|Title:||Re:16.894, Abolishing Fund Drive Once and For All|
|Description:||Dear Editor and fellow subscribers,
An important part of this wonderful institution is precisely that it is free at point of use to those who need it and mostly can't afford to pay for it.
Publishers are not so badly represented among the contributors, though there are gaps. But from the employing institutions there are only 21 names. In relation to job advertisements, there is an obvious scale - as a percentage of first annual salary. I can hear moans. But the institutional solution is surely to trim the display advertisements in the largely privately-owned, paper-based academic media none with the focus and penetration of LL.
There is a marketing question to be asked: of those with a job in linguistics,how many first heard about it on LL? On a suitably adjusted figure it would be possible to base a fee structure which would be excellent value for institutions, and hopefully solve at least most of the crisis.
The list of contributors contains the names of five centres of linguistic excellence in Britain. But there are gaps - including one which recently advertised a job on LL. And the rest of linguistic academe looks more stingy, especially in North America. Seeing in the honorable list the name of the LL editor who helped me join, I have to chip in myself. But I think those in a position to determine institutional allocations of advertising expenditure should play their part too.
This is a kind of obvious idea. And you've considered it, of course. I have no idea what you see as the down side, But it seems to me that whatever the downside is, it is nowhere near as bad as any of the other options.
PhD, RMRCSLT, FRSA
|Linguistic Field(s):||General Linguistics|