>
> On Mar 11, 2010, at 3:47 PM, Alan Rudy wrote:
>
> The problem here is that research faculty and pro-Big Science and
>> university-industry collaboration/technology transfer agreement
>> administrators argue that the overhead brought in by Big Science grants
>> pays
>> for the research, the overhead, the auditing and more... that big research
>> grants fund general education... when, in fact - and Chuck is right on
>> this,
>> big research grants (and athletics) draw down the general fund.
>>
>> If researchers and administrators argued that Big Science contributed to
>> the
>> commonweal and, as such, deserved a subsidy through tuition, fees and
>> state
>> dollars that'd be one thing... and we could hold them to that, but they
>> don't... at the most they argue that what's good for large corporate
>> profits
>> and info-/bio-tech start-ups is good for the public.
>>
>
>
Me three. And I'd want to tack on Carrol's post about inefficiency, which is
a lot of what we're up against even on the teaching front (which education
departments are supposed to have made efficient for us), never mind on the
scholarship front.
j