Skip repetitive navigational links
View: Next message | Previous More Hitsmessage
Next in topic | Previous More Hitsin topic
Next by same author | Previous More Hitsby same author
Previous page (January 2007) | Back to main LRNASST-L page
Join or leave LRNASST-L (or change settings)
Reply | Post a new message
Search
Log in
Options:   Chronologically | Most recent first
Proportional font | Non-proportional font

Subject:

Re: Math for Liberal Arts Majors

From:

Nic Voge <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Open Forum for Learning Assistance Professionals <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Thu, 11 Jan 2007 09:31:01 -0800

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (365 lines)

Thanks, Leigh,
You get to the heart of the issue much more concisely than I could. 
Your final point makes me think of an article I just read from the 
Chronicle of Higher Education 
http://chronicle.com/weekly/v53/i19/19b00901.htm in which the author 
reviews a book that explores how colleges and universities perpetuate 
inequality through, for instance, admissions and funding practices, 
and thus maintains the status quo. On your analysis the curriculum 
itself serves, at least in part, a similar function.
Nic

PS I've pasted below the text of the article I referenced.

>I always enjoy reading your responses, Nic.  I am working on my dissertation
>which is heavily reliant on curriculum theory from a poststructuralist
>perspective.  The questions you raise closely align with those that I think
>are important.  We need to consider where we get our ideas about what it
>means to be "educated", the ways in which certain curricula lend to the
>maintenance of a status quo, and how we can be persistent in exposing the
>covert ideologies embedded in the canon by rigorously examining the
>assumptions that undergird the (re)production of any particular "standard".
>I am of the opinion that most curricular conventions are the result of
>contingent turns in history, and political and polemical interests, that
>serve to ensure that the folks who first attended/succeeded in college are
>the same ones that do so today.
>
>K. Leigh Hamm Forell
>ACC
>Student Recruitment Manager
>610.2 HBC
>512.223.7695
>
>
>
--How Colleges Perpetuate Inequality
By PETER SACKS
Colleges, once seen as beacons of egalitarian hope, are becoming 
bastions of wealth and privilege that perpetuate inequality. The 
chance of a low-income child obtaining a bachelor's degree has not 
budged in three decades: Just 6 percent of students from the 
lowest-income families earned a bachelor's degree by age 24 in 1970, 
and in 2002 still only 6 percent did. Lower still is that child's 
chance of attending one of America's top universities.
But while the growing class divide may be among the most compelling 
higher-education stories, political and educational leaders have been 
slow to respond. The rich and powerful of both the left and the right 
seem to have convinced them that confronting that divide comes at 
their peril. Members of America's ruling class have too much at 
stake, including family legacies, for their children not to follow in 
their footsteps to Harvard, Yale, or Michigan.
A growing number of scholars and journalists, however, are beginning 
to note the disturbing trends. Among them is Daniel Golden, whose 
recent book, The Price of Admission: How America's Ruling Class Buys 
Its Way Into Elite Colleges - and Who Gets Left Outside the Gates 
(Crown Publishers, 2006) details the myriad ways that, for those born 
with silver spoons, standards are relaxed and hands are held through 
every stage of the admissions process at selective colleges. In 
return for such favors, wealthy parents and donors lavish such 
institutions with money.
Those may not be astonishing revelations for some readers. But The 
Price of Admission, based upon articles that originally appeared in 
The Wall Street Journal, is nevertheless a remarkable piece of 
investigative reporting, confirming for readers what they perhaps 
long suspected. Golden names names and finds smoking guns. He devotes 
one chapter, for instance, to the rise of Duke University as an elite 
institution. By taking to unprecedented heights the practice of 
"development admits," Golden reports, it fudged academic standards 
for rich kids at the high price of "the integrity of [its] admissions 
process."
Golden paints a similar portrait of Harvard, the richest university 
on the planet with an endowment of more than $25-billion. He explains 
how it has perfected the art of producing wealthy, well-connected 
alumni who will generously give back to their alma mater. To do that, 
Harvard doesn't necessarily want the brightest students, but rather 
socially "well rounded" ones who are most likely to become highly 
paid executives, lawyers, or investment bankers, or powerful 
politicians. Thus, while its overall admission rate is about 9 
percent, Golden figures the rate for students from families who are 
part of the Committee on University Resources, a select group of 
wealthy donors, is well over 50 percent.
And so it goes in Golden's condemning account, as he offers similar 
stories of legacy admissions at the University of Notre Dame and what 
he calls celebrity admissions at Brown University (where the media 
mogul Michael Ovitz seems to have parlayed fame and fortune into 
admission for his son, whom Golden describes as a mediocre student). 
After a host of admissions favors given to wealthy donors, legacies, 
and recruited athletes, the poor "unhooked" schmucks who must compete 
in the regular applicant pool have to "walk on water," as one Notre 
Dame official put it, to have any chance at such places. 
Elite-college admissions is corrupt, or at least corruptible, Golden 
suggests, because the influence of wealth and power is commonplace.
Unfortunately, the examples he cites start to blend together: Elite 
College X bends its standards to admit the children of the rich and 
famous. As a series of articles, that made for fascinating reading, 
but whether the material has enough depth and variety for a big-think 
book may be a question for readers familiar with recent trends in 
higher education.
Moreover, the ground Golden covers is but a chapter in the larger 
story of how higher education is infused with class biases, and the 
issues are thornier and more complex than he portrays. He doesn't 
explore, for example, how one's advantages or disadvantages from 
birth are compounded at each step of the education system by how 
colleges define merit and interact with families to reward the most 
privileged students.
Golden himself graduated from Harvard in 1974 and is the son of two 
professors. Who's to say that he was more deserving of a Harvard 
education than a son of a janitor from Topeka who scored 150 points 
lower on the SAT? While he tells us that he takes no position on the 
utility of the SAT as an accurate measure of merit, his narrative 
contradicts him at every turn. He can't make implicit judgments about 
the worthiness of a rich donor's son going to Harvard or Duke without 
using its average SAT as his standard.
But educational researchers have long understood that admissions-test 
scores correlate closely with parental income and education, making 
them a reflection of the cultural and educational capital that 
children acquire from families and schools. Thus, children of the 
intellectual elite are arguably as privileged in selective-college 
admissions as the children of rich donors. And if a rich donor's 
child with middling credentials gets into Harvard paying full tuition 
so that the janitor's son might get a scholarship, who is to say that 
the current system isn't better than a strictly "merit"-based one in 
which all candidates can be ranked by SAT scores and high-school 
grades?
The problem, as Golden rightly points out, is that elite colleges 
have largely ignored socioeconomic disadvantage in their calculations 
of merit and their definitions of diversity. The underlying reason 
for that failure, which Golden doesn't confront, is that higher 
education is simply a weird business. Gordon C. Winston, an economics 
professor at Williams College, has observed that colleges are part 
church and part car dealer. They often talk the talk of Martin Luther 
King Jr., but, as self-interested institutions focused on their own 
survival, they more often walk the walk of an investment banker. 
While corporations maximize profits for shareholders, private 
colleges are essentially in the business, not necessarily of 
imparting knowledge or contributing to the public good, but of 
maximizing their endowments. Yet, unlike corporations whose profits 
are a fairly straightforward result of some tangible production 
process, elite colleges' endowments derive from something far more 
intangible: reputation and prestige.
Thus, while such institutions are in the education game, they're also 
in the ratings game, chronicled year in and year out by U.S. News & 
World Report's annual list of "America's best colleges." According to 
U.S. News's worldview, one that has become received wisdom in popular 
culture, good colleges don't result from doing well by students; 
rather, "good" colleges are defined by how attractive their students 
are when they arrive on campus, often based on the average SAT score 
of the freshman class. Hence, colleges engage in all manner of 
sophisticated techniques for identifying, recruiting, and enrolling 
the kinds of students who will contribute to their prestige.
That elite colleges will serve the public good only as long as it 
does not interfere with their financial survival may be an important 
reason why they continue to support affirmative action. The 
relatively small number of members of underrepresented minority 
groups admitted has little impact on endowments, and racial 
preferences allow colleges to preserve definitions of merit that 
largely benefit children from affluent and well-educated families 
that donate money. Elite institutions would be hard pressed not to 
advocate affirmative action while offering equivalent preferences to 
children of alumni - a largely white and affluent group. Indeed, 
Golden argues rather persuasively that it was the link between legacy 
and racial preferences that saved affirmative action in the Supreme 
Court's 2003 rulings in the University of Michigan cases. He notes 
that five of the nine justices had qualified for a legacy preference 
themselves or had children who had.
At the admissions gate, where college officials decide who to enroll, 
low-income students have few, if any, advocates. Nevertheless, the 
rhetoric of college presidents on behalf of such students continues 
to amplify. For instance, at the "Politics of Inclusion: Higher 
Education at a Crossroads" conference in September at the University 
of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, I watched the president of the 
College of William and Mary, Gene R. Nichol, give a stirring speech 
about the need for elite institutions to pay more attention to 
socioeconomic disadvantage, suggesting that the rhetoric of 
inclusiveness was surpassing actual practice. He might have offered 
his own institution as a case in point: Just 8 percent of its 
undergraduates during one recent year were eligible for Pell Grants.
Even though The Price of Admission discusses but a small part of the 
class divide in higher education, one hopes that it will entice more 
people to focus on an issue that isn't getting nearly enough 
attention. Our collective failure to come to grips with the reality 
of our exclusionary system will lead to unfortunate economic 
consequences for the entire nation. Already, the signs are evident 
that the United States will get its proverbial lunch eaten in the 
global marketplace, as other countries are aggressively expanding 
educational opportunity while, here, the rich and powerful enjoy a 
new Gilded Age, policy makers continue to ruminate, and college 
presidents continue to give stirring speeches.
Studies underscoring the problem continue to pile up. A report from 
the Advisory Committee on Student Financial Assist-ance, an 
independent panel that advises Congress, found that during the 1990s 
between 1 million and 1.6 million college-qualified high-school 
graduates from low- and moderate-income families did not complete a 
bachelor's degree, presumably because of financial constraints. This 
decade, the committee estimates, between 1.4 million and 2.4 million 
additional bachelor's degrees will be lost to our economy.
The latest of the alarming reports comes from the College Board in 
its recent book, College Access: Opportunity or Privilege?, edited by 
the economists Michael S. McPherson, president of the Spencer 
Foundation, and Morton Owen Schapiro, president of Williams College. 
The book, based on papers and presentations from a 2005 conference, 
isn't as scintillating as The Price of Admission, but it portrays 
higher education's looming crisis of access with the complexity that 
the subject deserves.
There are no easy answers or obvious villains. For all but the 
richest institutions, enrolling more low-income students boils down 
to a trade-off: Do you provide full scholarships to a limited number 
of low-income students who meet existing admissions criteria for 
grades and test scores, or do you greatly expand access but provide 
limited amounts of financial aid for needy students?
Indeed, virtually all of the highly publicized efforts by top 
institutions - Harvard, the University of Virginia, the University of 
North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and others ensuring that needy 
students graduate debt free - are financially feasible because so few 
lower-income students are admitted. Even if elite colleges don't 
deliberately limit their numbers of low-income students, their 
definitions of merit and their prestige-driven enrollment-management 
practices produce that result.
Many more lower-income students, however, could probably succeed 
quite nicely at even the most selective colleges than those 
institutions have been willing to take in. In one of the more 
provocative papers in College Access, Gordon Winston and Catharine B. 
Hill, then a professor of economics at Williams and now president of 
Vassar College, contrast the demand for lower-income students at 28 
elite private institutions with the national supply of such students 
scoring at different intervals on the SAT. Some 70 percent of the 
students at those colleges come from families in the highest income 
quintile, and just 10 percent come from families in the bottom two 
quintiles.
While the authors have a maddening tendency to suggest that SAT 
performance and "ability" are equivalent concepts - a careless and 
highly debatable assumption - I would suggest that their data do 
powerfully demonstrate that the highly skewed representation of 
lower-income students at the 28 elite colleges stems primarily from 
the SAT. Thus, if those institutions truly wanted to create more 
socioeconomic diversity, they would open up the SAT filter. For 
instance, suppose the colleges were to set their target SAT average 
at 1110, which is perhaps 200 points below their existing average. To 
match the national percentages of lower-income students, the 28 
colleges would have to increase their yearly enrollments of such 
students by 3,300. As to whether there are enough lower-income 
students to meet that demand, the answer is overwhelmingly clear: In 
2003 there were at least 109,000 such students across the nation, and 
perhaps many more, considering that many low-income test takers do 
not report family-income data.
Winston and Hill's interpretation of the results is on the grim side 
because they appear to believe that selective colleges would be 
setting their sights too low by relaxing SAT targets to 1110. "What's 
happened to low-income students before they reach college age means 
that few are in a position to take advantage of a highly demanding 
and selective education, even at a very low price," they write.
That assertion strikes me as condescending, at best, and terribly 
elitist, at worst. More than enough lower-income students are 
prepared to succeed at elite colleges, even by the standards of merit 
that those institutions hold dear. While defenders of the status quo 
warn that relaxing SAT averages would lead to the dumbing down of our 
great higher-education institutions, research documenting efforts to 
diminish the influence of test scores has demonstrated that the dire 
warnings are unfounded.
For example, in a study on the effectiveness of the SAT I to predict 
college performance at the University of California, the researchers 
Saul Geiser and Roger Studley examined 78,000 student records from a 
four-year period, finding that the SAT I was the poorest predictor of 
college performance when compared with high-school grades and the SAT 
II subject tests. In fact, the SAT I added no predictive value beyond 
what could be gleaned from grades and SAT II test scores.
No, the reason selective colleges are socioeconomically homogenous is 
because most of them do not have a business model that can feasibly 
accommodate an influx of needy students. Take the dilemma of Bryn 
Mawr College, which David W. Breneman, dean of the school of 
education at the University of Virginia and a professor there, 
described in College Access. While highly selective, it is among the 
top of its peers in institutional financial aid but has a relatively 
modest endowment. So it is pressured to keep tuition high (and the 
discount rate off the sticker price low) while holding the line on 
costs, which is reflected in its comparatively low faculty salaries.
"The ensuing balancing act that is necessary to lower the discount 
rate while still attracting and helping to finance low-income 
students is a constant tension that the college faces," writes 
Breneman. "For all but the wealthiest colleges, it serves no purpose 
to ignore this financial dilemma and strike moral poses; many 
colleges simply must enroll a reasonable percentage of full-pay 
students in order to balance the budget." At the other end of the 
selectivity scale, Breneman outlines the challenges facing public 
institutions like the University of Illinois at Chicago, where fully 
37 percent of undergraduates receive Pell Grants.
Where is the solution to this puzzle? For his part, Golden challenges 
colleges to adhere to "wealth blind" admissions: They should abolish 
preferences and build ethical fire walls between admissions and 
development offices to prevent conflicts of interest. Some of his 
suggestions may be financially feasible and also modestly increase 
the enrollments of lower-income students at some exclusive colleges. 
The key word here is modestly. If our best colleges really wanted to 
open their gates to lower-income students, they would use admissions 
tests like the SAT a lot more creatively - if they used them at all.
Meanwhile, Harvard recently garnered widespread attention and praise 
for its decision to end its early-admissions program, suggesting that 
such admissions programs are unfair to lower-income students. But a 
far bolder move by Harvard or Princeton - which quickly followed 
Harvard's lead - would be to stop cooperating with the U.S. News 
rankings. Highly regarded Reed College has refused to do so since the 
mid-1990s, following disclosures that some colleges were manipulating 
data to rise in the rankings. Playing Sopranoesque hardball in 
apparent retaliation, the magazine refused Reed's request to be 
dropped, arbitrarily assigning it to second-tier status.
The magazine could play no such games with the likes of Harvard, 
Yale, or Princeton, which have sufficient stocks of institutional 
prestige to go on building endowment regardless of the rankings. But 
their opting out of the rankings game would produce incalculable 
social benefits, not least of which is the rankings' probable demise. 
Smaller, less-wealthy colleges like Bryn Mawr or Reed could pursue 
their missions without having to compete in a prestige-driven arms 
race that relentlessly pressures them to maintain SAT averages, 
limiting their willingness to enroll more needy students.
But the financial constraints remain. Policy makers looking to expand 
socioeconomic diversity at institutions that have culturally and 
economically evolved on the premise of exclusivity - to which 
national leadership in business, politics, and education has been 
closely wedded - face an imposing task.
Perhaps the existing business model will eventually change, whereby a 
renaissance in government support for lower-income students occurs as 
leaders grasp the seriousness of America's economic prospects on the 
global stage. Perhaps, too, that same renaissance will come to the 
aid of ailing public institutions, which the nation has historically 
charged with educating the vast majority of students of modest means. 
As the saying goes, watch what they do, not what they say.
Peter Sacks is author of Standardized Minds: The High Price of 
America's Testing Culture and What We Can Do to Change It (Perseus 
Books, 1999). His new book, Tearing Down the Gates: Confronting the 
Class Divide in American Education, will be published in May by the 
University of California Press.
http://chronicle.com
Section: The Chronicle Review
Volume 53, Issue 19, Page B9

-- 

Knowledge emerges only through invention and reinvention,  through 
the restless, impatient, continuing, hopeful inquiry men pursue in 
the world, with the world, and with each other. --Paolo Freire

Dominic (Nic) J. Voge
Study Strategies Program Coordinator
University of California, Berkeley
Student Learning Center
136 Cesar Chavez Student Center  #4260
Berkeley, CA 94720-4260

(510) 643-9278
[log in to unmask]
http://slc.berkeley.edu

FALL 2006 OFFICE HOURS:
ED 98/198 Office Hours: T 3-4;  W 4-5
Drop-in Hours W 5-6; Th 1-3
Individual Appointments W 10-11; TH 6-8; F 3-4




~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
To access the LRNASST-L archives or User Guide, or to change your
subscription options (including subscribe/unsubscribe), point your web browser to
http://www.lists.ufl.edu/archives/lrnasst-l.html

To contact the LRNASST-L owner, email [log in to unmask]

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

October 2021
September 2021
August 2021
July 2021
June 2021
May 2021
April 2021
March 2021
February 2021
January 2021
December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011, Week 3
January 2011, Week 2
January 2011, Week 1
January 2011
December 2010, Week 5
December 2010, Week 4
December 2010, Week 3
December 2010, Week 2
December 2010, Week 1
November 2010, Week 5
November 2010, Week 4
November 2010, Week 3
November 2010, Week 2
November 2010, Week 1
October 2010, Week 5
October 2010, Week 4
October 2010, Week 3
October 2010, Week 2
October 2010, Week 1
September 2010, Week 5
September 2010, Week 4
September 2010, Week 3
September 2010, Week 2
September 2010, Week 1
August 2010, Week 5
August 2010, Week 4
August 2010, Week 3
August 2010, Week 2
August 2010, Week 1
July 2010, Week 5
July 2010, Week 4
July 2010, Week 3
July 2010, Week 2
July 2010, Week 1
June 2010, Week 5
June 2010, Week 4
June 2010, Week 3
June 2010, Week 2
June 2010, Week 1
May 2010, Week 4
May 2010, Week 3
May 2010, Week 2
May 2010, Week 1
April 2010, Week 5
April 2010, Week 4
April 2010, Week 3
April 2010, Week 2
April 2010, Week 1
March 2010, Week 5
March 2010, Week 4
March 2010, Week 3
March 2010, Week 2
March 2010, Week 1
February 2010, Week 4
February 2010, Week 3
February 2010, Week 2
February 2010, Week 1
January 2010, Week 5
January 2010, Week 4
January 2010, Week 3
January 2010, Week 2
January 2010, Week 1
December 2009, Week 5
December 2009, Week 4
December 2009, Week 3
December 2009, Week 2
December 2009, Week 1
November 2009, Week 5
November 2009, Week 4
November 2009, Week 3
November 2009, Week 2
November 2009, Week 1
October 2009, Week 5
October 2009, Week 4
October 2009, Week 3
October 2009, Week 2
October 2009, Week 1
September 2009, Week 5
September 2009, Week 4
September 2009, Week 3
September 2009, Week 2
September 2009, Week 1
August 2009, Week 5
August 2009, Week 4
August 2009, Week 3
August 2009, Week 2
August 2009, Week 1
July 2009, Week 5
July 2009, Week 4
July 2009, Week 3
July 2009, Week 2
July 2009, Week 1
June 2009, Week 5
June 2009, Week 4
June 2009, Week 3
June 2009, Week 2
June 2009, Week 1
May 2009, Week 5
May 2009, Week 4
May 2009, Week 3
May 2009, Week 2
May 2009, Week 1
April 2009, Week 5
April 2009, Week 4
April 2009, Week 3
April 2009, Week 2
April 2009, Week 1
March 2009, Week 5
March 2009, Week 4
March 2009, Week 3
March 2009, Week 2
March 2009, Week 1
February 2009, Week 4
February 2009, Week 3
February 2009, Week 2
February 2009, Week 1
January 2009, Week 5
January 2009, Week 4
January 2009, Week 3
January 2009, Week 2
January 2009, Week 1
December 2008, Week 5
December 2008, Week 4
December 2008, Week 3
December 2008, Week 2
December 2008, Week 1
November 2008, Week 5
November 2008, Week 4
November 2008, Week 3
November 2008, Week 2
November 2008, Week 1
October 2008, Week 5
October 2008, Week 4
October 2008, Week 3
October 2008, Week 2
October 2008, Week 1
September 2008, Week 5
September 2008, Week 4
September 2008, Week 3
September 2008, Week 2
September 2008, Week 1
August 2008, Week 5
August 2008, Week 4
August 2008, Week 3
August 2008, Week 2
August 2008, Week 1
July 2008, Week 5
July 2008, Week 4
July 2008, Week 3
July 2008, Week 2
July 2008, Week 1
June 2008, Week 5
June 2008, Week 4
June 2008, Week 3
June 2008, Week 2
June 2008, Week 1
May 2008, Week 5
May 2008, Week 4
May 2008, Week 3
May 2008, Week 2
May 2008, Week 1
April 2008, Week 5
April 2008, Week 4
April 2008, Week 3
April 2008, Week 2
April 2008, Week 1
March 2008, Week 5
March 2008, Week 4
March 2008, Week 3
March 2008, Week 2
March 2008, Week 1
February 2008, Week 5
February 2008, Week 4
February 2008, Week 3
February 2008, Week 2
February 2008, Week 1
January 2008, Week 5
January 2008, Week 4
January 2008, Week 3
January 2008, Week 2
January 2008, Week 1
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002
January 2002
December 2001
November 2001
October 2001
September 2001
August 2001
July 2001
June 2001
May 2001
April 2001
March 2001
February 2001
January 2001
December 2000
November 2000
October 2000
September 2000
August 2000
July 2000
June 2000
May 2000
April 2000
March 2000
February 2000
January 2000
December 1999
November 1999
October 1999
September 1999
August 1999
July 1999
June 1999
May 1999
April 1999
March 1999
February 1999
January 1999
December 1998
November 1998
October 1998
September 1998
August 1998
July 1998
June 1998
May 1998
April 1998
March 1998
February 1998
January 1998
December 1997
November 1997
October 1997
September 1997
August 1997
July 1997
June 1997
May 1997
April 1997
March 1997
February 1997
January 1997
December 1996
November 1996
October 1996
September 1996
August 1996
July 1996
June 1996
May 1996
April 1996
March 1996
February 1996
January 1996
December 1995
November 1995
October 1995
September 1995
August 1995
July 1995
June 1995
May 1995
April 1995
March 1995
February 1995
January 1995

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTS.UFL.EDU

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager