Advertisement
Dear Friends World Alumni,
The following document was an email sent out to Robert Glass (Program Dean), Paul Cox (Student Executive) and the FW Listserv. I felt this is important for the alumni to know about and get involved if they are interested. Thanks
Peace,
Tina von Roedern
Current student at the LAC
Concerns, Questions, & Requests Regarding the Friends World Program’s “New Curriculum” & Name Change
As concerned students at the Latin American Center:
o We are concerned that our opinions, ideas, and feelings about the current changes which Friends World is undergoing, were not taken into consideration and we fear the Friends World’s process of consensus is being undermined.
o We believe the opinions, ideas and feelings of the entire Friends World community of students should not only be taken into consideration but channels of dialogue should be created and encouraged in face of changing our curriculum.
o We are concerned that upcoming additions, subtractions and changes to the Friends World Program, as suggested in the new (2007-2008) catalogue, neither represent us as a student body nor what Friends World Program stands for.
o Further, the LAC community is made up primarily of students graduating in 2010, in which case there is a greater concern on behalf of these students; we are not convinced that the “new curriculum” will not affect us, especially come “junior year.” Although it has been stated that the “new curriculum” will not apply to us as current students, we are concerned for the intangible effects of the ideological/methodological changes in our futures within the Friends World community.
o Further, we believe the present changes to the Friends World Program were executed too rapidly and opaquely. It therefore makes it difficult for us to determine the motivations/justifications behind the changes and what processes were taken to reach the content of the “new curriculum.”
o Further, we have discovered that many creative ideas exist among our student population as to how we can change certain aspects of FWP to improve it, publicize it, and preserve it. However, we are concerned that our ideas and creativity have been overlooked in the “new curriculum.”
o Although, we may have creative ideas, we do not feel informed enough about the reasons for why our program is changing and what changes need to be made. We are confident though, given all the information, we can help form specific ideas/proposals for specific challenges or problems within the Friends World Program.
o Lastly, as concerned students at the LAC, who feel underrepresented and uninformed, we have developed a list of questions for which, as students, we have the right to be given specific answers.
I. Specific question regarding the “number of factors contributed to the curricular changes in Friends World” presented in the email sent out by Robert Glass on October 16, 2006 to the FWP Listserv: (To see full text of this email see attachment)
1) “External reviews of senior theses over the past five years including the Council of Overseers’ reviews of senior work for the annual senior thesis award.”
a) What was the sample of senior theses taken into account? All of them?
b) What was the process/methodology of the “external reviews?”
c) What were the specific results and/or conclusions of the review?
d) Can we be provided with the report of these reviews?
e) How are the members of the Council of Overseers chosen?
f) Are these members on the Friends World Listserv? If not, can a channel of dialogue be created so they are familiar with current students’ realities and ideas?
2) “Communications from FWP alumni attending graduate school.”
a) What were these “communications” specifically?
b) Who were these alumni and how many communicated?
c) What about non-graduate school attending alumni?
3) “Change in the criteria used by the Middle States Accreditation Commission in reviewing the quality of education at Long Island University; the internal audit of the Friends World Program conducted by Long Island University”
a) What was the criteria before and how has it changed?
b) Specifically, what was the evaluation of the FWP by both Middle States Accreditation Commission and Long Island University?
c) What demands have Middle States Accreditation Commission and Long Island University made of us?
d) Can we be provided with the report or evaluation of this “internal audit?”
4) “Feedback from field work supervisors in many Asian countries”
a) What was the sample of fieldwork supervisors?
b) Who were the fieldwork supervisors?
c) Specifically what was the feedback?
d) Why were only the fieldwork supervisors in Asia taken into consideration?
5) “And global statistics on emerging economies and their effect on the world economy over the next 40 years”
a) What were the “global statistics” and where did they come from?
b) Can the vagueness of this statement be clarified? Why specifically was this statement used in the justification for changes to the FWP?
6) “There has always been a tension in Friends World between the horizontal and the vertical, between breadth and depth, between maximizing student choice and increasing the sophistication of students’ knowledge and skills. While in the decade of the 1990’s, Friends World emphasized the former in each of these pairs, the post 9-11 era brings with it a new set of criteria for both international travel and global studies programs.”
a) What is this “new set of criteria” and how does it reflect on the “tension in Friends World between the horizontal and the vertical, between breadth and depth, between maximizing student choice and increasing sophistication of students’ knowledge and skills?”
b) Why is “the post 9-11 era” mentioned specifically in this context?
c) Why would “vertical”, “depth” and “sophistication of students’ knowledge and skills” be more prevalent in a “post 9-11 era?”
d) Is it possible that this tension has less do with “9-11” and more to do with the Friends World Program reality? And is there not much potential for creative solutions to the tension created by this reality within the Friends World community?
II. Specific questions about the “new curriculum” as it is represented in the 2007-2008 Friends World Program Catalogue.
1) The process taken in constructing the “new curriculum
a) Who, specifically, were the individuals involved in creating the new catalogue and the “new curriculum” of the Friends World Program? Where was the student (past and present) representation?
b) What, specifically, was the methodology/dialogue in constructing the changes to the Friend World Program and which persons approved them?
c) Were there other proposals? If so, what were they?
d) How have the changes been justified under our Constitution of the Learning Community and our mission statement?
e) Why have these changes been pushed through so quickly especially in regards to notifying Centers only a semester ago about these curriculum changes (e.g. the fourteenth version of the new catalogue arrived at the LAC on April 7th, 2006)?
f) Why was there no World Conference held to discuss these changes? Or at least, why was no channel created for the entire body of students, faculty, and staff to discuss these changes?
g) Where was the consensus in these changes?
2) The new structure of freshman—Costa Rica, sophomore—China or India, junior—Japan/Africa or Comparative Religion & Culture, senior—Independent Study/Brooklyn.
a) Where did the idea for this new structure originate? And who were the individuals who approved this new structure?
b) What other ideas were presented?
c) Is this structure representative of Friends World Program? If so, who decided?
d) Why has the country pathway been limited? Benefits? Weaknesses?
e) What were the problems with the previous designs? What were previous solutions?
f) Can we not benefit immensely from integrating with the younger and older members of our community, as well as, integrating with new students instead of always the same individuals?
g) As students with individual interests, should we not be deciding our own pathways?
h) Why are Centers becoming stage of learning driven (or progression oriented)? Is it not true that students evolve in different ways and at a different pace than one another?
i) If this structure comes to pass will there be continued flexibility for students who have concrete plans for independent studies in other countries that do not have Centers or at Centers out of the prescribed pathway despite their grade level?
3) In regards to the transition of the FWP Interdisciplinary Studies B.A. to Global Studies B.A. (To see full text of email sent out by Robert Glass regarding the Global Studies BA see attachment)
a) What is the reason for Friends World Program’s transition to a “Bachelor of Arts in Global Studies?”
b) If the main issue is about confusion and transferability of a B.A. in Interdisciplinary Studies then why not allow students to determine their own field versus limiting the wording on the diploma to Global Studies?
4) In regards to Independent Study:
a) Why is there a deemphasizing of Independent Study? This question is in reference to previous academic years at Friends World when a greater emphasis (in terms of allotted credit hours) was placed on Independent Study.
b) Why is the Independent Study Semester referred to as an “exciting new possibility” when this possibility previously existed and not only that but it was not limited to seniors?
5) In regards to the Area of Concentration:
a) Why is the Area of Concentration only mentioned twice in the new catalogue?
b) And why is it not mentioned once in either of the “junior year” Center descriptions or course descriptions of the Junior Research Seminar?
c) Why is the spring Junior Seminar geared toward a specific cultural issue of the given location instead of towards the investigation of a given student’s Area of Concentration through projects (as it is presently)?
d) Is the Area of Concentration being postponed until the senior year?
e) Is the Area of Concentration being deemphasized in the “new curriculum?”
III. Financial state of the Friends World Program.
a) How is the financial situation of Friends World Program? Are we still in debt?
c) If any, what financial pressure exists from Long Island University?
d) If any, what financial pressure exists from Middle States Accreditation Commission?
e) Has enrollment been decreasing? If so, has a study been conducted to find out why it is decreasing? And are the reports available?
f) Is poor retention rate a factor in Friends World’s financial situation? If so, has a study been conducted to find out why the retention rate is poor? And are the reports available?
g) What have been specific measures taken to confront financial instability?
h) Have studies been conducted on how Friends World can improve its financial situation and/or advertising? And are these reports available?
i) How does Friends World insure job security for faculty and staff?
j) Is it not possible that current students could a be great asset in the promotion of the Friends World Program especially considering many of us heard about the program from alumni or current students?
IV. In regards to the Friends World name change (to see full text of the email sent out by Robert Glass regarding the name change see attachment)
a) What is the status of the name change?
b) If the name is to change then will it be represented on the diplomas of current students or only the incoming students?
c) Why was the Council of Overseers charged with the task of renaming Friends World versus being a community discussion?
d) Even though there has been an ongoing issue with the name of Friends World why was it reintroduced to the community in such an abrupt way? (The email from Robert telling the FW community that the name would in fact be changed came November 7th while the meeting to make the proposals to send to LIU was four days in the future on November 11th.)
e) Could this issue not have been confronted in a World Council, so that the whole community could have participated?
Our final requests as concerned students at the Latin American Center are as follows:
o We want representation in the governing process and transformation of Friends World Program for ourselves as well as all the Center’s students.
o We want to add our creative and diverse ideas for the future development of Friends World Program and have them legitimately taken into consideration.
o We want World Headquarters to insure that students are well informed of Friends World Program’s status in a timely manner and to work with us, the students, as well as the Center’s where we attend to create more effective channels of communication.
We appreciate the time in consideration of these concerns, questions and requests. We look forward to the response and future dialogue concerning this document, as well as Friends World Program as a whole.
Sincerely,
The concerned students at the LAC:
Abby Wambaugh (abbywambaugh@gmail.com)
Brian W. Ashley (brianwashley@yahoo.com)
Kayla Frawey (frawey@yahoo.com)
Michael Wakeley (michpw@gmail.com)
Carol Lesser (carebearscorpio@yahoo.com)
Erin Ellard-Meyer (erineliseem@hotmail.com)
Nitai Nunez (nitainunez@yahoo.com)
Tina von Roedern (freedumpeanuts@yahoo.com)
Erin Hawkins (hey.its.erin@gmail.com)
Selia Cox (selia112@hotmail.com)
Alicia White (ali_f2f@hotmail.com)
Mica Thompson (mica.thompson@brooklyn.liu.edu)
Cam Moore (moorecameron@gmail.com)
Rebecca Inver (rebecca.inver@brooklyn.liu.edu)
Kathleen Watt (cheshirekat@gmail.com)
Katherine Cain (katherinecain@brooklyn.liu.edu)
Elizabeth Damsky (trafficlightservitude@gmail.com)
Lily Hanson (lily.michelle.hanson@gmail.com)
Sarah Kruger (sarahjosette@gmail.com)
Katie Franson (zapatita@gmail.com)
The following document was an email sent out to Robert Glass (Program Dean), Paul Cox (Student Executive) and the FW Listserv. I felt this is important for the alumni to know about and get involved if they are interested. Thanks
Peace,
Tina von Roedern
Current student at the LAC
Concerns, Questions, & Requests Regarding the Friends World Program’s “New Curriculum” & Name Change
As concerned students at the Latin American Center:
o We are concerned that our opinions, ideas, and feelings about the current changes which Friends World is undergoing, were not taken into consideration and we fear the Friends World’s process of consensus is being undermined.
o We believe the opinions, ideas and feelings of the entire Friends World community of students should not only be taken into consideration but channels of dialogue should be created and encouraged in face of changing our curriculum.
o We are concerned that upcoming additions, subtractions and changes to the Friends World Program, as suggested in the new (2007-2008) catalogue, neither represent us as a student body nor what Friends World Program stands for.
o Further, the LAC community is made up primarily of students graduating in 2010, in which case there is a greater concern on behalf of these students; we are not convinced that the “new curriculum” will not affect us, especially come “junior year.” Although it has been stated that the “new curriculum” will not apply to us as current students, we are concerned for the intangible effects of the ideological/methodological changes in our futures within the Friends World community.
o Further, we believe the present changes to the Friends World Program were executed too rapidly and opaquely. It therefore makes it difficult for us to determine the motivations/justifications behind the changes and what processes were taken to reach the content of the “new curriculum.”
o Further, we have discovered that many creative ideas exist among our student population as to how we can change certain aspects of FWP to improve it, publicize it, and preserve it. However, we are concerned that our ideas and creativity have been overlooked in the “new curriculum.”
o Although, we may have creative ideas, we do not feel informed enough about the reasons for why our program is changing and what changes need to be made. We are confident though, given all the information, we can help form specific ideas/proposals for specific challenges or problems within the Friends World Program.
o Lastly, as concerned students at the LAC, who feel underrepresented and uninformed, we have developed a list of questions for which, as students, we have the right to be given specific answers.
I. Specific question regarding the “number of factors contributed to the curricular changes in Friends World” presented in the email sent out by Robert Glass on October 16, 2006 to the FWP Listserv: (To see full text of this email see attachment)
1) “External reviews of senior theses over the past five years including the Council of Overseers’ reviews of senior work for the annual senior thesis award.”
a) What was the sample of senior theses taken into account? All of them?
b) What was the process/methodology of the “external reviews?”
c) What were the specific results and/or conclusions of the review?
d) Can we be provided with the report of these reviews?
e) How are the members of the Council of Overseers chosen?
f) Are these members on the Friends World Listserv? If not, can a channel of dialogue be created so they are familiar with current students’ realities and ideas?
2) “Communications from FWP alumni attending graduate school.”
a) What were these “communications” specifically?
b) Who were these alumni and how many communicated?
c) What about non-graduate school attending alumni?
3) “Change in the criteria used by the Middle States Accreditation Commission in reviewing the quality of education at Long Island University; the internal audit of the Friends World Program conducted by Long Island University”
a) What was the criteria before and how has it changed?
b) Specifically, what was the evaluation of the FWP by both Middle States Accreditation Commission and Long Island University?
c) What demands have Middle States Accreditation Commission and Long Island University made of us?
d) Can we be provided with the report or evaluation of this “internal audit?”
4) “Feedback from field work supervisors in many Asian countries”
a) What was the sample of fieldwork supervisors?
b) Who were the fieldwork supervisors?
c) Specifically what was the feedback?
d) Why were only the fieldwork supervisors in Asia taken into consideration?
5) “And global statistics on emerging economies and their effect on the world economy over the next 40 years”
a) What were the “global statistics” and where did they come from?
b) Can the vagueness of this statement be clarified? Why specifically was this statement used in the justification for changes to the FWP?
6) “There has always been a tension in Friends World between the horizontal and the vertical, between breadth and depth, between maximizing student choice and increasing the sophistication of students’ knowledge and skills. While in the decade of the 1990’s, Friends World emphasized the former in each of these pairs, the post 9-11 era brings with it a new set of criteria for both international travel and global studies programs.”
a) What is this “new set of criteria” and how does it reflect on the “tension in Friends World between the horizontal and the vertical, between breadth and depth, between maximizing student choice and increasing sophistication of students’ knowledge and skills?”
b) Why is “the post 9-11 era” mentioned specifically in this context?
c) Why would “vertical”, “depth” and “sophistication of students’ knowledge and skills” be more prevalent in a “post 9-11 era?”
d) Is it possible that this tension has less do with “9-11” and more to do with the Friends World Program reality? And is there not much potential for creative solutions to the tension created by this reality within the Friends World community?
II. Specific questions about the “new curriculum” as it is represented in the 2007-2008 Friends World Program Catalogue.
1) The process taken in constructing the “new curriculum
a) Who, specifically, were the individuals involved in creating the new catalogue and the “new curriculum” of the Friends World Program? Where was the student (past and present) representation?
b) What, specifically, was the methodology/dialogue in constructing the changes to the Friend World Program and which persons approved them?
c) Were there other proposals? If so, what were they?
d) How have the changes been justified under our Constitution of the Learning Community and our mission statement?
e) Why have these changes been pushed through so quickly especially in regards to notifying Centers only a semester ago about these curriculum changes (e.g. the fourteenth version of the new catalogue arrived at the LAC on April 7th, 2006)?
f) Why was there no World Conference held to discuss these changes? Or at least, why was no channel created for the entire body of students, faculty, and staff to discuss these changes?
g) Where was the consensus in these changes?
2) The new structure of freshman—Costa Rica, sophomore—China or India, junior—Japan/Africa or Comparative Religion & Culture, senior—Independent Study/Brooklyn.
a) Where did the idea for this new structure originate? And who were the individuals who approved this new structure?
b) What other ideas were presented?
c) Is this structure representative of Friends World Program? If so, who decided?
d) Why has the country pathway been limited? Benefits? Weaknesses?
e) What were the problems with the previous designs? What were previous solutions?
f) Can we not benefit immensely from integrating with the younger and older members of our community, as well as, integrating with new students instead of always the same individuals?
g) As students with individual interests, should we not be deciding our own pathways?
h) Why are Centers becoming stage of learning driven (or progression oriented)? Is it not true that students evolve in different ways and at a different pace than one another?
i) If this structure comes to pass will there be continued flexibility for students who have concrete plans for independent studies in other countries that do not have Centers or at Centers out of the prescribed pathway despite their grade level?
3) In regards to the transition of the FWP Interdisciplinary Studies B.A. to Global Studies B.A. (To see full text of email sent out by Robert Glass regarding the Global Studies BA see attachment)
a) What is the reason for Friends World Program’s transition to a “Bachelor of Arts in Global Studies?”
b) If the main issue is about confusion and transferability of a B.A. in Interdisciplinary Studies then why not allow students to determine their own field versus limiting the wording on the diploma to Global Studies?
4) In regards to Independent Study:
a) Why is there a deemphasizing of Independent Study? This question is in reference to previous academic years at Friends World when a greater emphasis (in terms of allotted credit hours) was placed on Independent Study.
b) Why is the Independent Study Semester referred to as an “exciting new possibility” when this possibility previously existed and not only that but it was not limited to seniors?
5) In regards to the Area of Concentration:
a) Why is the Area of Concentration only mentioned twice in the new catalogue?
b) And why is it not mentioned once in either of the “junior year” Center descriptions or course descriptions of the Junior Research Seminar?
c) Why is the spring Junior Seminar geared toward a specific cultural issue of the given location instead of towards the investigation of a given student’s Area of Concentration through projects (as it is presently)?
d) Is the Area of Concentration being postponed until the senior year?
e) Is the Area of Concentration being deemphasized in the “new curriculum?”
III. Financial state of the Friends World Program.
a) How is the financial situation of Friends World Program? Are we still in debt?
c) If any, what financial pressure exists from Long Island University?
d) If any, what financial pressure exists from Middle States Accreditation Commission?
e) Has enrollment been decreasing? If so, has a study been conducted to find out why it is decreasing? And are the reports available?
f) Is poor retention rate a factor in Friends World’s financial situation? If so, has a study been conducted to find out why the retention rate is poor? And are the reports available?
g) What have been specific measures taken to confront financial instability?
h) Have studies been conducted on how Friends World can improve its financial situation and/or advertising? And are these reports available?
i) How does Friends World insure job security for faculty and staff?
j) Is it not possible that current students could a be great asset in the promotion of the Friends World Program especially considering many of us heard about the program from alumni or current students?
IV. In regards to the Friends World name change (to see full text of the email sent out by Robert Glass regarding the name change see attachment)
a) What is the status of the name change?
b) If the name is to change then will it be represented on the diplomas of current students or only the incoming students?
c) Why was the Council of Overseers charged with the task of renaming Friends World versus being a community discussion?
d) Even though there has been an ongoing issue with the name of Friends World why was it reintroduced to the community in such an abrupt way? (The email from Robert telling the FW community that the name would in fact be changed came November 7th while the meeting to make the proposals to send to LIU was four days in the future on November 11th.)
e) Could this issue not have been confronted in a World Council, so that the whole community could have participated?
Our final requests as concerned students at the Latin American Center are as follows:
o We want representation in the governing process and transformation of Friends World Program for ourselves as well as all the Center’s students.
o We want to add our creative and diverse ideas for the future development of Friends World Program and have them legitimately taken into consideration.
o We want World Headquarters to insure that students are well informed of Friends World Program’s status in a timely manner and to work with us, the students, as well as the Center’s where we attend to create more effective channels of communication.
We appreciate the time in consideration of these concerns, questions and requests. We look forward to the response and future dialogue concerning this document, as well as Friends World Program as a whole.
Sincerely,
The concerned students at the LAC:
Abby Wambaugh (abbywambaugh@gmail.com)
Brian W. Ashley (brianwashley@yahoo.com)
Kayla Frawey (frawey@yahoo.com)
Michael Wakeley (michpw@gmail.com)
Carol Lesser (carebearscorpio@yahoo.com)
Erin Ellard-Meyer (erineliseem@hotmail.com)
Nitai Nunez (nitainunez@yahoo.com)
Tina von Roedern (freedumpeanuts@yahoo.com)
Erin Hawkins (hey.its.erin@gmail.com)
Selia Cox (selia112@hotmail.com)
Alicia White (ali_f2f@hotmail.com)
Mica Thompson (mica.thompson@brooklyn.liu.edu)
Cam Moore (moorecameron@gmail.com)
Rebecca Inver (rebecca.inver@brooklyn.liu.edu)
Kathleen Watt (cheshirekat@gmail.com)
Katherine Cain (katherinecain@brooklyn.liu.edu)
Elizabeth Damsky (trafficlightservitude@gmail.com)
Lily Hanson (lily.michelle.hanson@gmail.com)
Sarah Kruger (sarahjosette@gmail.com)
Katie Franson (zapatita@gmail.com)
Advertisement
Advertisement
-
Re: Questions and Concerns from current students at LAC
Wed, November 29, 2006 - 5:57 AMThanks, Tina! I've taken the liberty of forwarding your post to the FW alumni listserv. I think that the questions compiled by the LAC closely mirror those that we (alumns) have been asking ourselves. Keep up the noisemaking, please!
By the way, where is the FW listserv that you mention hosted?
Jonathan -
-
Re: Questions and Concerns from current students at LAC
Wed, November 29, 2006 - 8:18 AMHere here!!! I was feeling so dismayed, and separate from what was happening, but it is wonderfully heartening to know that current FW students rock it like we always have. Have you recieved any response? -
-
Re: Questions and Concerns from current students at LAC
Wed, November 29, 2006 - 12:27 PMI am equally as pleased to see that the alumni are still connected to what is going on in Friends World. Call me idealistic but I think Friends World has such beautiful potential in educating those of us who will create change in the world. I do not want to see Friends World convert to our traditional study aboard style education, we are too unique and have too much potential. Anywho... I really appreciate the response from the Friends World Alumni. We have not yet received a response from the World Headquarters/Robert Glass but I will surely post any and all responses here when they come. As for the FW Listserv I can only speculate that it is moderated by someone in the World Headquarters. I do not even know who is on the Listserve (current students? alumni? adminstrations?).
Keep on Keepin' on!
Peace,
Tina -
-
Re: Questions and Concerns from current students at LAC
Wed, November 29, 2006 - 5:52 PMGood work, Tina! This forum and the Listserv would be vastly improved with more input from current students.
Anyone can join the listserv, here's the link:
lists.liu.edu/mailman/listinfo/fw-alumni -
-
Re: listservs
Thu, November 30, 2006 - 7:17 AMThe reason I asked Tina about her listserv is that I thought I was subscribed to the FW-community listserv, and I hadn't seen her letter on that or on the FW-alumni listserv. Turns out, I had been unsubscribed from the FW-community list some time ago. Could just be a maintnance glitch. Anyway, I was curious as to whether the FW-community listserv (lists.liu.edu/mailman/listinfo/fw-community) is still the vehicle for student/faculty communication.
I believe there is some kind of moderation in place for both of the FW listservs, so it will be interesting to see if they let (for instance) current students join the fw-alumni list. I certainly hope so. -
-
Re: listservs
Thu, November 30, 2006 - 8:16 AMI am sorry Jonathan I hadn't understood your previous post correctly. As far as I know the FW-community listserv (lists.liu.edu/mailman/lis...w-community) is the main channel of communication for students and faculty. I just signed up for the alumni listserv (so current students are able to see it). I encourage any alumni who is interested in the current FW stuff to sign up for the FW-community listserv. You just have to go to this website:
lists.liu.edu/mailman/listinfo/fw-community
Peace all,
Tina -
-
Re: listservs
Fri, December 1, 2006 - 10:38 AMThanks Tina. My attempt to join the fw-community list was rejected, as I expected, with the following reason:
"The Friends World community listserv is a closed listserv open only
to currently registered students, faculty and staff. Former students
are welcome to join the FW alumni listserv "
That's not necessarily an evil rationale, although I can't honestly think of any particular good reason to be strict about it. I'm actually almost OK with it (although it would have been nice of the moderator to let me know that when I was booted off the first time).
Tina, I'm hoping that you (and other current students) will continue to try to keep us up-to-date here, and to spread our madness to the fw-community list for us. Thanks!
Jonathan
-
-
-
-
-
-
Re: Questions and Concerns from current students at LAC
Mon, December 18, 2006 - 1:40 AMVery impressed that current students are choosing to tackel these important questions! Good job, and well organized questions...hope answers come soon!
peace
-james
-
