[Goose]

I'm not so naive as to say that the data hasn't been manipulated to look as big as possible, or that the University is beyond reproach.  Akiddoc's post reminds me that while I was at Stanford, the University was going through the infamous indirect cost scandal.  However, incremental funding (which is similar but somewhat different than marginal cost) has a very specific meaning, and would exclude unrecoverable fixed costs.

BC

BC, it has a specific meaning to you. To an accountant who is trying to produce a given result, it means what he wants it to mean. He can allocate a totally unrealistic percentage of a "fixed" cost to a given sport knowing full well that if that sport goes away there is no practical way to reduce that "fixed" cost. However, he can pretend that you can, and since nobody is going to be able to force him to even detail what those allocations may have been, let alone justify them, he is at no risk. Is it honest? Certainly not, but it is real easy to do.

The infamous indirect cost scandal was never actually resolved, simply papered over. Stanford's overhead is still so monumental that it is a joke. However, expense reports are now audited to the point they have had to hire additional admins just to fill them out. At times people have to write a justification for why a lunch in the cafeteria of some hospital while on the road for the University should be an allowed expense. Glad to see such improvements.

[Goose]

I'm not so naive as to say that the data hasn't been manipulated to look as big as possible, or that the University is beyond reproach.  Akiddoc's post reminds me that while I was at Stanford, the University was going through the infamous indirect cost scandal.  However, incremental funding (which is similar but somewhat different than marginal cost) has a very specific meaning, and would exclude unrecoverable fixed costs.

BC

BC, it has a specific meaning to you. To an accountant who is trying to produce a given result, it means what he wants it to mean. He can allocate a totally unrealistic percentage of a "fixed" cost to a given sport knowing full well that if that sport goes away there is no practical way to reduce that "fixed" cost. However, he can pretend that you can, and since nobody is going to be able to force him to even detail what those allocations may have been, let alone justify them, he is at no risk. Is it honest? Certainly not, but it is real easy to do.

The infamous indirect cost scandal was never actually resolved, simply papered over. Stanford's overhead is still so monumental that it is a joke. However, expense reports are now audited to the point they have had to hire additional admins just to fill them out. At times people have to write a justification for why a lunch in the cafeteria of some hospital while on the road for the University should be an allowed expense. Glad to see such improvements.