Audit of the Utility System Revenue Bond Funds of Iowa State University of Science and Technology (Iowa State University) as of and for the year ended June 30, 2007

Audit of the Utility System Revenue Bond Funds of Iowa State University of Science and Technology (Iowa State University) as of and for the year ended June 30, 2007

Audit of the Telecommunications Facilities Revenue Bond Funds of Iowa State University of Science and Technology (Iowa State University) as of and for the year ended June 30, 2007

Audit of the Telecommunications Facilities Revenue Bond Funds of Iowa State University of Science and Technology (Iowa State University) as of and for the year ended June 30, 2007

Audit of the Parking System Revenue Bond Funds of Iowa State University of Science and Technology (Iowa State University) as of and for the year ended June 30, 2007

Audit of the Parking System Revenue Bond Funds of Iowa State University of Science and Technology (Iowa State University) as of and for the year ended June 30, 2007

Audit of the Ice Arena Facility Revenue Note Funds of Iowa State University of Science and Technology (Iowa State University) as of and for the year ended June 30, 2007

Audit of the Ice Arena Facility Revenue Note Funds of Iowa State University of Science and Technology (Iowa State University) as of and for the year ended June 30, 2007

Audit of the Indoor Multipurpose Use and Training Facility Revenue Bond Funds of Iowa State University of Science and Technology (Iowa State University) as of and for the year ended June 30, 2007

Audit of the Indoor Multipurpose Use and Training Facility Revenue Bond Funds of Iowa State University of Science and Technology (Iowa State University) as of and for the year ended June 30, 2007

Audit of the Regulated Materials Facility Revenue Bond Funds of Iowa State University of Science and Technology (Iowa State University) as of and for the year ended June 30, 2007

Audit of the Regulated Materials Facility Revenue Bond Funds of Iowa State University of Science and Technology (Iowa State University) as of and for the year ended June 30, 2007

Audit of the Memorial Union Revenue Bond Funds of Iowa State University of Science and Technology (Iowa State University) as of and for the year ended June 30, 2007

Audit of the Memorial Union Revenue Bond Funds of Iowa State University of Science and Technology (Iowa State University) as of and for the year ended June 30, 2007

Audit report on the Iowa State Center Business Office of Iowa State University of Science and Technology for the year ended June 30, 2007

Audit report on the Iowa State Center Business Office of Iowa State University of Science and Technology for the year ended June 30, 2007

Iowa State University of Science and Technology (ISU) as of and for the year ended June 30, 2007

Iowa State University of Science and Technology (ISU) as of and for the year ended June 30, 2007

Report on a review of selected general and application controls over the Iowa State University of Science and Technology payroll system for the period March 27 through May 11, 2007

Report on a review of selected general and application controls over the Iowa State University of Science and Technology payroll system for the period March 27 through May 11, 2007

Money, fame and the allocation of talent: Brain drain and the institution of science

The earning structure in science is known to be flat relative to the one in theprivate sector, which could cause a brain drain toward the private sector. In thispaper, we assume that agents value both money and fame and study the role ofthe institution of science in the allocation of talent between the science sector andthe private sector. Following works on the Sociology of Science, we model theinstitution of science as a mechanism distributing fame (i.e. peer recognition). Weshow that since the intrinsic performance is less noisy signal of talent in the sciencesector than in the private sector, a good institution of science can mitigate thebrain drain. We also find that providing extra monetary incentives through themarket might undermine the incentives provided by the institution and therebyworsen the brain drain. Finally, we study the optimal balance between monetaryand non-monetary incentives in science.

Assessing an intuitive condition for stability under a range of traffic conditions via a generalised Lu-Kumar network

We argue the importance both of developing simple sufficientconditions for the stability of general multiclass queueing networks and also of assessing such conditions under a range of assumptions on the weight of the traffic flowing between service stations. To achieve the former, we review a peak-rate stability condition and extend its range of application and for the latter, we introduce a generalisation of the Lu-Kumar network on which the stability condition may be tested for a range of traffic configurations. The peak-rate condition is close to exact when the between-station traffic is light, but degrades as this traffic increases.

Report of Recommendations to Iowa State University of Science and Technology, Ames, Iowa, for the year ended June 30, 2007

Report on Iowa State University of Science and Technology, Ames, Iowa, for the year ended June 30, 2007

Deciding analytically or trusting your intuition? The advantadges and disadvantadges of analytic and intuitive thought

Recent research has highlighted the notion that people can make judgmentsand choices by means of two systems that are labeled here tacit(or intuitive) and deliberate (or analytic). Whereas most decisionstypically involve both systems, this chapter examines the conditions underwhich each system is liable to be more effective. This aims to illuminatethe age-old issue of whether and when people should trust intuition or analysis. To do this, a framework is presented to understand how thetacit and deliberate systems work in tandem. Distinctions are also madebetween the types of information typically used by both systems as wellas the characteristics of environments that facilitate or hinder accuratelearning by the tacit system. Next, several experiments that havecontrasted intuitive and analytic modes on the same tasks are reviewed.Together, the theoretical framework and experimental evidence leads tospecifying the trade-off that characterizes their relative effectiveness.Tacit system responses can be subject to biases. In making deliberate systemresponses, however, people might not be aware of the correct rule to dealwith the task they are facing and/or make errors in executing it. Whethertacit or deliberate responses are more valid in particular circumstancesrequires assessing this trade-off. In this, the probability of making errorsin deliberate thought is postulated to be a function of the analytical complexityof the task as perceived by the person. Thus the trade-off is one of bias (inimplicit responses) versus analytical complexity (when tasks are handled indeliberate mode). Finally, it is noted that whereas much attention has beenpaid in the past to helping people make decisions in deliberate mode, effortsshould also be directed toward improving ability to make decisions intacit mode since the effectiveness of decisions clearly depends on both. Thistherefore represents an important frontier for research.