Jump to content

Featured Replies

On 4/17/2025 at 12:12 AM, Procus said:

roll FAFO

Gor0flXWsAEpTIN.jpeg

I'll remember this when President Sanders does this to Liberty University.

  • Author
44 minutes ago, Gannan said:

I'll remember this when President Sanders does this to Liberty University.

I have no problem with any president doing that to any institution of higher learning. The federal government should not be in the business of funding private universities - especially those with multi billion dollar endowments like Liberty U.

1 hour ago, Gannan said:

I'll remember this when President Sanders does this to Liberty University.

I get it!

You support Bernie Sanders! Ironically, of course...

HOGG/AOC 2036!

LOL

1 hour ago, Procus said:

I have no problem with any president doing that to any institution of higher learning. The federal government should not be in the business of funding private universities/churches - especially those with multi billion dollar endowments like Liberty U.

Agreed. Though I made a slight change to your post.

  • Author
1 minute ago, Paul852 said:

Agreed. Though I made a slight change to your post.

What about universities like Fordham, Georgetown, Villanova - all Catholic institutions? The Harvard Divinity School is non-affiliated, but is a school that specializes in religious and theological studies.

My post stands as written - if a private university, be it affiliated with a religion or secular, has a large endowment, the federal government should not be funding it. For that matter, even if it doesn't have a large endowment, the federal government should not be funding it.

10 minutes ago, Procus said:

What about universities like Fordham, Georgetown, Villanova - all Catholic institutions? The Harvard Divinity School is non-affiliated, but is a school that specializes in religious and theological studies.

My post stands as written - if a private university, be it affiliated with a religion or secular, has a large endowment, the federal government should not be funding it. For that matter, even if it doesn't have a large endowment, the federal government should not be funding it.

We're on the same page.

10 minutes ago, Paul852 said:

We're on the same page.

same here.

i'm heading for the fallout shelter.

image.png

  • Author
12 minutes ago, barho said:

image.png

If the funding is earmarked, that's one thing. I asked Grok what percentage of federal funding for universities is earmarked, and this is what came up:

Percentage of federal funding to universities that is not earmarked

Exact figures for the percentage of federal funding to universities that is not earmarked are not consistently reported across sources, as it depends on the fiscal year, the type of funding (e.g., research grants, contracts, or financial aid), and how "earmarked" is defined (e.g., congressionally directed spending vs. competitive grants). However, I can piece together an informed estimate based on available data.

In fiscal year 2023, the federal government provided approximately $60 billion to universities for research and development (R&D) alone. Additionally, other federal funding streams, such as Pell Grants and other financial aid, contribute significantly, with Pell Grants totaling about $30.6 billion in 2014-15. Earmarked funding, often referred to as "congressionally directed spending" or "community project funding," is a smaller subset. For example, in fiscal year 2024, earmarks for higher education totaled $1.3 billion across 707 projects, and in 2023, about $1.7 billion went to nearly 550 institutions.

Assuming total federal funding to universities (including R&D, financial aid, and other programs) exceeds $90 billion annually (a conservative estimate based on R&D and Pell Grants alone), earmarked funding of $1.3–$1.7 billion represents roughly 1.4–1.9% of the total. Thus, non-earmarked funding likely constitutes 98–99% of federal funding to universities. This aligns with the fact that most federal funding flows through competitive grants (e.g., from NIH, NSF, or DoD) and student aid programs, which are not typically considered earmarks, as earmarks are discretionary and directed by lawmakers for specific projects.

However, this estimate could vary if "earmarked" is interpreted more broadly (e.g., including agency-specific contracts). The Association of American Universities has noted that earmarks, due to their non-peer-reviewed nature, are a small but controversial portion of federal research funding. Without more granular data, I’d cautiously estimate that at least 95% of federal funding to universities is not earmarked, with the remainder being congressionally directed or otherwise restricted for specific purposes.

If you need a more precise figure or a breakdown for a specific year or funding type, I can dig deeper or search for additional data. Let me know!

9 hours ago, Procus said:

If you need a more precise figure or a breakdown for a specific year or funding type, I can dig deeper or search for additional data. Let me know!

He doesn't seem to appreciate his job. Tell Grok to quit being so lazy and get to some real digging and searching.

  • 2 weeks later...
AP News
No image preview

Trump administration bars Harvard from enrolling foreign...

The Trump administration has revoked Harvard University’s ability to enroll international students in its escalating battle with the Ivy League school.

Can we just cut to the chase and force Harvard to post a sign at campus entrance that says "No Darkies Allowed!"

1 hour ago, we_gotta_believe said:

Can we just cut to the chase and force Harvard to post a sign at campus entrance that says "No Darkies Allowed!"

They'll have to paint over their other signs (you know... since we're being silly)

960px-Juden_Werden_Hier_Nicht_Bedient.jp

I don’t give a crap about Harvard, but Trump is doing too much.

1 hour ago, Arthur Jackson said:

(you know... since we're being silly)

wacko

8 minutes ago, Paul852 said:

wacko

I have Brown friends.

It was the federal government that wanted to partner with universities to fund research post-WWII, not the other way around. Universities were hesitant to reduce their independence in this way.

It took decades for the level of trust we had before Trump to exist between the fed and universities. Research over the last 50+ years has kept America ahead of the rest of the world in R&D, and attracted the greatest minds to our nation. This spending has been paid back into our economy in multiples.

That level of trust allowed universities to accept terms from the government that they would not from non-profits - from whom they also get significant funding. That trust has been shattered.

The only people who are happier about the dismantling of our best-in-the-world research apparatus and full assault on our elite institutions of higher learning than moronic Trump supporters are countries like China and Russia, who stand to benefit as the top talent of this and the next generation consider whether the US is the right place to take their research.

Didn’t one of Trump’s idols come from Harvard? Hint: he won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1973

1 hour ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

It was the federal government that wanted to partner with universities to fund research post-WWII, not the other way around. Universities were hesitant to reduce their independence in this way.

It took decades for the level of trust we had before Trump to exist between the fed and universities. Research over the last 50+ years has kept America ahead of the rest of the world in R&D, and attracted the greatest minds to our nation. This spending has been paid back into our economy in multiples.

That level of trust allowed universities to accept terms from the government that they would not from non-profits - from whom they also get significant funding. That trust has been shattered.

The only people who are happier about the dismantling of our best-in-the-world research apparatus and full assault on our elite institutions of higher learning than moronic Trump supporters are countries like China and Russia, who stand to benefit as the top talent of this and the next generation consider whether the US is the right place to take their research.

Hopefully everyone understands that the Trump movement is almost over. Just a few short years in the grand scheme of things.

Didn't take long

8 minutes ago, DaEagles4Life said:

Didn't take long

We're a nation of uneducated morons and determined to only get dumber.

19 minutes ago, DaEagles4Life said:

Didn't take long

We really need to back off of these demands now.

23 minutes ago, we_gotta_believe said:

We're a nation of uneducated morons and determined to only get dumber.

No one with an IQ above plant life would vote for Trump or whomever follows him. This is by design.

38 minutes ago, Gannan said:

No one with an IQ above plant life would vote for Trump or whomever follows him. This is by design.

I wish that were true but there are plenty of intelligent(ish) people who vote for Trump. Plenty of religious, single issue voters refuse to vote anything but Republican no matter what. They lost the high ground on candidate character but let's be honest, they never actually cared about character.

1 hour ago, Dave Moss said:

Didn’t one of Trump’s idols come from Harvard? Hint: he won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1973

I know who it was!

You guessed it.

Frank Stallone.

image.png

Create an account or sign in to comment