I have praised and blessed the U.S. Government Accountability Office.
The Government Accountability Office (GAO) is the non-partisan audit, evaluation, and investigative arm of Congress, and an agency in the Legislative Branch of the United States Government. Their reports have always been of highest objective standards, using statistical analysis and deep research to reach the truth.
Yet, gall of all galls, we have this:
Highlights of a GAO Forum: Global Competitiveness: Implications for the Nation's Higher Education System. GAO-07-135SP, January 23.
The GAO is known as the The Watchdog of Congress and for good reason, we need true statistics and analysis, not ulterior motive and political agenda in accountability.
So how could they release a "report" based on special interests and lobbyists opinions???? Where is the evidence GAO? How could you do this???
Participants stated is one of the key comments throughout the report. Since when does the GAO report opinion? The GAO supposedly uses actuarial science and statistics, it reports based on knowable verified facts. Since when does someone's opinion without actual evidence make it to a GAO report?
Take this statement:
Job opportunities: Participants said international students are often drawn to the United States because of possible job opportunities in the country after graduation, providing a chance to enhance their skills and obtain an economic return on their educational investment.
Yet, STEM has a flat or declining aggregate number of jobs within the United States, right now, major corporations are increasing the offshore outsourcing of these jobs, age discrimination has become institutionalized and already we have these damning GAO (and these are accurate) reports:
H-1B FOREIGN WORKERS: Better Tracking Needed to Help Determine H-1B Program's Effects on U.S. Workforce
H-1B Foreign Workers: Better Controls Needed to Help Employers and Protect Workers
H-1B VISA PROGRAM: Labor Could Improve Its Oversight and Increase Information Sharing with Homeland Security
What about Americans and their economic opportunity? US higher education is so costly now, fewer and few people can afford it. The colleges are also becoming more competitive, exclusive, so why is it that we're concerned about international students instead of ensuring opportunities and financial support be available to more Americans?
The IEEE is a professional society, responsible for many of our engineering standards as well as influencing strategic R&D policy which makes the United States the strongest scientific and engineering society in the world. Look at what the IEEE-USA released in response:
We are writing in response to the recent Government Accountability Office report, Global competitiveness: Implications for the Nation's Higher Education System, which we found disappointing and biased in a number of respects.
IEEE-USA salutes your interest in holding a forum to improve America's competitiveness. We have been working hard on the policies that improve America's competitive position for more than two decades and,like you, we are concerned that the U.S. needs major changes to policies to maintain our technological lead.
We invite you to go to our website highlighting these policy issues at IEEE-USA policy.
We suggest that you could improve the report by describing your selection process of the experts for the forum. The makeup of the group is critical given that the report relies almost exclusively on their opinions, even ignoring pertinent work that the GAO has done. This is particularly important given that you decided to wade into some very controversial issues such as high-skill immigration and non-immigrant visas.
The GAO report included at least a few representatives who have taken public positions lobbying for an expansion of the H-1B program, but not a single person that expresses concern about the program. And while your report makes a number of recommendations to expand visa programs like the H-1B, you do not balance that discussion with material from anyone else, or even your own organization's numerous reports on the program's weaknesses and flaws. And while your bibliography includes four GAO reports on the H-1B program, you do not include any of the findings in the text of the report.
It is very disappointing that you would take sides on such issues, rather than be a neutral observer. Good public-policymaking requires a fact-based discussion that acknowledges the varied interests of different groups. IEEE-USA hopes that you will modify the report to reflect our suggestions, and that you cast a wider net when identifying experts for all of your forums in the future. Any discussion of international students in higher education should include organizations that represent U.S. students and workers, who are the critical element of any efforts to boost U.S. competitiveness.
Usually GAO is very, very conservative, meaning cautious. They don't recommend huge policy changes like this. Moreover, they usually act on a request from Congress, whereas in this case they took action on their own, which again I think is unusual.
Is this all about yet another special interest agenda and even worse they can use the three letter mnemonic GAO to attempt to give their completely unsubstantiated political position some "credibility"?
And worst of all, the panel which put together the recommendations seemingly is a series of organizations with a vested interest, commonly financial (except of course the workforce, no representation for them). Does the name William Archey ring a bell? He is president of the American Electronics Association, a major corporate lobbyist. Few know Mark Regets, from the NSF. Sounds harmless enough? Actually no, the NSF obtains fees from the backs of displaced Americans from H-1B Visas and no the money does not go to the displaced worker. Since when does our National Science Foundation assist in eroding job security in the field? (Well, since about 1990 actually). What is Laureate Education, Inc. doing there? This is a private, for profit, global university group, what in God's name are they doing influencing a GAO "report"?
Another "participant": Tony Edson, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Visa Services. Well, well, basically representing Bush policy, which we know is offshore outsourcing, insourcing and more trade agreements written by and for multinational corporate interests.
The Migration Policy Institute is also questionable and is considered by some (controversial) to be a front for this global migration agenda of the WTO (GATS mode 4).
Or did the new chair of the House Immigration Subcommittee, Democrat Zoe Lofgren, corrupt the GAO?
Look at this speech in 2005, for instance, which looks very similar to this GAO report.
One can look at the rest of the "participants" on page 17 and do some background checking. What is the motivation in some Academic circles? To lower PostDoc salaries?
Where is Labor representation? Where are the Labor economists? Where are the Professional Societies, the unions representing professional workers? Most importantly, where are the facts?
Your tax dollars at work.
Update 02.22.07:
I was contacted by Paul Anderson, who sent this letter addressed to the IEEE-USA, from the GAO Comptroller:
Thank you for your February 1, 2007, letter regarding the recent publication Highlights of a GAO Forum. Global Competitiveness: Implications for the Nation's Higher Education System (GAO-07-135SP). This is one of a number of forums held over the past several years to bring together groups of people to discuss contemporary issues in government and various approaches for addressing them.The publication that resulted from this forum, which explored issues related to international student enrollment in United States colleges and universities, was intended to summarize the opinions of the participants. As noted in our publication, the views expressed in the publication are those of the forum participants and the document is not intended to reflect the views of GAO. We did not take a position or make recommendations with respect to any of the issues discussed in the forum. In convening the forum, we sought participants who represented a range of perspectives on the issue of international student enrollment. While not all of those we invited were able to attend, we believe that the group assembled allowed for a good dialogue on the issues. We appreciate your interest in our work.
I feel the criticisms are still valid in this diary. How are participants selected? Why are labor organizations, labor centric researchers, professional societies, graduate students, Postdoctoral Scholars, graduate student union organizers and professional organizations not represented? Why are there no credible labor economists? Finally, why is the GAO putting their name, their credibility on "report" results of a forum? The GAO lists a minor disclaimer on these reports, (unlike the other reports?), that the results do not represent the GAO views. Yet, by titling it a report and a GAO report on top of it, automatically gives GAO level credibility to the title of these documents.
This appears to be double speak to release a "report" titled GAO yet claim it's not the voice and credibility of the GAO.
A major point of this diary is to question the invited participants. The GAO organized this forum. The list of participants is extremely biased and exclusionary. I sincerely doubt, EPI for example, would not attend a GAO forum. I am sure at least one labor representative would show up if invited. Hence I question the disclaimer that "not all participants invited could attend". Let's see the actual invitation list, not the RSVP.
Seemingly those with the expert level credentials, whose research results offer cautionary conclusions, that increased migration is not a "win-win", are not in the participant list, including this participant group as an example.
Frankly as a taxpayer I want to see transparency and accuracy, especially from the GAO. If the GAO is truly interested in increasing the United States global competitiveness, may I just point out that Finland, which has a population of 5M, socialist and notoriously homogeneous, even xenophobic, is now 2nd in global competitiveness rankings. How could this be if the above "agenda" is a key variable in global competitiveness?