I wrote this about a month ago but wanted to wait until after the REU PI conference (which was April 21-22-23) to post it. I add a few comments based on what has happened since, which I preface with ADDED.
------------------------------------------------
I agree with their posts and do not have anything to add about the general situation.
Hence I give you a personal view. While not as important as the general problem, what is happening to me may be considered one of many canaries in the coal mines. (Do my readers know that expression and where it came from? If not then see here.)
Random points about my NSF-REU grant.
1) I got my REU grant, REU-CAAR (Combinatorics and AI for Real problems--that's not what it stood for then but its what it stands for now) in 2013 for 2013-14-15. (To see what REU grants are either go to my post about them here or goto my current website about it here.)
2) It has been renewed for 2016-17-18 and 2019-2020-2021 and 2022-2023-2024 and 2025-26-27. The last one with a caveat.
3) In all but the last one, being recommended for a grant was equivalent to getting the funding. But for the 2025-2026-2027 I have not seen a dime and I assume I will not get funding in time for a Summer 2025 program to be run normally. (ADDED: I was correct on this.)
4) I am running the program anyway- mostly local students (don't need housing) who don't need stipends. There may be a little (not much) money for a few stipends, from other sources.
ADDED: Here is a list of approaches people who have been promised money but haven't gotten it are doing
a) Run a program with very little money and have the students come WITHOUT stipend, WITHOUT housing, WITHOUT transportation, WITHOUT food. Mostly local students. The program can still run but is against the whole point of REU grants which is broadening of students and giving students from non-research schools a chance to do research. (Only 3 of my students are from Non Research Schools. Another 4 are from High Schools, so not sure how that counts for this.) One odd pro: In my case I have 25 students- I can make more offers since I am not paying anything.
b) Run a program with some money you have lying around. You may decide to give stipends but NOT housing.You may (like approach (a)) hence take mostly local students. But all students get stipends.
c) You assume you will get money by (say) May 15). So you take applicants, accept and reject as appropriate. PRO-if the money comes in, you run a normal program. CON- you may end up cancelling in (say) Mid May leaving students in the lurch.
d) Do not begin trying to run a program UNTIL you get funding. If you get funded late then run a small program of mostly local students.
e) There are probably other approaches or combinations of the above.
5) I've heard that the reason I won't see money in time is NOT that REU grants are DEI but because of the staff cuts at NSF make it harder to get funds out the door.
6) Will I get funded in time for 2026? I'd be surprised either way. Is it possible for both A and NOT(A) to be surprising? I'll make that an REU project in 2026 if I get funded by then.
7) One of the original motivations for the REU program was to give students at non-research schools a chance to do research. Hence I use comes from a non-research school as a non-merit criteria. Is using that criteria DEI? I doubt Elon has thought that through.
8) Another non-merit criteria I use is how many students want to work on which projects. For example, if 10 very qualified applicants want to work on Ramsey Theory, I can't take all of them. I urge the applicants to specify at least 3 projects they are happy to work on, though many do not do that. Is using the distribution of projects, a non-merit criteria, DEI? I doubt Elon has thought that through.
9) Another non-merit criteria I use is veterans. It is rare that a veteran applies to my program, but it does happen and they get a preference (we've had 3 veterans). Is that non-merit criteria DEI? I doubt Elon has thought that through.
10) One of the things that made America great in the past was our scientific achievement. Hence we need a president who wants to Make America Great Again. We can abbreviate that to MAGA.
11) A good Popperian scientist would STUDY the NSF (and other programs) SEE what is wasteful and what is not and ACCEPT what they find. Had they done this it would have lead to some minimal changes at the NSF and the NIH and other organizations. But instead they just asserted that the NSF and NIH waste money. (Spellcheck thinks that Popperian is not a word. Oh well. For those who don't know what that means, see Karl Popper's Wikipedia entry here.)
12) Is the overhead on grants too high? That is a fair question to ask. But cutting overhead from 50% to 15% overnight is disruptive and does not get into the issue of how high overhead should be.
13) Will industry step in and fund research? I doubt it will be enough.
No comments:
Post a Comment