Aug. 21 Outside the Circle

On ‘Real Education’ — I

With the enactment of a new GI Bill, the time has come to once again recall former University of Chicago President Robert Maynard Hutchins’ prediction that the original 1944 legislation benefiting World War II soldiers would convert colleges and universities into “educational hobo jungles.” Perhaps it’s unfair — Hutchins, a veteran himself, was a noted legal scholar and philosopher whose influence on the university he led is still quite visible today. But that’s the price you pay for being so spectacularly (and quotably) wrong about one of the great policy issues of our time. Helping returning veterans attend college was only the beginning of the massive mid-20th century expansion of access to higher education in America. Most people see this as an unequivocal good and a job not yet done.

Looking for a job?

See all 211 new postings

Browse all job listings:

Faculty: 3,532
Administrative: 1,671
Executive: 168
FEATURED EMPLOYERS

Yet an active strain of educational hobo-phobia remains, a persistent, largely sub rosa muttering that perhaps too many of the wrong kind of people are being allowed inside the ivy-covered walls. It’s not respectable conversation outside of conservative circles, due to its unvarnished elitism and 0-for-the-last-60-years-and-counting historical track record. But it lives on, and now has a new standard-bearer in the person of Charles Murray, author along with the late Richard Herrnstein of the hugely controversial 1994 treatise, The Bell Curve. In his new book, Real Education, Murray offers “four simple truths for bringing America’s schools back to reality.” The third is: “Too many people are going to college.”

The book has many flaws, like the fact that the “four simple truths” descriptor is inaccurate. Murray actually offers one simple truth, one tautology, and two opinions (one somewhat legitimate, one not). The one (very) simple truth is that “ability varies,” by which Murray means intelligence, or I.Q. All reasonable people acknowledge this; the question is how it varies, and what that variance means. The tautology is that “half of the children are below average,” an odd statement to offer as evidence in support of Murray’s main subject: educability, which is an absolute quality — not, like below-averageness, a relative one. Basically, Murray believes that (coincidentally!) half of all children are more or less uneducable in the traditional sense and thus need to be identified as such via mandatory first grade I.Q. testing so they can be shunted off into vocational education programs for their own good. This is absurd and immoral, for reasons too numerous to recount here.

Murray continues in a similar vein as he begins the second, higher education-focused half of Real Education. “No more than 20 percent” of students have the innate ability to do college level work, he opines, and really “10 percent is a more reliable estimate.” His evidence: a study showed that students with SATs of X have at least a Y chance of getting decent grades as freshmen at 41 average-or-above colleges. Only about10 percent of students actually score that high on the SAT, ergo the rest have no business trying to get a B.A.

Among the many problems with this line of reasoning is the fact that roughly 35 percent — not 10 percent — of young adults actually do earn bachelor’s degrees. But Murray simply explains this away as prima facie evidence that academic standards in higher education are too low. Real Education is shot through with this kind of circular reasoning; once you decide that variance in cognitive ability = pervasive uneducability, everything else falls in line. Murray’s only other real “evidence” is a random selection of passages from some survey textbooks, which he notes are “not easy to read.” Indeed, they’re often “demanding to tortuous,” “studded with unexplained references,” replete with words the meaning of which is “sometimes downright obscure.” Notably, this cannot be said of any sentences in Real Education. Why? Because Murray is a good writer who communicates with economy and precision. (Whether this is a function of his I.Q. or Harvard education, I won’t speculate.) Perhaps college students would learn more if the same were true of the people who write their textbooks.

But that idea and others like it lie outside the bounds of Real Education, which is, more than anything else, an argument against the efficacy of schools and universities. It seems not to occur to Murray that a student’s capacity to successfully meet college standards is substantially a function of how well he or she is educated in high school and college, as well as the broader social circumstances in which students live. Instead, the bell curve rules. The book is full of confident and largely unsupported assertions about the cold hard truth of limited human potential, e.g., “people of average reading ability do not understand much of the text in the assigned [college] texts.” Not “may not,” but “do not.” Or: one third of all children are “just not smart enough to become literate or numerate in more than a rudimentary sense.” Stuff like this is catnip for his likely audience: people with an unhealthy appetite for the politically incorrect and a strong need for so-called simple truths.

Murray could have wrapped up his argument for the futility of educating below-average students here, around page 75. But that would have left him well short of a book, even one as slight as this. (Real Education is an expansion of three previously published Wall Street Journal op-eds, and it shows.) So he devotes the remaining 80-some pages to a broader critique of contemporary higher education. And I have to admit: it’s pretty good. He notes that most students go to college primarily to prepare for a career, and that it doesn’t really make sense to assume that such preparation should always take exactly two or four years, regardless of the field. He observes that most institutions haven’t really come to grips with the implications of Web-based distance learning. Lacking any reliable information about the rigor of college learning standards, Murray says, employers mostly use the B.A. as an inexpensive first-cut screen for general, non-academic attributes and skills, to the detriment of capable applicants who drop out of college or never go. Fair critiques, all.

Murray then turns to an impassioned argument for the restoration of liberal education. The nation is run by an “unelected elite” of cognitive top-10-percents, he says: CEOs, journalists, doctors, lawyers, scientists, clergy, even (because we’re apparently still in 1944) “a large number of housewives” who lead local civic organizations. For all of our sake, they need a college education that teaches them to be wise as well as smart, that trains them in the arts of rigorous verbal expression and nuanced judgment. They need to be steeped in our shared intellectual inheritance, to reflect on the human yearning for transcendence and grapple with timeless conceptions of virtue. I agree; I just think this is true for far more people than Murray allows. Lose the I.Q. determinism and the second half of Real Education is worth reading.

It’s wrong to say that too many students are going to college. Too few are going, particularly those from disadvantaged communities. The history of American education is one long series of decisions to open up the halls of academia to students who, at the time, were looked down upon as undeserving. The naysayers have been disproven, over and over again. More broadly, our nation has long had an usually open economy and education system, one that puts a premium on second and third chances and shies away from giving the government power to shut citizens out of educational opportunities based on some imperfect estimate of “ability.” Again, the wisdom of this philosophy in hindsight seems clear.

But it’s fair to say that too many students are going to colleges that are unprepared to serve them well. Colleges often seem unwilling to make the hard choices required to provide a true liberal education to the students who want and/or need one, while simultaneously failing to adjust their ways of teaching and credentialing to a world where 75 percent of high school graduates go to college and many are primarily interested in training for a productive career. In observing this — and only this — Charles Murray has a point.

Kevin Carey is the research and policy manager of Education Sector. He blogs about K–12 and higher education policy issues at The Quick and the Ed. An archive of his Outside the Circle columns may be found here.

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

All things are not equal...

“Murray believes that (coincidentally!) half of all children are more or less uneducable in the traditional sense and thus need to be identified as such via mandatory first grade I.Q. testing so they can be shunted off into vocational education programs for their own good.”

Of course, one study after another shows that the vast majority of Murray’s elite 50% would be kids who come from a culture of privilage. I might agree with Mr. Murray if all children came from intact high income families living in the best neighborhoods and attended all the best schools.

Until then Mr. Murray, you are living in a fairy tale.

dundermifflin, at 8:05 am EDT on August 21, 2008

Murray needs to read a little more about early childhood education, pre-literacy learning, and brain development and plasticity. When you look at 18-year-olds, differences in ability are evident. Differences among the very young are not nearly so clear, and possibly moot. Those babies who are lucky enough to be born into lively, enriched, nurturing, and highly linguistic environments develop brain cells and structures at an astounding rate, especially in the linguistic areas of the brain that are the foundation of all other learning.

Belief in “native IQ” is not only politically incorrect: it’s simply ignorant.

PreK — Postgrad advocate, at 9:00 am EDT on August 21, 2008

Why?

I know that Inside Higher Ed likes to generate hits by featuring discussions of provocative ideas. But I think it borders on extreme irresponsibility to give this much attention to Charles Murray’s slobbering praise-poem to the corporate magnates that bankroll the American Enterprise Institute. I’m sorry, but I was under the impression that we stopped taking Social Darwinism and eugenics seriously a long time ago. Few things are more embarrassing than watching rich people imagine that they enjoy their privileges because of their superior intelligence. I really don’t think anyone should have to waste their time defending the idea that higher education should be available to those outside of a tiny, elite group that feels itself born to rule over their less intelligent peers. This is a real expression of contempt for education itself: anyone with teaching experience regularly encounters students who seem to have no potential whatsoever but are inspired by a lecture or a reading and ultimately become gifted teachers, journalists, businesspeople, etc. It may come as a shock to Charles Murray that those who are not born into affluence are often mentally equipped to do things other than clean his house or shine his shoes.

Alfred, at 10:00 am EDT on August 21, 2008

Usual suspects

” .. Until then Mr. Murray, you are living in a fairy tale.”

Of course — Communist countries were perfect. No one got more than anyone else. Everything was equal.

Uh .. Mao imprisoned intellectuals? Stalin gave better housing to weapons inventors? There’s never been a perfect Utopia for the far-left?

Never mind. Utopian theory is so much easier to deal with, in non-reality.

Frank A., at 11:55 am EDT on August 21, 2008

I would like to second Alfred’s comment above, and add to my own above his. People are capable of learning throughout life, and, given a spark of interest and self-confidence, often do. Although the key language-learning capacity of the brain slows during adolescence, it is now accepted that the brain is largely plastic throughout life and will continue growing in response to stimulation. Every college student is capable of learning, and will learn at an increasing rapid rate in the right circumstances.

Learning begets learning. Mr. Murray should challenge his own brain, which seems to have stultified around 1944, with some new ideas.

PreK — Postgrad Advocate, at 11:55 am EDT on August 21, 2008

Thanks, Kevin Carey

Thank you for the article, ISE and Kevin Carey. This is a book that I would normally never pick up to read, but I know people that would, many of whom vote. These are the same people who believe that strict Creationism or Intelligent Design should be taught in high school biology classes alongside the “Theory” of Evolution. I do need to know what they are reading and hearing, and they watch FOX News, where Murray was interviewed (http://tinyurl.com/5p9nuq) about this book on August 18. Not surprisingly, the interview gives a much different take on the book than this article.

Denise Peeler, at 11:55 am EDT on August 21, 2008

There He Goes Again

Years after his book The Bell Curve has faded, here we find Charles Murray still professing unwavering faith in the IQ. The Bell Curve’s past readers still bask in the warm glow of the author’s flattery, as he asserted (p 121) that the book’s readers must be “very bright” (above the 95th percentile) even to peruse it. If mere readers are so intelligent, imagine where on the bell curve the author must confidently place himself.

Just look at Murray’s deft handling of the syllogism: After asserting in The Bell Curve that welfare mothers have little schooling and poor reading, he says “Poor reading skills and little schooling define populations with lower-than-average IQ, so even without access to IQ tests, it can be deduced that welfare mothers have lower-than-average intelligence” (p 193). Having mastered deductive logic, Dr. Murray can doubtless help us with this one: “(1) In deductive logic, nincompoops affirm the consequent. (2) Charles Murray affirms the consequent. (3) Therefore, ???? is a ????”

(Phone rings at the American Enterprise Institute: “Dr. Murray, it’s the political science department at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Your PhD is being recalled.”)

Alas, whatever the virtues of his undergraduate education at Harvard, for Dr. Murray, learning a disciplined skepticism about one’s own worldview is a lesson he apparently missed. His faith in IQ is as fundamental as his liberal education is (apparently) unfinished.

An Old Goat, at 12:00 pm EDT on August 21, 2008

Attempt reality

“Murray needs to read a little more about early childhood education, pre-literacy learning, and brain development and plasticity.”

Y’all need to read the psych-research on those who meet their personal goals.

Contrary to the Public Education Monopoly — the research found education was NOT sufficient for personal goals. It was natural abilities — basic intelligence, personal drive, strong personal networks, and other factors.

In fact — a case could be made that many people manage to reach their goals despite low-quality public education.

All the money in the world cannot compensate for poor personal choices and dysfunctional personal networks. Never has and never will.

L.L., at 12:00 pm EDT on August 21, 2008

“Few things are more embarrassing than watching rich people imagine that they enjoy their privileges because of their superior intelligence. I really don’t think anyone should have to waste their time defending the idea that higher education should be available to those outside of a tiny, elite group that feels itself born to rule over their less intelligent peers.”

This is a pretty obvious strawman. Where does Murray argue anything remotely like this? Can you cite his language?

JBM, at 12:05 pm EDT on August 21, 2008

Is Murray controversial? Of course. But his book, “The Bell Curve,” forced people to think more deeply about the concept of intelligence. I’m sure this book will do the same about college attendance. And unlike a lot of other people, Murray can change his mind. His critique last year of the continued use of the SAT I in college admissions is strong stuff.

Patrick Mattimore, Praise for Murray, at 1:15 pm EDT on August 21, 2008

Rather than distract ourselves with Murray’s controversial ideas, let’s focus instead on making sure that the higher levels of education we need as a nation to succeed economically and socially are giving us the quality of graduates we need. There is much room for improvement, particularly in assuring that those entering higher education have the basic skills needed to pass college-level courses. And there certainly are diploma mills that have no business taking money from anyone—individuals, taxpapers, or other funders. They are fraudulent and should be driven out of business. But it is inaccurate and counterproductive to equate all institutions that teach work-related skills and knowledge with those that exist only to take the money and run.

Many of the people whose lives would be improved by education are and will be earning degrees at community colleges and on-line degree-granting schools (both for-profit and not-for-profit). The many faculty and administrators we know well at such places are competent and dedicated to providing quality education to their students. As someone who holds undergraduate and graduate degrees from ‘elite’ institutions, who teaches at an ‘elite’ university, and who has taken on-line and classroom courses from ‘lesser’ institutions, I know first hand that my experiences with the latter compared reasonably well in quality and rigor to my ‘elite’ education.

Would more consistent degree standards be helpful? Probably. The Bologna Process in the EU is one approach, although certainly not the only one. (See an earlier IHE article: http://www.insidehighereducation.com/news/2008/07/28/bologna ) In the meantime, though, let’s not throw out the pasta with the boiling water.

The U.S. ranks a distant 10th (among OECD countries).at 37.1% of age 25-34 adults with 2-year degrees or higher. Canada leads with 54%, followed closely by Japan at 53% and Korea at 51%. By state, Massachusetts leads at 49.2%, with the lowest states in the 25-30% range. The poorest states are also the least educated. For more information on the economic and social costs of low education levels, go to: http://www.cael.org/adultlearninginfocus.htm

Our entire economy is in transition. Many good jobs that existed here a generation or two ago simply do not exist. On the other hand, we are struggling with shortages in critical job categories that require higher education, such as health care and technology. Yes, let’s get rid of the fraudulent colleges; write to your state legislators. But let’s focus our knowledge, creativity, and money on the best ways to provide both the general education that teaches people how to think critically and learn, and the work-related education that builds upon these skills and gives people the opportunity to earn a good living for themselves and their families.

Cecelia Burokas, Consulting Practice Leader at CAEL (Council for Adult and Experiential Learning), at 1:15 pm EDT on August 21, 2008

It is suspect alright!

“Of course — Communist countries were perfect. No one got more than anyone else. Everything was equal.”

Frank, I fail to see how communist oligarchs are any different than capitalist oligarchs. I argue for making sure that all talent has a chance to succeed and your reponse is...out in left field...or maybe right field. Try center field for awhile.

“There’s never been a perfect Utopia for the far-left?”

Or the far-right including Mr. Murray’s theory, but then I was acknowledging that we do not currently live in one with my comments...which you seemed to miss...and is no excuse for letting otherwise intelligent people atrophy because oligarchs don’t want to spend any money.

dundermifflin, at 2:50 pm EDT on August 21, 2008

On Being Too Easily Annoyed

I would have thought that Professor Carey – and I suppose Charles Murray as well — would have been much more careful about his use of “average,” as in “The tautology is that ‘half of the children are below average,’” especially when it is sooooo easy to make an accurate statement in that situation.

Consider the following set of IQ scores ...

S = {105, 118, 110, 108, 219, 111, 109, 110, 112, 108}

The average – which I take to be the mean – is 120, and more than 90% are below average. Tautology indeed!

So how does one express that point accurately? If we substitute “median” for “average,” the statement is still untrue. In our example, the median is 110, and only 36% are below the median. This is a situation that sometimes occurs when we have a relatively small (finite) set of numbers.

What some (certainly Murray) assume to be true is that the distribution of intelligence (scores) in the general population is normal (bell shaped) – in which case the average and the median coincide – so it’s not unreasonable to say half the children are below “average.” And please don’t miss my hedging with quotation marks.

On the other hand, most colleges and universities have “lower bound” entrance requirements, so they typically lop off the applicants with intelligence (scores) at the lower end of that distribution, all the while eagerly pursuing applicants with characteristics highly correlated with intelligence near the top of the scale. What I’m suggesting is that the distribution of “intelligence” at Miami-Dade Community College may be close to normally distributed (bell-shaped), but surely at Duke, for example, (1) the distribution of “intelligence” is seriously skewed to the right, (2) the mean (average) will be larger than the median, and (3) more than half – and perhaps considerably more than half – will be below average. Given this domain of definition, it’s accurate to say either “The tautology is that ‘at least half of the children are below the average’” or “The tautology is that ‘approximately half of the children are below the median.’”

“Tautology” ... “average” ...”median” ... I apologize. I suppose I’m too easily irritated.

Frizbane Manley, at 7:45 pm EDT on August 21, 2008

Successful — without college

To follow on “research found education was NOT sufficient for personal goals ..”

http://www.forbes.com/2008/06/30/...edropouts_slide_2.html?partner=yahoo

If a college degree guaranteed career success — colleges would offer guarantees. Colleges don’t — they just suggest it in marketing flyers.

Yes, employers use the B.A. or B.S. as a “winnowing” device on applicants, viz. the Duke Power case. A few are beginning to re-think that basically-empty concept, using objective testing.

Gates played a lot of poker in college. Dell used his dorm room as an office. Lucky for them, they did not let “formal education” get in the way of their goals and interests.

L.L., at 9:50 am EDT on August 22, 2008

Of course conservatives and social darwinists (is there a difference?) always have absolute answers because they have never engaged in self-reflective thought. Mr. Murray is a case in point. Probably the most serious defect in his argument is that he simply does not know his world has changed. One cannot sell computers to the illiterate! The end result of his worldview would be many illiterate or barely literate and a virtual loss of the consumer sector of the economy that is so dependent upon computerized images and computer use. His worldview was fine for the Ford Edsel Days of world organization, but that is not the world that we live in anymore (and it did not work even then but conservatives always like the 1950s). Nevertheless, Mr. Murray does draw attention to a serious and continuing problem in higher education. We continue to educate people for “knowledge-jobs,” but our global economy requires careful, reflective thought (that Mr. Murray does not have)that is centered in a clear sense of self. Mr. Murray got some of that at Harvard, but he missed the point about Harvard as an institution that is supposed to serve a democratic society with compassion and sensitivity. He certainly does seem to characterize conservative elties and their worldview. Therein, lies the fault of Mr. Murray and Harvard!Bill Jacobks.

Bill Jacobks, Instructor at Muskegon Community College, at 10:50 am EDT on August 22, 2008

“Of course conservatives and social darwinists (is there a difference?) always have absolute answers because they have never engaged in self-reflective thought.”

Can you see any potential irony in such a declaration?

JBM, at 2:40 pm EDT on August 22, 2008

Carey needs to reread

I am not sure Carey and I read the same book. Apparently he did not realize that hundreds of billions of tax dollars are wasted on people who never finish their bachelor degrees. Also, there are bogus degrees like feminist studies, queer studies (you read that right), ethnic studies, etc. that do nothing but teach hate for certain groups. I have an MBA, but believe me, knowing what I know now, if I had to do it all again, I would have gone STRAIGHT to the nearest Junior college and gotten an HVAC certification, gone to work immediately thereafter, and be making 6 figures within 5 years instead of being in graduate school during that time learning more and more useless information that nobody needs.

Jubal Early 64, at 2:40 pm EDT on August 22, 2008

BLARG

or less uneducable in the traditional sense and thus need to be identified as such via mandatory first grade I.Q. testing so they can be shunted off into vocational education programs for their own good. This is absurd and immoral, for reasons too numerous to recount here.

Psychometric examinations administered once (as opposed to a series of achievement examinations administered at least annually, accross several subjects, for eight or nine years) is arguably foolish. What is your beef with learning trades? Most people are wage-earners, and it borders on the utopian to think you are going to make aesthetes or intellectual hobbyists out of more than a modest minority of people, no matter how much liberal education you try to stuff down their throats. People need to be able to earn a living; to appreciate William Carlos Williams is simply of less importance. There comes a time when additional increments of liberal education are not worth the bother, and that time differs from one person to another.

Instead of continually elongating people’s effective juvenile state by piling on more and more years of ‘college’, why not craft a system of secondary education effective at some task other than providing employment for the graduates of teacher training colleges? We need people who are better schooled, which need not be done through five years of haphazard tertiary education.

Art Deco, Garden Gnome at Whatsamatta U, at 6:10 pm EDT on August 22, 2008

It’s ironic that most people who would call Murry ‘elitist’ seem to look down on vocational career paths. Their solution is to give everyone an empty degree; it’s the egalitarian thing to do. We don’t want anyone to even SEEM to be higher status than anyone else.

E. Moran, at 10:55 pm EDT on August 22, 2008

IHE headline in 2013

Future headline: DEMAND FOR SKILLED CRAFTSPERSONS VERY HIGH

“It’s ironic that most people who would call Murry ‘elitist’ seem to look down on vocational career paths.”

Oh, my. The accredited Audi mechanic making $80,000/year in Charlotte, N.C. is to be pitied for not having access to Marx, Lenin, constructivist post-modernism, and other useful topics?

Where is the justice?

Buzz, at 10:00 am EDT on August 23, 2008

Reality check

After watching two weeks of the Olympics, it reaffirms the fact that some people are more athletic than others, and it is determined by genes. No matter how much I get out and train, I will never be a world class runner, and no matter how hard I study, I’ll never be a rocket scientist. This is my reality, but Kevin’s reality is something different from Murray’s research and plain old “horse sense.”

Some people are smarter than others. Their brains are wired differently. It’s not systematic oppression caused by an unequal distribution of wealth, as the sheeple in the education business profess, that causes some to go to college and some not.

This country continues to spend billions on education “pipe dreams-” money that could be more effectively used for other social benefits. And talk about oppression! Why isn’t it oppressive to force a student to remain in school (K-12) or otherwise brand him a loser? Or force a curriculum that he has no interest in learning?

If we ever get the courage to be realistic and use psychometric data properly, we could help students find their potential and direct them accordingly; instead of, wasting their time and more often money.

Gary Glaucon, at 10:30 am EDT on August 23, 2008

Kevin makes some good points, but misses some as well. Perhaps this is because he is not currently teaching at the university level. As someone who teaches as a large state university (not the state’s flagship), I see many, many students who shouldn’t be in college — shouldn’t be because they don’t know why they are there, are really on there because they have been told they “have to” to get ahead, are not willing or able to do the work assigned, and often don’t finish. Many of the students who don’t graduate do so burdened by student loans.

Kevin raised two important statistics, but doesn’t take the time to discuss what they really mean — 75% of high school graduates go to college, but only about 35% of young adults hold a degree.

kathy, at 4:55 am EDT on August 25, 2008

The Olympics and Genetic Determinism

The way Gary Glaucon sees it, genes determine who will be an Olympic victor. He writes, “After watching two weeks of the Olympics, it reaffirms the fact that some people are more athletic than others, and it is determined by genes.” I think that genetic determinism is patently wrong in both athletes and intellectual matters. It seems obvious that the Olympic victors won because of genes, training, and the performance, sometimes the bad performance, of their competitors.

Does anyone really think that any of them would have won without training? The American who won the decathlon, Michael Clay, is 5-11 and weighs 185 pounds. That is quite small for a decathlete. He threw the discus farther than anyone has ever done in a decathlon. His ceaseless training in that event, a very technical event that requires excellent technique and form, had a large part to do with his performance.

Both the environment (including training and the actions of ones teammates and competitors, etc.) and genes determine the outcomes of sporting events. The same would seem to hold true in intellectual matters. A naturally smart child, whatever that means, won’t score very high on an IQ test after maturing if the child is isolated from other humans and never taught a language.

Also, although many of us are not naturally gifted athletes, think about how much better we do become at sports when we train seriously for them. If the same holds in intellectual matters, then training for intellectual matters, commonly called education, has the potential to make even the average intellect better.

I really don’t understand these ceaseless debates about nature vs. nurture when it is obvious that both are necessary for any determination and that both, in general, play a significant role in determining outcomes.

Eric Brandon, at 6:20 pm EDT on August 25, 2008

Jobs Related to On 'Real Education' - I

or search for jobs directly.

Dean of the College
Haverford College

Haverford College seeks a Dean of the College to provide dynamic, purposeful leadership for a comprehensive program of ... see job

Dean of Learner Engagement
Johnson County Community College

A career at Johnson County Community College is more than a job. We believe it’s important to invest in our employees and ... see job

Nursing Program Administrator/Assistant Dean School of Health Professions
Community College of Baltimore County

Job Responsibilities: The Nursing Program Administrator (NPA)/Assistant Dean of the School of Health ... see job

Assistant Director, Military Outreach 002653
University of Maryland University College

Are you seeking a challenging and rewarding position? Look no further than UMUC... see job

Coordinator for Adult Credit Programs
Fashion Institute of Technology

FIT Where Creativity Gets Down to Business see job

Transfer Advisor
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

Associate Administrator — Diagnostic Radiology and the PET Center
Yale University

General Purpose
Reporting to the Clinical Administrator, with considerable latitude for exercising discretion and ... see job

Education Skills Specialist — Science
San Juan College

Requisition Number: 2961 Number of Positions: 1 Full or Part-Time: Full Time; 12 month position; Grant Funded Wage: ... see job

Associate Dean — College of Visual and Performing Arts
West Chester University of Pennsylvania

Join a vibrant campus community whose excellence is reflected in its diversity and student success. West Chester University ... see job

Supervisor — Decision Lab at the Yale School of Management
Yale University

General Purpose
Develop and manage the experimental infrastructure for research conducted in the Decision Lab at ... see job