From seeley@u.washington.edu Sat Feb 4 11:08:57 PST 1995 >From seeley@u.washington.edu Sat Feb 4 11:08:57 1995 Return-Path: Received: from hardy.u.washington.edu by lists.u.washington.edu (5.65+UW94.10/UW-NDC Revision: 2.32 ) id AA13759; Sat, 4 Feb 95 11:08:57 -0800 Received: by hardy.u.washington.edu (5.65+UW94.10/UW-NDC Revision: 2.32 ) id AA15564; Sat, 4 Feb 95 11:08:56 -0800 X-Sender: seeley@hardy.u.washington.edu Date: Sat, 4 Feb 1995 11:08:56 -0800 (PST) From: Karl Seeley To: slavic-uw@u.washington.edu Cc: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Buildings and budgets In-Reply-To: Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII My housemates in the sciences tell me that when their professors write grant proposals, something like 30% of the money they hope to get (from outside sources) has to be budgeted to overhead, and if they get the grant, that money is not used for their particular projects but is indeed turned over to the university, presumably to fund upkeep on the buildings. I don't know whether this covers all, most or only a negligible part of that upkeep, but if we are going to make some sort of argument about budgets, it would be good to have at least ballpark figures on grant-funding of upkeep, so that we we don't get blind-sided by an intelligent response. I also mentioned that there was some resentment at my end of campus about the apparent shift in emphasis and funding in favor of sciences or things that can "pay their way." They answered that the feeling is mutual on the south end of campus toward those of us up here who, as they see it, only survive by the grace of the money that the science folks bring into the university. I don't agree with the implicit view of the university as something that should go where the market tells it to, and I don't know how accurate their view of the budget is, but they see themselves as simply being realistic: cuts are coming -- if you ax humanities first, there will still be money for sciences; if you ax sciences, there won't be any money for anything, and humanities will end up going down anyway. Just a view from across the academic divide. Kaja On Sat, 4 Feb 1995, Amy Mills wrote: > On the note of the University's priorities for money and things that > upset the Gerb, someone once told me that the cost of UPKEEP for all > these new buildings we seem to be attaining wouldbe equal to or higher > than the amount of the current budget cuts. While we all like new > buildings (esp if we are scientists!), most people don't look at this > side of things...even if Bill Gates is paying for the CONSTRUCTION of > these buildings, he is NOT paying for their upkeep. > Amy > > .