Some measures of university success are clear: SAT scores of students enrolled, passing rates for professional certification, and the win-loss records of sports teams. Others are murky: morale of students and faculty, and ambition toward excellence.

One commonly misunderstood feature involves the overhead rate for sponsored research. Grant writers must incorporate indirect costs -- IDCs -- into their proposals to cover associated costs of their research to the university. What are the implications?

Overhead becomes increasingly important as state support declines nationwide. In Montana, the state contribution has been essentially flat for a decade. In some states it approaches zero. This means grants, with their associated IDC funds, are essential for quality operations.

Here is how IDCs work. Professors submit grant applications to governmental agencies, foundations, and corporations. The amount requested should cover the direct costs of salaries, benefits, and supplies plus the “indirect” charges for accounting, administration, labs, and other expenses required to keep the university running.

The indirect costs actually incurred vary dramatically by project. Research in vet science, with its elaborate labs and delicate, sophisticated instruments, is inherently more costly than equally demanding work in political science, history, and English.

Montana State University’s stated goal is that 43 percent of grant funds go toward general overhead. For example, a $100,000 grant would ideally yield $43,000 in IDC funds. Most grantors stipulate a much lower rate -- often 10 percent or less. Average overhead collections hover around 17 percent.

Does students’ tuition make up the difference? Does increased research account for recent tuition increases? In my limited experience, it certainly hasn’t. I am confident, furthermore, that research grants help students generally, not only those involved with the funded projects.

Many grants, say those in economics or political science, add only a trivial amount to university operating expenses, often less than 5 percent. Here’s the key question: Are the added benefits from a grant greater than the added costs?

I believe the usual answer is an emphatic yes. MSU, for example, would be a far less attractive institution without its nearly $100 million in grants and contracts. Both the direct costs and the overhead (the central administration keeps 55 percent of IDC money; the rest is split between the college and the department) fund students, travel for young faculty, and the summer salary required to keep promising and productive faculty here when they have more lucrative offers elsewhere.

MSU’s grant portfolio is increasing dramatically, and the allocation of overhead may become ever more contentious. And this could corrode morale. Envy is a destructive force. Research “rock stars” and high administrators inadvertently fuel it. How might the university anticipate and counter this risk as grants and IDC funds grow? Here are three of the many suggestions offered to me, and two I propose.

First, allocate a portion of university IDC funds to improving the habitat of those who work there. Painting and recarpeting offices on a 10-year rather than a 20-year rotation would do a lot.

Second, increase support to departments critical to educational quality but which have few grant opportunities, such as English, philosophy, and history.

Third, use IDC funds to develop strategic programs enticing the urbane and well-off individuals relocating here to participate in and learn about the university. Consider this venture capital invested in potential contributors. This requires substantial vision, but only modest funds.

How about using IDCs to allow alums to retain their MSU e-mail accounts? This would cost very little, and fundraising is easier when you can locate potential donors.

My final suggestion may be overly idealistic, stemming from the fact that today’s administration is hostage to the institutional history it inherited. This is sadly true and the implications are negative indeed. To combat this, I suggest that MSU create an “Integrity Audit Team” to monitor the allocation of all university IDC funds. It should include respected faculty and highly successful outsiders aware of the pathologies inherent to large organizations. They must be independent, bulletproof, and trustworthy. Successful implementation of this idea would signify excellent leadership, character, and vision.

Research at MSU has been contentious for several decades. The monitoring and allocation of IDCs is an ongoing problem that should not be pretended away. Management integrity and creativity will help assuage critics.