When then-Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) first ran for President, he promised that he'd remake the federal government so that it would become "leaner" and "meaner" so as to meet 21st century challenges.  It was all part of the candidate's "Hope and Change" agenda.

Well, it's been six years now and it's possible to assess how well President Obama has been in achieving his goal of reforming the federal government.

A USA Today article reports a Government Accountability Office (GAO) analysis which reveals how much duplication exists within the federal government's programs. For example:
  • AIDs programs for minority communities involve 10 different federal offices.
  • Autism research involves 11 agencies.
  • Eight agencies in the Department of Defense are searching for prisoners of war and Americans missing in action.
  • Eight different satellite control centers are used at Schriever Air Force Base in Colorado to control 10 satellite programs.

Beginning in 2008 and ending in 2012, the GAO has identified 162 federal programs marked by fragmentation, duplication, overlap, and inefficiency. In 2013, the GAO added 26 new programs.

In fairness, the U.S. Comptroller General, Gene Dodaro, has reported that the Obama administration has "at least partially implemented" 83% of his agency's recommendations. That's much better than Congress, which has taken up only 52% of his agency's recommendations.

Of course, the bureaucrats--whether in the executive or legislative branch of the federal government--don't believe all duplication is "waste." Conceding that point, The Motley Monk is willing to accept some triplication and, perhaps, even some quadruplication.

But, decication?

Get a load of this: The management of autism research across 11 agencies is necessary. Why? The Department of Health and Human Services believes that multidisciplinary research is often required.

So much for "leaner" and "meaner." The size and cost of the federal government has grown exponentially during the past six years. All of that "Hopium and Changium"--insofar as it concerns the federal government--was nothing but a bunch of malarkey.

The same goes for meeting the challenges of the 21st century. Unless, of course, what President Obama really meant was lowering the nation's unemployment rate by having the federal government hire more personnel to staff all of those positions.


Let the discussion begin...





To read the USA Today article, click on the following link:
"Government Often Has 10 Agencies Doing One Job."

 
 
The Director of the "Copenhagen Consensus Center," Bjørn Lomborg, claims that wasted green energy $$$s (aka, "investments") disproportionately hurt the poor.

The root of the problem is that everyone is paying more for energy, due to green energy subsidies. The magnitude of those subsidies?
  • In 2012, governments subsidized solar and wind power with $60B. The total benefit to the climate was $1.4B. That's $58.6B wasted.
  • Another $19 subsidized biofuels. Zero benefit to the climate.

Just last year alone, that's a total of $77.6B wasted.



But, "It's a beginning," say those who worship at the altar of environmentalism. Beginning in 2020 and until 2100, the European Union plans to spend $280B/year to implement its climate policy.

That's to say nothing about how the 1% are the winners in this "Go for the Green Lotto," leaving the other 99% holding the bag.

Consider the United Kingdom:
  • Thanks to the green energy policies, electricity consumption since 2005 has dropped by almost 10% on the averageThe poor have reduced their consumption by much more than that 10% because the rich have not reduced their consumption at all.
  • Renewable energy sources--consider the government subsidies they receive to prop themselves up--have caused energy prices to rise by 50%.Today, it costs 63% more to heat a home than 5 years ago. Concurrently, wages have declined due to global economic decline.

In Germany:
  • The wealthy receive generous government subsidies if they install solar panels on their homes. Yes, the poor can receive the same subsidies. But, they are forced to pay the higher electricity costs.  That is, if the poor can afford to install solar panels, assuming the poor can afford to own a home.

In developing nations:
  • 3.5M people die each year from indoor air pollution caused by renewable energy: burning twigs and dung inside homes to keep warm. Electricity from coal-fired power plants would solve this problem, but Western countries--like the United States--have opposed funding coal power projects. With 50% of Africa's power coming from renewables, the poor are frozen out of the market.

But, in China:
  • Coal power has fueled economic expansion since 1971 to lift 680M people out of poverty. In 1971, 40% of China's energy came from renewables. But, in 2013, China generated only 0.23% of its energy from renewable sources, namely, wind and solar power.

In sum, it takes $500 in renewable energy subsidies to raise 1 person from poverty. But, gas-generated electricity can lift 4+ people from poverty.

Those are the facts from the Director of the Copenhagen Consensus Center. The implication is clear: Renewable energy hurts the poor.

Since when have the facts ever mattered to those who worship at the altar of environmentalism? They aren't much interested in achieving consensus.


Let the discussion begin...




To read Bjørn Lomborg's study, click on the following link:
"The Poverty of Renewables."
 
 
If there were 7.1M people who signed up for Obamacare by the March 31st deadline, information about those people is only now beginning to trickle out. The news isn't good for middle-class taxpayers.

According to a FOX Business report, most of those who signed up for Obamacare are contributing to a "death spiral" in the healthcare insurance industry that will leave middle-class taxpayers on the hook.

How so? Those who signed up--however many there really were--were sicker and older than the average demographic used by Obamacare planners to demonstrate its viability.

Recent data from Express Scripts--a pharmacy benefit management service--indicates that:
  • 6 of the top 10 costliest medications ACA enrollees used were specialty drugs, compared to only 4 of the 10 most expensive medications used by patients in commercial plans;
  • enrollees used 35% more pain medication when compared to commercial plans;
  • enrollees used 14% more antidepressant medication than in commercial plans;
  • 6+ of every 1k prescriptions written for Obamacare patients were for HIV medications, 400% more than commercial health plans.

Interestingly, the proportion of contraceptives among Obamacare enrollees was 31% lower. Remember Sandra Fluke? Wasn't Obamacare sold on the premise that every American woman would have free contraceptives and abortion services?


Yes, that is true. But, at the same time, those data provide insight into who's really signing up: The sick and elderly, not the "young invincibles" (18 to 34 years of age) who were are supposed to pay healthcare premiums that would make Obamacare work. If data reported by the Department of Health and Human Services are to be believed, 25% of the 4.2 million enrollees who signed up during the second half of the enrollment period which expired on March 31 were young invincibles. That's not nearly enough to make Obamacare work.

To no one's surprise, insurers and policy experts are now predicting double-digit healthcare insurance premium hikes in 2015, which will incentivize more people to sign up for Obamacare. In turn, the U.S. healthcare insurance industry will continue along its death spiral until a single-payer system (read: "government monopoly") takes over. Then, it will be the average taxpayer will will pay for that unresponsive, socialist, and bureaucratic behemoth.

But, wasn't that President Obama's goal from the beginning?


Let the discussion begin...




To read the FOX Business report, click on the following link:
"Report: Early ACA Enrollees Were Sicker Than Average."

 
 
Remember The Motley Monk's post a couple of week back concerning how the socialist Utopia at the University of Southern Maine (USM) was showing signs of crumblingEnrollment had declined unexpectedly, so USM administrators decided to cut ~100 positions, including 34 staff members. 

Remember: The primary issue is that USM has a $14M structural deficit.

But, guess what?

According to Inside Higher Education, USM's President, Theodora Kalikow, announced on Friday that she would work with faculty to try to avoid the layoffs, which have been rescinded for now...except for the 34 staff jobs as well as the plans to eliminate three academic programs and jobs of their 7 faculty members.

Why the dramatic sea change?

According to Christy Hammer, a USM Professor of Sociology and President of the local chapter of the Associated Faculties of the University of Maine--an affiliate of the National Education Association (read "union")--"Maine was too poor to be the test case for the dismantling of tenure."

That characterization--as well as the grievance filed on behalf of 11 professors on Thursday, threatening additional legal action--must have scared the bejeezus out of President Kalikow.

Why so?

The grievance alleges that the layoffs violated professors' contractual rights. Okay, that's nothing newsworthy. But, more importantly, what is newsworthy is that the grievance alleges the layoffs had a disproportionate effect on women, ethnic minorities and lesbian professors.

Uh oh! That's one banner headline President Kalikow could never countenance. And that's to say nothing about what could potentially develop into a Justice Department investigation by Attorney General Eric Holder.

To demonstrate "good faith," President Kalikow says that she's now committed to "making sure the faculty and administration work more closely together to find solutions to our budget challenge." For its part, the Faculty Senate has created a list of 27 money-making or money-saving ideas, including:
  • asking for voluntary pay cuts from anyone who makes more than the average salary of a full professor;
  • eliminating all administrative positions with the word "associate" in the title;
  • ending the use of outside consulting firms; and,
  • restricting conference travel budgets.

Of these proposals, a USM spokesman, Bob Caswell, said:

     They were making a convincing case that we could work together and
     cooperate and find needed savings. President Kalikow's thinking was,
     "O.K., let’s give them a chance to do that and see where they are at
     later this spring."

Sure, give them a chance to save their socialist Utopia, but do the number crunching:
  • The "1%'ers" who earn above the average full professor's salary will be asked to take a voluntary pay cut for the sake of the "99%'ers." Let's suppose all of them do. How many budget cycles does anyone think such altruism will last? Also, wouldn't that lower the average full professor's salary as well as the overall average faculty salary so that, in future budget cycles, administrators will base pay increases on a lower pay scale? So, in the long run, everyone will take a hit...for a very long time.
  • No doubt about it, eliminating all of those "associate" administrator positions will surely reduce USM's salaries. The presumption, however, is that the work all those associate administrators perform can be performed by those holding the "administrator" positions. Perhaps. But, federal regulators have increased the burden of paperwork upon those administrators, spawning the proliferation of those "associate" administrators to deal with all of that work. Who's going to get it done when there's no time or nobody to do it?
  • Why were outside consulting firms hired in the first place? Most likely, administrators and faculty didn't want to do the work, weren't qualified to do the work, and/or were at loggerheads about how to resolve important issues. So, guess who's going to be doing all of that work when no consultants can be hired and with the average salaries of faculty going down, not up?
  • Restricting conference travel budgets? Come on! That's nothing more than a drop in the bucket.

The Motley Monk guesstimates that those "solutions" might generate $5M or $7M in cuts. Perhaps eliminating those 3 programs, 7 faculty, and 34 staff members will generate another $3M in cuts. Even so, that's not nearly enough to address USM's structural deficit. And President Kalikow knows it.

At the same time, President Kalikow can't have faculty members, like Professor of Economics, Susan Feiner, running around--especially to the press--saying that USM could become a national test case about whether college administrators could "wreck tenure and bust the union" not just in Maine but elsewhere.

Worse yet, President Kalikow can't have the national media reporting how her "draconian budget cuts" are having a disproportionate effect on women, ethnic minorities and lesbian professors.

It obviously was time to "make nice" and give the stormy petrils a chance to come up with a solution that probably won't work anywhere but in a socialist Utopia.



There is hope for the stormy petrils. Perhaps the potential for all of this negative publicity will enable President Kalikow to squeeze more money out of the University of Maine system, keeping the socilaist Utopia intact for the time being.


Let the discussion begin...




To read the Inside Higher Education article, click on the following link:
http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2014/04/14/u-southern-maines-president-says-shell-work-faculty-avoid-layoffs#ixzz2yrEmVppF 

To read The Motley Monk's previous post concerning USM's budget cuts, click on the following link:
http://www.richard-jacobs-blog.com/5/post/2014/03/the-bean-counters-are-prevailing-the-socialist-utopias-foundations-are-crumbling-on-many-of-the-nations-public-universities-and-colleges.html

 
 
The operative aphorism is "Time is money" and, thus, wasted time is wasted money.

So, when The Motley Monk needs to schedule an appointment with his physician, he tries to get the first appointment of the day. Why? The wait is shorter than if he schedules an appointment for later in the day.

With comedians now likening Obamacare to the DMV, imagine the total annual cost of all that time of all those people who will forced to waste time sitting in a physician's office waiting to see the doctor!

Well, there's really no need to imagine the total annual cost because Director of Health Policy Studies at the Fraser Institute, Nadeem Esmail, has already calculated how much it costs in Canada for people to wait for medical care.

In 2013, the total cost was $1.1B (or $1,202 for each of the 928,120 Canadians who must wait in line for treatment). The average wait time/patient was 9.6 weeks/year because medical care in Canada is rationed...as it soon will be in the United States under Obamacare.

While that $1.1B may sound like a lot of money, it's a "low ball" estimate because only hours during the average work week were counted. If evening and weekends (not including 8 hours of sleep/night) were included, the annual cost of waiting to see the doctor in Canada would be $3.4B! This estimate doesn't include associated family members' costs (e.g., time spent caring for the sick individual, lost productivity) or non-monetary costs (e.g., mortality risks).

With Canada's population roughly 10% that of the United States, what's another $11B wasted (or $34B, depending upon what time is being counted) waiting in the queue to see the doctor?


Let the discussion begin...





To read Nadeem Esmail's study, click on the following link:
"The Private Cost of Public Queues for Medically Necessary Care: 2014 Edition."

 
 
A 20-year agreement between the California state attorney general's office and Hoag Hospital located in Newport Beach will allow the hospital to continue to refuse to provide elective abortions as long as the Hoag helps women access those services elsewhere. This agreement has been reported in an article published by the Daily Pilot.

The reason this particular item interests The Motley Monk is that Hoag--a Presbyterian hospital--affiliated with St. Joseph Health--a Catholic healthcare network--in early 2013. Not long after the affiliation, Hoag officials announced that elective abortion services would no longer be performed at Hoag. Those officials said they made that decision due to the fact there was little demand for the procedure, with fewer than 100 abortions were being performed annually at Hoag.

When the ban was announced, protesters--women's health advocates and Hoag doctors--said they were told that affiliating with St. Joseph would eliminate no services. Some protesters claimed the ban inhibits them from giving their patients the best care possible. Others expressed concern about the role of religion in the changing healthcare environment, where a growing number of non-Catholic providers have merged or partnered with Catholic institutions.

Later, it was discovered that the decision to ban abortions was a condition of Hoag's partnership with St. Joseph Health.

That finding led to an investigation on the part of the state attorney general's office which had approved the affiliation in February 2013. The question was whether Hoag officials misrepresented the number of abortions performed annually at Hoag.

The agreement closes the investigation. Its provisions include extending the time that Hoag must continue to provide all reproductive health services except elective abortions from 10 years to 20 years. However, Hoag is also forbidden from refusing to perform procedures that may conflict with St. Joseph's religious directives--such as tubal ligations--through 2033.

In the best of all worlds, hospitals would provide none of these so-called "services." But, this isn't the best of all worlds and this agreement may be the best deal that could have been brokered. It's a small victory for those who are pro-life.


Let the discussion begin...




To read the Daily Pilot article, click on the following link:
http://www.dailypilot.com/news/tn-dpt-me-0405-hoag-ag-agreement-20140404,0,3529672.story

 
 
So, President Obama has been out on the stump promoting how much he cares for all of those unfortunate people who are compelled to work for the federal minimum wage. His solution is to raise the minimum wage so that all of those unfortunate people will enjoy a higher, albeit minimum standard of living.

What the President is banking on is that all of those unfortunate Joe and Josephine Schlubs standing behind him on the dais won't ever discover the data or the analyses of the data demonstrating just how much the President is the "Prevaricator in Chief" when he speaks about the federal minimum wage.

It is true that raising the federal minimum wage will enable Joe and Josephine Schlub to enjoy a higher, albeit minimum standard of living. But, what the Prevaricator in Chief didn't tell Joe and Josephine is that increasing the minimum wage actually increased unemployment by ~748k workers and reduced job growth by 83.3k jobs.

Yes, it's true...and here's how.

A policy analyst at the American Action Formum, Ben Gitis, analyzed the impact of the minimum wage on low-skilled workers who typically earn the minimum wage. Gitis found:
  • A $1 increase in the minimum wage increased the unemployment rate by 1.48% and led to a 0.18% decrease in the net job growth rate for all workers.
  • For teenagers, the difference was even starker, with the additional dollar increasing teenage unemployment by 4.67% and decreasing the teenage job growth rate by 4.01%.
  • In all, high state minimum wages increased unemployment by ~748k workers and reduced job growth by 83.3k jobs.

It's really sad that most of those unfortunate Joe and Josephine Schlubs drink the Kool Aid distributed by their Commander in Chief. If they read the analyses of the actual data, they'd quickly realize that what he's the Prevaricator in Chief. What he touts as "care" is a charade, namely, a phoney bill of goods that's meant to make Joe and Josephine Schlub feel good when, in reality, it's their jobs that are on the line as a consequence of raising the minimum wage.


Let the discussion begin...




To read Ben Gitis' analysis, click on the following link:
"How Minimum Wage Increased Unemployment and Reduced Job Creation in 2013."

 
 
No one wants to be called a "prude." But, when it comes to promoting "bottom-up sex" on college campuses, perhaps The Motley Monk is a prude.

Of course, the problem is nothing new. Undergraduates have been overindulging in alcohol and sex on campuses probably since those institutions first opened their doors and dormitories. However, administrators over the generations have generally "winked and nodded," probably figuring "it's all part of the undergraduate experience." Hormones are hormones, after all. What's one to do?

But, the combination of alcohol and sex has given rise to something new that today's administrators can't countenance:
  • The negative publicity tarnishing an institution's "brand" when the media and online blogs report its sexual assault figures.
  • The U.S. Education Department’s Office for Civil Rights initiating an investigation of an institution for mishandling or failing to prevent sexual violence on campus.

So, what are administrators to do?

Inside Higher Education reports how administrators at Colgate University are dealing with the problem of sexual assault. Its Associate Vice President and Dean of Students, Scott C. Brown, and his fellow administrators are encouraging the development of a healthy sexual climate by letting the students take ownership of it. It's called "bottom-up sex," meaning "take the risk of letting students handle it."

What's that mean?

Brown says:

     Colgate started with its Sexual Climate Advisory committee, a group
     of faculty and staff charged with “developing, coordinating and evaluating
     initiatives that improve the sexual climate.” That includes prevention and
     education programs, but with an overarching focus on “positive sexuality,”
     which administrators say allows students to “embrace their own identity”
     and be accountable for their own lifestyle choices.

SCAC members dispatch reports and ideas from the "front lines" of Colgate's counseling center, women’s center, student government and elsewhere. The goal is to reduce the incidents of harassment and attempted rape by increasing the percentage of students who can define "consent" and believe they are empowered to make their own choices.

That description caused The Motley Monk to wonder:
  • Is it really true that students admitted to Colgate can't define the word "consent"?
  • Why have these programs? Wouldn't it be easier just to have applicants write a definition of "consent" on the application form and hold them accountable when they trespass beyond the terms of that definition?

Then, too:
  • Colgate students need to "believe" they're "empowered" to make their own choices? Is that because they really aren't with those faculty and staff Capos monitoring what's being reported? If so, isn't that being duplicitous if not fraudulent?
  • Aren't there some choices that students must not make and, if they do, shouldn't they be held accountable? For example, doesn't uttering something that's politically incorrect result in sanctions that could lead to expulsion? What about an attempted rape, whether alcohol is or isn't involved?
  • What about an informed conscience and free will? Can't an institution of higher education provide that service?

Brown reports that some of SCAC's programs have worked. Best of all:
  • Survey data indicate that the dozens of lectures, performances, training, student groups, and consistent communication, plus a flier campaign that drilled home the definition of consent, have gotten the message across.
  • Most promising is the increase from 60% to 85% in the number students who could identify and define "consent."

Wow! Those data got The Motley Monk wondering:
  • 85% of Colgate students can now identify and define "consent" when it comes to sex. For crying out loud, these are college students! Why not 100%?

Then, there's "Yes Means Yes"--a five-week seminar (which soon will be a for-credit course)--which is grounded in "an understanding of sexuality as a natural and healthy aspect of human life." According to Brown, the goals of this seminar include "creating healthy sexual beings who are comfortable engaging in safe, consensual and pleasurable sexual activity." One exercise requires students to collaborate on a common definition of "hooking up" and then discuss the pros and cons of such a situation.

The Motley Monk can't but ask:
  • Is one of Colgate's educational objectives to create healthy sexual beings "who are comfortable engaging in safe, consensual and pleasurable sexual activity"?
  • Doesn't this sound more like an objective of the Kinsey Institute?

Unsurprisingly, this seminar is wildly successful. According to Brown:
  • In 2012-2013,the rate of sexual assaults involving attempted and successful sexual penetration dropped by 12.5% and 8% respectively.
  • 82% of students reported feeling empowered to make “healthy sexual choices that work for them.”

Furthermore, the student who developed "Yes Means Yes," Evan Chartier, has seen the positive effects at some parties. He wrote:

     I have seen people respect other peoples' privacy when hooking up
     in a public place, check in with friends to be sure that everything is
     consensual, I have seen people catch themselves slut shaming, etc.
     Overall, even if people only do these things because I am around,
     they still demonstrate that they know what consent is and are
     knowledgeable about the discourses around the sexual climate at
     Colgate.

With Sexual Assault Awareness Month well underway, isn't it great that Colgate's goal is to achieve a "bottom-up" and  "sex-positive climate"? 

What's it cost per year for membership?

     Standard Billed Expenses & Tuition: $47,855
     Room: $5,770 (based on traditional residence hall)
     Meals: $6,190 (based on Premier Unlimited meal plan)
     Student Activity Fee: $330

    Total Standard Billed Expenses: $60,145

Call The Motley Monk a "prude." Hooking up is wrong. Period. No if's and's or but's about it. Higher education does not exist to provide a "bottom-up" and "sex-positive climate" but to form the mind to pursue the truth in life.

But, that's to moralize.

So, let's try some basic economics.  Can't those bright young people at Colgate figure out how to enjoy a "sex-positive climate" for a whole lot less than $60k+ per school year?


Let the discussion begin...




To read the Inside Higher Education article, click on the following link:
http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2014/04/10/improve-sexual-climate-colgate-lets-students-take-reins#ixzz2yUAa8f8K 

 
 
An intriguing post in Blue Review reports the data collected in Phase 1 of a Time Allocation Workload Knowledge Study (TAWKS). The study's primary author, the Chair of the Anthropology Department at Boise State University, John Ziker, is attempting to determine more accurately how faculty members--homo academicus--use their time.

The data from Ziker's preliminary study indicate that faculty participants on average reported working 61 hours/week. That includes 10 hours/day Monday to Friday and about that much on Saturday and Sunday combined. Note well: That's more than 50% more hours than a traditional 40-hour work week.

How did the faculty participants report spent that time during the work week?
  • 17% in meetings--including those with students;
  • 13% on email (both for research and with students);
  • 35% on teaching (with 12% for instruction and 11% on course administration, such as grading and updating course webpages); and,
  • 3% conducting primary research and 2% on manuscript writing.

How did the faculty participants report spending their work time during the weekend?
  • 23% on class preparation;
  • 13% on course administration;
  • 10% of the time on email; and,
  • 9% at workshops and conferences with professional conversations, manuscript writing, and “housekeeping"--such as updating files--rounding out the remainder.

Combining work week and weekend, Ziker notes, faculty participants spent about 40% of their time (~24.5 hours) on teaching-related tasks. That's almost 60% of a traditional 40-hour work week. (Full professors reported working slightly longer hours both during the week and on weekends than associate and assistant professors, as well as chairs.)

Interestingly, although homo academicus works in a setting that abounds with other human beings--administrators, faculty, staff, and students--the faculty participants report they work in isolation (57% of their work time). They spent only 17% of their time engaging in activities with colleagues and 15% engaging in activities with students.

Ziker is currently working on TAWKS Phase 2. Participants will use a smartphone app to text answers to messages they receive at random times in order to report what they are doing. Participants will also provide a daily self-report about satisfaction with daily productivity. Ultimately, Ziker believes TAWKS will assist faculty to reflect regularly on their productivity levels and work patterns.

Perhaps. But, it sounds to The Motley Monk that Taylorism is being upgraded for the 21st century. Those professors participating in the study had better beware: The planners will be observing them, not from the offices above factory's floor but from cyberspace. It won't be very long before this particular "time and motion study" uncovers the real scam--how professors really spend their time--that those self-reports misrepresented.


Let the discussion begin...





To read Professor John Ziker's post, click on the following link:
https://thebluereview.org/faculty-time-allocation/

 
 
So many students (and their parents along with them) have swallowed the bait that outstanding student-loan debt is now at a record-high:

                                          $1.1 TRILLION

The "bait" is that a college degree will practically guarantee employment upon graduation and enable graduates to generate more income over the course of a lifetime than if they didn't graduate from college.

The lesson to high school seniors is clear: "If you don't go to college, you're going to be one of life's losers."

Many of the nation's institutions of higher education promote this lesson by advertising how their degree is worth the price of tuition and room and board.

According to a recent Wall Street Journal article, Iona College--a Catholic college in New York--boasts on its website that 93% of its graduates have entered the workforce or graduate school within 6 months of graduation.

"Wow!" a potential applicant thinks. "If I go to Iona, I'm practically guaranteed a job upon graduation. Well, if not a job, I'll be able to get into graduate school." (Of course, the applicant doesn't realize that graduate schools charge tuition, too.)

What Iona's website doesn't state is that the 93% boast is based on responses from 17% of 743 graduates (n=126) of the Class of 2011.

For its part, Iona claims the sample is valid. But, the National Association of Colleges and Employers states that the average response rate for schools concerning graduates' first jobs is 48%. Why is Iona's response rate so low? Are its graduates part of the "Occupy" movement?



For his part, the President of College Measures, Mark Schneider, claims that most alumni polls aren't scientifically sound. Why? Alumni with positive news to report on the job front are more likely to respond to institutional surveys. (It's the grown up version of the "My child is an honor student at XYZ Middle School.")

The "take away" for high school seniors and their parents?

"Caveat emptor!" (Let the buyer beware!). Those institutions desperately covet the $$$s that unwitting students generate for them by going deep in debt, all the while believing that attending schools--like Ion--will substantially improve their employability and lifetime earning potential.


Let the discussion begin...




To read the Wall Street Journal article, click on the following link:
"Colleges Are Tested by Push to Prove Graduates' Career Success."