5 ms·

Are these companies (Coursera here, Udacity for Thrun) going to be non-profits like Khan Academy?

_delirium 15y ago
Udacity at least is a VC-backed, for-profit endeavor. They're listed in the portfolio of Charles River Ventures: http://www.crv.com/portfolio http://www.crv.com/portfolio
unignorant 15y ago
No, both are for-profit. This caused a bit of a stir among their fellow academics.
- endtime 15y ago
  Seriously? At Stanford? Every professor other than Daphne (I believe) at the AI lab has worked for Google at some point and Stanford is the last place where CS profs look down upon starting companies.
  - unignorant 15y ago
    Starting a company wasn't the issue. It's more that for-profit education has a bad reputation (think University of Phoenix). There was some initial concern/confusion.
    - endtime 15y ago
      How is Stanford not a for-profit institution? I'm not trying to be argumentative, I think I must just be missing some distinction.
      - mikek 15y ago
        Non-profit organizations are registered as so to the IRS in the United States: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonprofit_organization http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonprofit_organization
        endtime 15y ago
        So what "caused a bit of a stir" was a tax status?
      - madelfio 15y ago
        It's a 501(c)(3) like most private American universities. This means there are no "owners" who make money if it brings in a profit, but conversely allows it to accept tax-exempt charitable donations.
      - WildUtah 15y ago
        Non-profit organizations (mostly corporations) are defined as non-profit by having no residual claimants. That means that if there is money left over after the bills have been paid, that money (roughly "profits") does not accrue to any stockholders or other interested parties but can only be used for ongoing operations. Responsibility is usually held by a board of directors or trustees that appoints its own successors but that is not universal. Often the managers of a non-profit will balloon their salaries or give bonuses to the board of directors if there is money left over. This is a form of corruption but remains common. A 501(c)3 corporation in the USA is a type of non-profit that receives special privileges, the most obvious of which is that contributions can be written off the taxes of the donor. To be a 501(c)3, a non-profit corporation has to be former for one of a specific set of public charitable purposes and meet special reporting requirements. The principal purposes that qualify are churches and schools but also include aid to the poor and others. IRS publication 557 details the rules for 501(c)3 and other tax-exempt non-profit organizations.
    - wisty 15y ago
      This is for-profit education, not for-profit degree milling. There's a difference between the two that universities don't like to see.

Udacity at least is a VC-backed, for-profit endeavor. They're listed in the portfolio of Charles River Ventures: http://www.crv.com/portfolio http://www.crv.com/portfolio

unignorant 15y ago

No, both are for-profit. This caused a bit of a stir among their fellow academics.

endtime 15y ago
Seriously? At Stanford? Every professor other than Daphne (I believe) at the AI lab has worked for Google at some point and Stanford is the last place where CS profs look down upon starting companies.
- unignorant 15y ago
  Starting a company wasn't the issue. It's more that for-profit education has a bad reputation (think University of Phoenix). There was some initial concern/confusion.
  - endtime 15y ago
    How is Stanford not a for-profit institution? I'm not trying to be argumentative, I think I must just be missing some distinction.
    - mikek 15y ago
      Non-profit organizations are registered as so to the IRS in the United States: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonprofit_organization http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonprofit_organization
      - endtime 15y ago
        So what "caused a bit of a stir" was a tax status?
    - madelfio 15y ago
      It's a 501(c)(3) like most private American universities. This means there are no "owners" who make money if it brings in a profit, but conversely allows it to accept tax-exempt charitable donations.
    - WildUtah 15y ago
      Non-profit organizations (mostly corporations) are defined as non-profit by having no residual claimants. That means that if there is money left over after the bills have been paid, that money (roughly "profits") does not accrue to any stockholders or other interested parties but can only be used for ongoing operations. Responsibility is usually held by a board of directors or trustees that appoints its own successors but that is not universal. Often the managers of a non-profit will balloon their salaries or give bonuses to the board of directors if there is money left over. This is a form of corruption but remains common. A 501(c)3 corporation in the USA is a type of non-profit that receives special privileges, the most obvious of which is that contributions can be written off the taxes of the donor. To be a 501(c)3, a non-profit corporation has to be former for one of a specific set of public charitable purposes and meet special reporting requirements. The principal purposes that qualify are churches and schools but also include aid to the poor and others. IRS publication 557 details the rules for 501(c)3 and other tax-exempt non-profit organizations.
  - wisty 15y ago
    This is for-profit education, not for-profit degree milling. There's a difference between the two that universities don't like to see.