So Many Recruiters, So Few MBAs

With nearly 1,200 recruiting organizations and only 700 students at the Stanford Graduate School of Business, such a supply-demand imbalance is bound to produce some disappointments and unsatisfactory experiences. (''Stanford high-hats its way onto a blacklist,'' Management, Aug. 21-28) But your readers should know that the administration is definitely not ''nonchalant,'' as you describe.

Building and sustaining strong recruiter relationships is a top priority here. Our students are an exceptional worldwide group of diverse men and women who are fortunate to be studying and graduating in a geographic location that is at the center of very exciting economic activity--and all of this contributes to a challenging recruiting environment for everyone.

Robert L. Joss
Dean
Graduate School of Business
Stanford University

Three cheers for Dell Computer, Intel, Amgen, and Toys 'R' Us. Stanford is producing a generation of mbas who operate under the mistaken belief that the road to quick success is lined with six-figure salaries and bundles of stock options. They should not forget that many of these dot-com wonders will not exist in the next few years, and they will be out there hitting the pavement looking for employment with the very same companies they snubbed. In addition, they do a great disservice to the lofty reputation of their alma mater.

As a recent Columbia University mba graduate, I have seen all too many fellow students operate under similar misguided beliefs. Dean Joss's statement that in the future he may limit admission to ''emotionally mature'' students is worth its weight in gold!

Neal Zung
Poughkeepsie, N.Y.

If companies looked at admission numbers, they'd see the gap between students from the top 40 B-schools is surprisingly narrow. And yet these companies continue to waste their resources on schools like Stanford, whereas an up-and-coming program like my alma mater, Arizona State, has students who would gladly attend the company presentations, fill up interview schedules, and not expect six-figure salaries until they proved themselves on the job.

I can't recall a retail company that recruited when I was there (1996-98). And yet the companies that do come (including Dell and Intel) are richly rewarded with hardworking, bright, and well-schooled students.

Todd Solan
Huntington Beach, Calif.

Cracking Down on Crime: The Numbers Don't Lie

Two letters from readers took exception to ''Tough justice is saving our inner cities'' (Economic Viewpoint, July 17) by claiming that police are merely cracking down on harmless drug users. This couldn't be further from the truth.

The crimes the police are diligently reducing are shown in the Justice Dept. document NCJ175687, Table 16. For year-end 1997 (the latest compilation available) the table lists 1,100,500 persons sentenced for all crimes and 227,400, or 21%, of these for drug offenses. Regarding blacks, the table lists 511,700 blacks sentenced in state courts for all crimes and only 127,700, or 25%, of these for drug offenses.

''Violent offenses'' such as murder, manslaughter, rape, robbery, and assault accounted for 47% of all those sentenced and 48% of blacks. These are hardly the ''nonviolent drug offenses'' these letter writers would have us believe the police are focusing upon.

The police risk their lives daily confronting very violent felons, not spaced-out drug users, and to hamper their efforts even by mouthing untruths is to help sentence the decent inhabitants of the inner city to an existence most of us encounter only in futuristic horror films.

Bruce Macintyre
Gladwin, Mich.

Why Shouldn't Industry Pay for Cell-Phone Studies?

In the article ''Cell phones: We need more testing'' (News, Analysis & Commentary, Aug. 14), W. Ross Adey, distinguished professor of physiology at Loma Linda (Calif.) School of Medicine, is quoted as having said, ''How can [the Food & Drug Administration] claim to be impartial if they are taking a lot of money from industry to do research?''

The FDA is not taking any money from industry. The cell-phone companies are paying for the study so that we taxpayers will not have to assume that financial burden. The study, furthermore, cannot be carried out unless the protocol is approved by the FDA. And it is the FDA, not the industry, that will analyze the data and reach a conclusion about the safety of those devices.

In a similar manner, pharmaceutical companies finance clinical studies designed to assess the safety and efficacy of prospective new drugs because the government cannot afford to undertake those costs.

We should expect that the cell-phone companies will have more integrity than to try to influence the outcome of the study. In any event, the FDA will have the final word. And that agency has no self-interest in the outcome of this study or of clinical studies.

Adey is apparently not familiar with the function of the FDA.

Elliot Schubert
San Diego

Deregulation Has Helped the Airline Industry

Contrary to Robert Kuttner's opinion, deregulation has been one of the outstanding successes in public policy in the last 25 years. There are twice as many fliers today as when the airline industry was deregulated in 1978, and real prices are 39% lower than 22 years ago (''The airlines: Less regulation won't fly,'' Economic Viewpoint, Aug. 7).

In addition, there are more flights with competing carriers than in the past, not ''relatively fewer,'' as Kuttner argues. In 1999, 85.5% of passengers traveled in markets with two or more competing airlines. In 1978, the figure was just 71.3%. Not only do more people travel by air than ever before but they have more choices.

Carol B. Hallett
President and CEO
Air Transport Assn.
Washington

Surplus Money in Washington Is Lost Money

It seems that election-year partisanship has claimed yet another victim: Laura D'Andrea Tyson. In ''Windfall in, windfall out: What could shrink the surplus'' (Economic Viewpoint, Aug. 21-28), she suggests that George W. Bush's tax-cut plans and ''privatization scheme'' would undermine ''the fiscal discipline that has served as the foundation of the unprecedented expansion.''

She is correct in that fiscal discipline has helped. But she ignores the reality that there is no way to ''lock up'' a bunch of money left hanging around Washington. It will be spent on social programs, tax cuts, or both. She also neglects to mention that the boost to the economy and the markets will provide some offset. But the real debate is over whose money it is. Where did the surplus come from? Has the government been overcharging taxpayers?

By the way, Laura, you might want to come up with an alternative to the word ''scheme'' lest you run the risk of being lumped in with all those last-millennium politicians who couldn't tell the difference between universal health care and a risky antidoctor, antihospital scheme.

Gary Osborne
Indianapolis

California's Electricity Consumers Are in the Dark

Your article ''Gridlock on the Power Grid'' (News: Analysis & Commentary, Aug. 21-28) overlooks one simple but major flaw in California's deregulation experiment: the lack of time-of-use price signals for the majority of retail customers who own homes and operate small businesses.

Without time-of-use metering, and a more sophisticated knowledge of energy and demand use, how can we possibly expect that energy consumers will alter their demand to reflect the very real marginal costs during peak periods? Moreover, absent such changes or adaptations in market behavior, how can we expect anything more than a continuation of very predictable increases in the demand for electricity during peak periods? Imagine trying to select seasonal fruits and vegetables for your restaurant with no information on prices and without knowing how much you paid until you received your bill at the end of the month--and even then only seeing the grand total with a complicated breakdown of unavoidable delivery and administrative costs, but no real information on what you purchased or when! The uproar in California's retail electric market should come as a surprise to no one.

Robert Bordner
Seattle

A Second Opinion on Norman Blake of USF&G

Norman P. Blake's slash-and-burn tactics were more aimed at getting himself credit than at curing USF&G Corp.'s ills (''The USOC: No pain, no gain,'' Sports Business, Aug. 21-28). When he took over in the early 1990s, USF&G was suffering from a decline in its net worth. Prior top management made some poor investment decisions. Instead of shrinking the company's revenue to fit the new financial realities and waiting for the excellent underwriting culture at USF&G to bring the company back to profitability, Blake fired employees across the organization. Since the new people were his, he could claim credit for the inevitable improvement that came as a more conservative investment policy was adopted.

My company benefited from ''Pink Slip'' Norm, as we were able to hire former USF&G employees. We now benefit from the excellent training they had at USF&G.

Bruce G. Kelley
President and CEO
EMC Insurance Cos.
Des Moines

The Trouble with Golf

While today's pros are clearly better than their predecessors, what we are now witnessing on the tour is a circus display of high technology performed on the stages of golf courses designed, in many cases, 80 years ago. (''Psst! Wanna buy an illegal golf club?'' Sports Business, July 31). Par fives have all but become a joke. The last thing we need is more titanium from Mr. Callaway or anyone else.

Tony Gibbs
Clarkston, Mich.

Why wouldn't 52% of golfers polled say they would buy an illegal driver, when 80% of them take extra shots (''mulligans''), push their balls around for a better lie (''winter rules''), and concede themselves five-foot putts (''clintons'')? These folks do not play the game of golf. Three cheers for the members of the U.S. Golf Assn., who try desperately to maintain the integrity of our greatest personal sport despite the rising ''entitlement mentality.''

Bob Wickman
San Antonio

''Online banks can't go it alone,'' (Finance, July 31, 2000)

A story in the July 31 issue of BUSINESS WEEK, ''Online banks can't go it alone,'' incorrectly identified the AFLO-CIO'S Web site at buyunion.com. The labor federation is not associated with buyunion.com. Its online addresses are workingfamilies.com and aflcio.org.