Live data from Hacker News

2025 Hiring Pause

hr.cornell.edu

131–140 of 173 posts

Re: 2025 Hiring Pause

#131
For context on the Cornell numbers with breakdowns on revenue and expenditure, here's Cornell's page on:

Operating Budget: Sources and Uses: https://finance.cornell.edu/financial-guide/operating-budget...

Operating Capital Budget Plan (PDF): https://dbp.cornell.edu/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/FY-2024-O...

Consolidated Financial Statement: (PDF): https://finance.cornell.edu/sites/default/files/cornell-fina...

From pg 45 of CFS, compensation and benefits is definitely Cornell's largest category. Instruction and Healthcare services making up about $1.3B each.

Instruction, student services and academic support: $1,336,694 Research: $481,268 Public service: $108,197 Healthcare services: $1,339,074 Institutional support: $539,278 Enterprises and subsidiaries: $146,630

Total Compensation and benefits: $3,951,141

Re: 2025 Hiring Pause

#132
While I understand that people have their problems with universities tuition and loans ..etc. The problem is here is that funding for basic and applied science on all front is being cut. It does provide a lot of jobs and supports a lot of universities operations too. Universities build labs which does provide infrastructure (buildings and other facilities) and NSF, NIH and DOE provide funds to use these facilities to pursue research. So these agencies have dependency on universities to provide these research facilities and manage hiring and compliance with rules.

Now there are many problems with current system which need to be addressed. But you don't solve the cancer in the cells by killing cells and thus killing patient. But you use targeted approach to the problem. This needs some modifications to the rules and deep changes in laws that will require further study and discussion. This is of course not going to happen currently.

Now some people argue that the budget is a problem and debt and deficit is more important. But again lets talk data. The whole NSF and NIH budget is less than $60B dollars in 2024 which amounts to a little bit less than 1% of the total budget. If you compare it with other Items in the budget percentage wise you will get (DoD - 7.5%), (Medicare - 6.7%), (Social Security - 4.6%), (Medicaid - 10%),(National Debt Interest - 15%). So even cutting it all will not achieve any significant improvement while create a lot of problems. There are a significant part of economy and jobs are supported by these money. The return on investment is positive in most cases and you are leading in innovation and most of scientific frontier. One can argue that these two items are very cheap to maintain you dominance than another couple of air craft carriers (and their operation costs).

If you tried and achieved any reduction in the big items in the federal budget you will be saving something near the total budget of NIH and NSF. But again for some reason a lot of focus on these programs while less focus on big items for some reason.

Re: 2025 Hiring Pause

#133
I’m so tired of this corporate jargon infecting academia. Universities used to value clarity, now they sound like HR memos. It’s the same playbook: bloat admin, cut actual workers, rebrand inefficiency as strategy.

Re: 2025 Hiring Pause

#134
post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

With an optimistic 10% annual return, this would amount to 1/5 of Cornell's budget.

then they need to find some cuts because Uncle Sam has a maxed out credit card and can't keep making up the difference whether he wants to or not

How about Uncle Sam starts taking money back from rich people instead of foisting more debt on workers and slashing my benefits so that they can buy another yacht?

Re: 2025 Hiring Pause

#135

Here is a 2024 article from the Stanford Daily: https://stanforddaily.com/2024/03/13/behind-stanfords-double... In 1996: 13,811 students, 1488 faculty, 5881 total staff. In 2024: 17,529 students, 2323 faculty, 16,527 total staff. In 28 years: 27% increase in students 56% increase in faculty 281% increase in total staff The ratio of staff to students is nearly 1:1 This is insane.

Contemporary academia especially in the West has a massive surplus of staff. Many people pursue academic careers solely for a comfortable lifestyle, doing minimal or even no research for long period of time. With extra lack of oversight that allows researchers to isolate themselves they create circles which cover each other. Occasionally, folks outside of the circle come in and they start finding ton of fraud in the…

"Many people pursue academic careers solely for a comfortable lifestyle, doing minimal or even no research for long period of time. With extra lack of oversight that allows researchers to isolate themselves they create circles which cover each other."

I want what you're smoking because that might be one of the biggest fabrications I've heard in a long time.

Re: 2025 Hiring Pause

#136

Here is a 2024 article from the Stanford Daily: https://stanforddaily.com/2024/03/13/behind-stanfords-double... In 1996: 13,811 students, 1488 faculty, 5881 total staff. In 2024: 17,529 students, 2323 faculty, 16,527 total staff. In 28 years: 27% increase in students 56% increase in faculty 281% increase in total staff The ratio of staff to students is nearly 1:1 This is insane.

Without knowing more about the numbers, the only one I have an issue with is the number of students. These universities should be doing everything they can to increase enrollment and let in more students.

I went to a smaller school in my city, but at the time most everyone I know who applied got it. I would not get it today, and people end up wait listed, etc... IMO, that is the failing of the US higher education system. Next is cost to the student.

Re: 2025 Hiring Pause

#137
post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s never free. People in Europe say it is when they want to take a jab at the USA. But the reality is that earning potential is severely limited in Europe. And let’s not pretend that every degree obtained is beneficial to society. People get degrees with no marketable skills all the time. And the losses are distributed among all the taxpayers.

It costs someone something, but no one their freedom. Mass ignorance is the opposite. As for degrees with no use, pretty sure these are the byproducts of education for profit, with heavy marketing passing as administrative expense. Maybe you could divide the system in two halves: 1) Of national interest, 2) Discretionary. As for earning potential, it has nothing to do with free education, as so many high-earners in t…

It’s not free, it’s paid by my taxes. I don’t get why you keep calling it that. That’s why we get paid less in the EU: subsidizing everything for everyone.

Re: 2025 Hiring Pause

#138

From the article > Together with all of American higher education, Cornell is entering a time of significant financial uncertainty From Wikipedia >As of 2024, Cornell University has an endowment of $10.7 billion

Check the top discussion for some perspective on what that really means. This barely covers two years of operation, funds have a lot of use restrictions by donors, and you can only spend cash once.

I'm more than aware of that. It gives one considerable flexibility however to have such a large fund. There is no suggestion in the discussions that the College will lose all of its other income, this would allow considerable time to weather and temporary storm

Re: 2025 Hiring Pause

#139
post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're assuming they won't make any money on licensing or investments. Which they most certainly will.

Tech transfer is an important function, however, tech transfer offices outside perhaps the top 15 or 20 in the US (public and private) are not profitable in terms of dollars. AUTM (tech transfer trade group) has extensive data on the subject.

Still I can't work up a tear for universities with large endowments when the top 10 universities sit pretty on 304 billion dollars out of 840 billion total, while charging insane and exponentially rising tuition fees.

Re: 2025 Hiring Pause

#140
post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's so much that you cannot learn from the Internet, but must practiced, coached, steered, etc. That needs fysical things to interact with. That need teams, colleagues, or other humans. People who think you can learn "everything" from the Internet have a very limited view of "everything". And could probably learn about the world by going out there ;)

I've learned a lot more from YouTube videos than anything else, and even without archive.org there's all the other shadow libraries I can get books from. But sure, keep telling yourself that your overpriced "education" is worth anything in this era of truly massive information access.

Amongst all the things I have learned last decades is Beekeeping.

Yes, I watched online video. Read books, blogs etc.

But the true learning was done as apprentice with a few experienced beekeepers.

Beekeeping is only a part theory. There's a big part of practice. From training precise and calm hand movements to how to properly tucking in your vest to listening, feeling, and reading bees mood.

My point isn't that education should be expensive (my beekeeping journey cost me less than a few hundred Euro). But that education is far more than just putting theory in a brain.

Other examples are sports, art, crafts, cooking, music, acting, dancing, maintenance, building, gardening etc. lots of stuff that you can start in through YouTube. But that, in the end, requires fysical training, experience, and therefore at least guidance from experienced humans.

Post reply on HN