The indirect cost rate is decided by the federal government based on data by the universities, so it's accounted for in the grant award amounts. So it's not as nefarious as it sounds.
The indirect cost rate is decided by the federal government based on data by the universities, so it's accounted for in the grant award amounts. So it's not as nefarious as it sounds.
Consider the building. Some rich people donate enough to pay for its construction. The university didn't pay anything. Moreover, that's a tax-deduction for them, so the Feds are effectively paying for part of it.
Now some sponsored research is to take place in that building. You guessed it, the university charges rent to the research grant. Remember that the university didn't pay for the building....
You don’t pay for the building, but a bunch of Vice Associate Provosts get paid to do something and the union janitors make a living.
Economists can map this crap to direct and indirect labor hours generated and other economic metrics. At some level we do this stuff as a type of work program. Somebody calculates how many hotel nights and cheeseburgers are consumed for each construction dollar spent, etc.
The "efficiency" here is that the university gets paid for an asset that it didn't pay for.
Except for the small problem that research contracts with orgs, some for profit, that don't have an educational mission, such as SRI, BBN, etc, follow the same model (absent the donated buildings).