• Monday, May 28, 2012

Previous

Next

‘What, Me, Recruit? I’m a Professor!’

September 23, 2011, 12:30 am

New Orleans—W. Todd Roberson has a reminder for admissions officers. “Faculty members think differently than you do,” he says. So if you want them to help you recruit, he insists, you’ve got to recruit them, engage them, and communicate with them regularly.

On Thursday afternoon, I heard Mr. Roberson speak here during a session called “The Third Side of the Desk: Effective Use of Faculty in Recruitment and Yield.” Surveys have shown that interaction (or lack thereof) with faculty members strongly influences prospective students’ perceptions of colleges, and, in turn, their decision to apply or enroll.

Still, persuading faculty members to donate their time to the oft-draining task of wooing teenagers isn’t always easy. Mr. Roberson imagined a common response: “What, me, recruit? I’m a professor!” Many admissions officers say they aren’t sure how to best engage faculty members, and—it’s fair to state—many faculty members are reluctant to help recruit, because they think it’s a crass or unnecessary exercise. Or maybe it’s just that nobody’s ever asked them.

Mr. Roberson, a senior lecturer of finance at Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis’s Kelley School of Business, described how and why he became involved with recruitment. In short, he was inspired by the simple fact that while many of his students were great, others really gave him a headache. “By becoming a recruiter and a person who encouraged yield, I have some control over who I have in the classroom,” Mr. Roberson said. “The bottom line is that faculty complain about students we have. One way to change that is to get involved in recruitment.”

Mr. Roberson has since thought a lot about how colleges can turn the right instructor into an effective “brand builder.” At his institution, he serves as a “faculty recruitment fellow,” which means he’s responsible for coordinating recruitment and “yield” strategies for his academic unit. Colleges that want serious help from instructors, he says, should consider granting release time in exchange for such service. “Time is currency faculty trade in,” he said, “and they like having freedom.”

Among Mr. Roberson’s other suggestions for admissions officers:

  • Consider “fit” when evaluating faculty members. He suggests that “professionally qualified” instructors are better recruiters than “academically qualified” colleagues: “The closer those faculty are to the real world, the better—people that have practical experience, perhaps in private-sector or job experience.”
  • Look for somebody who’s an award-winning teacher instead of choosing someone based on his or her academic credentials alone: “It takes a lot of guts to walk in front of a room of people you don’t know and keep them entertained for an hour or an hour and a half.”
  • Consider appealing to faculty members’ empathy, excitement about their discipline, and their … egos: “Faculty members love to be the center of attention; that’s why they’re faculty members.”
  • Know faculty members’ teaching schedules at all times, so that you can coordinate meetings between them and prospective students more effectively.

Mr. Roberson also suggested that faculty members should give their business cards to the prospective students they meet (“This is so basic, but nobody does it”). And he suggested that one must end conversations with a prompt for action: While the mantra of admissions officers might be “Apply now,” the refrain of faculty members should be “Visit me on campus.”

“I’ve had my best success when I can have a one-on-one with a student and, in some cases, parents.”

This entry was posted in NACAC 2011. Bookmark the permalink.

  • Print
  • Comment
  • bkellyumd

    @ perplexed: No. This Solar Decathlon is sponsored by the United States Department of Energy and is only held in the US.

    @ tshowo: In my 30 years of living in DC I have never seen an application of fertilizer to the lawn on the Mall, no less other forms of maintenance. Your statement about monoculture is narrow minded. There is a place for turf, perhaps not everywhere, but the Mall is certainly an appropriate application. Indeed there could be proposals for a more sustainable Mall, but tossing out the turf is not the only option.

  • couch

    @finnbarr: using the Chronicle search, the previous 21 “Monday’s Poem” columns show these poets; I’ve added their current states of residence. By my count 12 states (& DC) are represented including VA (5), CA (3), NY (2), and MO (2). VA poets hardly make up “most” of the list. The variety is a refreshing change from the usual bicoastal myopia, though the residences of poets, like those of scholars, often have more to do with where they happen to find (transient) grad school places or jobs than with origin or other affiliation, as a look at the bios of the poets below will quickly show. The list:

    O’Rourke – NY
    Hart – VA
    Larsen – VA
    Reddy – IL
    Fried – MO
    Daniels – TN
    Teare – CA
    Marvin – NY
    Cushman – VA
    Szybist – OR
    Smith – VA
    Hillman – Bay area, CA
    Klink – Cambridge, MA
    Ali – Oberlin, OH
    Petrosino – KY
    Phillips – MO
    Chang – VA
    Muske-Dukes – CA
    Dargan – DC
    Samyn – WV
    Baker – OH

  • http://www.linkedin.com/in/girolamis Steve Girolami

    I think you hit it on the head. A good manager will vet the threat.

  • quesrty

    Never seen any faculty foolish enough to do it.  Not with thousands of new Ph.D.s hungry for a tenure-track slot.  They’ll grumble and whine but at the end of the day they understand supply and demand.

  • rogue_academic

    What are you talking about?
    The threats “I’ll quit if…” not only work, they work very effectively and actually quite often. You just need to have an external offer on your hands. The last time I said it I got a raise, a time off teaching, and a written promise to hire a new faculty in my field.

  • DianaNicholetteJeon

    Ooops. Sorry.

  • MinminZ

    Mr. Roberson is exactly right, “Time is currency that faculty trade in.”  Professors want good students and can do a terrific job of recruiting students, but the opportunity costs for these duties must be weighed, and should, if the time requirement of recruiting is burdensome, be compensated.  

    I’ll give freely of my time to any student who comes to my office hours; I’ll contact others by phone, and come to recruitment events on campus, but there comes a time when I feel that my time as a professional is not being valued.

  • 22081781

    The idea of faculty recruiting is fine ONLY IF faculty get a lot of release time for this activity. (Fat chance of that happening.)  Otherwise, where are we going to fit this time-consuming task into our 70-80-hour-a-week work schedules?  Besides, isn’t recruiting the full-time job of a number of college/university employees?  I’m tired of people expecting faculty to do everything, especially as we lose our power over the domains we should be controlling, which is curriculum and faculty personnel policies.   

  • davidsheridan

    A recruiter’s job is entirely up-front.  Student success and engagement once they enroll has nothing to do with their relationship with the friendly folks in the Admissions Office, but everything to do with the relationships they have with their instructors.  Some professors – obviously, based on some comments, not all – are very willing to help and are very effective.  Attracting the students the school wants is everyone’s job; if a student can start to get a feel for what their experience with professors will be like while they are considering a college, that tells them more than they can ever learn from what is essentially the sales crew in Admissions.  

    I’ve made this work very well, but it was up to me to find the right professors to engage.  

  • MinminZ

    However, even those of us who will work with recruitment want to be compensated for our time.

  • beverlylorig

    Just yesterday the chair of the computer science replied to a prospective parent’s email  inquiry.  He  replied with data, examples, and the philosophy of the University.  He described the value of our computer science program in a balanced and positive way. His generous offer to talk by phone indicated vividly the culture and benefits of the  Washington and Lee’s education. In challenging times, actions often speak louder than the pure facts such as “what percentage have jobs at graduation.”  Thanks, Beverly Lorig, an appreciative career services director  

  • uwstaff

     “Faculty members love to be the center of attention; that’s why they’re faculty members.”
    Huh?  Most faculty I know prefer to be left alone.

  • dlovejoy

    I agree with Mr. Robinson, faculty members who can recruit students for their programs reap the benefits. Admissions recruiters are usually recruiting students, I recruit majors. I’ve been recruiting students for a couple of decades, seldom with time allotted to do so. However, I will not stop seeking that time in my load. Working with our admissions office has garnered much support from our dean, enough that we can now discuss the advantages to the university for granting load time for faculty who can recruit successfully. The rewards for my classroom and my department are so great that I couldn’t see myself pulling back from recruiting.

  • grupenhoff

    Show me the money!

  • abcde1234

    I got involved in recruiting one year. Yeah, the Dean of my division asked me to represent the division at a recruiting event. The admissions staff and the students loved me! Then I got asked by the admissions office to do a scholarly presentation during the invited applicant weekend. They wanted to encourage kids to come to my class, but I was not teaching that semester. Anyway, the presentation went very well, lots of interest in my lab, lots of questions. Very cool.

     But I don’t do that anymore. Because I am not a professor any more. See, a few people on the Tenure committee were concerned that my involvement in “ancillary activities”, such as recruiting and academic advising, suggested my priorities were not in the right place, and that my funding and publication record, while adequate, would not continue at its current rate if I kept doing stuff like that.

  • manoflamancha

    Indolent faculty in recruitment is the main reason for the hegemony of foreign graduate students in STEM programs. They think the system should magically provide them native born research assistants when they bring in a large grant. Silly lads and lassies!

  • cwm4c

    Love to see all the “Show me the money” and “We’ll need to be compensated” replies.  In all other replies to articles about keeping tenure, or faculty governance, we usually say its about developing faculty loyalty and that we’re the only ones showing it, unlike the administrators who are all about money.  Many of our own’s true colors are rightly showing here.

  • jesor

    The one thing about all of this that’s bothering me is the view that admissions work is essentially equivalent to the selling of a used car (which begs the question…if it’s that low, what does that say about those who make what they’re selling).   While admissions isn’t necessarily done “right” everywhere, when it is, it involves a lot more than just a little razzle, a little dazzle, a song, and a dance.   It’s a process where students gain their first familiarity with the institution’s curriculum, values, and culture.   It’s also a process where students are counseled about how to choose a college that’s right for their educational goals even if it isn’t that particular college.  It should also be a part of a student’s developmental process where they exercise the critical thinking skills they need in order to make their first true “real life” decision.    This used to be the work of Faculty back in the dark ages, after all, who better to explain the curriculum than those who develop and control it. 
    Now the structure and focus of the admissions office is probably more reflective of those institutional values than one might think.  
    With research being largely divorced from the undergraduate experience, an admissions office that focuses on buildings, razzle, and dazzle is probably more reflective of a college that has failed to innovate in its core competency, the curriculum.   After all, what else are these admissions offices left with to distinguish themselves from others.  If what’s most different from college X and most of the rest of the student’s options is the climbing wall, then that’s what admissions staff will talk about and thats what administrators will build.   Connections with the admissions office help faculty to see these things and get a peek at the outside world, which can ultimately be useful in driving curriculuar improvement.  The ability to recruit a couple of star students should be viewed as a side-effect.  

  • missoularedhead

    I would LOVE to recruit, and have some great ideas for how and what to do, but as an adjunct, I’m afraid to really do much, as I don’t want certain people *ahem* to think they can still pay me the peanut adjunct wage AND get me to recruit for free…

  • jimislew

    I had to choose between college A and college B. I was interested in the history program so I emailed the chair of the department some questions. College A wrote back an email that made it clear that he, and his faculty, were engaged with students. College B told me they tried to meet each new student in their program. A got my money and my brain. 

    Student’s don’t come to college because of staff or administrators (like me). They come because many want to know more about something and connecting them with those who can teach them that something can make all the difference. 

    Remember that a hundred and fifty years ago it was the faculty who did the work many staff do now, including admissions. That doesn’t mean staff replaced them. 

  • hank_devereaux_jr

    I’m not sure you can attribute “show me the money” responses to an inherently selfish motivation.  Alternatively, it could reflect low morale. 

    When the primary responsibilities of faculty are continually denigrated by politicians, college presidents and VP’s for business; when professors are incessantly branded as lazy, out-of-touch, “me-firsters” by columnists like Richard Vedder and Naomi Schafer Riley, the work environment becomes poisoned.  Pride in profession withers away.

    Excuse the mixed metaphor — but all employees (faculty and staff) may become less loyal, less willing to take a hit for the team  — when the team managers increasingly treat them as mere cogs in The Knowledge Factory.

  • blesstayo

    It is long overdue for faculty members to engage their current students and themselves in student recruitment. Back in the 80′s I used to take Math Ed majors to local high schools once a week to provide Math tutorials and enrichments. We were able to recruit good students.

    Faculty members should also become key players in working with local 2-year colleges on elevating the levels of their instruction and curriculum. The net gain would be better quality of student transfers from 2-year schools.

    Faculty members ought to realize always that “it takes the entire institution to recruit and retain students.”

  • drj50

    Students, at least the ones who are interested in learning, are interested in who they will be learning from. Showing them a copy of the curriculum or a picture of the library don’t compare with introducing them to an engaging faculty member in their chosen field.

    Jesor compares admissions work to auto sales. OK. Asking the admissions office to “sell” the university without being able
    to show prospective students who they will be learning from is like trying to sell a
    car without letting the customer actually see it. That’s why it’s not just the job of the admissions office to recruit students.

  • electronicmuse

    Give me the tools to recruit, and I would be genuinely happy to do so.

    What’s my budget?

  • mbelvadi

    I’m going to echo, perhaps a bit more strongly, some of the earlier comments. It’s the height of arrogance for people who are paid to do something (recruit students) to think that they ought to be getting other people who are NOT paid to do that work to help them get their work done. It’s deeply insulting to the faculty, suggesting a lack of respect for the faculty’s own workload.  You can be sure when the enrollment numbers come in, the recruitment officers will be crowing about THEIR department’s success in pretty PowerPoint slides to the univ President/Chancellor, looking for bonuses and raises, asking for more staff, etc.  We all wish we could get someone else to do our jobs for us for free, while we reap the glory. (I’m speaking of undergrad recruitment, which this article seems to be about. Graduate level recruitment is a whole ‘nother matter.)

  • teachfordamasses

    Here, here mbelvadi.  But this is widespread in academic.  The standard MO of administrators is always to get someone else to do the work, sometimes within house and increasingly often by hiring outside vendors.  When did we stop expecting that administrators had skills of their own relevant to their jobs?  Nice work, isn’t it, when the successes accrue to you and any failures are the fault of the folks you tried your very best to get to do the work…

  • teachfordamasses

    There is a validity issue at play here.  Everyone wants faculty to come out and…act really interested and involved in undergraduates.  This is a beautiful thing if it is a true representation of the experience the students will get.  If it is advertising and MISrepresents what the students will actually experience, it is bait-and-switch.  Students deserve an accurate picture of the college, not hype.  If faculty are really excited about undergraduate learning, they will want to participate in recruitment as the first stage of that process.  If they don’t want to recruit, they probably should not be encouraged to do so–by definition, they do not care strongly, won’t do a good job (it’s not what you say; it’s how you say it) and will be pretending. 

    If you talk honestly with faculty, it is the act of pretending and selling that is so aversive about recruiting, not the extra few hours once a year.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_RSRD4KFLLVQHEM4QYHLLFBQR6M chaz

    I think it’s also useful for faculty to continue to engage with students, especially those they don’t like.  These are the students who most need to be pushed and guided; teaching shouldn’t be about satisfying one’s whims all the time and having a cohort of students who hang on one’s every word.  I tend to have a few “trouble” students each semester, and the extra attention that I give to them (in both a critical and supportive sense) pays off when they take the class more seriously and become more rigorous scholars.

  • der_maverick78

    Some great information here. I just wish the writer had more carefully considered how they could disenfranchise faculty by using Robertson’s comments. For example, Mr. Hoover stated that Robertson suggests that “professionally qualified” instructors are better recruiters than “academically qualified” colleagues. Hmm.. what if the academically qualified faculty member worked in admissions for three years while completing their education?

    But this takes the cake, “Consider appealing to faculty members’ empathy, excitement about their discipline, and their … egos: “Faculty members love to be the center of attention; that’s why they’re faculty members.” Funny how people will insult you and then turn around and ask you for help.

  • raza_khan

    Okay… seriously??

    As a faculty, I am willing to help out as long as admission counselors and the folks in that department are WILLING to teach my class!!!!  The reason we have admission department and the folks is to attract students and not recruit faculty.. It is not a recruitment facility of faculty members….   Oh yeah… they have this perception that we teach a class, have office hours and that is it…… oh… what homework grading… what email discussions with students… what meeting…..  what academic projects…??  I thought the faculty had an easy life.

    So… you want my time??…  swap my work with me!!!!  You do my grading for an hour and I will talk to prospective student for an hour!!

    Raza

    __________________________

    Dr. Raza Khan
    Chemistry faculty

    Dr.Raza.Khan@gmail.com

  • lindelltyann

    I agree with der_maverick78. The language in this article is indicative of the divide and lack of understanding between academics and administrative units. Had this piece been written differently I would have shared it widely on my campus. But the unfortunate way in which Mr. Hoover characterizes faculty reinforces the divide between academics and admissions – quite the opposite of his purpose (I hope).

  • nybound

    “… a roundabout way of saying that if a mother is too poor or too distressed to raise the baby she’s given birth to, then it’s ethically OK for the baby to be killed.”

    Or, to take things a step further, why don’t we just euthanize all the poor? They suffer, and they inflict suffering on us by committing crimes and sponging off of society. Why should it matter if poor adults are more ‘self-aware’ than infants? At least the infant has unrealized and unknown potential – let it grow and develop and see if it blossoms into something worthwhile, and if it doesn’t kill it when it reaches an appropriate age. Talk about incentives!

    Just to make an academic arguments, of course…

  • ffidura

    It is hard to believe the notion of infanticide was put forward even as an academic exercise in ethics. My God what have we become?

  • 22048164

    The fact that this idea was seriously proposed, then defended (!), is very disturbing to me.  I will echo ffidura…what have we become?  Have we not advanced at all?  They talk about handicapped and sick children as if no child like that has ever in history contributed immensely to our society.  As if it were a mother’s right to take life away.  Our society is sick. 

  • greeneyeshade

    Why is anyone surprised?  We’ve been on this track since Margaret Sanger set up the slippery slope .  Roe v. Wade sped up the process.  We’re coming full circle to the sacrificing of children that was characteristic of ancient cultures.

  • skmarie17

    How would a perfectly healthy newborn harm “society?”
    And who is to determine this?
    This is the most frightening thing I have ever read.
    The very notion is both ethically and morally repugnant, and anyone who disagrees has no soul.  Oh, sorry – I am giving away my lack of education.
     

  • http://nathaniel-campbell.blogspot.com/ Nathaniel M. Campbell

    It’s “academic” arguments like this that have so shot liberal education in the foot.  Most folks
    take one look at this and ask, “Why is public money supporting this ‘research’ when it’s so crazily off the deep end of practical sense and morals?” Their ideas are so obviously nonsensical that it makes people question the very ideal of liberal education. And as a liberal educator, that’s a problem for me. Every time some “researcher” who is so out of touch with reality that he honestly proposes infanticide as a line of the ethical reasoning (and offers no alternative criterion to keep us from killing disabled adults), it gives the good work of academe a bad name.

    Furthermore, if their argument hinges on a definition of “person” that involves self-awareness and self-valuation, then the logical conclusion is that only that entity can decide whether or not to die. How does a parent know that their newborn child is not self-aware and self-valued? Conversely, the logical conclusion is that, if a depressed person feels that there is no more value in continuing to live, they are now morally obligated to kill themselves. Entertaining such hypotheticals as logic exercises is one thing; publishing them as valid ethics in a medical journal quite another. If you are going to advocate an ethical position in such a way, you need to be prepared for it to operate in the real world; and this line of reasoning is very clearly not designed to do so.

  • 22048164

    The scary thing is, the argument is clearly not nonsensical to some.  The Netherlands apparently already condone the killing of ill infants.  How much farther do they have to slip before they reach an acceptance of the deaths of ALL inconvenient infants?

  • boiler

    I’m a secular liberal Democrat, and I’ve read the paper, and I have to say that the critics are right — this argument is profoundly repugnant, and it’s hard to come up with any other term than evil to describe people who would write it. They do in fact argue that people should be allowed to kill healthy infants. They do not impose any objective restrictions on this ability, merely an assessment by the parents that raising the child would be a burden they don’t want to bear. They explicitly maintain that this would be the case even if adoption were available, since the existence of a biological child might pose a psychological strain for the birth mother. What meaning does the term “evil” have, if it doesn’t apply to this? 

    The journal’s defense seems to be that the argument is rationally constructed. That’s a pretty weak response. People have come up with rational arguments in favor of all kinds of things, including slavery, torture, and the extermination of disliked minorities. That doesn’t make these things any less evil, and it doesn’t make their proponents any less reprehensible. 

  • 22067030

    It is hard to tell from an article about an article, but it sounds like The Modest Proposal lives.  Of course, The Modest Proposal was satire…

    GLMcColm

  • eulerian_ta

     Don’t like post-birth abortions?  Don’t have one, and leave others not sharing your religious beliefs alone.  Why do anti-choicers oppose social safety nets while not allowing women to make the choice to end parenthood in the infancy stage?  Are you going to take care of all of the unwanted infants out there?  I guess your rights begin at conception and end at childhood according to anti-choicers.

    [/sarcasm]

  • http://blog.jonolan.net jonolan

    More than one blogger has claimed that Guibilini and Minerva should be exterminated. I was just the most prominent and the only one to provide their pictures and addresses.

  • quacker

    Like the majority of those commenting here, I find the whole idea morally bankrupt and totally repugnant.  I reply here to 22048164 only to caution against the implied premise that the value of a life is determined by its contribution to society.  All life, even the most physically and mentally challenged, is sacred.  It is not our place to judge which lives have value and which lives do not.  We have a Supreme Being who is far more capable of fairly rendering that judgment than any of us humans who tend to make such decisions in our own self-interest.   

  • 22048164

    I agree with you 100%, quacker.  That line was primarily a reaction to appallingly low value placed on the lives of seriously ill or handicapped children that apparently already exists as law in some parts of the world.  Hence, the sentence that follows that statement.  No mother (or father) has the right to take life away.

  • mamazee

    Ideas have consequences.  It’s a principle that i emphasize in our homeschool in all our studies of history.  The history of the world can be mapped on principles, philosophies, ideas…  These men are cowards to promulgate something so hateful (babies not human until… when?  six weeks post birth?) – and unscientific.  And yes, they should be blamed if some stupid government takes them up on their ridiculous idea (for reference, see the Ontario Canada superintendant of schools saying that he “coparents” all the children in his school district or the New Zealand legislation that makes it permissible for a doctor to sterilize a mentally handicapped child without notifying or getting the permission of his or her parents…)

  • http://blog.jonolan.net jonolan

     Small correction – It’s one man and one woman(!) who put forth this ‘article” endorsing infanticide.

  • gregschuler

    How on earth can these people call themselves ethicists?  Where are we going?   From unlimited abortion in the womb to newborn infanticide?   What’s next:  Is it really OK to kill 6 year olds if they become “unduly burdensome.”

  • wstumper

    Bartlett’s attempt to portray the authors as somehow surprised at the reaction to their article is disingenuous at best, or just plain naive.  So, somehow that fact that others have “written” about this years earlier is a defense?  (Why didn’t Bartlett point out that Giubilini teaches at the ethics school co-founded by Peter Singer?)  And the authors are washing their hands of how this was “promulgated across the internet”?  (Ok, then explain why Journal of Medical Ethics removed pay wall acce$$ to the article within days, or possible hours, after the firestorm erupted.)  Also no mention of an earlier Italian conference in which Giubilini argued there is no moral reason to oppose euthanasia?

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100000758677935 Emilio Lizardo

    The original article has been removed from the journal. Anyone know where a copy can be found?

  • http://blog.jonolan.net jonolan

    What is there to debate and what point is there in “raising the level” of such a foolish debate? Words don’t solve for creatures like Guibilini and Minerva, with the possible exception of credibly threats to their wellbeing.

  • lairdwilcox

    This is an interesting discussion.  At which point does an abortion become infanticide?  Various abortion advocates give different stages of fetal development as an indicator with radicals claiming that any point up to birth should be the option of the fetus carrier (aka mother). 

    What is being suggested here is that there’s nothing magical about birth, especially if it represents some inconvenience to the woman.  Why not six weeks, or even six months after birth?  By letting the fetus carrier decide, taking her own feelings and cimcumstances into consideration, we may be able to wring a little more ”equality” out of a fading equal rights issue.   

    Having that noisy kid might mess up your social life, or it might have some kind of medical problem, or your new lover might be narcissistic, too, and want all the attention.  All those years in college preparing for a career, all that student debt, keeping someone else out so you could have a place, and now you have a responsibility that’s going to take up time that could be spent on thigh reduction programs, lute lessons, social causes, harrassing people for using the wrong light bulbs, and whatever else it takes to be a practically perfect and politically correct person.  All kids do is suck up oxygen and need things.

    Abortion is an open-ended issue, like it or not.  If it happens at all and it remains the prerogative of the woman and the “sperm donor” doesn’t count, why does it matter when it happens?   I’ve known “career women” who would have liked to off their teenagers if they could.  “That little freak reaminds me of his father!…whoever he is!,” she says, as she dials for the sleep van, a euphemism for the abortion truck complete with cremation facilities and all..  “Perhaps they’ll be happier this way, too!”  “I know I will, too, at least for a couple of days.” The teenagers are sobbing are are about to get charged with an anti-pro-choice hate crime if they don’t quiet down.
      
    A post-fetal abortion is the answer.  “It just wasn’t right for me after all,” she explains, and what is feminism is it isn’t all about me, me, me?  Feminism uber alles!, she mutters dewey eyed and her friends give her hugs of supports while the pro-family fascists gather together nearby in silent prayer. The police are watching them from the street and drones flying overhead in case they do somethig violent or attempt to harass women except, of course, those who are getting aborted.

  • regdev

    Im a Recruiter and I don’t agree with having Professors recruit. Its extremely time consuming! I’ve worked in the non profit and for profit sectors. In both sectors, I’ve worked as a field rep. and inside rep. And there’s a big difference in all four areas. In other words, there’s a lot to learn and that takes time. Speaking of learning how to Recruit a lot of Colleges invest thousands of dollars to train their Reps.

  • regdev

    You’re not alone, as a Recruiter I visit at least 200 different places per year. Then I go to people’s homes when they’re home in the evening. After that I have to schedule SEPARATE appointments for the following:
    Finalize application process
    Accuplacer
    Fafsa
    Additional paperwork requested by the D.O.E.
    Registration
    Orientation
    Follow up until they graduate

    •We have to do all this per student•

  • regdev

    Please keep in mind that Recruiters have a sales quota. Either you hit your goals or you’re out! Which means that we have to work until we hit our goal. I remember when I used to give presentations starting at zero period ending at sixth period. Since I lived in a different City I had to wait until I interviewed my appointments in the evening. So there I was crossing the desert to get home in the middle of the night. Yes, you’re right people here are showing how much they ignore!