A study conducted at nearby Oceania University showed that faculty retention is higher when professors are offered free tuition at the university for their own college-aged children. Therefore, Seatown should institute a free-tuition policy for its profes

The faculty committee head produced a survey that seems to attribute positive results in a new program that facilitates covered tuition for faculty children. The study professed that faculty retention rates increased when this program was offered, and the committee stipulates that this phenomenon will improve professor morale and attract future employees. However, the study fails to mention the data set and cannot establish the statistical significance on the reviewed data. Furthermore, the faculty cannot draw lofty conclusions regarding other variables without due considerations. The faculty committee should strengthen its causal analysis between faculty retention, analyze cost-benefits of this program, include appropriate considerations on the other effected variables proposed.

The faculty’s study needs to assess its data set and causality between faculty retention and the new dependent education benefit before professing the established causality. How big was the sample size for the study? If the study only looked at a body of twenty faculty members, it is insurmountably hard to establish statistical significance to this correlation. The law of large numbers demands sample size (n) be larger than 1,000 data points to even consider significant causal relationships. Otherwise, the new program may be positively correlated with the faculty retention rate by chance. This direct correlation may have a significant R-squared value but not establish that the independent variable leads to the dependent variably changing.

There may be omitted variable bias in the study. It is important that the study researchers consider other unobserved variables to prevent these biases. If the study members do not consider other latent variables such as faculty employment positions and career considerations, the study may not accurately represent a causal relationship. For example, the spike in the faculty retention may have verisimilitude to the program effects whereas it results from a previous loss in faculty members prior to the study.

Furthermore, the faculty head does not cite how much the faculty retention increased compared to the non-program environment and does not consider its resultant costs. The study may establish a low impact increase in faculty retention such as 1% that does not warrant expounded employee benefits. The education benefit conferred on faculty children may far outweigh the value of faculty retention. If the value of faculty retention equates to $50,000 over the life of a professor tenure, but the free education of his child costs $100,000 due to private college costs, this will result in a net profit loss for the college. This problem compounds in the event of multiple children per faculty member. The college should analyze the intrinsic value of faculty retention against the backdrop of the extended benefit costs.

The faculty member board also recommends that the program will increase employee morale. This is a farcical presupposition. The study research needs to further analyze the enigmatic variable of employee morale. The study must consider career satisfaction, quotidian conditions, employee psyche, peripheral life events, and a host of other effects that may contribute to “employee morale”. In other words, the researchers must define the variable morale and tease out any detractors that may influence causal inferences. It is not enough to state that faculty retention equates to employee morale through a transitive property deduction.

The faculty member committee also argues that this program will lure more professors into its ranks. Although the study has somewhat unreliably established a correlation between faculty retention and the new benefit program, this also does not establish that the program will increase recruitment rates. The data researchers must buttress this claim with due consideration. What factors influence talent acquisition at the college? New professors may be more interested in academic research, tenure, or pay scales as opposed to benefits for their children. This will be especially true if the new college professor does not have any dependents.

In conclusion, the academic research presented by the faculty board does not establish a robust causal relationship between faculty retention and the new free education for faculty dependents. The faculty must consider omitted variable bias and statistical significance to improve its conclusions. Moreover, the faculty must properly evaluate costs and benefits in its new program before professing its virtues. The faculty member board presages that the new program will also increase employee morale and recruit new professors. Once again, the researchers need to consider a myriad of unobservable variables in these relationships prior to jumping to these conclusions. If the data scientists fortify their study accordingly, the college may have a veritably fruitful benefit program for its faculty members.