Conversation

I really don't know how to evaluate such costs: facilities are very important; these fees support departmental research funds, which is great; etc etc—maybe such a high percentage really is best! I'd certainly like a "campus".
3
4
Looking back at 2010, though, the rate was 68%. It actually fell to 50% over the following ten years, and is only now climbing again. That's very interesting, and seems to run against a "cost disease" trend one might have naively inferred.
1
7
Replying to
Interesting reflecting on this as an MIT student subject to this overhead :) I have an NSF fellowship starting next year and was surprised to find it only covers ~half of my support, despite paying out 48k / year.
1
6
It's not obvious to me that that's a terrible ratio. I benefit greatly from having an advisor / department, getting to take classes, etc. (Also, can't get NSF funding in the first place w/o legibility of university! The government is paying me to explore things, exciting!)
1
3
Show replies
Replying to
Doesn't sound unreasonable. A rule of thumb is that total employee cost is double the base salary. In MIT's case I think fringe benefits are charged as direct costs. If fringe benefits are 35%, that's 1.5*1.35 =2.025.
1
Show replies