I only just realized this recently, after meeting more and more recent graduates from peer universities in the workforce (i.e. same-sized, similarly-minded and educated private schools) that Georgetown's career center is painfully sub-par offers mediocre results at best. I'm not saying it's poorly-run - in fact, they are very well-run and in many ways efficient given the skeletal staff they have in relation to the quantity of resources and student services they offer.
The problem is just that these services don't work nearly as well as they should, and indeed have to, in the present economy insofar as the actual results of students spending time and effort (and money) on their programs should be full-time, gainful employment. They need a different set of performance metrics, and in fact the ONLY performance metric they should be basing that center on is how many graduates or students affiliated with Georgetown are put into full-time job positions, or at least something with benefits.
In fact, they shouldn't even measure anything besides median/mode income, and the VALUE of EMPLOYMENT BENEFITS DERIVED or PAID FOR vs.BY (out-of-pocket) recent graduates, because I ASSURE you that even worse than not having income (anyone can flip burgers and have a W-2 form to fill out come tax season) is not having stable benefits for health and welfare that were PAID for and ASSUMED services provided by colleges and universities to students.
THAT type of stability, the stability upon which overall fiscal, familial, "defining life change," or any other intangible but no less important basis of welfare, is the dominating purpose of obtaining a career.
(and Phil proves this and his other points after the jump, where you can learn about Employment Benefits and Compensation for Tax Purposes- IRS Jargon 001)