LLNS may have excluded the wrong people in last VSSOP? The exclusions were based on outdated job categories and related skills. ULM are now thinking that in the future, job categories and functional areas will have to be re-defined. The next VSSOP/ISP will be based on the new categories and functional areas. The questions I have are: 1) Why didnt they think of that before the transition. It seems like their style is “change things as you go”. Planning is out the window! 2) Who will give input on the new changes? The next RIF apparently is going to be more lucrative than the VSSOP. Depending on the length of employment, a RIFed person, not only gets their 1 week pay per year of service but also from 30 to 120 days notice, essentially 30 to 120 days pay. Please feel free to comment on the rumors or add new ones you actually heard.
Comments
Not to mention that suppose Bill Gates said to a University I will give you 10 million dollars but only if you agree to 15% indirect, every single university would gladly take it and abide by the 15% (In fact this is where 15% comes from). Now make it the Federal government and suddenly the universities are "no no we will not take grants at 15% it will not work.
I good number might be closer to 20% or 25% at most not the 75% or more we see now. I suppose that we at the NNSA labs should not say anything with overhead rates of 300-400%. Of course NNSA labs do not have students paying tuition but our overheard rates are also too high.
From fiscal years 2000 to 2016, budgeted indirect costs on NSF awards ranged between 16% and 24% of the total annual award amounts, according to a Government Accountability Office (GAO) analysis.
The percentage generally increased since reaching a low point in 2010.
In 2024 Harvard was 70% UC campuses had their own negotiated indirect cost rates, which could range from 30% to 70%. For example, UC Santa Cruz had an on-campus research rate of 56% effective July 1, 2024
So in 2010 the rates were 19% and in 2024 the average 54%? There is clearly a big problem.
Divisions of the university less suitable for a corporate environment of course, could be spun off so that private equity could maximize their value!
We could even go with an asset-lite model where the university would lease university buildings back from a REIT or private equity, naturally the shareholders of the university would receive this "buildings and grounds" REIT as a spinoff. There might be certain tax advantages in doing so, and many universities also own underdeveloped land as well which could be monetized too.
The new management team could be brought in perhaps, from some sort of consortium of contractors skilled at running large organizations -- perhaps defense contractors or even non-profit universities could be paid a fee to help the university operate.
What is your point? Could you elaborate because the 15% overhead rate is relevant for LLNL.
LLNL receives DOE and Office of Science grants and if DOE said the overheard rates are 15% it would have abide.
LDRD