On 17 Sep 2002 05:04:34 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Robert J. MacG. Dawson) wrote:
> > > Old Pif (Monsieur de Bergerac? C'est vous?) wrote: > > > > " although the fact that some of the universities take up to > > 100% for overhead is very well known. > > That *seems* unlikely (unless "up to" is meant to imply > only an upper bound, not a least upper bound - in which case the > statement would be more or less vacuous.) > > Can you either provide examples or confirm that you meant > "up to 50% of the grant" - which would be 100% of the amount left to be > spent usefully? Old Pif could have stated that more precisely. The way I have heard of them, overhead charges are described as the amount that is *tacked on*. So a million-dollar grant could have 120% overhead, and that would mean that the university receives $2.2 million. So, for certain kinds of grants, 100% is not outrageous -- the requested amount does not *directly* pay for all the services and facilities. I think this is also called, the "indirect rate". If I remember correctly, some university caught some flack a few years ago because an indirect rate *over* 100% *did* strike too many people as outrageous. -- Rich Ulrich, [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.pitt.edu/~wpilib/index.html . . ================================================================= Instructions for joining and leaving this list, remarks about the problem of INAPPROPRIATE MESSAGES, and archives are available at: . http://jse.stat.ncsu.edu/ . =================================================================
