CAS Policy Committee Resolution on Sponsored Program Support of Graduate Students

(passed February 28, 2001; vote: unanimous)

The College of Arts and Sciences Policy Committee has considered the new directive regarding graduate student costs on federally sponsored programs. While we fully recognize that federal agencies are required to pay for graduate student research costs, including tuition, we believe that the new requirement that such costs be fully budgeted in funded proposals is a negative step for the research environment here at UB. We urge that this directive be rescinded.

One should recognize first of all, that because of the way many federal agencies (NSF and all DoD agencies) make research awards, researchers are never awarded what they actually request in their applications. Thus, at award time PI’s have to adjust their original budgets down to fit the actual award. The new requirement of tuition recovery will mean that de facto researchers will have even less money available to conduct their work.

This is an extremely negative outcome. Equipment might have to go, supplies will be cut, publication costs will be eliminated, and eventually the number of graduate students supported on research funds will decline as well. In addition, with tuition costs included, research expenditure for a graduate student can become comparable to that of a postdoc. Thus, postdoctoral scholars (not graduate students) will prove to be the more effective way to do research for a number of PI’s. Graduate enrollment will surely decline as a result of this new requirement.

Other institutions require that tuition costs be budgeted in funded proposals. This is true. However, one should note that the research environment here at UB does not compare to institutions that we would like to call our peers. At UB, staff support is minimal at the departmental level. At UB, indirect costs returns to individual PI’s is nonexistent (IC returns to Units/Departments in CAS amounts to only 8% of generated IC). At UB, small department size requires a much more extensive PI involvement in governance and teaching.

Clearly, decreased expendable income from successful proposals to fund the actual research work would add to this litany of negatives.

Given the present environment, this is not the time to discourage even further the very people who work hard to improve the research reputation of this University. This new directive should be rescinded.