pjd@cwruecmp.UUCP (08/18/87)
1. For a while there, the Economic Recovery Tax Act (ERTA) encouraged
the donation of equipment for "research or research training." The
university had to justify its need on that basis. "Research training"
could be broadly interpreted to mean "graduate level education," but
probably not undergraduate education. Demonstrated ability (funding)
for one year's maintenance was also required.
2. ERTA did nothing for maintenance or operating costs. This proved to
be the real killer for most universities. (We've had some bad
experiences along these lines as well.) As a researcher, I find that
the maintenance of the facility can be a real weight. I constantly
have to chase dollars to cover our gear instead of "thinking good
thoughts." (I ain't no candy ass and I ain't looking for sympathy
here, so flames to /dev/null.)
3. It IS hard to get the attention of a manufacturer if you are not
one of the "blessed." The rich get richer because:
a. It is more prestigious (i.e., better PR) to put your equipment
into Famous University.
b. There is a perception that Famous Universities produce the engineers
which the manufacturer will hire.
c. These is a perception that engineers from these schools will become
powerful managers and recommend their equipment and become
future customers.
As I compete against these guys for research funds (publication or
whatever else the administration thinks is important to my career),
I especially resent reading about a big donation to a competitor and
then get offered the "standard 20% university discount" off the PURCHASE
price of the same equipment.
[Sorry about all the rhetoric here.]
4. Let me propose a different perception -- that the "night school
graduates" do most of the design and implementation. These guys may not
work for the computer manufacturer who concentrate on selected schools,
but boy, they far outnumber the graduates of Famous U.
5. If this note has a point, it is that four year colleges and
{2,3,4...} tier universities need a break, too. I truly worry about
the quality of our national engineering force and its training. It's
time to support the forgotten masses.
--
paul drongowski sun!cwruecmp!pjd
case western reserve university pjd@CWRU.EDUelg@killer.UUCP (Eric Green) (08/22/87)
in article <2224@cwruecmp.UUCP>, pjd@cwruecmp.UUCP (dr. funk) says: > 1. For a while there, the Economic Recovery Tax Act (ERTA) encouraged > the donation of equipment for "research or research training." The > university had to justify its need on that basis. "Research training" > could be broadly interpreted to mean "graduate level education," but > probably not undergraduate education. Demonstrated ability (funding) > for one year's maintenance was also required. But even second-tier universities like the University of Southwestern Louisiana (which has had a CS program since the '60s, and a CS PhD program since 1973, certainly no late-comer who got into it because it was "fashionable") have gotten only very minimal corporate contributions. Texas Instruments paid USL to develop some commercial software for them (the BASIC for one of their microcomputers, amongst other things), and made some minor equipment donations, but that's the only corporate contributions I can think of off-hand, except maybe for a 3b2 or two from AT&T (for the CS department, that is -- the Mechanical Engineering department has an entire CAD/CAM lab that was donated to them by a number of major manufacturers, such as Cincinnatti Milicron). This non-support is of a department that, while obviously not up to the quality of a MIT or Stanford, still has one of the better CS departments at a public university. For example, while digging through some ACM journals, I was surprised to see USL professors on several committees & boards, and a couple of USL professors were on the ACM accredidation standards committee, although Bruce Shriver, who was one of them, has since left to work at the T.J. Watson Research Center where he can get better financial support for his work -- something that often happens to the better professors that the administration manages to bribe down here with big salaries. > 3. It IS hard to get the attention of a manufacturer if you are not > one of the "blessed." The rich get richer because: > a. It is more prestigious (i.e., better PR) to put your equipment > into Famous University. Remember Apple's publicity coup of "an Apple ][ for every high school in the country"? I wonder if they'd have gotten the same publicity by giving the same Apples to the top 10-rated high schools in America.... when I hear of the value of the equipment that IBM and DEC are giving MIT for "Project Athena", I almost choke. > b. There is a perception that Famous Universities produce the engineers > which the manufacturer will hire. > c. These is a perception that engineers from these schools will become > powerful managers and recommend their equipment and become > future customers. A graduate with a PhD in CS from MIT isn't likely to become a manager... he'll disappear into a research lab somewhere, and all you'll ever hear of him again, are the scholarly papers that pop up in ACM journals like clockwork every <n> number of months... > 4. Let me propose a different perception -- that the "night school > graduates" do most of the design and implementation. These guys may not > work for the computer manufacturer who concentrate on selected schools, > but boy, they far outnumber the graduates of Famous U. > > 5. If this note has a point, it is that four year colleges and > {2,3,4...} tier universities need a break, too. I truly worry about > the quality of our national engineering force and its training. It's > time to support the forgotten masses. I recently perused a book entitled "Academic computing facilities in the U.S." or something of that sort. Up to 40% of the funding for the top 5 was from outside non-institutional funds. The secondn tier got maybe 10% max from outside sources (usually less), while third tier on down, got maybe 1%, at most. My informal classification was that a second tier university was one with adequate equipment and at least 20 PhD holding CS professors, offering a PhD/CS. Even universities like Georgia Tech (definitely not Bo Diddly State) are having trouble getting outside funding, due to the fact that they aren't ranked in the top 5.... in fact, the proportion of institutional funds vs. outside funds for Ga. Tech, is only barely better than that at USL (which occasionally gets NSF grants and such, like the one that bought their Encore). To say the least, I was pretty shocked... things are bad for EVERYONE who isn't MIT/Stanford/etc., not just for Bo Didley State College. -- Eric Green elg%usl.CSNET Ollie North for President: {cbosgd,ihnp4}!killer!elg A man we can believe (in). Snail Mail P.O. Box 92191 Lafayette, LA 70509 BBS phone #: 318-984-3854 300/1200 baud