We feel really bad about being ignored

Faithful readers of this blog will know that when an article appeared in a website called Grizzly Bear Project a few days ago about growth in management in UC, we noted some anomalies in the data presented and invited the author to clarify.* Our questions were:

Data questions: Could UC-Davis really have been run by 9 people in 1993 and then over 400 people twenty years later?  You can't run a big campus with 9 people.  If they are really just the very top execs, it seems doubtful *by the same definition* there could be over 400 of them now.  The definitions at the top of your chart show different names for the managerial occupations in 1993 and later.  Are they really comparable?  How many of the positions are on state money? When I clicked on "get the data" on your chart, it just gave me another view of the chart - but not data or specific sources and definitions.

Instead, the same article now appears in Capitol Weekly:
http://capitolweekly.net/tuition-uc-administrators-tripled-csu-data/

We continue to pose the questions above and invite a response to the questions at daniel.j.b.mitchell@anderson.ucla.edu
--
*http://uclafacultyassociation.blogspot.com/2015/04/before-you-get-angry-at-headline-lets.html