Omitting Campus Info

LasMa · July 11, 2012, 12:48pm

This is a false choice. There are mechanics who are both qualified AND honest.

Bottom line, you intend to deceive. You can call it advantageous or expedient. But don’t try to call it moral.

ETA – It seems to be important to you to frame this as a moral decision, so look at it this way: Anyone can do the right thing when it’s easy. Integrity is doing the right thing when it might cost you something. And BTW, there’s no sliding scale; you are either a person of integrity or you’re not. Are you?

3togo · July 11, 2012, 2:38pm

OP, so if you don’t like the advise you’re receiving go for it. My guess, you are found out within 2 hours of starting your job and you’re going to have either blatantly lie or come clean. In my experience, after going through the HR paperwork the first thing the hiring manager does is s/he walks the new employee around the department … and the odds someone says something referencing your being a Wolverine or something about Ann Arbor are very-very high. So your next ethical situation will be waiting for you some time very soon after you start.

PS - as a subordinate one of the best ways to get a head is to make your boss look good … and the way to your boss’ s**t list is to make them look bad. I’m sure s/he will be pleased when they have to explain to their boss that they did not hire someone with the credentials they told their boss you had … how they messed up and how it was their fault. Frankly, of all the ways to lie about one’s background this is probably one of the worst ways as it is so likely to come up in normal day-to-day conversation.

sakky · July 13, 2012, 1:26pm

But again, why exactly would you be fired which implies losing your job for cause? After all, what’s the cause? You never provided any cause for firing because you never actually lied. If the company continues to assert that you were indeed fired for cause, they will have to demonstrate cause. Merely feeling ‘deceived’ is insufficient.

Now, granted, I agree that any firm can lay you off (without cause) at any time. But that happens all the time. More importantly, that’s easy to explain particularly in this economy, as millions of people have been laid off for entirely benign reasons. You can simply say that you employer decided to downsize staff, and you unfortunately happened to be one of them.

Besides, again, one has to compare having to explain why you lost your previous job vs. why you don’t even have a job at all. Seems to me that the latter is a far more difficult story to sell. At least with a job, you are able to develop valuable experience and networking contacts with which you can leverage to find another job. Sitting around unemployed provides you with none of that.

And I must continue to ask - why must we continue to invoke concepts such as integrity or morals? This is business, this ain’t beanball, and whether we like it or not, success in business is largely based on the strategic disclosure of information. When a movie studio deliberately omits the worst scenes of a movie to construct a trailer, is that “scary”? (If so, then I suppose all of Hollywood marketing is scary). When Apple, prior to the launch of the Ipad, secretly signed long-term supplier contracts for key manufacturing facilities to ensure that nobody else could quickly launch a strong tablet competitor, was that ‘immoral’? When a hedge fund refuses to disclose its trading strategy - and indeed, leverages dark pool trades and other obfuscatory schemes to disguise its trades - does that demonstrate a ‘lack of integrity’? I suspect that most of us would concede that, like it or not, that’s just the way that business is conducted.

Given that, I continue to ask: what exactly is so wrong for a potential employee to also strategically choose to withhold certain information about themselves? The act of hiring is a business transaction, no different from any other business transaction. Business ain’t beanball.

I might be convinced if I see Paramount Pictures + Dreamworks refund all of the ticket money they made for Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen that they drew for an epic series of trailers for a movie that has been widely derided as one of the worst movies ever made, having won the Razzie for Worst Picture and such that even director Michael Bay himself later openly admitting that the movie was “crap”. But hey, that movie turned out to be one of the highest grossing films of all time, and the studios are clearly not giving any of that money back. They’re laughing all the way to the bank. Nobody seems to be accusing them of “dishonesty”.

I find that one of the great ironies in the business world that when somebody strategically leverages information to market himself to obtain a job, he’s immediately castigated as behaving immorally or deceptively, when the money at stake is at most a few hundred thousand dollars a year. But when companies strategically leverage information through savvy marketing campaigns to influence hundreds of millions of dollars of revenue (Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen generated over $800million in revenue), the companies never suffer the slings and arrows of moral indignation.

sakky · July 13, 2012, 1:53pm

What’s uncomfortable about it? You never once claimed that you attended UM-AA. If the company was deceived, well, frankly, that’s their own fault. They should have been better prepared.

And of course all of that presumes that the HR department even performs any routine background check at all. Plenty of companies do not. Like I said, everybody here seems to persist in the belief that the hiring process is a soberly conducted state of affairs where applicants are rigorously cross-checked and cross-validated and anomalies are inevitably ferreted out. That’s a far cry from the way that hiring is actually done at even well-established firms. Like I said, Yahoo’s internal validation system couldn’t even figure out that their own CEO didn’t even have the computer science degree that he claimed. It took an outside hedge fund with an activist agenda - their goal was to muscle Yahoo into replacing certain Board members with the hedge fund’s preferred candidates - to show Yahoo that the CEO’s biography was false. What do you think that says about the scrutiny that Yahoo paid to the rest of its employees?

And, again, let’s keep in mind that the CEO of Yahoo actually outright lied about having a computer science degree. The OP, on the other hand, isn’t lying for he does indeed have an MBA from UM.

Ivyt · July 13, 2012, 1:56pm

It doesn’t matter if you don’t think it was deceitful

He still won’t get the job because of it either way

ucbalumnus · July 13, 2012, 2:16pm

It does not matter whether the claim is technically truthful or not. Nor does it matter whether you personally think it is deceitful or consistent with how business is otherwise conducted.

With something as subjective and holistic as hiring and continued interaction on the job, perception of those hiring is effectively reality, for better or worse, and whether or not it is consistent with any other attitudes about how they do business. Given that the proposed claim is considered deceptive by many, it does carry risk if you “get caught”.

Yes, Yahoo may not do enough verification checks of resume claims. But that does not mean that all companies are like that. And the Yahoo CEO did eventually “get caught”, if belatedly.

sakky · July 13, 2012, 2:29pm

Uh, no there is no such consensus at all, because I certainly don’t agree, and neither do other posters such as KnowledgeKick. So it seems to me that there is quite a bit that could be added to this thread.

And as far as my parents are concerned, my parents didn’t raise me to be naive: you don’t owe altruism to anybody who isn’t going to reciprocate. Sure, you should be altruistic with your family and friends. But business is different. I think we all know that businesses will screw you over, whether as a customer or an employee, without even thinking twice. Nor is this mere speculation on my part, but rather ample evidence of that can be found every day in the business news.

[quote]
Sakky, are you seriously arguing that because employers may have questionable ethics, prospective employees should try to get away with whatever they can? Where do you learn your business ethics? Are you an adult functioning in the business world or just a student? In either case, how do you have time to write such lengthy (and repetitious) posts?[ /quote]

I type fast. More importantly, since you raised the issue, I’m quite confident in my knowledge and experience about practical business affairs, if I don’t say so myself. Indeed, it is precisely that experience that leads me to take my current stance towards business.

Let’s keep in mind that ethics is largely a community-generated cultural concept. For example, it is obviously deeply unethical for me to walk up to somebody on the street, strike them in the face and try to choke them to unconsciousness. But that is entirely ethical - indeed, expected - if we’re competing in a mixed martial arts match. Similarly, I’m sure we wouldn’t want a bunch of Indians expounding upon the immorality of killing cows while we’re trying to barbeque a July 4th hamburger here, but I will refrain from eating burgers whenever I travel to India. Celebrating a successful business relationship via copious public consumption of alcohol is widely accepted in the West and East Asia (especially Japan), but would be considered to be deeply immoral in the Muslim world or even certain subcultures in the US (e.g. the Mormons).

The exact same philosophy holds when it comes to the business ethics of information disclosure. Perhaps there are certain regions of the world where the business culture is such that every participant truly does feel morally obligated to provide complete information disclosure for every business transaction. {I would actually be surprised that such a culture would have been able to survive competition from Western businesses.} But even if such regions do exist, we surely don’t reside in one of them. We live within a culture where business success is indeed largely (probably mostly) based upon the leveraging of information as a strategic asset.

Microsoft’s ingenious business transaction that transformed it into a behemoth was its bluff to convince IBM that Microsoft could sell an operating system for IBM’s new PC, when in reality Microsoft had no such product and had to scramble to buy one from SCP. If Microsoft had provided full disclosure as the moral guardians here might have dictated, then IBM would have simply purchased directly from SCP and Bill Gates would likely not be a billionaire.

Why is it morally wrong for employees to be able to get away with whatever they can, when it seems as if Bill Gates got away with whatever he could with regards to IBM and is laughing all the way to the bank?

sakky · July 13, 2012, 2:39pm

Again, why? You seem to be presuming that companies actually hire people carefully. Anybody who has been in business will surely attest that companies make plenty of careless hires all the time.

Um, sure it matters, because it determines if you can *be fired<a href=“for%20cause”>/i</a>. You can’t (legally) be fired for lying if you never actually lied. Companies who want to fire you for lying have to actually be prepared to actually point to the actual lie that they claimed that you made.

Now, again, I have always agreed that companies can always lay you off - which is different from being fired - at any time. But that happens all the time. More importantly, it’s elementary to explain to a future employer. {Heck, I’ve known people who were laid off during the very first few days of the job through no fault of their own as the company decided to downsize or shut down a division.} But at least you had the job, if only for awhile. That’s surely better than never having a job at all, which is precisely the problem faced by millions of people right now. At least now you have something you can put on your resume.

I’ve never disputed that being laid off from a job might elicit uncomfortable questions from future employers. But what will really elicit uncomfortable questions from future employers are large gaps on your resume with no employment at all.

sakky · July 13, 2012, 2:46pm

Sure, and only, again, because of the intervention of an activist hedge fund. How many other companies are the target of hedge funds? Heck, how many companies are even publicly traded, such that such disclosure of the CEO’s discrepancies would prove to be publicly embarrassing?

Besides, former Yahoo CEO Scott Thompson’s troubles stem from the fact that he outright claimed to have a degree in computer science. If he had merely claimed to have “studied” computer science, none of this would be an issue because that wouldn’t have been a lie (for it does seem that he did indeed “study” some computer science while in college). Similarly, if the OP states that he an MBA from UM, again, that’s not a lie.

ucbalumnus · July 13, 2012, 2:53pm

Being dismissed from your job is not the only risk.

You might not be hired at all for a job which otherwise does not care whether you went to UM-F versus UM-AA (or have an MBA at all), but where the manager or HR refuses to hire you because of the perceived attempted deception that was discovered in the hiring process.

And if you do get hired, a manager who sees that as a reason to trust you less may give you less desirable job assignments etc…

sakky · July 13, 2012, 3:36pm

And that has to be weighed against the risk of losing an offer from a company who would have been successfully ‘deceived’ (if that is indeed the right word) by somebody merely stating - truthfully- that they have an MBA from UM. Given the dubious hiring decisions that companies make every day, I’m quite certain that there is indeed ample opportunities for companies to be fooled. Like I said, you guys seem to persist in the belief of a soberly vetted hiring process where every candidate is always carefully examined and cross-validated. Anybody who has actually spent significant time in the working world would quickly realize that this is far from the truth.

Again, that’s only if the manager actually realizes what has happened (and cares). But, again, I think we can all agree that many managers wouldn’t realize what had happened. And besides, by the time that such a manager might have realized it, you might have already jumped to another company.

Indeed, there seems to be a pervasive underlying myth that permeates this thread that every firm in the country is efficiently and competently managed with diligent procedures and painstakingly designed organizational structures every step of the way. I doubt that you even need to have worked in the business world - merely observing how the business world actually operates - to convince you that that’s a myth. While certainly some firms are more competently managed and designed than others, widespread inefficiencies persist. Again, there’s a core reason why Dilbert is such a popular cartoon, because it speaks to underlying realities of the inanities of the business world.

[The</a> official Dilbert website with Scott Adams’ color comic strips, animation, mashups and more!](<a href=“http://www.dilbert.com/2012-07-12/]The”>http://www.dilbert.com/2012-07-12/)

ucbalumnus · July 13, 2012, 4:36pm

No one is claiming that proper verification occurs in every case. But it occurs in at least some cases. You might “get away” with it. Or you might “get caught”. You make it seem like you will either always “get away” with it, or that the consequences if you “get caught” are always minimal.

If you were a hiring manager, what would your choice be in each case? And what do you expect most hiring managers to answer?

A. You see a candidate whose resume says “UM”. Do you assume UM-AA, UM-other, or would you as explicitly which UM it is before deciding whether to bring the candidate for an interview? If it was not UM-AA, would that affect whether you bring the candidate in for an interview?

B. You bring in a candidate with “UM” on the resume that you assumed was UM-AA. But you find out before hiring that the actual school was UM-F. Would that affect whether you hire that person?

C. You hired someone from “UM” that you assumed was UM-AA. But you later find out it was UM-F. Would that affect how you deal with the person at work?

gibson96lp · July 16, 2012, 7:28pm

I found this thread while doing some research and had to chime in. I’m from Illinois and earned a B.S. from the University of Illinois at Chicago (UIC). I always specify because saying “University of Illinois” is generally perceived as University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Whenever I see or hear “University of Illinois,” I ask which campus. My problem with this whole situation is that companies often do not specify campus in executive’s biographies, news releases, etc. (at least with UI). This irks me because the reputation of a school is built on the success of its alumni, and by having “University of Illinois” in biographies, most (if not all) people automatically assume Urbana. I’ve even reached out to large companies and have gotten nowhere. Richard S. Hill (UIC alum) was Chairman and CEO of Novellus Systems for many years, which was recently sold for $3.3 billion. Hill was appointed to the Board of Directors of Cabot Microelectronics in June and his biography stated he earned his degree in bio-engineering from “University of Illinois.” He is a large annual donor to UIC’s College of Engineering so I decided to write into the company and here is the dialog:

to: <a href="mailto:investor_relations@cabotcmp.com">investor_relations@cabotcmp.com</a>
date: Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 8:46 AM
subject: Director Richard Hill

Ms. Tuntland:

I recently came across the appointment of Mr. Richard Hill as a member of the Board of Directors, which is excellent. I did want to request that you correctly identify his undergraduate institution as “University of Illinois at Chicago.” Listing it simply as “University of Illinois” gives a false impression that his degree is from “University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign” which is a disservice to UIC, and gives undue credit to UIUC.

Kind regards,

Nick

from: <a href="mailto:Trisha_Tuntland@cabotcmp.com">Trisha_Tuntland@cabotcmp.com</a>
to: Nicholas <>
date: Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 11:36 AM
subject: Re: Director Richard Hill
mailed-by: cabotcmp.com

Hello Nick,

Thank you for your interest in Cabot Microelectronics Corporation. Mr. Hill received a B.S. in bioengineering from the University of Illinois and therefore, the data stands accurate.

Regards,
Trisha

Take from this what you will… Another person I found quickly was Louis Gries who is the CEO of James Hardie (annual sales in excess of $1 billion). His biography states that he has a B.S. in Mathematics from “University of Illinois,” while it was UIC. Just another high ranking person at a large publicly traded company with this classification.

I guess I’m having the opposite problem because I’m trying to put credit where it is due. I say that if you’re going into this with the intent to mislead, then you’re doing a disservice. Be proud of who you are and where you went to school. While I technically did graduate from “University of Illinois,” and have every right to say it that way, I believe that campus detail should be given. People like Pizzagirl and Bill73 can keep puffing their Urbana-Champaign chests out while bashing UIC on these forums, but I hope they realize that classifications like the aforementioned are only helping the reputation of UIUC, and not putting UIC where it should be. Based on my limited look into this, I can only assume this is the tip of the iceberg. I think that with UI, the grads post 1980ish specify campus affiliation much more frequently (as evidenced by the CEO of US Cellular, Mary Dillon, having the specification in her bio). More issues with UI are that there are only a “University of Illinois Foundation” and a “University of Illinois Alumni Association,” so no campus designation is even more proof that University of Illinois is “one university with three distinct campuses,” as outlined at uillinois.edu.

Just my $0.02

sakky · July 18, 2012, 4:18pm

Actually, I never said that you will always get away with it, or that the consequences would always be minimal.

What I said is that such a move - while certainly aggressive - is entirely fair play. After all, not once did you ever state an actual lie. You were truthful at every single step. Now, obviously you weren’t completely truthful, but hey, frankly, there’s no requirement that you be completely truthful, befitting the same ethical standard that companies are never completely truthful with us. Like I said, that’s the way that business works.

Again, that all assumes that the hiring manager actually finds out, either within the hiring process or afterwards while on the job. Will they?

Let me put it to you this way. Upon graduation from Columbia, Barack Obama worked at the advisory firm Business International Corporation, then at the political organization New York Public Interest Research Group and then become director of the Developing Communities Project community organization before embarking to Harvard Law. Why do I suspect that these organizations would never have hired him had they known that he had been a major player in the pot-centric ‘Choom Gang’ and indeed had been a notable innovator of the rituals and culture of that gang? Or if they had known that he had also used cocaine? But they didn’t know. Neither did Harvard Law when they admitted him. And by the time that those organizations, along with the rest of the world, found out decades later about Obama’s self-admitted wayward drug-centric days through publication of his memoirs Dreams of My Fathers and subsequent biographies, it was far too late. He had already amassed useful professional experience from working at those firms. He already had his Harvard Law degree along with his status as the first black President of the Harvard Law Review, which he then leveraged to a top law faculty position at the University of Chicago.

{Now, lest anybody think I am making a partisan point, I would note that the same analysis could be applied to George W. Bush, who has also publicly acknowledged substantial substance abuse troubles. Would Harvard Business School still have admitted Bush if they had known just how extensive of an alcoholic he really was? Maybe his family influence might still be sufficient to win him admission, or maybe not, we’ll never know. But none of that matters, for at the end of the day, he obtained an MBA from Harvard which surely helped him establish his business career eventually culminating in becoming General Manager of the Texas Rangers which launched his political career.}

The upshot is that companies (and schools) are always bringing in new candidates who would have been rejected had they more complete information about the candidate. Often times, they never find out at all, or if they do, then not for years later, long after the candidate in question had already moved on to other endeavors. Nor does the company necessarily regret having done so. Business International Corporation and NYPIRG can forever claim that the level of talent of their staff is so elite that they may even be voted President of the United States. Never mind the fact that they might never have even hired Obama at all had they complete information about his past.

sakky · July 18, 2012, 4:32pm

Allow me to propose a highly plausible counterfactual. A human resources staffer, rather than a hiring manager, makes a determining regarding which candidates to screen out for an interview based on whether somebody graduated from UM, which is presumed to be UMAA and therefore is approved, vs. UM-Flint. The screen could be such that anybody not from a top 25 school (such as UMAA) would be screened out. The candidates in question never interact with the HR staffer during their jobs (as, let’s face it, most of us will never interact with HR). The only task that HR fills is the screening process.

So somebody with an UM-Flint degree who is ‘mistakenly’ not screened out is brought in for an interview, where he never lies about - and perhaps even openly admits - that he is actually from Flint. Nevertheless, the hiring manager who will actually be working with the candidate (as opposed to the HR staffer) along with everybody else in the office gets along swimmingly with the candidate and they decide to hire him.

Where’s the harm? I fail to see how anybody is getting hurt. Yet the fact remains that he would never have been interviewed at all had he not circumvented the screen erected by HR. The company and candidate found a compatible match, so what’s the problem? The only parties that might feel ‘deceived’ are the HR staffers who the candidate will never interact with anyway.

Now, obviously one might argue that the real problem revolves around HR’s unnecessarily silly screening rules. But let’s face it, all companies have unnecessarily silly bureaucratic rules of some sort, whether within the hiring process or elsewhere.

ucbalumnus · July 18, 2012, 6:55pm

Every place I have worked at, HR / recruiting office at the employer just forwards resumes to hiring managers, who then do the initial screening to determine which to bring to an interview. And, in any case, the hiring manager and all others interviewing the applicant review the resume before the interview. So the question of how a hiring manager will react (whether s/he will consider that to be unethical and (if so) how it will affect his/her treatment of the applicant or employee) is a valid one.

sakky · July 18, 2012, 7:47pm

But the question is - which resumes do they decide to forward? I don’t know about you, but at every single employer I have been familiar at doesn’t simply forward every resume they are sent, for that could easily number in the thousands or more, particularly if resumes are collected through online job postings. Indeed they won’t even forward more than a small minority. HR generally utilizes certain screens and then forwards resumes who survive those screens to the forwarding manager. And yes indeed, often times those screens will only pass through those candidates (if we’re talking about entry-level positions for new grads) from certain schools.

Now, granted, the hiring manager often times influences how those screens are set. Nevertheless, the fact is, screens are generally necessary simply to whittle down the avalanche of resumes that employers collect to a manageable number, and those screens are therefore necessarily statistical approximations. Nevertheless, I see no ethical problem whatsoever with a candidate circumventing such a screen to land the interview. The hiring manager might indeed consider such a maneuver to be unethical, but hey, on the other hand, by playing things ‘straight’, he would have never even gotten the interview at all.

And of course, like I said, that all assumes that the hiring manager would even find out at all. Given the deeply questionable hiring decisions that firms routinely make every day, color me skeptical.

I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again: if firms truly cared so much about the ‘upstanding ethics’ of their employees, then exactly why does the blizzard of scandals in the business news continue unabated? LIBOR manipulation, Mexican drug cartel money laundering (HSBC), illegal pharmaceutical off-label marketing and concealment of safety data, egregious violations and/or outright theft of segregated customer accounts, insider trading, and of course the still as-yet-unprosecuted mass fraud revolving around fraudulent mortgages and related securities - the parade of horribles stretches seemingly to perpetuity. If firms were truly so concerned about the ethics of their employees, then shouldn’t all the employees involved in those egregiously unethical, and often times outright illegal, activities that perpetually appear in the daily news have simply never been hired in the first place? Or if they were somehow hired, shouldn’t they have been quickly discovered and fired before they could inflict any damage?

Seems to me that only two possible choices are viable: (1) firms aren’t particularly circumspect about the ‘ethics’ of the employees that they hire, or (2) firms actually aid and abet the unethical behavior of their employees. I personally prefer to believe (1), but if you would like to argue that (2) is likelier, you’re welcome to make that case. But either story doesn’t exactly support the notion that firms soberly vet the ethics of their employees.

Besides, let’s juxtapose the situations that we are discussing. On the one hand, we have somebody with a UM-Flint online MBA who is stating (truthfully, if aggressively) that he has a UM MBA. On the other hand, we have bankers caught manipulating LIBOR for which Barclays has already been obligated to pay fines of over $400 million and resulting in the termination of the CEO, COO, and Chairman - and that’s just at Barclays, as everybody expects a slew of upcoming revelations from other banks. We have GSK just a few weeks ago pleading guilty to criminal charges and agreeing to settle for a $3 billion for illegal marketing - the largest settlement in US pharmaceutical history. To fixate upon the ethical dilemma of the proper branding of UM-Flint during the current season of corporate scandals is like comparing a mole-hill to Mount Everest.

ucbalumnus · July 18, 2012, 8:04pm

And if an HR office screening thousands of resumes per day using a resume-grep system is being picky about school attended, consider this:

A. They screen for “University of Michigan”. Then either “University of Michigan” or “University of Michigan - Flint” will pass.
B. They screen for “University of Michigan” and “Ann Arbor”. Then just having “University of Michigan” without “Ann Arbor” will not pass.

In other words, either situation would not allow gaining any advantage by leaving off “Flint”.

Just because they make lots of mistakes in hiring does not mean that they make mistakes all the time or that the proposed resume listing is risk-free. Nor does the high frequency of ethical lapses mean that they will ignore what they perceive as ethical lapses when they see themselves as the victim (double standards are very common everywhere).

sakky · July 18, 2012, 9:03pm

But you said it yourself - *if they are picky<a href=“or%20perhaps%20competent”>/i</a>. But what if they’re not?

Like I said, given the deeply questionable hiring decisions that are made every day, I see no evidence in the least to support the notion that the hiring process is the carefully enacted and soberly run myth that seems to pervade this thread. Heck, you even said yourself that the business world abounds with hiring mistakes aplenty.

Again, I never once said that the strategy is risk-free. Indeed, I have always stated that the strategy is aggressive, and that you may indeed lose some opportunities for supposed ‘deception’.

But like I said, you may also gain opportunities that you otherwise would not have. That’s the risk-reward balance that you must strike. Whether you then choose to enact this strategy is up to you. Nevertheless, I consider the strategy to be entirely within bounds. After all, never once did you actually lie.

Bill73 · July 18, 2012, 10:02pm

gibson,

Feel free to contact those executives themselves and tell them about your concern. Since companies often receive biographical information from resumes, it’s very possible that those individuals listed their alma mater as “University of Illinois”. So, if anyone is to blame for UIC not getting credit, it’s those people themselves.

Let us know how your interaction with those individuals goes.

Omitting Campus Info

CONNECT WITH US