On Wed, Mar 4, 2015 at 2:35 PM, Greg Wilson <[email protected]> wrote: > 2. Other people have said that corporations should be charged market rates. > I'm all in favor of bringing in more money (after all, that's what pays my > salary) but what about Harvard? They're sitting on a $29 billion endowment > - should we charge them what we charge the Fortune 500? How about small > companies: do we ask a start-up less than we ask Monsanto? We've already > started down this road by not charging admin fees for workshops in less > affluent countries; should the subcommittee that the executive is putting > together to regularize fee waivers look at charging market rates for > companies, affluent institutions, or some other group?
Late to this discussion, so sorry if I'm just rehashing/adding to the noise. But I would like to second this. Individual instructors are of course free to do whatever they feel like, but I would not feel comfortable if SWC were making distinctions about who to send instructors to based on some institutions' abilities to pay or not pay as the case may be (admin fees are another matter, but I don't have strong opinions on that). I don't generally care what the institution is--if there are scientists who need to improve their computing skills I want to help them, so that they can do better science. > 3. I take Stephen's point about having a lot more companies knock on our > door if word gets out that we can provide high-quality training at low cost, > but I actually think that's a good thing. Many of our instructors are > considering careers outside academia, and I'd be pleased if we could help > them make connections. Yes! This^^^ Best, Erik _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.software-carpentry.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss_lists.software-carpentry.org
