[locacorten]

In the city where I live, the contrast is striking: the local state college boasts dorms and facilities that are remarkably luxurious—architecturally grand, stylish, and visibly well-funded. Meanwhile, the local NVIDIA office operates out of a building that looks decidedly unremarkable, even shabby by comparison. One is supported in part by public funds; the other is a profit-driven enterprise.

I absolutely believe in the value of academia and agree we should support it. But this administration has made it clear that reform is expected. I’m not convinced that message is being fully heard. Until we see meaningful changes—such as a leaner administrative structure and a shift away from spending on vanity infrastructure—I’ll pass.

[MeetingsBrowser]

I’m not an expert in academic financing, but how much money from NSF research grants went towards building nice dorms?

I went to an inexpensive state college and the infrastructure was horrible. I would guess that things like dorms are largely paid for from tuition. How much is tuition at the state college in your city?

[elashri]

NSF grants can’t be used to build dorms, it’s actually in their official guidance. The rules (from the Uniform Guidance, 2 CFR 200) explicity say that federal research money can’t go toward capital projects like housing. The only "facilities" costs they allow are indirect ones like basic maintenance or utilities for existing research building not new construction. So dorms are totally off limits.

[overfeed]

Nvidia spent over $100M last year on ads & marketing itself, and it's an ongoing expenditure. The state college built those great-looking dorms once and sends pictures of them every year to prospective students, so they have ongoing marketing value, in addition to their normal utility. Think of it this way: those dorms are the college-equivalent of CUDA; and how much has Nvidia invested in CUDA?

[lokar]

Dorms are paid for by students. They have improved over the past 30 years due to market pressure.

Many of them are built and operated by private for profit companies that lease the land from the university and cooperate on programming and campus life.

[searine]

>Meanwhile, the local NVIDIA office operates out of a building that looks decidedly unremarkable, even shabby by comparison.

And where do those NVIDIA employees live? In a van down by the river? Dorms are residential and need amenities, much like the pools and three car garages of those NVIDIA employees.

Even then, plenty of universities have old, decaying, buildings and run-down labs. I could just as easily point to the other bespoke and "remarkably luxurious-architecturally grand, stylish, and visibly well-funded" NVIDIA buildings. It seems like you have a grudge and any show of spending for a university is reason to criticize it.

I'm all for reform, but this vengeful callous destruction of science is not reform. It is revenge.

[locacorten]

From my standpoint, this isn’t about revenge. It’s about accountability and alignment with broader realities. Over the past 18 months, we've seen over a million layoffs across the US tech sector alone. White-collar industries everywhere are tightening belts. The US government also had massive layoffs due to DOGE.

And yet, I haven’t seen a single example of administrative downsizing in our public universities—not one. Instead, I hear about professors losing grant funding and international students facing stress over visa uncertainty.

So when I say universities aren’t hearing the message, I’m referring specifically to the glaring lack of reform in their administrative structures. Until I see serious efforts to address this—starting with large-scale administrative layoffs—I'm not inclined to offer my sympathy.

[jltsiren]

You haven't seen examples of administrative downsizing, because it's rarely newsworthy. Universities routinely cut administrative and support staff according to their individual circumstances. Local news may take notice, but wider outlets rarely do.

My university has had several rounds of layoffs in the past couple of years. Now we apparently avoided one, as California reversed the proposed cuts to state funding. But I don't know how newsworthy that was either.

[tech_ken]

“Layoffs for layoffs’ sake” is cargo cult economics. DOGE is not “tightening the belt” it’s a slash and burn intended to bring the federal administration to heel for the current sitting executive. Tech layoffs yeah maybe a market correction to a tightening money supply, but higher ed is a very different world than consumer technology. It seems extremely myopic to compare them like you’re doing.

[searine]

If the target of reform is admin and not researchers, then the "reforms" should target the admin and not the researchers.

What we see however is cancer research being cancelled and students careers being thrown in the dumpster. You've been fooled by right-wing propaganda that claims "reform", but it's not about reform for them, it is about crushing educated people so they cannot oppose their authoritarianism.

[tech_ken]

It’s more complicated than you’re implying. University capital expenditures are rational decisions when they’re competing for a national pool of students backed by cheap debt. Parents care about the student success initiatives, students care about the multibillion dollar rec center. Given the way the current higher ed market is structured, the bloated administration and vanity dorms are thus actually revenue positive. They attract top students, especially from out of state, and with them a fat stream of tuition revenue. Just cutting their funding from the top, without looking at the other half of their revenue generation, is missing the point entirely.

[somewhereoutth]

So one houses humans nicely, the other houses humans horribly - and you support the horrible option?