Stipends based on PPP, justified?

[kartik sibal]

Hello,

I'd like to start this by saying that I have immense respect for Google, in bringing up such an amazing initiative like Google Summer Of Code. It has helped thousands of students, learn new things, connect with developers worldwide and has helped a lot of organisations connect with talented students from all over the world. While not many tech companies are involved in connecting developers, worldwide. Hats-off to Google for taking such an amazing initiative.

As we all know, that this year Google has decided to give stipends, keeping Purchase Power parity model, in mind. While I appreciate Google's decision. I wonder if 

PPP model is the best model? 

What I mean is, I feel most of the students participating in GSoC primarily use there stipends for the following: (please correct me if you feel otherwise)

• For online courses, to further improve there skill set.
• To improve there computer hardware. (some of us from developing countries, actually buy there first H/W from this stipend)
• Tech subscriptions, etc.

All of these things (especially hardware), costs a lot More in countries with a low PPP (since a lot of them are paid in USD) as compared to countries with a high PPP. So, if a large portion of my expenditure (living in a country with low PPP) is similar to that of someone living in a country with a high PPP. Is it justified that I be paid, nearly half of what the other person gets? 
I do realise that students of developed countries have to shell out a lot more for even the basic amenities and which makes PPP model justified, to a certain extent.    

I also do realise if Google has taken this decision, it must have done this after giving a great deal of thought, into it. I'd love to know what others think about this and in-fact if PPP model is the right way to go ahead? Can there be a better model?

Happy Coding! :-D

[Christopher Sean Morrison]

> As we all know, that this year Google has decided to give stipends, keeping Purchase Power parity model, in mind. While I appreciate Google's decision. I wonder if
> PPP model is the best model?

Thank you for framing your question in such polite considerate terms. I know there are a lot of different opinions on this. It is helpful to have civil discourse, and I appreciate your openness.

> What I mean is, I feel most of the students participating in GSoC primarily use there stipends for the following: (please correct me if you feel otherwise)
> • For online courses, to further improve there skill set.
> • To improve there computer hardware. (some of us from developing countries, actually buy there first H/W from this stipend)
> • Tech subscriptions, etc.

How stipends are spent is going to vary BIG from student to school to region. For example, in the US and EU, taking online courses for one institution while paying tuition to another is unusual because such coursework would generally not count towards your degree and GSoC doesn’t afford the time.

I note that GSoC requires access to a computer, so improving their hardware does not increase potential participation. It’s obviously a potential perk.

Statistically speaking, on a global scale, I would expect [1] most student stipends to go towards room and board (a place to sleep, food to eat). For most students, they are the second largest expense outside of tuition in most places.

[1] US-centric, but holds for most countries: http://www.collegechoice.net/college-life-3/what-are-the-major-expenses-for-students/

> All of these things (especially hardware), costs a lot More in countries with a low PPP (since a lot of them are paid in USD) as compared to countries with a high PPP. So, if a large portion of my expenditure (living in a country with low PPP) is similar to that of someone living in a country with a high PPP. Is it justified that I be paid, nearly half of what the other person gets?

The original framing of GSoC was “flip bits, not burgers”. As many have said over the years and among several goals, GSoC was envisioned for students that might otherwise take a non-technical job to support themselves over their summer. This didn’t mean the program will provide adequate funding for a computer or that it would even pay rent in many places, but that it would help support a different choice.

If Google were to base GSoC on the cost of hardware, something like the iPad Index (er, Google Pixel Index) would be relevant but such indices are riddled with other issues: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purchasing_power_parity#iPad_Index

> I do realise that students of developed countries have to shell out a lot more for even the basic amenities and which makes PPP model justified, to a certain extent.

Many students will be at a significant economic advantage because they live with family or their living expenses are covered through other means or they live in a place where room and board is (literally) dirt cheap. I would posit that most students in developed countries put not just a lot but the majority of the stipend towards room and board, not courses, hardware, and tech subscriptions. They’re at a disadvantage, so should their situation be accommodated in the stipend? If I had to choose between basing stipends on basic living expenses vs hardware, I would think the prior makes much more sense because of the impact on participation potential.

> I also do realise if Google has taken this decision, it must have done this after giving a great deal of thought, into it. I'd love to know what others think about this and in-fact if PPP model is the right way to go ahead? Can there be a better model?

If there were a good solution to this problem, every international corporation on the planet would probably be using it…

Cheers!
Sean

[Tarun Mudgal]

I hope it's okay to keep the thread going so I'll put my opinions on this.

I agree with the OP.  It strongly affected the people from the developing countries, especially those who were planning to use the amount for further studies. Even if Google is correct in this, the time when the info was published was very much less to take some action. Initially, it was mentioned that just Letter of Acceptance will be sufficient. But later, the condition of proof of admission was also added.

I'll give my example - I had planned to save the whole GSoC amount to pay the fee for the university (abroad). But then I got to know about the changed rules according to which I was supposed to have a letter of admission by 3rd April to be eligible to get the stipend corresponding to that country. But it was not sufficient period as it takes some time to give the pre-requisite exams (getting Passport, giving IELTS etc), receiving the admission letter and then finally getting the proof of admission letter.

The stipend would have been almost enough to pay the fee (after applying scholarship). So, yes it definitely affected a lot. The home country's stipend has been reduced to more than a half of what it used to be earlier. 

I'd suggest that the cases like this should be considered as well - should be given some extra time at least, to furnish the required documents. 

(Everything is written assuming I get accepted to the program.)

[14mit1010 .]

On a lighter note, someone should update the iPad index :)  India is about 25% more expensive than US now, not about the same as it mentioned (about the same stands for Pixel too :P )

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Google Summer of Code Discuss" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to google-summer-of-code-discuss+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to google-summer-of-code-discuss@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/google-summer-of-code-discuss.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Christopher Sean Morrison]

I agree with the OP.  It strongly affected the people from the developing countries, especially those who were planning to use the amount for further studies. Even if Google is correct in this, the time when the info was published was very much less to take some action. Initially, it was mentioned that just Letter of Acceptance will be sufficient. But later, the condition of proof of admission was also added.

I would not be surprised if this was to reduce instances of fraud and misrepresentation.  The rules require actual enrolled student status to participate, and people try to find ways around that ever year due to program popularity.

I'll give my example - I had planned to save the whole GSoC amount to pay the fee for the university (abroad). But then I got to know about the changed rules according to which I was supposed to have a letter of admission by 3rd April to be eligible to get the stipend corresponding to that country. But it was not sufficient period as it takes some time to give the pre-requisite exams (getting Passport, giving IELTS etc), receiving the admission letter and then finally getting the proof of admission letter.

Wow.  If I’m understanding you correctly, you were hoping to fund attendance at an institution with your GSoC stipend and couldn't because you’re (now) required to prove you're actually a student at that institution before you really were admitted.  Did I misunderstand something?  That sounds completely backwards.  Enrollment is a prerequisite.

I'd suggest that the cases like this should be considered as well - should be given some extra time at least, to furnish the required documents.

Note, students aren't paid until after the first month (and passing their evaluation), so it wouldn’t matter unless it was extended further which would permit widespread fraud.  You can’t use the stipend to enable eligibility.  You’re either a student eligible to participate, or you’re not.  One might consider using the stipend to enroll at a different institution *next* year, but trying to justify it for the same year is cyclic, doesn’t work. 

It’s like entering a race where everyone crossing the finish wins a prize and complaining that you now have to prove you have a bicycle before the race.  Just because you could use the prize to buy yourself a (better) bike for that race doesn’t mean it makes sense.

Cheers!

Sean

[Tarun Mudgal]

I would not be surprised if this was to reduce instances of fraud and misrepresentation.  The rules require actual enrolled student status to participate, and people try to find ways around that ever year due to program popularity.

Sounds reasonable to me too. But had it been mentioned earlier, the students who genuinely wanted to apply to other institutes would have acted earlier so that they could get the required documents within the stipulated time.

Wow.  If I’m understanding you correctly, you were hoping to fund attendance at an institution with your GSoC stipend and couldn't because you’re (now) required to prove you're actually a student at that institution before you really were admitted.  Did I misunderstand something?  That sounds completely backwards.  Enrollment is a prerequisite.

Sorry, perhaps I was not clear. I agree that the program is meant for the students and the applicants must be enrolled in some program while or prior to, applying itself. I was just trying to convey that the time when the information was given was less than adequate to make the proper arrangements.

(Not justifying but just trying to clear what I meant) Had the information regarding the furnishing of acceptance letter on the institutional letterhead been made available in January (when the website was updated with the new rules), I'd have made the arrangements by now (having got the passport, applied and given IELTS and securing an unconditional admission). 

But since it was updated a tad late, now I only have the conditional offers, which make me ineligible for the stipend for that particular country. And of course, just the stipend amount is not sufficient for the fee and/or the living expenses but it could have been a significant fraction and would have made it really easier to make some conclusion.

Regarding giving some extra time, I believe that the students could have been given more time (like till 4th May or a week earlier that that) for these kind of cases.

It’s like entering a race where everyone crossing the finish wins a prize and complaining that you now have to prove you have a bicycle before the race.  Just because you could use the prize to buy yourself a (better) bike for that race doesn’t mean it makes sense.

I, again, agree with you on this but what I stated is a bit different. In my case I can prove that I've a bike (not a great one, though) as I'm still a student and just that given some extra time (to furnish the required documents that I've accepted the offer) would have made me eligible for a better prize which I could have used for a better bike for the next race (help in arranging the funds for the education). :)  

I understand it's difficult for you too to discern the cases with wrong intentions from the genuine ones but my point was just that some people were indeed affected from the new rules. Perhaps it was so because this is the first time with the new rules and transition does result in some inconveniences.