Indeed. Many large US universities are more accurately labeled as research centers with schools attached.
Because those grants are extremely restricted in what they can pay for, it's not quite accurate to include them in anything like an "available operating revenue" number.
[0]https://resources.finance.duke.edu/resources/docs/Financial_...
https://www.forbes.com/sites/georgecalhoun/2025/02/26/univer...
In the supplementary table cited as the source, 72.1% of the total costs were awarded as direct costs and 27.9% as indirect costs (NIH, around 2020). That means an average overhead rate of 38.7% over all grants. Because some grants (such as equipment grants) have lower overhead rates, the average over grants with a normal overhead rate is higher.
At my (unexceptional public R1) university, the latest negotiated rates are 56.5% for on-campus research and 26% for off-campus research. The latter is lower, because many expenses that are normally covered by indirect costs become direct costs in off-campus research.
As someone who interacts with R1 research institutions as an adjunct and a prime contractor hiring professors as subs, they are far from efficient (like any large organization). My issue is that the people who are producing the actual value are paid and treated pretty poorly generally, and treated as cattle specifically by people whose contributions to anything of substance are extremely unclear but are quite well paid.
> Duke has a F&A rate of 61.5% with the NIH, which means that for every dollar provided to a Duke faculty member conducting research, an additional 61.5 cents is given to the University to compensate for its F&A costs.
This is not an uncommon overhead rate for a large university, and is competitive with overhead rates at the largest government contractors. That doesn't mean it's entirely reasonable or a sign of an efficient operation.
According to https://publicaffairs.vpcomm.umich.edu/key-issues/compensati... (just an example of a public university), it's $376K to executives, $481K to deans, and $152.7K to faculty in FY2013. Deans usually count as ~50% admin, so we could call that $376K + $240.5K = $616.5K to admin and $240.5K + $152.7K = $393.2K to faculty, roughly a 3:2 ratio.
In contrast, most undergraduate teaching is done by "adjuncts" for whom the job is essentially gig work. Moreover, professors are considered "faculty" and adjuncts "staff," making it confusing to figure out how many employees of a university are engaged in teaching versus doing other things. For instance a faculty-to-staff ratio would be misleading.
Disclosure: I was an "adjunct" many years ago.
I'm also an academic. To me, the primary role of a dean is to insulate me as much as possible from upper admin. I've had deans who are good at this job, and those who either aren't good at it, or think that their job is something else. The ones who are good at what I think their job is ... I'm not sure I'd want to see them get 3–4x my pay, but I'm definitely willing to pay a premium to have someone else deal with upper admin.
>The number of staff and non-tenure track faculty has ballooned dramatically since I arrived at Rice in 2004. I agree with you, that from what I've read elsewhere, it's a common phenomenon at well-resourced institutions.
What I've seen at a number of universities are opportunities to get hired on to things like full-time maintenance staff with better pay, job security, and work-life-balance compared to actual PhDs.
And maybe more likely to be a decades-long career at the same institution, compared to recognized scholars.
I couldn't help but notice this about ten years ago, and UH looks like it is on track too.
The Economics of Duke University
https://dontaylor13.substack.com/p/duke-university