ncmagel@ndsuvax.UUCP (ken magel) (08/12/87)
Since I was asked to produce examples, I will cite several that I have
seen, but will not mention the schools involved.
1. I once visited a major University and was shown a room of about 25 SUN
workstations which were just sitting there and had been sitting there for more
than 2 months.
2. I visited another University in a large metropolitan area and was shown a
network of 30 plus AT&T 3B5 and bigger machines which was connected, but had
only been tested. The Department was presently trying to decide how to use the
gift. I later learned it took them more than 8 months from receipt of the gift
to actually starting to use it.
3. There is another University which received 12 minicomputers plus networking
hardware and software in February of this year, but has thus far powered up
two of the machines and used them standalone. The rest of the gift has not
even been turned on to see if they work.
I know of 4 other similar incidents. I did not seek them out. jsloan@wright.UUCP (08/16/87)
in article <404@ndsuvax.UUCP>, ncmagel@ndsuvax.UUCP (ken magel) says: > Posted: Wed Aug 12 07:47:25 1987 > Since I was asked to produce examples, I will cite several that I have > seen, but will not mention the schools involved. > 1. I once visited a major University and was shown a room of about 25 SUN > workstations which were just sitting there and had been sitting there for more > than 2 months. : (more examples of unused donated equipment) Sorry I missed the earlier discussion. Sounds interesting. Part of the problem we have with such gifts is the lack of talent and manpower to make use of it. It is also true that many donations are ill advised in the first place, and much donated equipment is unusable. We routinely turn down donations of equipment much to the puzzlement of the donators and our administration. In cases where it was politically expedient to except the donation, we almost immediately "surplused" it: we have an organization on campus which handles surplus and junked equipment. This not as bad as it sounds, since we often get some $$$ from the sale of the equipment. Sometimes genuinely good equipment is offered, but if its not compatible with our existing environment (ethernet, TCP/IP, UNIX, etc.) it costs us more in salaries and benefits to pay someone to install it, learn to use it, integrate it into our laboratories, help users, etc. and in the end it would have been cheaper to buy another UNIX-TCP/IP box. No such thing as a free lunch. -- John Sloan I'net: jsloan@CS.Wright.EDU UUCP: ...!cbosgd!wright!jsloan Computer Science Department, Wright State University, Dayton OH, 45435 +1 513 873 2491 belong(opinions,jsloan). belong(opinions,_):-!,fail. The only thing that depreciates faster than a computer is fresh fruit.
ncmagel@ndsuvax.UUCP (ken magel) (08/16/87)
My original question concerning unused computer equipment donated to
prestigious institutions while lesser schools get nothing has not yet been
addressed. It was:
Why do companies doante equipment to prestigious schools which those
schools either do not want or do not have planned uses for, when there are
many deserving schools that would be delighted to develop plans and compete
for the gifts? Advantages to the donating company of giving the equipment to
less prestigious and equipment-rich schools include the assurance that it will
be used, if a plan had to be developed to get it, and the greater appreciation
students at that school will have since the donated equipment is likely to be
the only sophisticated equipment they use in school.andy@rocky.STANFORD.EDU (Andy Freeman) (08/18/87)
In article <407@ndsuvax.UUCP> ncmagel@ndsuvax.UUCP (ken magel) writes: > > My original question concerning unused computer equipment donated to >prestigious institutions while lesser schools get nothing has not yet been >addressed. It was: > Why do companies donate equipment to prestigious schools which those > schools either do not want or do not have planned uses for, when there > are many deserving schools that would be delighted to develop plans and > compete for the gifts? >Advantages to the donating company of giving the equipment to less >prestigious and equipment-rich schools include the assurance that it will >be used, if a plan had to be developed to get it, and the greater >appreciation students at that school will have since the donated equipment >is likely to be the only sophisticated equipment they use in school. My previous reply was unclear and buried in a longer message; I'll try again. Companies donate when (they think) it is in their self-interest to do so; mere use isn't worth anything to them. (From their point of view, the only difference between systems dropped in a river and those used for coursework is that the latter require maintenance.) Student appreciation and goodwill may be worth something, but donated hardware is expensive. (Not only isn't there any profit, but the expenses are just as large. Software can be easier to get donated because the duplication cost is low.) Donations to Stanford have strings attached; they are for specific research projects. We don't get any hardware for general use. Yes, some schools get donations to develop systems and demonstrate them using coursework, but the development "paid" for them. -andy -- Andy Freeman UUCP: {arpa gateways, decwrl, sun, hplabs, rutgers}!sushi.stanford.edu!andy ARPA: andy@sushi.stanford.edu (415) 329-1718/723-3088 home/cubicle
tla@kaiser.UUCP (T Anderson) (08/19/87)
A related issues is why so few computer companies donate to any colleges. Instrument manufacturers such as Tektronix and HP have for many years had significant programs for donating oscilloscopes and other lab instruments to engineering and physics programs even in fairly small schools (although I don't think they do this as much today as 10-15 years ago). They seemed to be convinced that the engineer when employed will tend to specify instruments that he is familiar with and trusts from his college experience, and I think that to a large extent this did pay off. Both IBM and DEC have done this to a smaller extent with computers but I think that many of the smaller computer companies have been reluctant because of not being so sure they will be around long enough for the investment to pay off; for the students to graduate, get employed and buy from them. Also the cost of a single donated item WAS a lot more for computers (1-2k$ for an oscilloscope but 10s to 100s k$ for computers). Today with educationally interesting computers for only a few k$ one would expect more donations to education. Why not? -- Terry L Anderson AT&T Bell Laboratories -- Liberty Corners UUCP: ...!ihnp4!kaiser!tla TeleMail: Terry.Anderson (201) 580-4428
piner@pur-phy.UUCP (Richard Piner) (08/25/87)
In article <645@kaiser.UUCP> tla@kaiser.UUCP (T Anderson) writes: >A related issues is why so few computer companies donate to any >colleges. Instrument manufacturers such as Tektronix and HP have >for many years had significant programs for donating oscilloscopes >and other lab instruments to engineering and physics programs even >in fairly small schools (although I don't think they do this as much >today as 10-15 years ago). They seemed to be convinced that the >engineer when employed will tend to specify instruments that he is >familiar with and trusts from his college experience, and I think >that to a large extent this did pay off. > Well, I once tried to get HP to donate a computer for my teaching lab. They give away enough equipment each year that they have a special office in charge of donations. This is what they told me. They give lots of equipment to Purdue, but ONLY to certain labs. Their question was "How many of your students do we hire each year?" They look at it this way. If they hire 10 students per year from Purdue, and they all take a course using HP equipment, then HP does not have to teach them how to use their equipment when they start work. In other words, by having their equipment here at Purdue, their employees learn to use the computer they are working with, without HP having to pay them a salary. The students get what would be on-the-job training while still students at Purdue. This saves HP a lot of salary money. Look at the math. Let's say you have a course and HP hires ten people each year who have taken that course. Let's assume that it would take each of those people 3 months to learn to use HP computers at work. That saves 3/12 * 10 = 2.5 man years for HP. At $25,000/year salary, HP would save $67,500 the first year. So, they could give you a $67,500 computer system and break even the first year. Plus they make you buy an expensive service contract, that's profit. They get a tax write-off, that's profit. Plus people they don't hire but who go to other jobs are more likely to buy HP equipment. That's more profit. Well, it turns out, if HP chooses courses carefully, they can make money by giving away equipment. Very clever. The upshot of this is, since HP does not hire N physics students from Purdue each year, the physics department gets NOTHING. They did say they might donate a $3000 plotter if we bought a $25,000 computer system. Such a deal I can do without. Now let me climb up on my soap box for a minute. If we want an educational system that works, then we the people will have to pay for it. There is no free lunch! Corporate America will not donate equipment of the right kind or sufficent quantity to do the job. Not even close. We all know what I mean, it's time to raise taxes and fund the schools. It's either that, or wave bye-bye to the Russians and Japanese as they sail away to claim the solar system. End of editoral. Anyway, I hope this explains why certain departments within certain schools get all the donations. Richard Piner
chan@hpfcmp.UUCP (08/26/87)
Flames in defense of those who pay my bills (HP): > Look at the math. Let's say you have a course and HP hires ten people > each year who have taken that course. Let's assume that it would > take each of those people 3 months to learn to use HP computers at > work. That saves 3/12 * 10 = 2.5 man years for HP. At $25,000/year > salary, HP would save $67,500 the first year. So, they could give you > a $67,500 computer system and break even the first year. Plus > they make you buy an expensive service contract, that's profit. > They get a tax write-off, that's profit. Plus people they don't hire > but who go to other jobs are more likely to buy HP equipment. That's > more profit. Well, it turns out, if HP chooses courses carefully, > they can make money by giving away equipment. Very clever. Frankly I don't think HP is interested in hiring anyone who takes three months to learn to use our computers. How long are your classes at Purdue anyway? I wasn't aware that we *made* you buy a service contract for donated equipment, but some of our recent donations have included service as part of the deal as well. This has been a problem in the past since equipment and service come from separate entities and the service organizations did not see any benefit in providing free service. Is it any surprise that HP wants to benefit from its donations? Few companies can afford to be wonderfully benevolent and give equipment to anyone who requests it. I don't believe that how many students we hire is the only criteria. Our main goal is exposure to future decision makers. BTW, This is not in any way an official representation of the policies of Hewlett-Packard. Just one peon's opinion. -- Chan Benson {ihnp4|hplabs}!hpfcla!chan HP Fort Collins Makers of fine Un*x workstations
elg@killer.UUCP (Eric Green) (08/29/87)
in article <1140003@hpfcmp.HP.COM>, chan@hpfcmp.HP.COM (Chan Benson) says: >> Look at the math. Let's say you have a course and HP hires ten people >> each year who have taken that course. Let's assume that it would >> take each of those people 3 months to learn to use HP computers at >> work. That saves 3/12 * 10 = 2.5 man years for HP. At $25,000/year >> salary, HP would save $67,500 the first year. > Frankly I don't think HP is interested in hiring anyone who takes three > months to learn to use our computers. How long are your classes at Purdue > anyway? If it's a Unix computer, I can see where HP would not want to hire someone who took 3 months to learn the system. But I believe the original author was talking about non-Unix HP systems. I don't know about you, but it does take me almost exactly three months in order to get up and running at full speed on a different hardware/software architecture. Sure, I'm generally producing code after a week or two, but living in manuals and trying to figure out the eccentricities of varous OS routines doesn't lend oneself to fast efficient and accurate coding. I have not seen an operating system yet where the documentation was worth a bucket of warm spit, and where new introducees didn't have to go thru all sorts of initiation rites in order to graduate to the order of the OS survivor.... remember your first Unix days, and the first time you tried to decipher the "man" pages for "termcap" (the library routines, not the database)? Only way I ever learned how to use it was by tearing apart the source code, and, in parallel, looking at the sources to a version of MicroEmacs that supported termcap.... lor knows that the man page certainly was useless! -- Eric Green elg@usl.CSNET "... is there anybody in there? {cbosgd,ihnp4}!killer!elg can anybody hear me? Snail Mail P.O. Box 92191 is there anyone home?" Lafayette, LA 70509 -PF,_DSOTM_
marvit@hplabsb.UUCP (Peter Marvit) (08/31/87)
> Why do companies doante equipment to prestigious schools which those >schools either do not want or do not have planned uses for, when there are >many deserving schools that would be delighted to develop plans and compete >for the gifts? Advantages to the donating company of giving the equipment to >less prestigious and equipment-rich schools include the assurance that it will >be used, if a plan had to be developed to get it, and the greater appreciation >students at that school will have since the donated equipment is likely to be >the only sophisticated equipment they use in school. <I, too, speak only for myself and not for my company etc.> I have been on both sides now of the equipment donation equation and understand the frustration that smaller schools and even smaller departments inside the larger schools feel when they see or hear about $N million of equipment (scopes, PC's, workstations, et al) donated to University X. I see several problem areas for the less established (potential) grant recipients, and the original question brushed by one point. Nearly all grants are made for specific departments doing quite specific projects or in specific areas. Nearly every notable donation (except for a few of *very* old, but serviceable, equipments) was preceded by a detailed proposal by the school after some period of mutual courtship. Smaller schools often either 1) are unaware of potential grant sources, 2) do not have the resources to write proposals, 3) cannot secure additional (matching) funds internally or externally as required by some grants, 4) are waiting for the philanthropist to discover them, 5) some combination thereof. If you want "free" items, do your homework and go after the grants. Other respondents have addressed the ROI (Return on Investment) which the companies must expect. There may be a few commercial establishments which anonymously donate tons of $ or goods just to Do Good, but I don't know them. The point here is not seeding potential employees or even getting press exposure, although both may be laudable byproducts; the rationales anf expected returns from donations are ususally intangible and difficult to objectively define. Many schools have to sell the companies on how a donation will benefit the company. Consider asking a friend for a donation; you will probably have to explain why you need it, what it will be used for, and what your friend will get out of it. Now try the same excercise on a complete stranger. The smaller schools, because of their equipment-paucity also face the double bind of technical unsophitication. I have seen several cases where smaller schools have received state of the art hardware which sat unsed for nearly a year because no one at the school knew what to do with them. Or the school did not have the (people) resources to set them up. Or there wasn't enough continuity for proper systems administration. Or they didn't know UNIX or C or... The question, of course, is how to get these schools into the 20th century with a minimum of fuss. But why should a company take yet another chance of donating high performance graphics workstations to a school which is still using a batch Univac 90/30 as its primary teaching computer? Would you give a Lamborghini to someone who drives a horse and buggy? A corollary is ongoing support, both from the donor company and from the school itself. As someone else said, TANSTAAFL (there ain't no such thing as a free lunch). Nowadays, most new equipment donations come with some sort of free service contract. Sometimes philanthropic contracts include some longer periods of time for service contracts as well. If the purpose of a donation is to get state-of the art gear into the hands of students, then the boxes should have the absolute lates software on it -- usually available only through some sort of ongoing maintenance contract. Computers, as everyone knows, need care and feeding; the schools *must* understand that this is part of their bargain as well and that they must be willing to commit some of their own resources to this. Sure, service contracts are expensive; but most donors have discount schedules and will accomodate a wide variety of needs. You may have the resources, as a school, to only need software updates. That's cheap and easy. You may really need the hand holding of an on-site person. That's expensive. Finally, schools, what will the equipment *really* be used for? How does it fit into your curriculum? How will it be shared (or not) amongst departments and faculties? There are logistical, political, and extra-technical questions which *you* must answer before approaching potential donors. Enough of my diatribe, Peter Marvit HP Labs P.S. As a side note to the person who carefully worked out the math of saving $$ by donating HP equipment to some school, I wonder how many National Public Radio employees HP hires for its $500,000/year donation for "All THings Considered" and "Morning Edition"? P.P.S. A repeat of standard disclaimer: I speak only of my own opinions which may or may not be shared by my emploer. I certainly disagree with some of HP policies and they with mine. That's the First Amendment with intellectual freedom!
elg@usl (Eric Lee Green) (09/04/87)
In article <52800002@hplabsb.UUCP> marvit@hplabsb.UUCP (Peter Marvit) writes: >> Why do companies doante equipment to prestigious schools which those >>schools either do not want or do not have planned uses for, when there are >>many deserving schools that would be delighted to develop plans and compete >>for the gifts? >The smaller schools, because of their equipment-paucity also face the >double bind of technical unsophitication. I have seen several cases where >smaller schools have received state of the art hardware which sat unsed for >nearly a year because no one at the school knew what to do with them. Or >the school did not have the (people) resources to set them up. Or there >wasn't enough continuity for proper systems administration. Or they didn't >know UNIX or C or... The question, of course, is how to get these schools >into the 20th century with a minimum of fuss. But why should a company >take yet another chance of donating high performance graphics workstations >to a school which is still using a batch Univac 90/30 as its primary >teaching computer? Would you give a Lamborghini to someone who drives a >horse and buggy? There are many schools besides MIT and UCB which have up-to-date equipment yet don't get much external support. Just look at the roster of PhD-CS granting institutions, and you'll find that most of them do have the equipment, staff, and academic knowledge to use equipment grants for all sorts of useful purposes (both to the company and to the school). You'll also note that even though this is true, the majority of the PhD granting departments get little or nothing in the way of corporate support. The companies making donations to "name" institutions seem to make the same decision as those that choose to pursue the IBM PC software market... the market is saturated, and you'll probably lose your buns or at least never make a profit (after all, for every 1-2-3, there's hundreds of spreadsheets that have fallen by the wayside), but they still take the gamble of the big name despite the smaller risk of writing for a smaller (but still substantial) market... to apply that analogy to corporate donations, most "name" universities are pretty much saturated with equipment, and aren't going to do much with most new equipment donated to them, but corporations still donate it, taking the gamble that someone WILL use it and do something profitable, despite the smaller universities that would be GLAD to make use of it... Eric Green {ihnp4,cbosgd}!killer!elg, elg@usl.CSNET (Note the different address!!!)