1 / 48

External Funding Rates in the Sciences at CSU Fresno, and other CSU campuses

External Funding Rates in the Sciences at CSU Fresno, and other CSU campuses. Keith Putirka Dept. Earth & Env. Sci. CSU Fresno. Overview How do we compare to other colleges on campus? Where do our indirect $ go? How does CSU Fresno-CSM compare to other (equivalent) CSU colleges?

kordell
Download Presentation

External Funding Rates in the Sciences at CSU Fresno, and other CSU campuses

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. External Funding Rates in the Sciences at CSU Fresno, and other CSU campuses Keith Putirka Dept. Earth & Env. Sci. CSU Fresno

  2. Overview How do we compare to other colleges on campus? Where do our indirect $ go? How does CSU Fresno-CSM compare to other (equivalent) CSU colleges? How do CSM departments compare to one another, and other CSU departments.

  3. Total External Funding $ at CSU Fresno by College/Academic Unit (McClanahan, pers. comm. 2007) 2002-2003 CSM Rank 6 (of 12)

  4. CSU Fresno - $ per Funded Project (2002-2003) (McClanahan, pers. comm. 2007) CSM Rank 7 (of 8)

  5. External $ per Faculty Member 5-year average (2001-2005) (McClanahan, 2005, 5-yr report) CSM Rank 6 (of 8)

  6. Total External Funding $ by College 2000-2006 (McClanahan, 2005, 5-yr report) Rank by Total Funding 2000-2005 But what about college size…?

  7. External Funding $ per Faculty Member (McClanahan, 2005, 5-yr report)

  8. So, are we good at anything? (at least compared to our CSUF colleagues)

  9. Yes…

  10. “Indirects” for 2002-2003 (McClanahan, pers. comm. 2007) SUM = 100%

  11. How easy is funding in non-science disciplines?(pretty darn easy!) (McClanahan, 2007 pers. comm.) Non-science disciplines have funding rates >70-80% How? • Local Agencies • Contracts. Reality Check: NSF Funding rates in 2000, 30% in 2006, 21% (Science, 317:880)

  12. Advantages to Non-Federal/Non-Science Funding: It’s Fast! Little or no data required; paperwork minimal 2. It’s Fun! Most money goes to salaries & stipends 3. It’s Easy! “Non-Federal” means “Non-competitive” Local granting agencies have low expectations No publications?No problem!

  13. Disadvantages of Seeking Federal Sci Funding: Highly competitive. Several submissions required to get one proposal funded. Small science budgets = small awards Low prestige - Pumpkin-growing contests more popular Ryan Mobley of Wheeler Cty. GA (shown with Dad), wins 2nd place with Atlantic Giant, 340 lb (the pumpkin, not the Dad)

  14. How are our indirect $ spent?

  15. (Kompsi, pers. comm. 2007) (2007-2008 Budget)

  16. How does CSU Fresno’s CSM compare to other equivalent colleges across the CSU system?

  17. We can compare nominal “Colleges of Science and Math”… Total 2005 $ to CSU “Colleges of Science et al.” From a 2006 Administrative Report (Remember the hubbub over external funding?) (McClanahan, 2007 pers. comm.) Nominal 2005 Funding $ CSU-CSM Fresno Rank: 13 (of 13) But many other “Colleges of Science” include Health Science, Science Ed, Eng, Agric., etc.

  18. …only at some risk to accuracy Add CSU Fresno 2002-2003 Health Science $ to Nominal 2005 CSU Fresno CSM $ We move from 13th to 3rd But we are still comparing apples to oranges, to grapes to figs…

  19. Data from NSF allow us to build upon this analysis • Most Colleges are configured differently We will compare “Equivalent Colleges”, using department-level comparisons 2. We will attempt to account for differences in college size (More faculty = more proposals = more $) 3. Federal funding $ are collected from NSF 4. We compare equivalent CSU departments regardless of college of origin. 5. Use numbers of permanent, tenured and tenure-track faculty to compare $/faculty member funding rates (data from CSU departmental web sites). (For data, see: http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/).

  20. Sources of Error Error unknown for NSF reports of federal $ Faculty counts vary from year to year (productivity rates are approximate) At some CSUs (e.g., SDSU) lecturers, post-docs and part time faculty contribute greatly to funding(Here, they are not counted towards faculty productivity rates, due to lack of consistency in inter-campus web site reports) No published information on intercampus funding rates Assignment of federal dollars to a particular department entails error….

  21. About the Data: NSF’s statistics on: “Federally financed separately budgeted R&D expenditures in the sciences and engineering” We use these categories, from NSF: 1. Biological Sciences + “Life Sciences, not elsewhere classified” 2. Computer Sciences 3. Earth Sciences + “Environmental Sciences, not elsewhere class.” 4. Physics 5. Chemistry 6. Mathematical Sciences 7. Psychology Potential sources of error: 1) assignment of categories to departments (e.g., a Plant Science award to Ag Tech might be assigned to BIOL); 2) BIOL and EES would have higher proportional rankings if “NEC” categories were not included “NEC”

  22. nsf.gov/statistics/ Federal Funding to Equivalent Colleges Across CSU - in thousands of $ In 2001 - Our Worst Year over the period 2000-2004 CSU-CSM Fresno Rank: 17 (of 18)

  23. nsf.gov/statistics/ Federal Funding to Equivalent Colleges Across CSU - in thousands of $ In 2004 - our best year over the period 2000-2004 CSU Fresno Rank: 9 (of 18) Rankings highly sensitive to year-to-year variations

  24. nsf.gov/statistics/ Four-year average Funding Across the CSUs 2001-2004 - in thousands of $ But we need to correct for # of faculty… CSU Fresno Rank: 11 (of 18)

  25. nsf.gov/statistics/ Thousands of $ per Faculty Member 95.7 83.1 In 2004 (our best ranking) CSU-CSM Fresno Rank: 8 (of 18) 56.7 49.4 28.7 22.1 19.3

  26. nsf.gov/statistics/ Four-year average, 2001-2004 Thousands of $ per Faculty Member 81.2 75.9 2001-2004 CSU-CSM Fresno Rank: 10 (of 18) 46.3 42.5 22.3 17.4 13.8

  27. nsf.gov/statistics/ Funding Trends: 1994 & 2000-2004 Thousands of $ per Equivalent College Note substantial growth for CSU Fresno from 2001-2004

  28. nsf.gov/statistics/ Federal Funding Rates in $/FM for Equivalent CSU Colleges

  29. How do CSU Fresno departments compare to one another comparable departments across the CSU system?

  30. Rank by Federal Funding $ per Faculty Member (1000’s $/FM) in 2004 nsf.gov/statistics/ Notes: 1) Inter-CSU rankings for Comp. Sci and CHEM are partially nominal 2) Funding rates for PSYCH & EES are similar, but inter-CSU rankings disparate

  31. Rank of Federal Funding in $ per Faculty Member (1000’s $/FM) as 5-year avg., 2000-2004 nsf.gov/statistics/

  32. CSM rankings for total External $/FM, from 1/05 - 11/06 $ per FM from 1/05 to 11/06 (McClanahan et al., 2007; UGC website)

  33. (McClanahan et al., 2007; UGC website) Participation Rates • 22% (23 of 103) of CSM Faculty generated 100% of funding from March, 2004 to November, 2006 13% of CSM faculty generated 98% of CSM external funding • The 22% of faculty who were funded earned $110,225/FM for 3/04 to 11/06, or $40,081/FM per year The top 13% had funding rates of $61,000/FM/year

  34. What’s our 1000 lb Pumpkin? - Publication record? Citations? (evaluations of “scientific impact” use these factors, not funding, though all three are likely correlated) - Students involved in research, presenting papers, attending grad school? - Something else?

  35. Should it be research? - External research-focused funding brings money into the college - NSF notes that CSUN and CSULB send more of their M.S. students to Ph.D. programs - Publications and funding reflect respect from one’s peers

  36. What about lower funding rates in 2005? Who cares? It’s just one year. NSF funding rates have declined At CSUF, 7 of 10 academic units saw funding drop from ‘04 to ‘05 3. (Proposal-writing) Faculty may be reaching the limit of the # of proposals they can write or grants they can manage (Once we get the money, NSF wants us to do something with it) 4. Low “participation” rates likely apply to all colleges Increased funding will ensue when more than 22% of faculty are successful

  37. What do we do with this information? Our inter-CSU rank is mediocre… Some “equivalent colleges” may provide realistic targets: Northridge Los Angeles Dom. Hills Long Beach 3. Do our present policies work? • Lab support • “Dean’s programs” • High new-faculty start up $ • New Hires & RTP publication & grant application requirements

  38. Appendix 1: Departmental Inter-CSU Rankings In $/Faculty Member for 2004 (our best year for Federal External Funding, i.e., this is as good as it gets; data from nsf.gov) • In the following tables BIOL and EES would have higher proportional rankings if NSF’s “NEC” categories were not included; absolute “per faculty” funding rates would be unchanged.

  39. Appendix 2: Funding Agencies/Departments Tabulated by NSF Note: Some agencies fall within larger administrative bodies, e.g., NOAA is under Dept. of Commerce

  40. (CSU Northridge Alumni News Letter; McClanahan et al., 2007; UGC website) Appendix 3: Should we care? A 2002 NSF report ranked terminal M.S. programs according to rate at which students later attended Ph.D. programs CSU Long Beach ranked #1 (CSU Federal Funding Rank in 2002 = 4th; $21,500/FM) CSU Northridge ranked #2 (CSU Federal Funding Rank in 2002 = 6th; $20,500/FM) CSU Fresno ranked ? (CSU Funding rank in 2002 = 10th; $10,600/FM)

More Related