Quote Originally Posted by marct View Post
H Ken,

I was thinking more about the organizational and training issues. Then again, the events happened before the first assessment came out, so there really hadn't been any time to retool he training.
cited -- though in less detail -- in the USN&WR article as well. IIRC, I've seen them mentioned in most articles I've read on the topic. With more years in the bureaucracy than I care to recall, I'm so familiar with the bobbles, panic and confusion in startup programs I tend to look at them as simply business as usual and thus as being unremarkable (redundancy to show how normal... ).

Too many believe (or, possibly more correctly, would like to believe) that the processes of government are far more efficient than they are. They are generally chaotic and it typically takes around 18 months to get a ndew mechanism grinding and another 18 to smooth out the wrinkles. No surprise to me at all.

Though I do think it fascinating when academics who become involved in government programs (in the US or anywhere else) are surprised that all is not efficiency and light -- that is not a slam on you, Ms. Helbig or anyone else, just that in my observation the vales of academe can themselves be a little, uh, chaotic, in their operation and decision making. Not to mention that many of those vales worldwide nowadays are involved to one degree or another with government and thus expectation of confusion would seem to me to be the norm...

I did find it interesting that even though she may have had a bad experience, she essentially believes that some cross feed is desirable and that program has merit. Be interesting to see if any more comes out about her case.