cmckay
Now, the rhetoric we've been throwing at kids to get them to go to college has been strongly on the "skills" side of things, which is perhaps why you (and others) feel that colleges aren't focusing on what they should.
As far as fundraising is concerned, it's complicated. You have to do something to keep the doors open and the lights on. Amenities (like rec centers, nice dorms, and so on) are justified by claiming that they increase recruiting yield and retention (thus stabilizing revenues) but they cost a lot. Money in the endowment means less of a dependence on tuition, which means more stability in the face of possible enrollment shortfalls.
Something like an art museum serves multiple purposes. It's an amenity, sure, and may help students (or their parents) decide that this institution is the right place for them. If there is an art or art history department, it may serve pedagogical functions. In many cases, though, donors may have given significant amounts of art to the school, and they need a way to respond to that gift. Having a museum to put it in makes everyone happy.
[1] Sorum, C. E. (2005) The Problem of Mission: A Brief Survey of the Changing Mission of the Liberal Arts In Liberal Arts Colleges in American Higher Education: Challenges and Opportunities (pp.26--39).
As far as scalability is concerned, consider raising your prices. Don't think of it as rent seeking; think of it as providing a valuable service (managing a team of outsourced talent), and price accordingly.
The full sticker price (Tuition, Fees, Room and Board) just passed $40k/year last year, and it's having an impact on our ability to recruit students. Since so much of our budget comes from tuition, though, a shortfall of even 30 students from predicted numbers (out of a total student population of about 1400) can cause a serious budget crunch.
It's also fun to note that EMACS is an acronym for Escape Meta Alt Control Shift, which generally describes the experience of using it.
Does anybody have a solution to this?
Now, having said that, this particular slide deck suffers very little from this problem.
The real problem (alluded to by both the article author and other comments) is that project creators don't ask themselves hard questions about how their project will scale. Unfortunately, this is more of a problem in the Technology and Design categories, which tend to have a higher hit rate than others. Many project creators envision doing the work themselves, or using hard to source parts. The Open Locksport guy even planned his reward tiers so that he was operating at a loss for each pledge. That's just poor planning.
[0] http://tachycline.com/index.php/kickstarter-funding-rates/
As an aside, it isn't just the postdocs who are disgruntled. I was awarded tenure last year, and while there are aspects of the job I love, there are others that push me toward making a change.
"Kickstarter intentionally makes failure a hard thought to stumble on. Its website does not show failed projects unless they’re specifically asked for and the company directs search engine crawlers away from them."
This statement is only true if one interprets the word "failed" as Kickstarter does, that is, "failed to receive funding."
and
"And what about Kickstarters that succeed? Do they deliver, or is it just the beginning of a path full of challenges?"
This statement wouldn't make sense if the author meant "successful delivery" when he said "success."
1. "Estimating the number of failed projects is difficult because of these tactics, but most independent attempts to pinpoint the figure have landed at 50% or more."
Response: Kickstarter has a statistics page [1] that gives this information. It's not hard to find. And the failure rate is much higher than 50% in most categories.
2. "Retrovirus enjoyed a steady trickle of contributions towards its modest $75,000 goal."
Response: Actually looking at the statistics [2], 75,000 is on the high end for Kickstarter projects (more specifically, it's the 98th percentile for all projects, and the 99.4th percentile for successfully funded projects across all categories; if we look just at games, the percentiles are 93rd overall, and 96.8 for projects that actually made their goal), and carries with it a low funding rate (about 20% overall, slightly less than that for projects in the Games category)
So while it may be a "modest" goal as far as the costs of game development are concerned, it isn't modest for Kickstarter.
[1] http://www.kickstarter.com/help/stats [2] currently unpublished data scraped from kickstarter.com; I'm nearly finished writing up my analysis though.
Ask HN: How to get my Kickstarter in front of the right people?
I tried posting this earlier, and something went awry; the majority of the post didn't go through. Here it is in its entirety.I recently launched a Kickstarter project: ( http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1402474606/the-ilex-edc-pen-and-capacitive-touch-stylus ) and have found that it is much more difficult to get people to the Kickstarter page than I had anticipated. The project is a...
How to get my Kickstarter in front of the right people?
There are a host of manly-gear-related sites (uncrate, gear patrol, and the like) which would seem to be the obvious venues for this sort of thing, but they haven't responded to our emails. Does anyone have any suggestions?
I just launched a kickstarter ( http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1402474606/the-ilex-edc-... ) and it was clear there was at least some human involvement in the approval process.