ReportWire

Tag: high education

  • UC must publicly release Trump administration’s $1.2-billion settlement proposal

    [ad_1]

    UCLA must release the Trump administration document that outlines the terms of the $1.2 billion settlement proposal at the center of talks between the University of California and the federal government, the California Supreme Court ruled Friday.

    The decision is a win for UCLA faculty who have pushed for more transparency in the negotiations over the future of the nation’s premier public university system. UC has until the end of the day to disclose the 28 pages of federal demands for far-reaching policy changes at UCLA that are in line with President Trump’s vision for higher education.

    UCLA asked the high court to take two actions: block a lower court’s ruling that ordered UC to turn over the document to faculty and force the appeals court that declined to review the lower court decision to release a detailed explanation of its reasoning.

    “The petition for review and applications for stay are denied,” said brief Supreme Court decision, signed by Chief Justice Patricia Guerrero. The court did not elaborate on the matter.

    The proposal will be shared with the UCLA Faculty Association, an independent campus group which sued UC. Faculty leaders have said they intend to distribute the document publicly.

    “We’re excited that the Supreme Court agreed with us that every Californian has a right to see this letter and understand the scope of federal interference into our state institutions,” said Anna Markowitz, president of the UCLA Faculty Assn. and an associate professor in UCLA’s School of Education and Information Studies.

    UC did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

    What’s at stake for each side

    UC said in court filings that it would “suffer irreparable harm” to negotiations with the Trump administration if the document became public. It also said disclosure would hurt future settlement negotiations with other parties.

    University lawyers argued that releasing the proposal would invite “every member of the entire public to express each one’s views on every settlement” for an “uncontrollable public fray” around negotiations.

    The UCLA Faculty Association said that the document’s disclosure is required under the Public Records Act. The association argued that the information is a matter of public interest to faculty, staff, students, UCLA Health patients and Californian’s whose tax dollars support the UC system.

    Faculty sued after UC and UCLA denied public records requests. UC said it was not bound by public records law to share details of confidential settlement discussions.

    “The intense public reaction to disclosure at an early stage of an initial proposal could easily end any opportunity for discussion at its inception and hamper the ability to fully and fairly evaluate a response,” UC wrote a court filings.

    A lower court’s Oct. 14 ruling ordered UC to release the proposal to the association within 10 days. On Wednesday, an appeals court declined to reverse the decision before UC sought emergency relief from the state’s highest court.

    The Trump administration sent the more than 7,000-word settlement proposal in August, after the Department of Justice accused UCLA of violating the law in its handling of antisemitism complaints, admissions practices and gender identity on campus. Citing those alleged violations, the federal government suspended $584 million in medical, science and energy research funding to UCLA. The vast majority of the funds are now restored as the result of the a lawsuit filed by UC-wide faculty.

    UCLA has maintained that its policies comply with state and federal laws,. Its chancellor, Julio Frenk, has said the “far-reaching penalty of defunding life-saving research does nothing to address any alleged discrimination.”

    What’s in the document

    The Times reviewed the settlement proposal and, in September, published a detailed account of its demands.

    They include proposed changes to admissions to prevent alleged affirmative action, stricter protest rules and a ban on gender-affirming healthcare for minors at UCLA medical facilities.

    The document calls for UCLA to publicly announce that it does not recognize transgender people’s gender identities, prevent the admission of “anti-Western” international students and to pay the costs for an outside monitor to oversee the agreement.

    The offer also says that “the United States and its consultants and agents will have full and direct access to all UCLA staff, employees, facilities, documents, and data related to the agreement, in coordination with legal counsel for UCLA, except any documents or data protected by work product or the attorney-client privilege.”

    UC President James B. Milliken has said fine — a $1-billion payment to the government and a $172-million claims fund for people who say they faced discrimination — would be near impossible to pay.

    He has been less detailed on the other federal demands, leading to faculty complaints over how UC has handled negotiations and communicated updates to employees. Milliken has broadly said that UC will protect academic freedom as well as its mission and values in any potential Trump agreement.

    [ad_2]

    Jaweed Kaleem

    Source link

  • New California law will guarantee Cal State admission to qualified high school graduates

    [ad_1]

    NEW LAW GRANTS AUTOMATIC ADMISSION INTO CAL STATE SCHOOLS FOR QUALIFIED HIGH SCHOOL GRADS. YEAH, A LOT OF STUDENTS VERY EXCITED ABOUT THIS. GOVERNOR NEWSOM SIGNED THE BILL TO STREAMLINE THE COLLEGE ADMISSIONS PROCESS AND BOOST ENROLLMENT. KCRA 3’S DUNCAN CORTEZ SHOWS US WHAT THIS NEW LAW WILL DO. IT’S A NEW DOOR TO HIGHER EDUCATION, QUALIFIED HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATE MEETS, MINIMUM CAL STATE REQUIREMENTS, COLLEGE ACCEPTANCE. EASY ENOUGH. WHAT’S THE CATCH? SO WE’RE JUST CONNECTING THE TWO. AND SO IT DOESN’T COST ANYTHING BUT A POSTAGE STAMP. GOT IT. SO YEAH, TAXPAYERS DON’T HAVE TO PAY ANYTHING. CORRECT. YOU HEARD THAT RIGHT. IT’S A NEW LAW FROM A PILOT PROGRAM THAT LAWMAKERS ARE HOPING WILL IMPROVE. SOME CAL STATE SCHOOLS SEEING LOW ENROLLMENT NUMBERS AND STREAMLINE THE ADMISSIONS PROCESS. WE ALREADY KNOW WHO IS COMPLETED THE COURSES WITH A 2.5 GPA. LIKE, WHERE DO YOU KNOW THAT HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATES THAT MEET THE MINIMUM CSU REQUIREMENTS OF A 2.5 GPA OR C GRADE AVERAGE WILL AUTOMATICALLY BE ADMITTED INTO 16 CSU SCHOOLS THAT HAVE THE CAPACITY TO TAKE THEM IN, BYPASSING THE APPLICATION PROCESS. YOU’LL GET YOUR LETTER IN SEPTEMBER, WHICH MEANS THAT THEN YOU CAN THEN YOU CAN STILL DECIDE, HEY, I MIGHT. I DIDN’T KNOW I WAS A UNIVERSITY OF MATERIAL. THE CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, SHARING A STATEMENT WITH KCRA 3 SAYING BY FORMALIZING AND EXPANDING THIS PROVEN MODEL STATEWIDE, SB 640 WILL CREATE A MORE STREAMLINED, DATA DRIVEN PATHWAY FROM CALIFORNIA’S PUBLIC HIGH SCHOOLS TO ITS PUBLIC UNIVERSITIES. IT’S SOMETHING FRESHMAN MECHANICAL ENGINEER AHMED DAVIS SAYS COULD BE USEFUL, AS HE JUST WENT THROUGH THE APPLICATION PROCESS MONTHS AGO. A LOT OF PEOPLE WOULD LOVE TO HAVE THE CHANCE TO GO TO COLLEGE. SO A STATE UNIVERSITY AND THEY REALLY LIKE HELP WITH THAT FOR THE MOST PART. COULD THIS POTENTIALLY DILUTE ACADEMIC REQUIREMENTS IF STUDENTS JUST HAVE TO MEET THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS IN HIGH SCHOOL AND THEN AUTOMATICALLY GET INTO COLLEGE? NO. SO SO I MEAN, WE’RE VERY WE MADE SURE IT’S GOT TO BE RIGOROUS. IT’S THE SAME EXACT ADMISSION STANDARDS THAT APPLY TODAY IN SCHOOLS WILL BE USING TRANSCRIPT DATA FROM THE CALIFORNIA COLLEGES EDU WEBSITE TO DETERMINE STUDENT ELIGIBILITY, ALL FOR A MORE STREAMLINED APPROACH. IN SACRAMENTO STATE, DENNIS CORTEZ KCRA THREE NEWS. THIS NEW LAW WILL START WITH 43 SCHOOL DISTRICTS ACROSS CALIFORNIA, AND IT WILL EXPAND

    New California law will guarantee Cal State admission to qualified high school graduates

    Gov. Newsom signs SB 640, expanding statewide admissions program

    Updated: 8:09 PM PDT Oct 10, 2025

    Editorial Standards ⓘ

    The California State University Direct Admissions Program has been expanded statewide with the signing of Senate Bill 640 by Gov. Gavin Newsom this week, aiming to increase access to higher education amid post-pandemic enrollment declines.Sen. Christopher Cabaldon, District 3, who authored the bill, said it drew broad bipartisan support and emphasized that the new law does not use taxpayer dollars.“The only cost — a postage stamp to students letting them know they are accepted in,” Cabaldon said.Sixteen CSU campuses, including Sacramento State, will participate in the program. Six campuses are currently too full to take part: San Jose State, San Diego State, Cal Poly San Luis Obispo, Cal Poly Pomona, Cal State Fullerton and Cal State Long Beach. Students can still apply to those campuses through the traditional admissions process.Lawmakers hope the new law will make it easier for students to pursue higher education, particularly at campuses such as Sonoma State, which has seen the largest decline, nearly 4,000 students.SB 640 builds on CSU’s first systemwide direct admissions program, launched last year as a pilot with the Riverside County Office of Education. It also expands CSU’s existing Dual Admission Program, known as the Transfer Success Pathway, to ensure more students — especially those who might not have otherwise applied — see a clear and supported route to earning a CSU degree.The new law takes effect Jan. 1, 2026, with full statewide participation beginning for fall 2027 applicants. For students applying now for fall 2026, the priority application period runs from Oct. 1 through Dec. 1. CSU’s existing direct admissions program — which includes the Riverside County Office of Education’s 23 districts and 20 additional districts statewide — will remain in effect, and eligible students in those districts have begun receiving notifications.See more coverage of top California stories here | Download our app | Subscribe to our morning newsletter | Find us on YouTube here and subscribe to our channel

    , Calif. —

    The California State University Direct Admissions Program has been expanded statewide with the signing of Senate Bill 640 by Gov. Gavin Newsom this week, aiming to increase access to higher education amid post-pandemic enrollment declines.

    Sen. Christopher Cabaldon, District 3, who authored the bill, said it drew broad bipartisan support and emphasized that the new law does not use taxpayer dollars.

    “The only cost — a postage stamp to students letting them know they are accepted in,” Cabaldon said.

    Sixteen CSU campuses, including Sacramento State, will participate in the program. Six campuses are currently too full to take part: San Jose State, San Diego State, Cal Poly San Luis Obispo, Cal Poly Pomona, Cal State Fullerton and Cal State Long Beach. Students can still apply to those campuses through the traditional admissions process.

    Lawmakers hope the new law will make it easier for students to pursue higher education, particularly at campuses such as Sonoma State, which has seen the largest decline, nearly 4,000 students.

    SB 640 builds on CSU’s first systemwide direct admissions program, launched last year as a pilot with the Riverside County Office of Education. It also expands CSU’s existing Dual Admission Program, known as the Transfer Success Pathway, to ensure more students — especially those who might not have otherwise applied — see a clear and supported route to earning a CSU degree.

    The new law takes effect Jan. 1, 2026, with full statewide participation beginning for fall 2027 applicants. For students applying now for fall 2026, the priority application period runs from Oct. 1 through Dec. 1.

    CSU’s existing direct admissions program — which includes the Riverside County Office of Education’s 23 districts and 20 additional districts statewide — will remain in effect, and eligible students in those districts have begun receiving notifications.

    See more coverage of top California stories here | Download our app | Subscribe to our morning newsletter | Find us on YouTube here and subscribe to our channel

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • As USC considers Trump’s offer tying funding to conservative policies, MIT firmly rejects it

    [ad_1]

    As USC weighs its options, MIT has become the first of nine universities to forcefully reject a White House proposal that asks them to adopt President Trump’s conservative political agenda in exchange for favorable access to federal funding.

    In a letter to Trump administration officials, MIT President Sally Kornbluth said Friday the campus disagrees with provisions of the proposal, including some that would limit free speech and the university’s independence. She said that Trump’s “Compact for Academic Excellence in Higher Education” is inconsistent with MIT’s belief that scientific funding should be based on merit alone.

    “Therefore, with respect, we cannot support the proposed approach to addressing the issues facing higher education,” Kornbluth said in a letter to Education Secretary Linda McMahon and White House officials.

    The MIT rejection comes as University of Southern California has been roiled by the proposed compact since receiving it earlier this month. The school’s faculty members strongly denounced the offering at a meeting this week, calling it “egregiously invalid,” “probably unconstitutional” and “antithetical to principles of academic freedom.”

    But interim President Beong-Soo Kim told the roughly 500 attendees the university “has not made any kind of final decision.”

    At the same time, Gov. Gavin Newsom has aggressively weighed in, challenging USC “to do the right thing” and reject the offer. He threatened to withhold state funding to any California university that agrees to it.

    White House spokesperson Liz Huston said that “the Trump Administration’s only request is for universities to end discrimination. Any university that refuses this once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to transform higher education isn’t serving its students or their parents — they’re bowing to radical, left-wing bureaucrats.”

    “The truth is, the best science can’t thrive in institutions that have abandoned merit, free inquiry, and the pursuit of truth,” Huston said. “President Trump encourages universities to join us in restoring academic excellence and commonsense policies.”

    What’s in the compact

    The higher-education compact circulated this month requires universities to make a wide range of commitments in line with Trump’s political agenda. In exchange, universities that agree to the terms would get more favorable access to federal research grants and additional funding, as well as other benefits.

    They would have to accept the government’s definition of gender — two sexes, male and female — and would not be allowed to recognize transgender people’s gender identities. Foreign student enrollment would be restricted. The compact also calls for a five-year tuition freeze for U.S. students.

    It asks colleges to require the SAT or ACT for all undergraduate applicants and to eliminate race, sex and other characteristics from admissions decisions. As for free speech, schools would have to commit to promoting a wide range of views on campus — and change or abolish “institutional units that purposefully punish, belittle, and even spark violence against conservative ideas,” according to the compact.

    The universities were invited to provide “limited, targeted feedback” by Oct. 20 and make a decision no later than Nov. 21.

    Other institutions that received the 10-page proposal are: Vanderbilt, the University of Pennsylvania, Dartmouth College, the University of Arizona, Brown University, the University of Texas and the University of Virginia. It was not clear how the schools were selected or why.

    Leaders of the Texas system were “honored” that the Austin campus was chosen to be a part of the compact and its “potential funding advantages,” according to a statement from Kevin Eltife, chair of the board of regents.

    University leaders face immense pressure to reject the compact amid opposition from students, faculty, free speech advocates and higher education groups. Leaders of some other universities have called it extortion. The mayor and City Council in Tucson, home of the University of Arizona, formally opposed the compact, calling it an “unacceptable act of federal interference.”

    Some conservatives have criticized it. Frederick Hess, director of education policy at the American Enterprise Institute, called it “profoundly problematic” and said the government’s requests are “ungrounded in law.”

    “I am deeply sympathetic to the Trump critique of higher education,” he told The Times on Friday. “I support just about every point in the compact, but even I have real concerns about the way it has been framed and proffered.”

    But Hess noted that the compact has become something of a “Rorschach test.”

    “If you look at it one way, you see a bullying attempt by the administration to impose its will,” he said. “If you look at it another way, it is the Trump administration offering a positive, constructive vision of the federal-university partnership.”

    The view from Los Angeles

    The USC faculty’s vociferous disapproval of the compact during a meeting of the university’s academic senate on Oct. 6 was in line with the reactions of similar bodies at other affected campuses.

    In stark terms, USC department heads, professors and others condemned the compact, with several saying there should be no negotiations with the Trump administration.

    Kim, the interim president, attended the meeting, but did not share his opinion of the compact. He noted that USC did not solicit the offer from Trump. “I wanted to make sure that I heard from the community and received your input,” he said.

    Asked for comment Friday, a USC spokesperson referred The Times to comments Kim made Oct. 3, when he said that he would consult with the school’s board of trustees and other stakeholders to “hear their wide-ranging perspectives” on the proposal.

    Trump’s proposal comes at a fraught time for USC, which is in the midst of widespread layoffs as it faces down a $200-million budget deficit.

    Across town, UCLA has also been grappling with dire financial issues of its own, albeit ones that directly relate to the president’s forceful attempt to remake higher education.

    UCLA has been negotiating with the Trump administration over a $1.2-billion settlement proposal that would resolve a federal investigation into alleged civil rights violations on campus. The claims stem from UCLA’s handling of alleged antisemitism during spring 2024 pro-Palestinian protests. UC leaders say the fine would be “devastating” to the 10-campus system and have broadly indicated that other proposals violate the university’s mission and values.

    Speaking at a UC-wide academic senate meeting Thursday, UC President James B. Milliken said the “landscape changed” after the Trump administration offered the compact last week to non-UC campuses.

    He did not indicate whether the proposal affected UC negotiations but said that there was a “shift from a bespoke pursuit of universities to a wholesale” targeting of higher education, which he suggested put UC in a safer position. He said he did not know the impact of the compact on UCLA.

    In some ways, the compact presented to USC matches the settlement proposed to UCLA. Both, for example, make stipulations about binary definitions of gender that exclude transgender people.

    But the compact differs in proposing strict limits on foreign student enrollment and the tuition freeze for U.S. citizens.

    Although the compact has not been offered to UC, university officials are studying its contents to better understand Trump’s positions on higher education and formulate a negotiation strategy.

    Colleges nationwide debate compact

    Besides USC and MIT, the compact has been the subject of fierce debate at several other campuses that received it.

    At an Oct. 3 convening of the University of Virginia senate attended by interim President Paul G. Mahoney and hundreds of faculty, senate representatives voted down the compact.

    According to notes on the meeting provided to The Times, faculty expressed concern over academic freedom, discrimination against transgender individuals — and said they feared complying with it would have a “chilling” effect on free speech.

    Three days later, at a meeting of the University of Arizona faculty senate, 81% of voting members rejected the government’s proposal.

    At Dartmouth, President Sian Leah Beilock has also expressed hesitation over signing.

    “I am deeply committed to Dartmouth’s academic mission and values and will always defend our fierce independence,” Beilock said in a statement. “You have often heard me say that higher education is not perfect and that we can do better. At the same time, we will never compromise our academic freedom and our ability to govern ourselves.”

    Some university faculty, including at USC, have voiced skepticism over Trump’s willingness to adhere to the terms of the compact should an institution accept it. That, Hess said, is “a valid concern.”

    “If you look at the deal that have been struck [by the Trump administration] around tariffs and tech, there is certainly a sense that deals … are not written in stone,” he said. “Normally, in these conversations, I am usually very skeptical of faculty concerns, but from what we’ve seen … a lot of these practical concerns are very legitimate.”

    Binkley writes for the Associated Press.

    [ad_2]

    Daniel Miller, Jaweed Kaleem, Collin Binkley

    Source link

  • Commentary: McCarthyism in a MAGA hat? Trump’s campus deal sounds familiar to her

    [ad_1]

    Bettina Aptheker was a 20-year-old sophomore at UC Berkeley when she climbed on top of a police car, barefoot so she wouldn’t damage it, and helped start the Free Speech Movement.

    “Power concedes nothing without a demand,” she told a crowd gathered in Sproul Plaza on that October Thursday in 1964, quoting abolitionist Frederick Douglass.

    She was blinded by the lights of the television cameras, but the students roared back approval, and “their energy just sort of went through my whole body,” she told me.

    Berkeley, as Aptheker describes it, was still caught in the tail end of the McCarthyism of the 1950s, when the 1st Amendment was almost felled by fear of government reprisals. Days earlier, administrators had passed rules that cracked down on political speech on campus.

    Aptheker and other students had planned a peaceful protest, only to have police roll up and arrest a graduate student named Jack Weinberg, a lanky guy with floppy hair and a mustache who had spent the summer working for the civil rights movement.

    Well-versed in those non-violent methods that were finally winning a bit of equality for Black Americans, hundreds of students sat down around the cruiser, remaining there more than 30 hours — while hecklers threw eggs and cigarette butts and police massed at the periphery — before the protesters successfully negotiated with the university to restore free speech on campus.

    History was made, and the Free Speech Movement born through the most American of traits — courage, passion and the invincibility of youth.

    “You can’t imagine something like that happening today,” Aptheker said of their success. “It was a different time period, but it feels very similar to the kind of repression that’s going on now.”

    Under the standards President Trump is pushing on the University of Southern California and eight other institutions, Aptheker would likely be arrested, using “lawful force if necessary,” as his 10-page “compact for academic excellence” requires. And the protest of the students would crushed by policies that would demand “civility” over freedom.

    If you somehow missed his latest attack on higher education, the Trump administration sent this compact to USC and eight other institutions Thursday, asking them to acquiesce to a list of demands in return for the carrot of front-of-the-line access to federal grants and benefits.

    While voluntary, the agreement threatens strongman-style, that institutions of higher education are “free to develop models and values other than those below, if the institution elects to forgo federal benefits.”

    That’s the stick, the loss of federal funding. UCLA, Berkeley and California’s other public universities can tell you what it feels like to get thumped with it.

    “It’s intended to roll back any of the gains we’ve made,” Aptheker said of Trump’s policies. “No university should make any kind of deal with him.”

    The greatest problem with this nefarious pact is that much of it sounds on the surface to be reasonable, if not desirable. My favorite part: A demand that the sky-high tuition of signatory universities be frozen for five years.

    USC tuition currently comes in at close to $70,000 a year without housing. What normal parent thinks that sounds doable?

    Even the parts about protests sound, on the surface, no big deal.

    “Truth-seeking is a core function of institutions of higher education. Fulfilling this mission requires maintaining a vibrant marketplace of ideas where different views can be explored, debated, and challenged,” the document reads. “Signatories acknowledge that the freedom to debate requires conditions of civility.”

    Civility like taking your shoes off before climbing on a police car, right?

    As with all things Trump, though, the devil isn’t even in the details. It’s right there in black and white. The agreement requires civility, Trump style. That includes abolishing anything that could “delay or disrupt class instruction,” which is pretty much every protest, with or without footwear.

    Any university that signs on also would be agreeing to “transforming or abolishing institutional units that purposefully punish, belittle, and even spark violence against conservative ideas.”

    So no more talking bad about far-right ideas, folks. That’s belittling to our racists, misogynists, Christian nationalists and conservative snowflakes of all persuasions. Take, for example, the increasingly popular conservative idea that slavery was actually good for Black people, or at least not that bad.

    Florida famously adopted educational standards in 2023 that argue slavery helped Black people learn useful skills. In another especially egregious example from the conservative educational nonprofit PragerU, a video for kids about Christoper Columbus has the explorer arguing, “Being taken as a slave is better than being killed, no? I don’t see the problem.”

    And of course, Trump is busy purging the Smithsonian of any hints that slavery was a stain on our history.

    Would it be violating Trump’s civility standards for a Black history professor to belittle such ideas as unserious and bonkers? What about debates in a feminism class that discuss Charlie Kirk’s comment that a good reason for women to go to college is to find a husband?

    Or what about an environmental science class that teaches accurately that climate change denial is unscientific, and that it was at best anti-intellectual when Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth recently referred to efforts to save the planet as “crap”? Would that be uncivil and belittling to conservatives?

    Belittle is a tiny word with big reach. I worry that entire academic departments could be felled by it, and certainly professors of certain persuasions.

    Aptheker, now 81, went on to become just the sort of professor Trump would likely loathe, teaching about freedom and inclusivity at UC Santa Cruz for decades. It was there that I first heard her lecture. I was a mixed-race kid who had been the target of more than one racial slur growing up, but I had never heard my personal experiences put into the larger context of being a person of color or a woman.

    Listening to Aptheker and professors like her, I learned not only how to see my life within the broader fabric of society, but learned how collective action has improved conditions for the most vulnerable among us, decade after decade.

    It is ultimately this knowledge that Trump wants to crush — that while power concedes nothing without a demand, collective demands work because they are a power of their own.

    Even more than silencing students or smashing protests, Trump’s compact seeks to purge this truth, and those who hold it, from the system. Signing this so-called deal isn’t just a betrayal of students, it’s a betrayal of the mission of every university worth its tuition, and a betrayal of the values that uphold our democracy.

    Gov. Gavin Newsom has rightfully threatened to withhold state funding from any California university that signs, writing on social media that the Golden State “will not bankroll schools that sell out their students, professors, researchers, and surrender academic freedom.”

    Of course, some universities will sign it willingly. University of Texas called it an “honor” to be asked. There will always be those who collaborate in their own demise.

    But authoritarians live with the constant fear that people like Aptheker will teach a new generation their hard-won lessons, will open their minds to bold ideas and will question old realities that are not as unbreakable as they might appear. Universities, far from assuaging that constant fear, should fight to make it a reality.

    Anything less belittles the very point of a university education.

    [ad_2]

    Anita Chabria

    Source link