June 2, 2006

Opening Up the Elites

In recent years, driven in part by the publication of books like William G. Bowen’s Equity and Excellence in American Higher Education and Jerome Karabel’s The Chosen, a small but steadily growing number of elite private and public colleges have embraced the idea that they must do a much better job of opening their doors to students from low-income families. Private institutions such as Princeton University and Amherst College and selective public institutions like the Universities of Virginia and North Carolina at Chapel Hill have altered their financial aid programs and, to a lesser extent, their admissions policies with the goal of expanding the number of underprivileged students they enroll.

Looking for a job?

See all 244 new postings

Browse all job listings:

Faculty: 2,670
Administrative: 2,058
Executive: 151
FEATURED EMPLOYERS

The sociologist at the University of California at Berkeley laid out powerful new data about the comparative lack of access for low income students to highly selective institutions. He also proposed a form of “class based” affirmative action that would compare students’ performance to what might be expected of them based on their families, schools and backgrounds, and push elite colleges to consider how successfully students have overcome their disadvantages in the admissions process.

“These changes could in a modest way change the way that elite colleges and universities do business, and help fulfill the time-honored ideal that they exist not to transmit privilege from one generation to the next, but to enhance opportunity,” Karabel said.

But other participants in the discussion expressed concern that Karabel’s emphasis on increasing the flow of low-income students to the relatively small number (100-150) of academically selective institutions was too narrow, and had the potential to distract policy makers and higher education officials from the much larger problem of getting terribly underprepared students from lower socioeconomic groups to a level where they are ready for any college.

The session came on the first day of a two-day meeting on assessment, held at the ETS campus in Princeton, N.J., as part of the yearlong celebration of the Carnegie foundation’s 100th anniversary. Assessment is a loaded word that means many different things to many different people in higher education. So it’s probably not surprising that this gathering of dozens of national experts on teaching and testing is all over the map, even though the word “assessment” appeared in the title of virtually every session. The panel on which Karabel appeared was called “Uses of Assessment in Influencing the Outcomes of the Nation’s Broad and Diverse Population,” and it was about that in its way; there was, for instance, quite a bit of talk (rather delicately, given the host) about the role that standardized tests can play in limiting access to higher education for certain racial and ethnic groups.

Karabel’s book The Chosen was best known for its examination of how Harvard, Yale and Princeton shunned Jews in the first half of the 20th century, but much of it focused on how those and the nation’s other elite institutions are giving other groups short shrift now, and that has been the focus of much of his research since. In his presentation Thursday, he offered previously released data prepared by Anthony P. Carnevale and Stephen J. Rose about the composition of the student bodies at 146 selective institutions. The data show that students from the lowest socioeconomic quartile made up just 3 percent of the students at those institutions, while students from families in the highest quartile made up 74 percent (the figures for the other two quartiles, from lowest to highest, were 6 percent and 17 percent, respectively). He presented figures, as well, showing the almost equally strong correlation between family income and scores on standardized test scores.

Karabel then turned to brand-new data from the College Board (which he acknowledged was imperfect, because of reporting flaws) that he said show how much the family background of students’ families can limit their likelihood of admission to elite institutions, at least as measured by standardized test scores. About 6 percent of students whose parents had only a high school diploma scored 650 or above on the SAT verbal exam, compared to 25 percent of students with parents with graduate degrees. The pattern was much the same for parental income.

Those statistics suggest, Karabel said, that colleges should be buttressing their existing policies on race-based affirmative action with a similar approach to not just economic but social class. “You have to look at how well students have done given the opportunities available to them,” he said. He proposed a several-step formula that would take into account the students family, neighborhood, and school:

The family measure would capture not just family income and parents’ education, but also, ideally, the parents’ occupations and the family’s net worth. A “neighborhood” measure could be based on the average income of a student’s zip code or, better yet, his or her Census tract ("there’s a good research project for ETS,” Karabel said.) And the formula could account for the quality of a student’s high school through the creation of a national database on secondary schools, which could capture such information as the proportion of students who participate in the federal school lunch program, who take AP courses, and who go on to college, he suggested.

“If you have these three things, you can build a comprehensive portrait of kind of opportunities that have been available to the student,” Karabel argued.

Colleges, he suggested, should then give a boost in the admissions process to applicants who are shown under such a formula to have academically outperformed the likely outcomes based on their backgrounds. Institutions can rejigger their financial aid policies to help low-income students afford college, Karabel argued, but unless they also adjust their admissions policies to “change the way they select among the applicant pool,” the change will be minimal. “Money is necessary, but it’s not sufficient.”

In an audience filled largely with people who spend their days trying to bolster access to higher education, Karabel’s proposal was generally applauded. But Neil Grabois, president of the Carnegie Corporation of New York and a fellow presenter, said he worried that spending significant time and energy on crafting an entirely new way of helping relatively small numbers of needy students gain admission to selective institutions would be a distraction from the larger problem: “enabling people of talent to go to” college at all. “I worry about a system put together for admission to some elite institutions as if they were the only ones,” he said.

Grabois also said that such a focus could undermine efforts to fix the underlying causes of the gap in access: the redistribution of wealth that is widening the gap between rich and poor in the United States, and the generally poor state of public education that contributes to so many low-income students being academically underprepared for college. “You would reduce the pressure to change” those problems, Grabois said. “I would rather deal with the issue at its heart.”

Arnold Hyndman, president of the New Jersey State Board of Education and a professor of cell biology and neuroscience at Rutgers University, agreed. “This would simply be allowing another set of individuals to enter into the aristocracy, but not doing anything to change the nature of our society.”

The rest of Thursday’s meeting dealt with the pressure coming at colleges from a range of perspectives to more effectively measure their performance, which Debra Stuart, vice chancellor for administration with the Oklahoma State Regents for Higher Education, characterized in a series of questions: “How can we assure legislators that we are doing what we should be doing, and that their investment in higher education is worth it? How can we assure regents that we’re spending their money wisely? How can we assure employers that we produce talented graduates?”

Richard Shavelson, a professor of education and psychology at Stanford University, laid out a narrative showing that the push to hold colleges accountable for student learning, while often portrayed as a new phenomenon, is many decades old. (The creation of the ETS and many of its tests, including the Graduate Record Examination, he noted, were responses to just the sort of pressure that colleges are feeling today.)

And in his post-dinner speech, Freeman Hrabowski III, president of the University of Maryland-Baltimore County, said that colleges must get behind the movement to “measure what we do,” and “collect in a systematic way data on student learning.” But institutional leaders face a problem because many faculty members “have no trust in that kind of systematic approach,” and are too often “satisfied with the status quo,” he said. “When I talk about assessment on campus, the faculty look at me with suspicion.”

His job and that of other institutional leaders, Hrabowski said, is to “develop language that can get these forces from inside the academy and outside the academy working together.”

— Doug Lederman

Want it on paper? Print this page.
Know someone who’d be interested? Forward this story.
Want to stay informed? Sign up for free daily news e-mail.

Comments

So far behind — stop at the top & work down

The quality of education delivered should be in tight knit disciplines. When a person is sent to the moon, the sciences can be favorably judged. When over 100 people sentenced to death are exonerated by DNA evidence, legal education has failed. The tests of success must be by performance. When $90,000 in found in the freezer, the schools that educated him failed ethics.

After focus is on the disciplines, then focus on the money for access. Take the Miami Dade College model and deliver it to all inner city students.

As an aside, it takes guts to measure Harvard, Princeton and Yale from Cal Berkley.

William Sumner Scott, J.D.

wss@jefound.org

William Sumner Scott, at 8:00 am EDT on June 2, 2006

Talk is cheap

It is admirable objective of opening the elite colleges to the underprivileged, one may rush to applaud that – in reality it is a mirage, while ignoring in eradicating the SAT disease.

It is a surprise that the session was not independent of ETS none of the demagogues in attendance could say wait a minute ‘isn’t there is a conflict of interest’ with the college board? but no – I believe they are having good time and fun at the expense of the underprivileged.

They had to discuss delicately – that SAT ‘play in limiting access to higher education for certain racial and ethnic groups’ what a disgrace – keep it simple stupid [KISS] it is a discriminatory tool that is in practice to ensure exclusion of African Americans to advance in higher education.

The closet racist of Carnegie Corporation who opine ‘enabling people of talent’ we know he refer Caucasians as people of talent and they have been duly noted and recognized by the SAT, we can talk about the underpriviledged, but we will indulge Caucasians.

Then there are the demagogues who went on a tangent – one opine ‘to assure employers’ the other ‘hold colleges accountable’ the third ‘measure what we do’ – keep it simple stupid [KISS] what about ‘opening elite colleges to the underpriviledged’ what are the cause and effect? It is the SAT disease — the amount of time and energy and money that is spend on prepping for tests clearly gives advantage to the affluent students.

Those demagoues will keep on stabbing the underpriviledged on the back – by ignoring to eradicate SAT disease.

David Robertson, Professor at SUNY, at 9:55 am EDT on June 2, 2006

I am not sure why ‘it takes guts to measure’ Harvard, Princeton and Yale from Berkeley, since US News and World ranks Berkeley as second in Sociology and ‘the royal three’ (in the mythology of old East coast money, which unfortunately they have convinced the rest of us as being true) are not in the top three. Berkeley does as well as these three or better in most of the other social sciences (and I would guess most of the sciences also, although I didn’t check since this guy is a social scientist.)

As for your other comments, it seems mysterious to me that you think that going to the moon is more valuable to humanity than understanding DNA and that as someone who studied law (an interdisciplinary approach) you would be advocating for more focus on disciplines, which I think are pedagogically the wrong way to go.

As an academic who has worked at elite institutions, as well as more working class state schools, it is clear to me that class matters and that much of the hype about elite schools is just that. I haven’t seen much difference in the quality of students in these two sets of institutions, but I have seen many working class students slip through the cracks since they are often struggling to hold full time jobs and work their way through school, which affects their ability to complete their studies, while for wealthy students this is not an issue.

JCO

JCO, at 9:55 am EDT on June 2, 2006

I did not attend Harvard after attending the Harvard Summer Secondary School program because I expected that I would struggle to afford not only the tuition, room, and board, but the social life. I seriously doubt they will be funding these kids to fit in with the rest. Something tells me that just basking in the glow of an ivy league name is not enough to make a difference over another, less expensive and perhaps less prestigious university. The prestige comes from them being mating grounds for the wealthy elites. Being brilliant alone seems to me not enough to gaurantee the benefits of a ivy education.

I got to experience first hand how those without the financial means can be cut out of quite a few social opportunities on the basis of not being able to afford it. It doesn’t make for happy memories outside of hanging out with the other outcasts. I had better times at an excellent public university.

While I was at Harvard, the Crimson published an article about how Harvard had loaned roughly $200 million to Venezuela. Being the bright math-compulsive kid I was, I calculated out how many Harvard educations that could purchase at the time. Even thought it is over 15 years later, calculating on today’s figures still generates an impressive number. I wonder if that money were invested in students how much alumni revenue would compare to return on the Venezuela loan...

Of course, that is still ignoring the prepartion issue. If we are talking just ivy league schools, however, you will find that these are two different issues. Yes, improving overall preparation is important, but the reasons why the poor do not attend the ivy league is not a matter of overall population preparation — there are not enough seats open to all those that could already qualify, so creating a better academically prepared population would just increase the numbers of people not going.

Now that I know how universities are rated, why wouldn’t they just be that more attactive in their own states in that they would enhance their own local universities? Sure, that would improve the overall educational infrastructure, but that’s a seperate issue from entry into the elite schools, which are elite because of socioeconomic class issues, not someone maxing out the SAT or being brilliant in chemistry. It’s two seperate issues.

Ian, at 12:05 pm EDT on June 2, 2006

“The data show that students from the lowest socioeconomic quartile made up just 3 percent of the students at those institutions, while students from families in the highest quartile made up 74 percent (the figures for the other two quartiles, from lowest to highest, were 6 percent and 17 percent, respectively).”

This indicates that more wealthy people send their children to college than the poor. Isn’t family wealth prior to college the real reason that college graduates make more than people who do not attend college?

Scott, at 12:05 pm EDT on June 2, 2006

Good point

Scott has a good point. Family income is a much better predictor of one’s future income than the college they attended. Harvard actually does a very, very poor job of educating students and contributing to learning — the students who go there would be fine regardless of what college they attended; Harvard is not doing anything special.

However, Harvard has to perpetuate the myth of it being a quality institution for two reasons. First, the professors, who could care less about learning and the needs of low-income students, need it to justify their high salaries and prestige. (If a sociology professor at Harvard really cared about low-income students, they would teach at institutions where low-income students enroll and actually work to help them, not just write about it).

Second, the rich need it as a marker of status. By limiting access to only the very rich, it perpetuates and justifies a social order where the best, high paying jobs are awarded to the sons and daughters of the wealthy, providing a barrier of entry to people from less “prestigious,” but higher quality, institutions.

And to think, Harvard receives more public funding than any other college or university in the nation, funding it certainly does not use to help the public.

RS, at 1:15 pm EDT on June 2, 2006

>Grabois also said that such a focus could undermine efforts to fix the underlying causes of the gap in access: the redistribution of wealth that is widening the gap between rich and poor in the United States, and the generally poor state of public education that contributes to so many low-income students being academically underprepared for college. “You would reduce the pressure to change” those problems, Grabois said. “I would rather deal with the issue at its heart.”<

>Arnold Hyndman, president of the New Jersey State Board of Education and a professor of cell biology and neuroscience at Rutgers University, agreed. “This would simply be allowing another set of individuals to enter into the aristocracy, but not doing anything to change the nature of our society.<

The problem is the labeling of a good school today is a misnomer. It’s a credential. It’s great thing to have on your resume. But I’d argue with the idea that it does that much today for your education vs. a decent school and that even the boost it gives to a person’s career is overrated.

When you take into account the amount of grade inflation plus how few students flunk out at top schools, I just find it difficult to make the case that these schools are much more rigorous (at Ivy League schools a ~3.4/3.5 avg gpa for a class is common, at top public schools it’s usually ~3.0).

The acceptance procedures are a completely different story and you could obviously argue that the fact that people are competing against much better students means it’s still tougher academically and they’ll be better able to compete when they come out.

Here’s my problem with it. With a school like Harvard or Yale, you’re admitting the top fraction of a percent of students in a given year. If the students that elite schools are admitting are the best of the best and have been prepped to beat everybody else upon graduation, I just don’t think numbers in standardized tests afterwards show it.

The avg. LSATs for grads of elite schools are in the lower 160s. These range from the top 10 to 5 percentile. This a great stat, but when you take into account that these numbers from people who were judged to be among the top few thousand people in the U.S. others going to college (out of 1-2 million people) this is, at best, a case of what would have expected from these students in their senior year of high school and at worst a case of underperformance. What this doesn’t show is a few colleges having provided a serious boost over their competition when it comes to I.Q.

They still provide a boost when it comes to the job market, but, given some of the statements of the profs here, I think someone ought to make it clear to them this is not Victorian England and that few of their grads would have been considered part of the aristocracy even by its standards.

At the height of their influence on upper class America, the benefits of a Harvard or Yale degree were the benefits of a social club. It’s much more meritocratic today, but as much as I hate to say it—nepotism sucks, but it always helps if you’re the one benefiting from it. The older ways of admitting students may have been incredibly unfair, but the students they did admit gained a lot from networking with a bunch of kids who descended from old money or were the sons of CEOs. Networking among people picked more for their intelligence and their extracurriculars in high school may be fairer and, hell, may be a more enjoyable way to spend four years, but I don’t it produces the same career advantages as it did in the past.

Here this is a career survey of the Princeton class of 2005.

http://web.princeton.edu/sites/ca.../surveys/CareerSurveyReport2005.html

These are nice salaries. They’re great numbers for someone in their early 20’s. But they aren’t the incomes of the upper class. Academics in the article talk about top schools selecting the aristocracy in way that’s just outdated.

>But Neil Grabois, president of the Carnegie Corporation of New York and a fellow presenter, said he worried that spending significant time and energy on crafting an entirely new way of helping relatively small numbers of needy students gain admission to selective institutions would be a distraction from the larger problem: “enabling people of talent to go to” college at all. “I worry about a system put together for admission to some elite institutions as if they were the only ones,<

Here’re the median family incomes for the last few year adjusted for inflation.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0104583.html

Now, argue over CPI all you want (I’m interested in anything better), but this just isn’t something that worries me.

There are a lot of colleges in this country that have essentially open admissions. Is there really anybody in this country who wants to go to college who couldn’t do it? Is it possible for some people it’s just not a good investment?

SA, at 6:40 pm EDT on June 2, 2006

...other participants in the discussion expressed concern that Karabel’s emphasis on increasing the flow of low-income students to the relatively small number (100-150) of academically selective institutions was too narrow,

I think Thomas Sowell has contended that subsequent occupational performance of graduates of these institutions has little to due with the specific characteristics of their educational program and much to do with the characteristics of the students antecedent to their enrollment. If I recall correctly, he cites longitudinal studies of the incomes of graduates of elite institutions with those admitted to said institutions who had actually attended elsewhere. In effect their admission was an indicator of a certain sort of competence, a competence not much enhanced by their course work.

...and had the potential to distract policy makers and higher education officials from the much larger problem of getting terribly underprepared students from lower socioeconomic groups to a level where they are ready for any college.

Is it two much to ask whence came this notion that tertiary education ought to be universal and that superintendants of tertiary institutions should merely passively adjust to the failures of secondary institutions? Why not improve the primary and secondary institutions and stop prolonging adolescence?

.. [Karabel] offered previously released data prepared by Anthony P. Carnevale and Stephen J. Rose about the composition of the student bodies at 146 selective institutions. The data show that students from the lowest socioeconomic quartile made up just 3 percent of the students at those institutions, while students from families in the highest quartile made up 74 percent (the figures for the other two quartiles, from lowest to highest, were 6 percent and 17 percent, respectively). He presented figures, as well, showing the almost equally strong correlation between family income and scores on standardized test scores.

What is the path of causality here? Did anyone at this confabulation offer as a hypothesis that family income might be a function of the productivity of one’s labor, and that that productivity might be a function of characteristics that stand one in good stead in the realm of academic competition and that said characteristics can be imparted to one’s children in various ways?

Again, perhaps they are affluent because they are intelligent, and perhaps intelligent parents tend to raise intelligent children. Been known to happen.

...Karabel said, ...“You have to look at how well students have done given the opportunities available to them,” he said. He proposed a several-step formula that would take into account the students family, neighborhood, and school...

“If you have these three things, you can build a comprehensive portrait of kind of opportunities that have been available to the student,” Karabel argued.

None of this sounds vicious. Please be it noted, though, that a student who has performed ‘better than expected’ may perform indifferently overall and be overmatched in certain settings.

But Neil Grabois, president of the Carnegie Corporation of New York ...said that such a focus could undermine efforts to fix the underlying causes of the gap in access: the redistribution of wealth that is widening the gap between rich and poor in the United States...

The distribution of both assets and income in 1969 was more egalitarian than it is today (though people were generally less affluent). Comparatively fewer people attended college as well. If there is a ‘gap in access’ that has grown worse over the last 35 years, did Dr. Grabois offer any opinions on whether the relentless upward march in the (inflation-adjusted) price of a semester of college might have had some effect?

and the generally poor state of public education that contributes to so many low-income students being academically underprepared for college. “You would reduce the pressure to change” those problems, Grabois said. “I would rather deal with the issue at its heart.”

Ditto. Why not improve those institutions to such an extent that people would be prepared to earn a living at a skilled trade after a mere 13 years of formal education, rather than 16 years?

Why is it the purpose of institutions of higher education to ‘change the nature of society’ rather than something more mundane like ‘imparting knowledge’? Will the non-Us and the public officials they elect be consulted as to the characteristics of this change, or is it to be worked out amongst the faculty, the foundations, and the judiciary? Would anyone go into debt to the tune of $20,000 a year in order to be present while someone else was engaged in a project to ‘change’ ’society’?

Here is a question, is it possible that institutions of higher education (as opposed to the individual departments within them) have no corporate purpose aside from

1. Salaried employment for intellectuals;

2. Providing a signal to the labor market as to salient characteristics of potential employees;

3. Provide a setting for said salaried intellectuals to indulge in equalitarian projects as exercises in exhibiting their fancied virtue and congratulating themselves?

The foregoing might seem uncharitable, but please explain why these discussions seem always to carry the assumption or reach the conclusion that what America needs is more constituents for higher education (and thus needs to employ more professors). Please also explain why our faculties seem never to be able to agree on a serious Core curriculum but seem unanimous that comparatively talented blacks or working-class folk need nothing more than to be on the patronage of benevolent souls on the faculty.

Art Deco, MISTAKEN PREMISES?, at 12:30 am EDT on June 3, 2006

Fix the secondary public schools first

Emphasis should be on making public secondary schools excellent, and not on developing a program that would effect very, very few students. Part of an excellent education would include excellent college counseling so that students know their options. I don’t think focusing on elite universities would help the average smart poor student.

Very poor students, those with NO financial assets, have an impossible time, even if they are very smart. By no financial assets, I’m thinking of a family that makes $20,000, and cannot contribute one cent to a child’s college education. There aren’t enough scholarships to go round, and these students often get extremely poor college counseling, so that they don’t even know their options. I’m aware of two colleges, Berea College in Kentucy, and School of the Ozarks in Missouri, who will take qualified poor students, obtain Pell grants, have them work for 20 hours a week, and not charge another cent. Why don’t we have more colleges like that?

Pat

Pat, Former professor, at 11:05 pm EDT on June 3, 2006

I’d like to echo part of what Pat and OJC have said:

1. Getting a few more working class students to elite schools, is fine in and of itself, but will not sufficiently address the problem of access to education.

2. Harvard, Princeton, Berkeley and the like are far from the only schools offering a good undergraduate education. It would be more useful to get students better funded, so that they can take better advantage of the educational opportunities they already have.

3. Failing students at working class institutions like mine, fail because of poor K-12 instruction, and/or because they are working so many hours that they either cannot devote enough time to their studies.

4. Other students with long work weeks do pass their courses and graduate, but not with high enough grades to be competitive for graduate school.

5. Still others do attain such grades, but have not been in a position to take advantage of programs such as study abroad which can really enrich one’s undergraduate education.

6. Very important, something I learned from working at an elite private school, is that even if they do get in and get funded, students without money cannot afford the ski trips, spring breaks abroad, nights at the opera, and so on which are important in the social life of these schools.

7. I have known poor students who were convinced to take large loans to attend elite schools, so that they could ‘make connections’ which would help them out at graduation time. They have discovered that to make such connections, they would have needed parents who had such connections. In other words, those connections are often just cross-generational re-connections.

8. Good college counseling is really important, both before and during college.

Professor Zero, at 5:20 am EDT on June 12, 2006

Jobs Related to Opening Up the Elites

or search for jobs directly.

Student Finance Representative
Corinthian Colleges

Everest College is a world-class educational institution and a rapidly growing part of Corinthian Colleges, Inc. At ... see job

Communications and Change Management Lead
Harvard University

Financial Administration Systems Solutions

Duties And Responsibilities: For the Harvard ... see job

Dean, School of Nursing
University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill

The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill invites applications and nominations for the position of dean of the School ... see job

Student Finance Planner
Corinthian Colleges

Everest College, a respected member of the Corinthian Colleges’ network of schools, is dedicated to helping students ... see job

Assoc Dean of Clinical Affairs & Medical Dir of Ecu Phys
East Carolina University

East Carolina University, a constituent institution of the University of North Carolina, is a doctoral institution with an ... see job

Social Work Community Faculty: Spring 2009
University of Minnesota, Twin Cities

The University of Minnesota is a premier employer and a talent magnet attracting leading faculty and staff from around the ... see job

Open Rank (RP# 854)
University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill

(Departments to be determined) The UNC Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, in collaboration with departments in the ... see job

Fiscal Technician II
University of South Carolina

A leader in academe, the University of South Carolina holds the Carnegie Foundation’s highest research designation and is ... see job

Tenure Track Full-Time Faculty Opening — Criminal Justice Generalist
California University of Pennsylvania

Located on the Appalachian Plateau, an area of rolling hills, California University of Pennsylvania is a short drive from ... see job

Dean of Academic Affairs
Hillsborough Community College

Hillsborough Community College is a public, comprehensive multi-campus, state-supported community college located in the ... see job

Opening Up the Elites

Related stories

Comments

So far behind — stop at the top & work down

Talk is cheap

Good point

Fix the secondary public schools first

Jobs Related to Opening Up the Elites

Student Finance Representative Corinthian Colleges

Communications and Change Management Lead Harvard University

Dean, School of Nursing University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill

Student Finance Planner Corinthian Colleges

Assoc Dean of Clinical Affairs & Medical Dir of Ecu Phys East Carolina University

Social Work Community Faculty: Spring 2009 University of Minnesota, Twin Cities

Open Rank (RP# 854) University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill

Fiscal Technician II University of South Carolina

Tenure Track Full-Time Faculty Opening — Criminal Justice Generalist California University of Pennsylvania

Dean of Academic Affairs Hillsborough Community College