January 15, 2006
See, this is why we have accountants
Note to self: when making decisions about who to put in charge of your department's financial concerns, someone with a CPA is probably a significantly better choice than an English major. Exhibit A: The University of South Florida has discovered over $275,000 in undepositied funds, including $32,000 in cash scattered around the office for the English Language Institute. Some of the checks go back at least a decade. The university will probably lose in excess of $200,000, because banks routinely refuse to honor checks more than 90 days old.
I'll bet the business department doesn't have this problem.
Who did they fire? Management and the financial advisor. How do you know they were English majors? Chances are pretty good the advisor _was_ a CPA and the checks and cash were found in _her_ office.
Then again, one of my supervisors is married to a woman who is a vice president for Washington Mutual Bank, in charge of risk management. She has a master's degree in English.
Of course, you can be president with a C average. What _is_ the world coming to, Ryan?
Posted by: Paul at January 24, 2006 8:01 PMSheesh.
Posted by: ryan at January 24, 2006 9:23 PM"Then again, one of my supervisors is married to a woman who is a vice president for Washington Mutual Bank, in charge of risk management. She has a master's degree in English."
I know a few English majors who suck at math. Note to self: do not put money into Washington Mutual Bank.
"Of course, you can be president with a C average. What _is_ the world coming to, Ryan?"
And I can say Bush is smarter than the joke the Democrats ran.
Posted by: Nathan at January 24, 2006 9:39 PMI wasn't saying there aren't English majors who suck at math, but that his analysis was faulty. I mentioned my supervisor's wife as a qualification to my argument -- perhaps the financial advisor had, in fact, a degree in English, but I would find that highly unlikely.
And my last comment wasn't to be taken too seriously. Since you did, I'll point out that one ad hominem doesn't refute another.
Posted by: paul at January 25, 2006 11:31 AM