Arguing for a single sponsor

[George Berzsenyi]

I don’t believe that we should rule out the possibility of having the future Mathematics Student Journal (MSJ) under the sponsorship of only one giant corporation.  The Science Talent Search (STS) thrived under the umbrella provided by Westinghouse Electric Corporation for 57 years and it continued to do well as the Intel Science Talent Search from 1998 through 2016.  Presently, with Regeneron Pharmaceuticals as the new sponsor and with Covid causing lots of disruptions, the success of the STS is in doubt, but its continuity is assured.

While I don’t know how Regeneron surfaced as the new sponsor, I remember that Intel had to outbid several companies to get the STS in in 1998.  I doubt that the Society of Science had better arguments for starting the STS in 1942 than the former Contestants of the Competition Corner have now, in 2019 for launching the MSJ and yet they managed to win the Westinghouse Electric Corporation to their cause.

[David Ash]

If the proposal generates sufficient interest that there is a bidding war, such as you say happened in 1998 with STS, then I might find the idea of a single big sponsor more appealing. Of course, if the bidding war is real, we should be able to leverage to get ourselves maximum financial sponsorship (of medium interest to me) and maximum intellectual freedom (of great interest at least to me).

However, even if there is a bidding war and there is a preference to ultimately move to a single sponsor, I'd still favor accepting multiple sources of funding for a period of a few short years with the view that we will choose the single funder after that. If the bidding war is real, we should have the flexibility to do that. That way we can choose the single funder based on lessons learned after the first few years (and there will always be such lessons).

[David Ash]

I also think that we may need to have a zoom or other conference call soon where the more interested participants on this group can discuss this journal and, in particular, discuss the values that we will bring to the journal. People may not have thought about such things enough in 1942--and perhaps not even in 1998--but I think we should be having that discussion in 2021.

One thing I definitely don't want to see is this journal simply becoming part of a middle school-to-corporation pipeline intended to identify mathematically talented kids around middle school and gradually steer them to corporate jobs at the big companies, especially our big sponsor (whomever that turns out to be). I would find it very difficult to get enthused if that is all the journal turns out to be.

Instead, I'd want to see the journal play a role in mentoring kids to become strong mathematicians with as much intellectual freedom and strength as possible. If we value mathematics as much as we are claiming to by discussing the journal at all, we should be willing to fight for the intellectual freedom of up and coming mathematicians.

I'm definitely open to the idea of corporate sponsorship, including possibly as George suggests one really big sponsor. But I'm also aware that things like intellectual freedom can be difficult to preserve when NDA- and non-compete-loving big corps get involved. For me to be enthusiastic about this project, I would need to know that one of the central values of the endeavor is to preserve as much intellectual freedom as possible both for the journal itself and for the young students who will participate. Some of these things were not as big an issue in 1998 and definitely not in 1942--so I think in learning lessons from earlier years we need to look at both what is the same and what is different from past eras.

On Friday, September 24, 2021 at 10:21:18 AM UTC-7 George Berzsenyi wrote:

[Walter Effross]

     "Values"?  Where, exactly is the controversy, or any confusion, here? 

     What, and whose, "intellectual freedom" is really at risk? 

     As I understand it (*still* not having seen a copy of the proposal itself), the publication's purpose would be to encourage and support (and maybe initiate) a passion, among grade-school students, for solving mathematics problems.

     Any student bright enough to be interested in being involved in that enterprise would certainly be aware that there have probably never been more opportunities for, and appreciation of, students with a demonstrated talent for mathematics (except, maybe, in the years following Sputnik). 

     And would certainly be smart enough not to allow herself or himself to be "steered towards corporate jobs at the big companies," years down the line.

     Please, let's not overthink or overdramatize this, or demonize big companies just because they're big companies.

                                  Walter

     

---

From: 'David Ash' via Competition Corner Participant Discussion <competition-corner-p...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Friday, September 24, 2021 8:58 PM
To: Competition Corner Participant Discussion <competition-corner-p...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Arguing for a single sponsor

 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Competition Corner Participant Discussion" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to competition-corner-partici...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/competition-corner-participant-discussion/85690b31-be7b-474b-af85-90de527a4c46n%40googlegroups.com.

[David Ash]

Assuming that you are right that the demand for mathematically talented youth has never been higher, we should be able to use that to negotiate terms that are to our advantage when it comes to negotiating with these big companies. If it is currently a seller's market for people with mathematical talents who are marketing their services, then we should act like it is a seller's market. I'm not about demonizing the big companies--I see the big companies as morally neutral, neither good nor bad. Given what I see as their moral neutrality, we should be negotiating as good a deal as we can with them.

[David Ash]

With regard to "what values" I don't know for sure because I haven't seen a copy of the proposal myself. If such a document already exists I also would be interested in seeing it.

However according to the Aftermath of "The Book" it is expected that the journal will be guided by some kind of underlying philosophy. To wit:

"...the Committee on High School Contest agrees to lend its expertise and leadership initially in overseeing the content and philosophy of said journal. In particular, during the first two or three years, the Committee will assist in the solicitation, creation, ..."

For now I'm mainly interested in understanding what that is--we can call it the "values", the "philosophy", or whatever--but for me at least I need to know what the underlying philosophy of the journal is to get involved.

Sorry if I'm asking the kinds of questions that mathematicians sometimes don't ask. I like to ask such questions, and I always ask questions about any project's role in the larger world before committing myself to it.

On Friday, September 24, 2021 at 6:41:09 PM UTC-7 Walter Effross wrote: