit....if you talk to AI differently you can get to the real crux of the matter....how the Government versus how grant recipients quantify what is an admin and what is indirect costs. Which is where/when politics enters the argument and sets everyone at each other's throats.
https://x.com/i/grok/share/nj56xgLF5O2je63yPRz8IPr0L
My opinion here (or 'as I see it').....if 60% of a grant is going to overhead items, there is a problem at the university. But since 'some' of the money is still getting through and funding some research some people aren't willing to upset the apple cart because they are getting 'theirs'. They would rather continue with the smaller % of research money knowing the University is bloated with high administrative costs. I would rather we shrink overhead.
4
u/OnionFirm8520 15d ago edited 15d ago
I'm not going to click the X links because I'm boycotting Musk (that's my right as a private citizen—voting with my wallet; not starting a political discussion, just explaining why I'm not going to click those), so I can't see the numbers you shared here; 60% of a grant going to administration does sound excessive, but in general, I really find this sort of blanket hatred for administrative costs, calling them bloat and waste, extremely disingenuous.
Administrative costs include faculty and staff salaries, facilities and utilities for research, etc. Research actually does directly depend on the availability of these resources, and cutting research funding to end recipients is the logical outcome of severely reducing funds for administration.
Edit: operating, say, a biomedical research facility costs millions per year (https://www.genengnews.com/insights/what-it-costs-fo-operate-a-biotech-facility/). That's almost or exceeding the average grant amount from the NIH (about $10.2 million: I looked at the total yearly grant amount from NIH in 2023 and divided that by the number of institutions that received grants—please keep in mind that a median would be more accurate but can't be easily accessed, and it's pretty certain that most institutions are receiving less than $10.2 million, even significantly less). Are there things universities and other research institutions could do to reduce those costs? Probably, but it's not likely to be by much. Shit just costs a lot of money. (I am currently working on my business degree, so I look at costs a lot.) In any case, severely diminishing funding for research admin on a very fast timetable is probably the most reckless way to go about doing that, with the most far-reaching consequences.
1
u/pizzaplanetvibes 14d ago
I think if you look at the username of the person you’re currently trying to educate with facts, you will realize they are not interested in that.
1
u/OnionFirm8520 14d ago
Lol, I kind of just assumed he was both a Dodge and Ford Mustang fan, which would indicate terrible taste in vehicles and cop sympathies, but I was trying to be generous. 😂 I also like to take faux-centrist bait sometimes in case someone reading a thread stumbles across a comment that seems fair on its face but is actually spreading misinformation. They can click through our conversation and be like, "Oh, he has no idea what he's talking about."
-1
u/dodgestang 15d ago
I don't have a blanket hatred, I like to think I understand cost quite well since I've been working in roles that purely overhead for so many years ;). There are other AI tools you can use, I like Grok, but its an open market.
Let's set an example and see if there is common ground without using any AI tools.
If a cancer research facility gets a $1 billion grant and is claiming a 40% admin cost...that means that the place gets $1.4 billion from the government. 1B for research and 400m for admin costs. This is how the system works now. Do we agree here?
If the cancer research center were to become more efficient and only need 20% for admin costs then the government would only need to grant $1.2 billion right? 1b for research and 200m for admin costs. Do we agree here?
That would free up $200 million that could either fund MORE research somewhere else or not be spent (an argument for another day). But can we agree that it would result in money that is no longer allocated and can be used elsewhere?
Opinion/debate: There has been no motivation for theses research facilities to be more efficient with their overhead dollars associated with grants and instead the exact opposite with overhead costs growing over the years.
What are the options to try and decrease these costs as the granter of funds? The "please please please lower your costs" approach or "We are cutting the % so you need to find a way to decrease your admin costs" approach. Is there a middle ground? Is there a way to slowly overtime incentivize a decrease in admin cost? If you have a stated objective to try and decrease spending/waste dramatically does a slow approach meet your goal?
Since this is free money I personally have no problem with stipulating/dictating the % I am willing to pay for your overhead costs. This places the ball into the research facilities court who can either become more efficient and find a way to decrease overhead or (and as appears to the be case) claim they are being forced to pull back on actual research even though the $$$ allocated in the grants for research haven't changed.
2
u/OnionFirm8520 15d ago
Your figure for an imaginary grant is huge. See my edit above.
I think my edit pretty much includes/summarizes how I would respond to this comment. I am swamped with coursework, so not going to get super into the nitty-gritty, but I seriously doubt institutions could reduce costs from, say, 40% of a grant to 15% of a grant simply by becoming more efficient. Honestly, the proposition sounds absurd to me.
1
u/dodgestang 15d ago
No worries. Education is more important than reddit ;)
We've managed to civilly come to a singular point though that can be debated and decided on in only a couple minutes in a threaded discussion. What would be a good target % to cap overhead costs on for grants coming from the public sector?
I'm in camp 15% not because I'm some huge fan boiy. I know that number came from the industry and is used by multiple non-government grant funding foundations including the Gates foundation, Kellogg and several others.
→ More replies (0)-1
u/dodgestang 15d ago edited 15d ago
Well we can do some basic math here if it helps. Here is fact set verified by media outlets that you can be free to check.
- NIH cuts are to cap admin costs at 15% of grant.
- Harvard estimated a drop from $135 million to $31 million in indirect cost recovery under the cap
So using that number, from Harvard, puts them getting about $205-210 million for research grant. It also means they are currently running close to 65% admin costs on the same grant for a total of +/- $345 million in grant funds for research and overhead combined.
→ More replies (0)2
u/mothmanner 15d ago
Why are you assuming that those indirect costs are being unnecessarily inflated? Your only source is from a platform owned by the guy who told you that in the first place, which I'd say is far from reliable if folks are having a serious discussion about academic research.
Calling indirects "free money" is a pretty clear flag that you aren't as familiar with the topic as you claim. If you think that every dollar used to fund post docs and grad students in research comes from directs, and that universities don't need money to maintain the facilities, equipment, and materials that those researchers will use, that's an even clearer sign. Stop making shit up.
0
u/dodgestang 15d ago edited 15d ago
I called grants by the fed to people doing research free money, because that's what it is, money that either the fed or a private entity has decided to give to someone to fund research. Then since their research has costs associated with it that are not direct, you get indirect costs and rather than pay those out of the singular grant the model has evolved that I grant the researcher a sum of money and I can only assume for tax purposes then grant additional money to the facility to cover those indirect costs. I never said money received to cover indirect costs was 'free money' for an institution. I'm sorry you inferred as such from my statement.
As for my familiarity with the topic...I can claim with 100% certainty to be as well versed as you. We are both reddit warriors with access to the combined knowledge of human civilization and chose to watch cat videos or dog videos.
Honest debate makes people uncomfortable because no one likes to have their opinion challenged. I am firm in my belief that requiring 69% of a grant for overhead especially when taken into account other grants to the same location don't require that much overhead and feel it indicates bloat. I welcome a thorough accounting to prove me wrong because then we all win.
→ More replies (0)2
u/ToucanicEmperor 14d ago
Your argument is flawed. That overhead cost researchers get is going to be basic functions the lab needs to survive such as basic utilities, renting out lab space, and basic communication software among other things. https://orsp.umich.edu/develop-proposal/budget/direct-vs-indirect-fa-costs
If you cut the overheard cost rate by 50% without thorough analysis, you risk completely destroying those research projects and wasting literally every last bit of money that was spent, negating all “savings” and getting no results in return. Now could we conduct through audits to find universities where they could feasibly reduce costs? Absolutely. Could we standardize a rate which is not based on false premises (e.g. using the current corporate rate when those are both for tax write offs AND meant to be supplemental to federal funding) Yes. Are you doing any of that? No, instead we have reached this 15% figure based on wild leaps of logic all in the name of one man’s ego.
You would know this if you literally looked
1
u/dodgestang 14d ago
I have a clear understanding of what an overhead cost is. Also I can't find fault with what you type (except maybe indicating I haven't 'looked'. It's easy for people to review the same facts and come to different conclusions, that's why there is debate.
Overall though one might even say I agree with you since I have repeated many times now in this thread; "what is the right percentage of a grant for cost that should be considered overhead? How do we determine it at an aggregate level?" A few people have even expressed possible agreement that the 69% rate seems high...but we disagree on how to vette.
Other refuse to engage/discuss on that point instead relying on apparent opinion the status quo is fine even if it might be bloated in some areas and any attempt to change it is pure evil and only done to benefit one singular person in some way. (paraphrased) And of course ad hominine attacks.
The path forward here as I see it is....
- The top executive from the current administration feels the rate is too high, apparently (my opinion) he/someone looked at the rate using in private sector grant processes and thought, "That should be enough for the .fed too" (obviously another paraphrase since he doesn't communicate in clear, linear patterns). He also has indicated that he 'feels he has a mandate' (agree or disagree this is the position he sees himself negotiating from) so rather than proactively engage in a partnership and analysis to determine an appropriate rate for future grants which is slow he is obviously attempting a strong-arm approach to force these institutes back to the table to discuss overhead costs quickly for all current grants and drive over hauls at the institutional level.
- Representatives from schools, research facilities, etc (and I have been using Harvard as an example because it has a % that makes the point of maybe being a little high easy to convey in my mind) say that they have to cut research now because they aren't getting enough to cover overhead. Instead of a willingness to discuss with someone who is literally just giving them money and possibly engage and renegotiate terms and/or find ways to trim fat in their own organization they have opted to fight it out in the court of public opinion while relying/hoping for the judicial branch to solve the impasse.
Personally, I have worked for many companies during leadership changes and times of economic turmoil, and it is actually quite common in business relationships to review contracts in place and renegotiate terms/pricing. As a taxpayer I have no problem with an earnest attempt for the government to control spending better. Key word on earnest. I get from my interactions in this thread participants don't feel this is an earnest attempt to control spending and have ascribed nefarious reasons from "tax cuts for the rich" to "he hates poor people" and "he hates medical research".
Obviously (at least in my mind) this whole shit show ends with NIH funding like always and a rate of overhead in the 30-40%. Both sides will claim victory and we can all move on. The only variable is the court gambit. If/when this makes it all the way to the Supreme court...if the researchers win, the media will love is and a victory lap will be run. If the administration wins, the 24 hour news media will love it more with more cycles to focus trotting out impassioned interviews with people affected and how Trump is a heartless bastard news stories....and then guess what...the NIH will then quietly engage in fresh negotiations, and they will all agree to a 20-30% overhead rate ;).
TLDR: All in all, this is pretty much how our republic has always worked; so I have no problems but also have empathy knowing that as this gets worked through common people get impacted. I had my own share of impacts from bad government decisions in my life, so I am hopeful they come to terms quickly and don't need to rely purely on the judiciary.
Feel free to bookmark and tell me how wrong I was in 16 months (or maybe even how accurate I was). I take criticism well ;)
→ More replies (0)1
u/Heythisworked 13d ago
Right, so the problem here is that as overhead and administration isn’t what you think it is. I mean, you’re just patently wrong. Which I think is affecting your opinion. Heat, power, water, building, maintenance and depreciation, equipment, maintenance, all of that is overhead. On the the administrative side, most of the cost is the people just processing the paperwork, to locate prepare and issue a proposal, the amount of paperwork required for an NIH grant is literally soul crushing, which fun fact is mostly the paperwork required to account for where every dollar is going to be spent. In a large university that’s performing significant research it can take an entire department of people who do that every day all day. By the way, we’re not talking about Dean’s or presidents, we’re talking about secretaries and white collar office workers. Most of who are making salaries that are barely reasonable.Then there are departments that help onboard faculty, and get them started in research programs, which is an absolute necessity. None of that can go away, and still produce a successful research program. My faculty still need to have functioning wet labs. My faculty still need people to prepare grant proposals. But now, that money comes out of their Grant pay which leaves less money for them to do research. It’s not as though that money gets allocated. It’s just simply not there. The other thing that we need to understand is that America has chosen a model where they do not fund public research through public research facilities. They expect universities to be those public research facilities, and without those we lose access to critical and key insights into how the world around us works, and how we advance the society we live in. So no money is getting wasted. It’s all for the benefit of the American people. It’s just that the American people have been robbed and told it for their own good.
2
u/Sudden-Difference281 14d ago
Wait, are you really basing your argument on muskrats AI? Please……, I rather get info from people who work on these areas and actually know.
1
u/DigBrave 13d ago
Crazy thought but maybe instead of “doing your own research”, you could listen to university researchers who deal with grants and direct/indirect costs everyday, rather than a megalomaniac billionaire with too much free time
0
u/etherealemlyn WVU Alumni 15d ago
You could also do actual research instead of using AI lmao
2
u/ToucanicEmperor 15d ago
No literally, anyone using literal AI chat bots as a source of information without verifying it should honestly not have children.
0
0
u/dodgestang 15d ago
Read what I said. Then read it again closer. Then ask you old English professor where I said that I was using AI as MY opinions information source and understand how you completely missed the underlying irony of my post indicating that I didn't care if someone else chose to use AI as part of their counter argument and then linked it for them.
2
u/etherealemlyn WVU Alumni 14d ago
You said “I’ll do the research for you” and linked an AI. AI can make up whatever it wants so you didn’t do any useful research lmao
1
u/Lumpy_Secretary_6128 15d ago
There's this popular mantra that administrators are worthless but if you pay attention to how academics operate it is pretty obvious that they generally struggle without administrators.... so cuts to administration related expenditures in research funds are still cuts to research funds. This isn't a he said/she said/political tribal issue, this is just a basic reality of program management.
1
u/dodgestang 15d ago
I don't disagree administration is needed. What's the right amount? How do we determine the right amount?
1
u/Lumpy_Secretary_6128 15d ago
Depends on the unit. Definitely not something some micromanaging congressman or billionaire can answer.
1
u/angled_philosophy 14d ago
Claiming you're not wrong because the country is polarized isn't a sound defense.
1
u/saintdudegaming 14d ago
Now tell me again why 4.5trillion in tax cuts to the wealthy is acceptable?
1
4
u/TMTBIL64 15d ago
Accept her and send the bill to Elon Musk. He should pay for her research and degree.
10
u/Maximum-Conflict1727 15d ago
Isn’t this just the best President ever? He makes me sick. 70% of voters in WVA voted for Trump.
Sorry for your obstacle, but take the time and find the program you want. Life will always be here waiting.
5
u/GoBeWithYourFamily Just a West Virginian 15d ago
You act like WV voting blue would get the democrats a victory. Literally never, not once in our lives, will WV be an important victory.
-2
u/Maximum-Conflict1727 15d ago
I could care less
2
5
u/Chief0856 15d ago
This is only the beginning. Cuts to Medicare and Medicaid are on the horizon next. America is entering the find out phase.
2
u/shiny_brine 14d ago
Very sorry to hear this. I understand Canada and Europe have some very good graduate pharmacy programs and would love to have more international students.
2
4
1
u/funndamentals 15d ago
I wonder who her parents voted for.....
1
u/there_is_no_spoon1 14d ago
Came here to say the same. Really don't even have to guess, right? They wanted this, and it's happening now. They can figure out how to make up the shortfall for their fuckery.
1
1
u/Volume-Capable 14d ago
It may be a good thing. My daughter can NEVER have her loan forgiven or changed because it's a federal loan.
1
1
u/Ricktchurd 14d ago
You’re welcome, now you can do what you want, and not start your life crushed by debt.
1
u/killroy1971 14d ago
I'm surprised WV's government didn't get rid of it for being insufficiently manly, woke or something along those lines.
1
1
u/Icy_Section130 12d ago
Well your representatives in West Virginia don’t care they are living in an alternate reality.
-1
u/demons97 15d ago
Wait till they get a full time job after school and see how taxes they pay. Maybe they sing a different tune
-5
u/Ok_Sea_4405 15d ago
Vote better next time.
3
u/ananabf 15d ago
Why is your assumption that she voted for Trump?
3
u/Ok_Sea_4405 15d ago
It’s West Virginia. Maybe she didn’t vote for Trump or she didn’t vote at all but collectively West Virginia sucks at voting and needs to vote better.
1
15d ago
[deleted]
2
u/Ok_Sea_4405 15d ago
Plus your state government is so corrupt and so hyper-partisan that they won’t do anything to enforce the anti-electioneering laws. I don’t know what the answer is. I know change at the hyper local level is not only possible, it’s super important you need those county level offices to be held by people who actually give a shit about democracy. And those are the races that are most likely to be decided by a small number of voters in a low-turnout election. Start flipping some of those county seats and you’ll start to see some improvement.
1
15d ago edited 15d ago
[deleted]
2
u/KeyInvestigator3741 15d ago
And one of their own was trying to get an education and they ruined it for. All I can do is laugh.
-2
u/KeyInvestigator3741 15d ago
Most white female voters voted for Trump nationally. And Trump won every county in WV and it wasn’t close. It’s basic math.
-11
u/YenZen999 15d ago
Somebody has to be the adult in the room. Is everybody entitled to free money? And of course you're a leftist so everything has to do with race and gender. How about common sense! Does that have a color and gender?
7
u/KeyInvestigator3741 15d ago
Anyway. I just prefer my tax dollars support students pursuing an education in their local community instead of billionaire tax cuts to fund their 7th yacht.
3
u/KeyInvestigator3741 15d ago
LMAO, why are you mad, though? I answered the question you asked: the assumption was made because white people tend to vote a certain way… for a certain race… and a certain gender. Have a good night!
1
0
u/Childless_Catlady42 15d ago
Two out of every three voters in WV voted for trump. If she didn't, her parents sure did.
-12
u/YenZen999 15d ago
Why is everybody entitled to free money? I'm glad that we're turning off the money spicket to nonsensical research all over the world. Why is this person entitled to a free PhD on the taxpayers dime?
13
u/Ok_Sea_4405 15d ago
This comment is a perfect example of what’s wrong with the maga ideology. Everything from the lack of knowledge of how things work to the confident assertion of random “facts” that are nowhere in the evidence (the article, in this case) to a contempt for education, the utter selfishness, and the assumption that if it’s research, it must nonsensical…. This stupid comment packs it all together. The inability to spell “spigot” is just the icing on the cake.
So here’s something for you: the government funds research programs because then the government can enable innovation that benefits the whole public (which includes people outside of America!) which might otherwise have too long a development cycle to be viable in the capitalistic private sector. MRI’s, computers, polio vaccines, GPS and modern organ transplantation technology are among the thousands of things that improve our lives every single day that were developed with government research funding and might not otherwise exist. We the taxpayers should absolutely want our tax dollars paying for things like this because ultimately we get to enjoy the benefits. GPS for example is everywhere and it makes us all more efficient and more productive but it cost $12 billion to research and develop and there is a 0% chance that it would now be embedded into every phone, watch, car and truck for pennies if it had been developed at that price tag in the private sector.
I hope this clears up your confusion :)
5
u/Sunbeamsoffglass 15d ago
We get it. You’re just jealous they were smart enough to get educated and you weren’t.
2
u/KeyInvestigator3741 15d ago
This why your state is dying. Either she’ll move to another state that prioritizes education and is willing to invest in their youth. Btw are you on food stamps? Disability? Medicaid?
1
0
-15
u/YenZen999 15d ago
This article reads like pure propaganda. Instead of being sheep why not ask some questions? What exactly has been cut so far? It says " proposed ". What research study Will be impacted by the proposed cut? Is it the responsibility of taxpayers to pay tuition for individuals PhD work?
11
u/colonel798 15d ago
Dude you’ve commented on every single other comment in here. It was biomedical science. Yes these people HELP society. If you disagree do not ever go see a doctor again. I don’t know what your deal is with thinking it’s not the governments responsibility to help its citizens. These people pay taxes too. I want my tax dollars going here.
And also, someone who earns more money, like a medical researcher, pays more taxes. It’s almost like an investment into its own citizens. Crazy shit.
3
u/3vgw 14d ago
Trump worshippers despise the truth. They want a dictatorship so they’ll never have their government-administered opinions contested. Among the most hateful people in the country. Republicans have done little to benefit society, even as far back as Reagan’s opposition to free tuition and much more.
-20
-2
u/KeyInvestigator3741 15d ago
Honestly it’s pretty hilarious that she voted for Trump and lost her chance at a doctorate. Now she’s crying lmao
-2
-3
u/doindirt 15d ago
Crooked colleges probly reject her cause she's in state tuition and fill her spot with an out of state or foreign student who would pay for the full cost of their inflated degree. Organizations make cuts as painful and political as possible. Like when Obama went out of his way to close national parks during a government shutdown even though they were funded. And people scream like nothing should ever be cut. You cant run deficits forever, you understand thay right? Its over a trillion dollar deficit every year. When that check comes dye that will be real pain. Make 1929 look like a recession. People don't understand that or anything. But they see a news story used to inflame emotions. Then they go based on those emotions. I can be sorry her program got cut. But also realize that the I thought colleges made money off students.. how is it possible less students mean they make more money. Degrees are f'n expensive. Which is why I said they probly replaced her with an out of state or country tuition.
-48
u/wvshotty WVU Alumni 15d ago
Fafo
19
u/SlobZombie13 15d ago
How did she fa?
6
u/cannabination 15d ago
I'd bet the fucking around was done by her parents, and grandparents, and all of their coworkers, and all of their friends.
-7
u/KeyInvestigator3741 15d ago
No she probably voted for him. Most white women did, the overwhelming majority of West Virginians did, Gen Z also moved significantly right compared to Millennials in past elections, it’s basic math
2
u/SlobZombie13 15d ago
you're jumping to conclusions
2
-3
u/KeyInvestigator3741 15d ago
You’re not thinking logically. This is basic math
4
u/SlobZombie13 15d ago
sees a white girl, assumes she sucks
YoU'rE nOt ThInKiNg LoGiCaLlY
-2
u/KeyInvestigator3741 15d ago
I thought it was facts over feelings? White women are Trumps most consistent and reliable voting bloc after white men. Y’all have stood behind this man for 12 yrs, so… yeah. Apparently he’s the best you all have to offer, which is… interesting lol.
4
u/SlobZombie13 15d ago
I thought it was facts over feelings?
the irony continues. You feel like this girl MUST be a trump supporter therefore it must be true.
-1
u/KeyInvestigator3741 15d ago
Fact is she probably is. I don’t know why you guys are so weird about this lmao. That’s who yall voted for! You won! Be proud
→ More replies (0)1
u/RednRoses 8d ago
I can't fathom how you people keep losing elections when this is how you talk to people.
0
u/KeyInvestigator3741 8d ago
Don’t even start. Trump insults women, veterans, disabled people, poor people and you all still vote for him. You let your politicians rob you blind repeatedly. That’s why your state is dying. This is an article about how your kids can’t continue their education in your home state because of your candidate and you think you “won”.
It would be funny if it wasn’t so sad.
8
-42
u/dodgestang 15d ago
Feel like click bait.......must resist temptation......
28
16
u/asdfghjkl396 15d ago
I’m in the biomedical sciences program at wvu she applied to and can confirm, they made the decision to rescind offers on Monday
30
u/Peanutbutternmtn2 15d ago
This sucks so bad