BACKGROUND: Vitamin D deficiency is associated with progression of latent tuberculosis (TB) infection to active disease. The impact of preventive therapy on this association is unknown.METHOD: Serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25(OH)D) levels were retrospectively linked to adults diagnosed with latent TB between April 2010 and January 2019 in a hospital in London, UK. Individuals in the cohort who progressed to active TB were identified by matching to a national notification register. A logistic regression model was used to examine baseline vitamin D deficiency and use of preventive therapy with subsequent incidence of TB disease.RESULTS: Of 1509 latently infected individuals with 3902 patient-years of follow-up, 687 (45.5%) were identified as vitamin D deficient and 691 (45.8%) individuals had a LTBI regimen prescribed. There were 29 (1.9%) instances of TB reactivation. On multivariate analysis, profound (<25 nmol/L) vitamin D deficiency (aHR 5.68, 95%CI 2.18-14.82; P = 0.0003) and the absence of preventive therapy (aHR 3.84, 95%CI 1.46-10.08; P = 0.006) were associated with progression to active TB disease. There was no evidence that preventive therapy modified the association between vitamin D status and TB reactivation.CONCLUSION: Our results show an independent association between vitamin D deficiency and progression from latent TB infection to active disease.

Perceptions of student and professor competence and respect were investigated through a survey of 2042 students from 77 liberal arts colleges, both Christian and non-Christian. The Christian schools are part of the CCCU (Council for Christian Colleges and Universities); CCCU responses were 78.5 percent of the total. ChiSquare and Mann-Whitney tests were used to determine if gender and type of college affected students’ responses. Two conclusions can be made about student competence and value: (1) male CCCU students are most likely to believe that male students are viewed as more competent than female students and (2) non-CCCU students are more likely to believe that male and female student opinions and questions are valued equally. Regarding faculty gender differences, two conclusions can be made: (1) nonCCCU males are most likely to believe that female and male professors are treated with equal respect, and (2) CCCU female students are least likely to believe that female and male professors are viewed as equally competent. Students were also asked to identify factors that cause them to feel intimidated in a classroom. The top three reasons were difficulty of course content (60 percent of students), professor’s teaching style (41 percent of students), and personality style of classmates (39 percent of students). The least cited reason (12 percent of students) was being a gender minority in the classroom. Perceptions of gender competence: are Christian colleges different by Edee Schulze, Ph.D., and Annette Tomal, Ph.D. Perceptions of gender competence: are Christian colleges different “Too strong for a woman” – these words became the fighting words for University of Maryland professor Bernice Sandler as she was passed over for promotion, which ultimately ended up in the passage of Title IX in 1972 – a landmark event for women in education. Researchers concerned about sexism in education have typically focused on three explanations to explain gender discrimination: (1) patriarchy, which describes male domination; (2) institutional sexism, which describes inequalities in institutional structures and policies; and (3) sex-role stereotyping, which are individuals’ belief in cultural gender roles. This paper focuses on the concept of sex-role stereotyping by comparing students at Christian colleges and non-Christian colleges and their perceptions of competence of female versus male students and professors. Statistical analysis of survey results shows statistically significant differences in responses due to both gender and type of college (CCCU or non-CCCU). A seminal article on gender stereotyping (Broverman, et al., 1972) reported that males were perceived as being more intellectually competent than women. The question of stereotype accuracy has generated a growing body of research. Researchers have found gender differences in a variety of contexts: estimation of IQ (Reilly and Mulhern, 1995), knowledge of politics and sports trivia (Beyer and Bowden, 1997), and prior grades (Kurman and Sriram, 1997). Beyer (1998) investigated gender differences in self-perception accuracy and found that female college students underestimated their performance when performing a “masculine” task (sports questions) but with no gender differences for “feminine” and “neutral” tasks (knowledge of show business stars and of knowledge of literature and geography). In later research, Beyer (1999) found that both male and female students significantly underestimated female students’ GPAs and significantly overestimated male students’ GPAs. Guimond and Roussel (2001) found that perceived cognitive abilities in math, science, and language exhibit gender stereotyping and that both males and females students have inaccurate perceptions of their own ability because of these perceived gender differences. College students are not the only group affected by gender stereotyping. In a study on gender differences on faculty evaluations (Arbuckle and Williams, 2003), students evaluated faculty differently depending on both age and gender; young male professors were rated the highest, even though their lectures were presented in identical manners and expressiveness by other professors, whether male or female, young or old. Bauer and Bales (2002) also found that college students evaluated female professors less accurately and more negatively. Based on interviews with faculty and cadets at The Citadel, Siskind and Kearns (1997) assert that faculty treatment by students is worse for female faculty and that the gender bias may well be part of institutional culture. In 1982, Hall and Sandler prepared a report for the National Association for Women in Education entitled The Classroom Climate: A Chilly One for Women? In this report, Hall and Sandler argued that, despite Title IX legislation and historically unprecedented numbers of women in higher education, female students still did not

Over the last few years, the self-assessment tool known as the Enneagram has blossomed among the college student leaders at our Christian college. One of its values has been to encourage greater se...

Years ago, I came across a forum where participants were debating what was the greatest transition faced by the college student. Some suggested matriculation, others suggested changing academic dir...

Every few years, evangelical scholars publish volumes addressing the nature of how their faith interacts with their academic discipline. While it would seem to be a task that does not need to be repeated, each new project is distinctive to the context in which it is written. Our world is different from 10 years ago, contributing to changes regarding how the conversation looks and develops. Some material is timeless, while other information changes. Currently, underlying the faith and discipline conversation is the utilitarian response that asks, “What makes a Christian college so special?” The implication is that one could gain an education at less cost in other places than a Christian college. The three volumes being reviewed, each in its distinctive way, seek to address the distinctive nature and value of Christian higher education.

Over the past decades, evangelical scholars have produced a number of works reflecting and arguing for the unique value of a liberal arts education. These volumes particularly focus on how this ped...

A reasonable critique of American student affairs is that the profession does not utilize its heritage and history. The profession leans heavily on the praxis of its responsibilities to the detriment that it has a long history and those who worked diligently in years past have made what happens today possible. The Association for Christians in Student Development has a significant history. Some of it parallels contemporary culture, while some of it is unique. However, the current association reflects the vision of early pioneers. This article seeks to begin filling the gap, provide a sense of how the association arose and honor those who had a vision and pursued it. Some of the Early Story: The Beginnings of the Association for Christians in Student Development In 1978, a cluster of essays was released by a group of prominent student affairs administrators. They observed: Fewadministratorsseetherelevanceorimportanceofhistoricalforces and issues to the present status of student affairs administration . ... History provides a perspective and without an understanding of the role our predecessors played, the circumstances in which they worked, and the contributions they made ... we have a truncated knowledge of our profession .... In our field, the present is a dominant preoccupation [emphasis added]. The price of this preoccupation is the diminution of our predecessors but also of ourselves. (Appleton eta!., 1978, p. 9) Three decades later, the present still dominates the world of higher education administration. We look to the future in our strategic planning, goals and objectives, but are mostly immersed in the present. The past is sometimes acknowledged, but rarely, and it is often viewed as irrelevant. This article suggests that it is not irrelevant. The role of Jesus' followers is particularly important in the history of American higher education. Faith and higher education continuously intersect throughout history. As our focus is narrowed and the historical roots and impact of Christian student affairs are examined, we quickly recognize that the Association for Christians in Student Development (and its predecessors) has played and continues to play a major role in North America. Its formal beginning in 1980 has many facets and nuances. Those involved mentored many who are now retiring or have left the field. Many current voices in Christian student affairs are now the third generation since those early days. To fully understand Christian student affairs' role and impact, the narratives and stories regarding earlier individuals must be acknowledged and understood in order that we do not diminish ourselves and what we seek to accomplish with college students. The insight and experience of the past may surprise us with its relevancy and applicability. This is the reason for this article.

Reconciliation is a word full of profound inferences. It has implications steeped in the biblical landscape, yet it is also challenging to define. Using Miroslav Volfs guidance, twentieth century fiction, and film and pop music icons, this article seeks to glimpse a deeper biblical vision of grace and reconciliation. Volf observes that [t]o triumph fully, evil needs two victories, not one. Reconciliation sabotages and steals that victory from evil. Forgiveness and reconciliation do not negate justice; they provide the opportunity to go beyond justice and retribution. Simply put, reconciliation allows a terrible situation to be redeemed. Progress to Reconciliation: A Journey with Lewis, Bono, and Spider-Man Reconciliation is a word and idea full of profound inferences. It is often viewed in the context of racial and ethnic strife, yet it has significant relevance to other areas as well. In responding to interpersonal strife, often counsel and training focus solely on conflict mediation. While this tactic is helpful, bringing the loop to a close is often neglected; therefore, reconciliation is not fully achieved because there is more needed than just mediation. Further, reconciliation has broad implications, particularly for the follower of Jesus. It is a word steeped in the biblical landscape. Yet there seems to be a struggle in defining it, clarifYing what it should look like and the steps for how to achieve reconciliation. The impetus for this article has been my observation that there are men and women who actively and successfully engage in community reconciliation. Unfortunately, some of these individuals are also mired in the debris of their personal lives. They have unreconciled relationships with family members and neighbors. These strained and broken relationships become roadblocks to their reliability as reconcilers. The dissonance of their personal and public lives compromises their credibility. 1 Further, for the past dozen years, I have lived and worked on evangelical campuses. I am also familiar with dozens of other campuses across the United States and Canada. One of the common features has been the unresolved tension and conflict that exists at all levels within these campus communities. This paucity of conflict resolution is distressing for observers, members, and communities who seek to assist students in following Christ's admonition to reconcile relationships. I am personally interested in how reconciliation can be encouraged and facilitated at the personal level. 1 John Perkins calls this a contradiction. His meanings are tied to the notion of both hearing and following the gospel. A contradiction arises when hearing and following do not lead to the same action. 1he contradictions in this context are advocates of reconciliation who lack congruence in their personal lives with what they advocate.