This site was established in March 2013, exactly ten years ago. We noticed there were three important developments have happened during that ten-year period.

• Data Science (DS) profession has developed faster than EA. The adoptions of DS by all industry types have begun many years ago, especially by the credit card companies. After the Association was established, DS adoption has accelerated in the fastest pace in part because of the technology advancements, market competition, availability of big data gathered through internet, and the availability of cheaper data storages.
• Majority of higher education institutions in the US are offering Data Science program at all levels, i.e., Certificates, Undergraduate, Masters’ and Ph.D.
• However, the EA adoption, by US Colleges and Universities is lagging. Compared to the non-education industry. That is to say, the growth of EA adoption is not significant enough. The question that one might have is, why?

Harvard University took the lead to encourage higher education institutions in the US to apply or use institutional historical data in decision making process. Traditionally, this role supposed to be promoted through Institutional Research Association. However, past data showed that most institutions stressed two areas (1). Reporting purposes to both federal, state entities such as IPEDS as well as private data gathering organizations such as USNEWS or College Board; and (2). The most that Colleges and Universities did in the past were to have some sort of data visualization, generated mainly using Excel, before adopting either Tableau or Power BI software.

The College of Education at Harvard, through the Center of Education Policy Research launched the so-called the Strategic Data Project (SDP) initiative. Various programs are offered under the SDP project, where recently not only higher education institutions can participate in the initiative, but also PreK-12 institutions well. Harvard has taken the lead to promote data-driven decision making process for higher ed, for it has the abundant resources to accomplish such important roles.

The move that the Center has made shown that the era of making strategic decisions based on institutional historical as well as regional, state and national data has arrived, and left BAU as a history. It is truly an exciting development. However, the work has just begun, and much more need to be done. Exciting future opportunities are awaiting to be grasped.

Needless to say, recent policy taken on student loans by the current administration became headlines and hot national debate in the US media. From the public comments, one would be able to classified them into two groups, where are they coming from: Opponents (OG) and Supporters (SG) group.

1. Including in the OG are those (1). Who never agreed on anything, if any policy comes from another isle. Called these people as a permanent opposition. This group often, if not all the time operates under the illogical and irrational countered assumptions. (2). The second cluster in this group are those who try to seize the moment to be in 15 minutes fame, even though they have to adopt irrational reasoning such as one plus one is not equal to two, but ten.
2. Including in the SG or second group are the “ungrateful” folks. People classified in this group are those who never feel enough. These complainers never satisfy with what have been given to them, They want more, and more and more. However, if one asks them what have they done to help themselves, there will be zero answer. Classified in this group are those poor decision makers who cannot see the consequences of their actions. For example, in each new semester student A registers to take 12 credit hours. However, on the middle-of-the semester drop 9 credit hours, and left only with 3 hours. Consequently, it will take her or him forever to complete the program. As results, her or his loans are ballooning. These folks then say the $10K or $20K cancellations are not enough. They want more. They want someone else to pay for their mistakes. Often this group plays as if they are the victim or use the sympathy as strategies to justify and to cover-up their weaknesses.

Therefore, it does not matter what one color is. One can always be able to identify both groups as irrational. Therefore, one should not be bothered of what their comments are. The reason is simple, because both group cannot do a basic reasoning, other than complaining. They are not problem solvers, but problem makers. Otherwise, they will be genuine supporters of using data and honesty principles to make inference and to govern their lives.

If one follows closely what has happened in the area of data science, in general, and in higher ed in particular, then one might observe that a data scientist has additional job to do, which is to provide strategic information to the decision makers.

Consequently, this requires that data scientists (DSs) have to have various background, away from the traditional areas such as the ability to code or knowing basic statistics.  DSs have to equip themselves with different areas which traditionally belong to the CPA or MBA holders.  In other words, knowing how to code is no longer enough.  DSs are expected to be able to relate what the codes have outputted with the business metrics such as sale, revenue, and as far as product costing and new product development.

For example, in the east cost, some higher ed institutions are recruiting for those who have the ability to forecast students’ enrollment, both using econometric or time-series analyses.  Also the position requires that the DS is able to identify key metrics and find strategies to outsmart the competitors.

Years ago, folks in education industry used to identify other institutions as their “peers”.  But now, they are not shy to identify them as our “competitors“.

Recently one of the candidates who is participating in 2020 big dance has asked a major student loan servicing institution to pay $22.3 million to the federal government.  This money, according to the report has been asked by the candidate due to “massively overcharging the federal government in a years-long scandal “.

Hello DOE, how has this occurred?  One lesson learned from this case is that DOE did not do either compliance nor the financial audit.  The Association has long argued that Uncle Sam needs to have ESCC. It does matter if the color of the administration is red or blue.  Interestingly, it seems the three government branches are both deft and mute.  For none of them has the interest or will to work for their constituents.  They just need their valuable votes.  Therefore, the American public has to learn which candidate will work for the general or public interests.

It is pretty clear that the company has followed the maximizing behavior as discussed by the neoclassical economists in the past.  However, the economists never suggested that in order to be consistent with the rational behavior, it should break the laws and/or regulations.  This is what the Association has discussed about the missing constraints in the firms’ maximizing behavior model.

Apparently, this candidate is pretty persistent and consistent in her paramount motivation to run in the 2020 big dance.  Her objectives are nothing but:

1. To work for the American public’s interests.
2. To make college education is affordable to every American.
3. To make the country back to the NDEA’s original soul.

Well, when we first introduced the application of analytics in higher ed, most people think this is an absurd thought.  However, if one now browses the “word” analytics, she or he will get many pages to read on the internet.

In higher ed industry, the ideas of applying education analytics is just to begin, after AAEA published stunning research findings in 2013.  However, the application of analytics at higher ed institutions is still focusing on data visualization.  Needless to say that data visualization is not the same with education data analytics, which we specifically called it IRI–Institutional Research Intelligence.  Some schools are trying to hire professional with a special blend or set of skills and experiences.  But the market cannot supply enough of them.  There are also institutional barriers to change from data visualization to data analytics.  Most of the leaderships in the OIR who are currently in the “position” to make the change are coming from the old school.

The old IR (OIR) profession is trying to survive and start embracing the AAEA’s ideas and move toward data-informed.  However, for many years, this branch of profession only focusing on reporting, period.   Therefore, there are so many problems that have been created, and one of the biggest problems is rising the College Cost because of  inefficiency.

Efficiency is not the focus of the OIR, as the Association has mentioned above, its focus is only on traditional reporting such as IPEDS or sharing their data to institutions such as USNEWS or Peterson’s.  Therefore, the US families have suffered from the rising college cost that have forced them to co-sign or take loans and then get trapped into student loan debt.

Everyday, even every single minute or second, the American voters will hear all sort of 2020 election analyses, rumors, dramas, bad or good news or any other rhetoric statements through different instruments such as, TV ads, unsolicited emails, robo calls, text messages and others.

If the Association were a voter and therefore could vote then a simple logic or coherence thought will be used in the process of making the right decision.  So, what is the right decision?  It is not necessary be the same among different group of voters.  The way how a voter will make a decision is based on his own interest.  In other words, a voter will cast her or his vote to the candidate who will bring the direct benefit to her or him, and not someone else’s.  Student loan borrowers be rational and not irrational or emotional.

Pause and think a moment.  If you have $30K student loan debt (because your alma has made you pay the price that it set) that burdens and cuts or takes away part of your monthly or bi-weekly take-home pay, would it be better if Uncle Sam will write it off, either partially or all?  One needs not to have an Einstein’s brain to make the right choice.  America chooses the right one!

The bottom line is to choose the candidate who can help you, as a student loan borrower to get rid your student loan debt forever.  America, it is your time to make the right decision–not for anyone, but for yourself and your future family.

Looking at the recent election results in both Kentucky and Virginia, it is evident that America have used the rational, instead of emotional reasoning in making their choice. It is not about liberal or conservative, not does it is about blue or red.  It is about making the right decision.  It is about your future.  It is about making rational choice.  For no one else that cares about you.  No one else that fight along side with you, but the candidate that supports and will help you easing your current and future financial burdens.

Happy voting!

The 2020 big dance picks up steam pretty fast.  It comes from different directions and attacks can be seen among candidates in the same group.  America needs to make the “RATIONAL” instead of emotional & irrational choice.

Freedom to choose, while is one of the basic foundations how Americans make their choice, yet it can be twisted or directed toward making irrational instead of rational choice through false campaign promises, slogans or advertising.

So, what is the irrational choice related to the student loan debt?  Remember that not all the politicians are concern about your financial health.  However, without your personal support or vote he or she cannot win.  Therefore, their interest is just to get your vote, period, nothing else.  They are not concern about your student loan debt either or financial situation, ever.

Therefore, on the campaign trails, one will find or hear a lot of rhetoric statements or slogans directed to affect the voters’ emotion so that the emotional factor becomes dominant in the voters’ decision making process.  In other words, a voter will vote for a candidate, even though he or she, the voter, gains nothing from his or her emotional decision.  The reason is simple because she or he, the voters, has made an emotional decision, instead of a rational one.  Emotional decisions will not lead to an optimal outcome.  For example, if you choose the candidate who will not make your student loan debt goes away, what good will that do to you?  He does not even care about your student loan debt and other financial burdens that you have to sustain as results of attending a higher ed institution.

However, the story will be very different if one chooses the person who has fought, and is still fighting for you.  Therefore, as a voter, you have to be able to distinguish a candidate who has fought and candidates who start to fight or pretend to care about you, simply because it is an election year.

Among the blue party, there is clearly one person who have fought for years persistently and consistently.  However, the other person, though has held the position for 8 years done practically nothing to ease your student loan debt, ever.

Now, think about the incumbent.  Did he do anything at all?  If your answer is zero, that is still a better answer.  In fact, as long as the student loan debt is concerned, he has made thing go from zero to negative.  The reason is simple, as a businessman, he does not care and he supports the business entities who get the benefits or who can make more money because of all the messes.

America, it is your choice if you will accept the offer from someone who has fought persistently to ease your student loan debt burden or you vote for someone who will add or even increase your financial miseries.

Happy election!

The Association needs to remind the readers to read this article, very carefully.  Pay attention on:

1. Who wrote the article and
2. How “moral hazard” has been defined.

Part of the opinion is quoted below:

“He continued: “For example, the economic benefit would likely only be transitory if debt forgiveness was a one-time windfall for current borrowers, as future generations of student loan borrowers would ultimately return to debt-based financing to meet rising college costs.” 

In addition, canceling student loan debt now could lead future borrowers to expect that their debt will be erased as well, and give them an incentive to take out even more loans, Foster wrote. That “could ultimately exacerbate the acculmulation of higher student debt burdens in the future,” he said, which would make the current issue much worse.

This study or research is quoted by “Market Insider” which may lean toward the Wall Street.  Interestingly, it is published on Nov 3rd, when NBC/Wall Street Journal reported that two advocates of the student loan forgiveness or bail-out program that run for the 2020 big dance are the top-3 nominees.

AAEA has long argued in that the student loan debt is the first step, and it should be followed by the second step.  Read the second paragraph written on the Home page which pasted below:

“Partially fixing the current US student loan problem, other than to write-them-all- off is parallel with rebuild or remodel an old building.  The cost could be higher than that of to tear-it-down.  Too many players’ interests have contributed to the systematic errors which make it almost impossible not to completely overhaul the whole system.  However, AAEA has hypothesized that writing off the student loan debt is the first step, and it should be followed by promoting efficiency and controlling the cost of education through tighter regulations and audits for Title IV or any recipients of federal and state funding.  Because soaring education cost and inducing systematic errors in the system are the roots of the problem”..

As reported by the Wall Street Journal, The Association has just heard the news on the resignation of the Department of Education’s Chief Strategy and Transformation Officer.

Following his resignation announcement he said “the system is broken‘.  One needs to look at the other side of the coin.  If the person resigned from his post after taking the helm for two years then the question is why did he resign now, if he knows the system is broken at the first place?

His role to add the burdens to the loan borrowers is noticeable.  By resigning, it does not make everything turns to white again.  In fact, as the DOE Chief strategy, he played important role to delay the implementation of student loan forgiveness policy.

Interestingly, now he supports what the candidates’ for the 2020 big dance have proposed on handling the loan debt.  Is this a coincidence?  Or it is because he just aims for a possible future position when one of the candidates get elected?

It does not take Einstein’s brain to understand that the system is broken many years ago.  Researching and analyze past data, the Association has shared the conclusion that shows clearly systematic errors and moral hazard are the culprits of the whole mess.

Toward the end, it is the sanity that rules, not otherwise.