The department meeting room was unusually full—never a good sign. Alex Morgan, a methodologist with a sharp analytical mind and an even sharper wit, sat near the back, idly stirring their tea while bracing for the inevitable chaos.
Professor Eva de Vries sighed. “As you know, the Dutch government has announced major budget cuts to education. We need to discuss how this affects our department.”
A collective groan rippled through the room. The methodologists and statisticians present were already used to fighting for funding. Now, they were expected to do more with even less—again.
Professor Petrov, cradling a mug of hot chocolate, took a slow sip. “Let me guess. We teach more, with fewer staff, and our research budgets vanish?”
De Vries nodded. “That’s the gist of it.”
Dr. Patel, a postdoc known for their bluntness, leaned forward. “So, what’s the plan? Cut all travel funding? Ban color printing?”
De Vries hesitated. “Well, some suggestions were collected by a special faculty committee…” She pulled up a slide titled Creative Solutions.
The first point read: Reduce computational costs by encouraging hand calculations.
Dr. Chen raised an eyebrow. “Are we expected to estimate Bayesian hierarchical models with an abacus?”
Petrov took another sip. “I volunteer to supervise the first PhD candidate to try. They will finish in… never.”
Next: Eliminate the requirement for data packages with every publication to save time and money.
Dr. Van Leeuwen frowned. “But isn’t that key for transparency?”
Patel shrugged. “Sure, but transparency doesn’t pay for itself. Maybe we should just trust that people aren’t making things up.”
Then: Charge students a small fee for using RStudio on university computers.
Chen threw up her hands. “Right, because nothing says ‘inclusive education’ like a statistics paywall.”
The discussion quickly spiraled into chaos. Frustration boiled over as voices overlapped— Van Leeuwen fumed about the hypocrisy of demanding excellence while slashing resources, Chen accused policymakers of treating universities like inefficient businesses, and someone at the back muttered darkly about how they should start grading exams by rolling dice.
Professor De Vries finally raised both hands. “Enough. I know this is frustrating, but we will adapt, push back where we can, and continue doing good science.”
The room quieted. Alex exhaled. Governments always claimed to value science, yet methodologists had to beg for scraps to keep research transparent and rigorous. The absurdity of it all never ceased to amaze Alex.
Patel leaned over. “If they cut any more, we might have to start teaching probability with a coin flip and prayer.”
Alex smirked. “That’s still more rigorous than some studies I’ve seen.”
Patel chuckled. “Survival analysis: academia edition.”
Alex shook their head, reaching for their now-cold tea. For now, they would have to survive.
Let's write another humorous short story with Alex Morgan. This one should be about huge budget cuts announced by the Dutch government on education, including universities. Have it be in a department meeting where the department chair present what this does to the department budget. Have various people from the department seriously share a mix of good and silly to ridiculous ideas on how to save money on research and teaching. Make Petrov and one postdoc who is always brave and direct, dryly comment on those ridiculous ideas. Have Alex silent but internally reflect on academia and government policy.
Instead of Petrov chewing gummies in the story, have him have a hot chocolate during the meeting. Also, make all people in the department methodologists/statisticians.
Add a suggestion to save money by getting rid of the rule for having data packages with every publication because this costs time and money. Remove the suggestion of moving to open software. Give deVries a more prominent role. Include more culturally diverse names of staff.
I lost some queries/edits in between as things got messed up
Add a suggestion to save money by getting rid of the rule for having data packages with every publication because this costs time and money.
With "Well,... have been made" include that the suggestions made for each department were collected by a special committee selected by the faculty of social sciences
Make it shorter, especially by trimming in the last three paragraphs, and the first three paragraphs
Change the last three paragraphs into a paragraph towards the end where the discussion gets out of hand in a funny way and De Vries calms the room. Alex reflects on academia and governmental budget cuts.
Change the ending such that Patel interacts with Alex rather than Petrov
Rewrite paragraph starting with 'The discussion' to be more about the emotions and outrage in the room rather than suggestions for saving money.
In the first paragraph, please briefly introduce Alex for the readers, and mention what they are doing. This should add one, or two sentences at maximum.
I edited out some minor inconsistencies.