Summary: He might be willing to "donate" $100 to Khan Academy (not you) if you spend several hours producing a high quality educational video for him on specific linear algebra topics he doesn't understand, and he reviews your videos and finds them to be completely to his satisfaction, according to criteria he will not specify.
It's a very insulting offer rather that inspiring as he no doubt hopes. $100 for an instructional video is nothing. $100,000 per video might get you some nice PBS style ones. In between is the realm of hope to get something good. Wanting custom lectures tailored to your private needs though, and payment is contingent on if he feels like it? Sheesh.
I suggest instead depositing the $5000 prize money in trust, establishing clear criteria for winning, and then empanel impartial and qualified judges to choose winners according to the established criteria. For the 10 best videos there will be a $500 prize each, and maybe an extra $1000 for the top one overall. The prize must be awarded no matter what, even if they only get 10 videos total that are not as great as they would hope. The credibility that comes from actually awarding the prizes will improve the quality of entries of the next round.
As it is, the terms are so wishy washy that most likely the $5000 will never be awarded and a lot of people will waste a lot of time and then be frustrated to find a whiney person explain why nothing was really worthy of his precious prize money.
Another way to structure it would be to award grants of production equipment and software for video and virtual blackboard work to assist talented teachers in producing videos. These could be granted to the most promising 20 videos, with the hope that they would come back to enter phase 2 of the competition where they produce things with their new pedagogic gear.
It's a very insulting offer rather that inspiring as he no doubt hopes. $100 for an instructional video is nothing. $100,000 per video might get you some nice PBS style ones. In between is the realm of hope to get something good. Wanting custom lectures tailored to your private needs though, and payment is contingent on if he feels like it? Sheesh.
I suggest instead depositing the $5000 prize money in trust, establishing clear criteria for winning, and then empanel impartial and qualified judges to choose winners according to the established criteria. For the 10 best videos there will be a $500 prize each, and maybe an extra $1000 for the top one overall. The prize must be awarded no matter what, even if they only get 10 videos total that are not as great as they would hope. The credibility that comes from actually awarding the prizes will improve the quality of entries of the next round.
As it is, the terms are so wishy washy that most likely the $5000 will never be awarded and a lot of people will waste a lot of time and then be frustrated to find a whiney person explain why nothing was really worthy of his precious prize money.
Another way to structure it would be to award grants of production equipment and software for video and virtual blackboard work to assist talented teachers in producing videos. These could be granted to the most promising 20 videos, with the hope that they would come back to enter phase 2 of the competition where they produce things with their new pedagogic gear.