Which is more annoying:
- A) The Provost (who “is an educator!”) posting this drivel on his blog; or
- B) his unwillingness (so far) to approve a comment I made about it four days ago which reads (I’m paraphrasing):
“Of course, the article fails to note that any humanities major would be able to identify the multiple questionable assumptions employed by this author. I’m glad you didn’t use your tagline for this post, Kojo; this is the work of a salesperson, not an educator.”
You be the judge!
The Harold Lounge 
Philodave- I know I speak for the multitudes, when I say we would love to hear how you responded in its entirety. If the academicvoice fails to approve your comment, I say “post it here!” First ammendment, Baby.
Though I’m flattered, there’s honestly not much more to it. I think I used the word “tripe,” but that’s about it. I was too mad to write a long one. Thought I might ruin the day for everyone if I got rolling on that.
In defense of the Provost, he’s a busy guy and I’ve not seen as much activity on his blog as I thought there would be when he started it. It appears that a) he may not be reading the replies or b) he is reading but unable to reply due to his busy schedule.
I don’t want to go off on the guy ’cause this is a good means of communication, but it ain’t workin’ that way at the moment.
All I will do is encourage our Provost to make more time to blog and hope he approves your post ’cause that would mean he read it, right?
While not every student will pursue a major based on employment prospects, I think students are becoming increasingly aware that certain majors have greater earning potential. CCC is ramping up these programs to create better opportunities in the labor market for our students. I have a BA in a humanities discipline, but I’m not blind to the limitations of such a degree. I might be a more well-rounded person because of my education, but I certainly make less than I otherwise would had I pursued a more lucrative career path. Dave, I’m not defending the article or the delay in posting your comment, but I imagine there is an underlying objection to CCC focusing on the career areas in your comment. The article might be a sales job, but isn’t necessarily bad advice for students.
I think we’re talking about different things, smileypants. You seem to be discussing the “college-to-careers” workforce development initiative, while I am objecting to A) the posting of an article–a poorly structured, sophomorically researched, and absurdly reasoned article–by the Chief Academic Officer of a seven college system, the thesis of which seems to be something like “Students need to consider the long term potential of their studies” (I’ll leave out the rest of the sentence which is something like “before trying hard to get good grades”–what the hell? Oops. I guess I didn’t leave it out) and which then goes on to construe “long term potential of their studies” in increasingly narrowing terms: first high salaries and low unemployment throughout careers (and that last prepositional phrase is, by the way, an authorial addition to the chart linked to as evidence, a not minor point); next, potential for getting a job in a field right out of college; and third, getting a job in a high growth field. In the last paragraph the author writes that students who think this way will be “well positioned for meaningful, career-driven [whatever that means] work before or shortly after graduation”–did you get that? “Meaningful work” = money. Gag me.; and B) the apparent unwillingness to approve and allow the posting of a critical comment.
I’ll take you at your word about the not defending the delay in posting the comment, but I’m not sure how to take the rest of your comment except as a kind of defense of the article. Your last sentence says that it isn’t necessarily bad advice for students. I’ll grant the “not necessarily” part, taking that word in the modal sense, but I won’t say it isn’t bad advice. I’ll even assert that it is.
Before I do that, though, I want to take up something else from your comment. You say students are “increasing aware that certain majors have greater earning potential.” Compared to what? Is there anyone who doesn’t know this? Maybe people who graduated in the late 90s don’t know it, but it’s certainly been obvious before and since. Nor do I think students are blind to the “limitations” (again, construed narrowly) of liberal arts degrees. But career success is not about how much one makes right out of college, nor the job one gets right out of college, nor the starting salary, but usually what one does once s/he is working in the company. Seven years into their career (which may or may not be seven years after they graduate from college), when today’s workers are (typically) on their third job, their major won’t matter a squat–their work and experience will, and the quality of their work will depend on the quality of their cognitive (and social and emotional, etc.) development. If they can think, and solve problems, and communicate, and work with others they’ll do well. If they can’t, they won’t. Whether they were a business management major or not. And woe to the company that lacks well rounded people (case study #1).
Philosophers and Anthropologists and Lit majors often don’t do well on the kinds of surveys that make up the “evidence” of the article at least in part because they sometimes take crap jobs after graduation (granted, sometimes for lack of better offers, but sometimes because of their own indecisiveness about their career direction) or go to grad school or wander around a bit. As an example, I did all three. Five years out of college, I was in grad school, working at a bar (read: not employed in a career field), which was the third job I’d had since graduation. Two years before that I made more money working at the same bar than I made in my ninth year as a full time faculty member at the City Colleges of Chicago. But I didn’t want to stay there; couldn’t wait to get out actually. Make sense of that story in the data presented in the article. Did I make a good decision on my major or a bad one? If you measured by income alone, I was doing pretty good. By employment in my field, not so much. By employment in a “high growth industry” I’d done well (I’d been in two in less than six month–(environmental services (a Green Job before it was cool!) and hospitality). Sounds pretty good if you put it that way, but it sure wasn’t while I had them.
I can tell you this–I wasn’t thinking about money when I picked my major, but I wasn’t blind to the fact that I’d have to find my own way forward. If I had been thinking about money, I’d have chosen to study Journalism (a high growth industry at the time!) or pre-law (for the money–L.A. Law baby). I have a few friends who went through law school for the same career minded reasons and none of them are practicing law now. I have another friend who loved the law, and he’s still doing it. Is that too anecdotal for you? Ok; fair enough. Let me just wrap up this section with this suggestion–before I accept the findings of any stat based argument, I look at the measure, and I reject any measure that claims to be measuring value or worth or potential for life whose data is strictly limited to having a job or getting paid; those two categories are, while necessary, not sufficient to a well lived life. Changing the measure changes the result, so we should make sure the measure is a good one. If, for example, your measure for “long term potential” is something like “Likelihood to score high on graduate admissions exams” then philosophy has extraordinary long term potential. Know a student who wants to be a lawyer or get an MBA from a top school or be a doctor someday? Maybe you should tell her to be a philosophy major, because they kickass on LSAT, GRE and GMAT exams.
If you’ve been patient enough to make it this far, then allow me to get back to the advice of the article. As I’ve implied, I take the advice of the article to be that students should construe the “long term potential” of the studies in terms that are drawn in exclusively financial and employment-related terms. I take the posting of the article by the Provost without comment to indicate his endorsement of this view.
I think the advice and the endorsement are huge mistakes for the reasons above, as well as the ones Kamran points out related to citizenship, and more. Believe me, this is the short version. What’s worse is that the point is poorly argued! What are the “high growth industries in Chicago”? Hospitality, Leisure, Business Services and Health related fields…since when? Since January 2012. (High growth over the last 10 months! Let me drop everything and retool!) What are the fields most likely to hire new college grads? Business Management and Consulting, Real Estate, Insurance…Any guess why those are high growth at the end of the worst job market and most devastating unemployment boom in 70 years? Maybe it has something to do with the absolute gutting of those industries in 2008 through 2010? Might that have something to do with it? (This is where that “high employment” (Wall Street Journal measure) and “high employment throughout their careers” (description of the WSJ measure by the author) matters. See how the subtle addition is potentially falsifying of the evidence?)
Look, I have no problem with students who want to focus on career paths. I have no problem with community colleges having multiple missions–it’s been true for of CCs for years. I WOULD object to the two missions in play here “College Credit” and “Workforce Development” being collapsed into a single category, and I would expect our Chief Academic Officer to reject any and all such conflations.
I do not think it’s an either/or; it seems to me that we’d be in agreement on that (and maybe on much of the above). I think there’s room for a “robust radiology” program and Sociology, and I don’t really believe (despite appearances–e.g. the Mayor’s statements, etc.) that the administration is trying to crowd out the latter with the former.
But I am appalled that the Provost (an “Educator!” in his own words) would promote and seemingly endorse such a narrow conception of Higher Education, as being exclusively about the potential for earning money.
“The true college will have ever one goal,–not to earn meat, but to know the end and aim of that life which meat nourishes.”
—W.E.B. DuBois, The Souls of Black Folk.
I agree that it’s not an either/or, which is my point. We strive to provide high-quality educational opportunities for students who have various goals. I always will encourage students to follow their passions, whether that’s history, art, social work or business, transportation, hospitality. It all depends on what the student wants to get out of their education.
First, it seems that many of our district level administrators have forgotten what the purpose of an academic education is. Historically, in our nation especially, it has been for the development of democratic citizens: citizens who are capable of thinking about political, social, and ethical questions and choices critically and creatively, and who are capable of expressing their well-formed thoughts to their neighbors and the multitude, in order to responsibly take on the democratic duty of being a small legislator.
The emphasis on earning a degree specialization is more proper to a vocational or technical school. That is not the design or purpose of any community college, including our own. With this post, Provost Kojo is stating explicitly that he is not interested in contributing to an academic institution, but rather a technical one. If this post is encapsulates his full stance, then he ought to change his name from “The Academic Voice” to “The Pragmatic Voice,” and seek employment elsewhere. I hope that this is not the case: that the Provost merely wished to share this post for the purpose of discussion, and perhaps absent-mindedly forgot to include any thoughts of his own. (Perhaps a class on rhetoric would help him express himself more clearly?)
I am not arguing that the emphasis of a technical degree is bad: I am only arguing that making technical degrees our top priority, and especially at the expense of the liberal arts, is antithetical to the purposes of an academic institution.
Neither am I arguing that students should not be concerned with getting themselves ready for an occupation after college. Students should absolutely be concerned with that: But it is the goal of a democratic college to nurture our students into citizens that can participate in their occupations, while thinking about their situation, profession, selves, and community critically, by bringing to bear the creative and critical skills that are best developed in philosophy, history, and the various branches of artistic criticism. It is to make all citizens literate in the sciences, so that all citizens have the capacity to evaluate the scientific claims that may influence their thought and discussion on the implications of the various policies from which they must vote on.
Furthermore, the great virtue of any democracy is in the diversity of thought. For the institution itself to push its students into a narrow band of majors inhibits that diversity. For the healthy maintenance of our democracy, both at local and national levels, we need people with a diverse set of specializations. All communities, whether in a job-place, school, family, church, or civic communities, benefit from having someone who understands the principles of psychology, who can inform the community of lessons from history, or bring to bear the arguments of philosophers. Any community that is missing someone knowledgeable in statistics or sociology are communities that are at a deficit.
There are other points of contention: PhiloDave brings up one of the most important, in that it has been shown that savvy recruiters often seek out individuals who can demonstrate they can use their critical thinking skills in unrelated work environments: a business can frequently teach its new employees how to do the required job, but have difficulty teaching its employees to think deeply, creatively, and synthetically. There is also the question of whether or not we professors are doing a good job in showing our students the value of transferring studies of liberal arts to other environments: it is one thing to repeat again and again that having a philosophy degree is viable in the job-market: it is another thing to show them how to make it viable, and to demonstrate to employers that they have done that preparation. Getting an A in philosophy does not demonstrate that a student has learned this.
“Furthermore, the great virtue of any democracy is in the diversity of thought.”
It seems you might be on the wrong side of your own statement here. If a student wants to pursue the liberal arts, that’s great. HWC provides excellent classes to help that student succeed in their goals. However, if a student is concerned about employability, the technical areas may be more in line with their own goals. I don’t believe we are sacrificing the liberal arts in favor of technical education. We are expanding on high demand areas within the labor market. Student will ultimately decide whether or not these programs are viable or not.
As for the history of higher education, I disagree. I suppose you could go back to Ancient Greece and label the philosophical training that took place as an academic education, but the american university was rather different, focused on religious training. Community colleges have historically included in their mission a focus on vocational training, dating back to the great depression. Here we are in the midst of the greatest economic downturn since then and you think that vocational training is not the design or purpose of a community college. Where’s the diversity of thought in that statement?
“As for the history of higher education, I disagree. I suppose you could go back to Ancient Greece and label the philosophical training that took place as an academic education, but the american university was rather different, focused on religious training.” – Smileypants
You mistake me. I was not speaking about the common folly of emphasizing religion in one’s education, but rather the expressed plan of some of the engineers of American government. When you say that my argument is only true of the Ancient Greeks, I am most thoroughly puzzled. It was in Athens that democracy fell apart, precisely because they did not yet understand the danger of an educated and uncultivated body of citizens. It is only in the late-enlightenment modern democracies that we first start seeing the arguments of universal education, not for the sake of occupational knowledge, but for the necessary development of prepared citizens. This argument never needs to be made of any other form of government, nor would it have been much realized by earlier democracies.
As Thomas Jefferson argues in his “Notes on the State of Virginia,” the goal of a democratic education is to prepare individuals to become excellent citizens. “For this purpose the reading in the first stage, where they will receive their whole education, is proposed, as has been said, to be chiefly historical.” In this case, not only what we currently include in history departments, but also the study of classical languages, enabling the reading of true primary sources in politics, philosophy, and the arts. To continue, “History, by apprising them of their past, will enable them to judge of the future; it will avail them of the experience of other times and other nations; it will qualify them as judges of the actions and designs of men; it will enable them to know ambition under every disguise it may assume; and knowing it, to defeat its views.”
As far as religion is concerned, it is a danger until our students’ minds have been properly prepared with the wide diversity of thought presented in the study of history: “Instead, therefore, of putting the Bible and Testament into the hands of the children at an age when their judgments are not sufficiently matured for religious inquiries, their memories may here be stored with the most useful facts from Grecian, Roman, European, and American history. The first elements of morality too may be instilled into their minds; such as, when further developed as their judgments advance in strength, may teach them how to work out their own great happiness, by shewing them that it does not depend on the condition of life in which chance has placed them.”
All forms of government are subject to volatility, they said, and in a democracy, the volatility is as a result of individuals not developing their minds adequately. Democracies are most volatile when their legislators–the body of all citizens–do not exert the effort, or are not properly prepared, to think critically. “In every government on earth is some trace of human weakness, some germ of corruption and degeneracy, which cunning will discover, and wickedness insensibly open, cultivate and improve. Every government degenerates when trusted to the rulers of the people alone. The people themselves are its only safe depositories. And to render even them safe, their minds must be improved to a certain degree.”
Jefferson observed the European schools placing less focus on the traditional classics, and arguing that they must be preserved in an American democracy above all: “I know not what their [Europeans’] manners and occupations may call for: but it would be very ill-judged in us to follow their example in this instance. There is a certain period of life, say from eight to fifteen or sixteen years of age, when the mind like the body is not yet firm enough for laborious and close operations. If applied to such, it falls an early victim to premature exertion; exhibiting, indeed, at first, in these young and tender subjects, the flattering appearance of their being men while they are yet children, but ending in reducing them to be children when they should be men.” He is bemoaning what may happen in the US if we cease to expand the powers of our minds, but pursue forms of education.
Consider the state of modern political discourse. How often do we see individuals patiently trying to understand the full intellectual arguments of other political persuasions? How often do citizens attempt to sympathetically write an argument directed at the other side? More often than not, the hearts and minds of our citizens lose patience and feel anger for their political opponents, and their only arguments are straw-men, designed not to provoke their opponents to think, but rather to sympathy and anger among their allies.
Democracy in America today is in shambles because our education has lost its way. We have placed all our focus and wealth on the technical arts, or trying to enforce shallow modes of assessment on a narrow band of intellectual skills. Those lessons that are deeper, that have to do with the development of an excellent democratic character, and which cannot be assessed, and cannot be trained with technical skills, are left in the dust. The goal of America, to make a working democracy where people have the freedom and education to wrestle with one another on the field of ideas, is quickly being eroded.
(All quotations from Thomas Jefferson’s “Notes on the State of Virginia.”)
I have not yet read that piece by Jefferson, but fully intend to now. Thanks for the pointer.
It is from “Query XIV: The Administration of Justice and Description of the Laws?,” pages 152-154, “Notes on the State of Virginia.”
Not to mention, at least to my knowledge, the American universities that focused on religion were not public universities, but rather the super-elites: education provided not for the sake of citizenship, but rather as a luxury. I am speaking of the goals of publicly funded and governed institutions of education.
It seems you’ve avoided any response to my first paragraph. You, as the champion of democracy, seem overly limited in your perspective, possibly stifling the same democratic principles that you wish to focus on. Though I am entirely supportive of a curriculum that incorporates the liberal arts, I think your version of higher education is elitist.
How about the difficult to read, somewhat oblique, magnetic name badges we received today? They say, “I make education work.” or something like that. Does that have a place in this thread?
YES!! Thanks for getting it in here.
Oblique show be opaque, though oblique isn’t completely off, oops
Double oops. There is a film that can be removed from the name badge making it a bit easier to read. But, in doing so I nearly took the entire thing apart.
It amuses me that amid so much discussion no one has actually said A or B.
From Badgemaster:
“Research finds staff name badges raise customer satisfaction by 12 per cent
New research carried out in three countries has found that in businesses and customer facing staff, something as simple as wearing a name badge can make a huge and immediate difference to customer satisfaction levels.
The study, carried out by mystery shopping and customer experience experts Shopper Anonymous (www.shopperanonymous.co.uk), found that when a range of businesses introduced name badges for all staff, customer satisfaction ratings rose by a remarkable 12 per cent almost overnight, in comparison to those that didn’t require staff to wear badges.
The figure came out of the study of 116,000 mystery shopper reports carried out over the last eight years in the UK, Australia and New Zealand by independent research experts.
Customers wanted staff to be wearing badges so they could distinguish between staff and other customers if uniforms weren’t being worn, said they trusted staff wearing name badges and were more likely to build up a relationship conducive to making a sale with someone who wasn’t anonymous.
The feedback clearly emphasised that the wearing of staff name badges can increase customer satisfaction by 12 per cent. Making sure your employees are easily recognisable can also help to create a warm, friendly and professional atmosphere within your business.
John Bancroft, managing director of Europe’s largest name badge manufacturer, Badgemaster, thinks your choice of design is an extra opportunity to help boost your brand: ‘We can manufacture custom-made bespoke name badges, in line with a company’s corporate identity.’ Royal Warrant holders Badgemaster provide the name badges for the customer facing staff in most of the UK’s leading brands including such well known names as Harrods, Selfridges, Boots, Premier Inn, Best Western, Virgin, Lloyds Banking Group, Easyjet, The Co-op and the Environment Agency. They also meet the badging needs of thousands of similar and many thousands of smaller and independent employers producing a wide range of designs according to each customer’s specific requirements, incorporating logos and other features.
‘It is very rare to go into a quality establishment these days and find that staff are not wearing name badges,’ continues John. ‘The benefits are clearly proven.’ Badgemaster’s award-winning design team can also make a site visit if necessary, and their experienced customer service team are always available to provide useful advice, quotations, brochures and samples without obligation. The company also produces lanyards and all types of staff identity products as well as a huge range of custom made promotional button badges.”
Satire! Love it.
“Most anyone will agree that customer service is one of the most important parts of your company’s overall strategy to conducting business. Without customers you really don’t have a business. If this is the case, why is it mostly everyone as consumers can easily mention examples of poor customer service in their daily lives? Every company either has or thinks it has good customer service. However, if certain steps are not taken to ensure this, the reality of their situation is often far worse than their current perceptions.
In any successful business or organization, the commitment to customer service always begins at the top, the company’s leaders must buy into the fact that they not only need to meet their customer’s expectations, they must strive to exceed them. They must develop a company culture that understands, embraces and executes this concept. In today’s world, business competition is tougher than ever. If you can’t provide goods or services when somebody wants or needs them, there are often four or five other companies immediately ready to fill this void. You only get one chance to make a good first impression. If the company’s leaders do not accept this fact, or are not willing to provide the necessary resources to meet their customer’s needs, they will soon find themselves scrambling for business.
Proper training is one way to develop a company culture that embraces excellent customer service. Every employee must understand implicitly what is expected of them when interacting with customers. Is there an established, uniform way to answer the phone? Are there set procedures in place for instances when a customer has a question or problem? Is there an established chain of command to make sure that issues are handled in a timely fashion? And most importantly is everyone trained to carry out these company procedures? How you handle the problem is far more important than the problem itself. A customer must always be made to feel as though their best interests are being given serious consideration, even when you can’t give in to their demands. It is far better to say ‘no’ with a smile, than ‘yes’ with an attitude.
Customer feedback is an excellent way to track and measure your level of service. You should not only benchmark your company against your competition, but also against the goals you set for yourself. Once again, you must remember you are trying to not only meet, but exceed your customer’s expectations. Written surveys are one way to gage customer satisfaction. This can be useful to obtain feedback on a wide variety of company functions. Always allow for written comments, as these usually will help shed light on problem areas. Management’s interaction with customers is an excellent way to not only measure overall efforts, but to also show the level of commitment the company has towards their needs. A manager who does not spend anytime with customers is likely to be detached and unaware of what their employees do and what their customers want. You always feel better if you have the chance to talk to someone who actually sets policy, not just someone paid to carry it out.
In today’s world of bigger, faster, better you need to be the company that gets it right the first time, and if you don’t, you must quickly rectify your mistakes. If you consistently make this part of how you conduct business, your customer’s loyalty will continue to grow. The surest way to continued success and future growth is to not only meet your customers expectations, but to exceed them at every possible turn.
Good customer service is the foundation of any business. It provides a platform for continued growth and helps to build your businesses reputation. You can offer promotions and slash prices to bring in as many new customers as you want, but unless you can get some of those customers to come back, your business won’t be profitable for long.
Good customer service is also about sending them away happy – happy enough to pass positive feedback about your business along to others, who may then try the product or service you offer for themselves, in their turn becoming repeat customers.”
My Fellow Educators,
I have approved PhiloDave’s comment on the article I posted on my blog. I am elated to see how much debate it has generated on the Harold Lounge.
I appreciate and respect your opinion, PhilioDave. Thanks for reading my blog. All I have to say at this point is that I have no doubt that we both believe in education and its transformative power.
In the early part of the 20th century, two great scholars, W.E. B. DuBois and Booker T. Washington debated the merits of technical/vocational vs. liberal arts/humanities education for African-Americans. As acerbic and vituperative as that debate was between these great African-American educators, we have come to realize that they were both right — it is not either/or, it is both. I think we can all agree on that.
I expound on their debate in my book,” A Critical Analysis of the Contributions of Notable Black Economists”.
I believe in education because I realize what a difference it has made in my life. I am not endorsing any particular type of education, I am simply endorsing education.
My name is Kojo and I am an educator
Thank you, Provost Quartey; I appreciate the gesture and spirit in which you’ve approached the situation and discussion. Unfortunately, it seems that you’ve approved the pingback from this post rather than the comment that inspired it (submitted Sunday night, I believe). Depending on your settings, the comment in question may be in the Spam or Trash folder.
Regardless, though, at this point, I’m less interested in having it posted (since it’s paraphrased above) than in knowing more about your reasons for posting the article by Ms. Foster of the many, many, many articles “endorsing education” that may have been chosen and, second, whether you would consider changing your comment settings so approval is not required. I am truly puzzled by the former.
Dear Kojo,
Thank you so much for putting yourself out there with this post. I really appreciate your leadership.
Since, we have your attention, I was wondering if you might intercede on the faculty’s behalf with those making decisions about our copiers and printers. We have been told that when our printers run out of ink, we will not be able to order new ink. The thought is that we can instead use the copiers for each floor. However, it doesn’t actually work that way. For instance, people in the Humanities housed on the third floor, print to their department copier on the 10th floor. The math department, probably the number one user of the copier machine/printer, have to walk to the other side of the building to get their copies. I’m sure they appreciate the exercise but it is ludicrous that they don’t have their own printers/copier.
At the same time we see money being spent on silly things, like name badges, we are taking up collections in the departments to buy ink for our printers/copiers. It is demoralizing. This printer/copier policy was poorly conceived, poorly implemented and is an all-around bad idea. PLEASE, help your faculty get the tools they need to serve our students.
I second that emotion. This has been crippling. Why are we treated like infants (or criminals even). I find it quite sad that I’m jealous of my colleagues at UIC and other schools because they can print. I have printer envy. What would Freud say about that?
In all seriousness (I know that Kojo appreciates a joke), requiring 24 hours advanced planning for printing stifles creativity, adaptability and (formative) assessment guided instruction. We are not robots. 10 copies max is an insult. I take major offense to that actually. 30 was mildly insulting given that classes often have ≥35 students. 10 is absurd. Thanks for reading. Stop wasting money and branding. My students deserve a teachers without their hands tied behind their backs. Let’s keep our students and make them happy to be at CCC, instead of spending all of our time trying to seduce more students to attend.
I agree, Kojo. Now, how do we sell this to the chancellor and the mayor and Aon and the folks at Hyatt and Coyote Logistics and all the rest who are looking for cheap labor?
First, to answer PhiloDave’s question: why did I post this particular article? Simple answer is that the author approached me with this article which endorses education. I believe in education, so I posted it. I just put two of my children through college and have two in college now, so after that experience, I am compelled to ask myself, ” what would I want for my own children?” Even in asking that, I do not dictate or conscript their choices. I could go into more detail, but I hope this answer suffices. In terms of my approval settings, I will discuss that with OIT.
In reference to printing, copying and ink, I was completely unaware of this and will look into helping to resolve this right away.
Thanks.
The last comment was posted by Kojo, not “anonymous”. Sorry.