ED437880.Pdf
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
University of Maryland Men's Basketball Media Guides
>•>--«- H JMl* . T » - •%Jfc» rf*-"'*"' - T r . /% /• #* MARYLAND BASKETBALL 1986-87 1986-87 Schedule . Date Opponent Site Time Dec. 27 Winthrop Home 8 PM 29 Fairleigh Dickinson Home 8 PM 31 Notre Dame Home 7 PM Jan. 3 N.C. State Away 7 PM 5 Towson Home 8 PM 8 North Carolina Away 9 PM 10 Virginia Home 4 PM 14 Duke Home 8 PM 17 Clemson Away 4 PM 19 Buc knell Home 8 PM 21 West Virginia Home 8 PM 24 Old Dominion Away 7:30 PM 28 James Madison Away 7:30 PM Feb. 1 Georgia Tech Away 3 PM 2 Wake Forest Away 8 PM 4 Clemson Home 8 PM 7 Duke Away 4 PM 10 Georgia Tech Home 9 PM 14 North Carolina Home 4 PM 16 Central Florida Home 8 PM 18 Maryland-Baltimore County Home 8 PM 22 Wake Forest Home 4 PM 25 N.C. State Home 8 PM 27 Maryland-Eastern Shore Home 8 PM Mar. 1 Virginia Away 3 PM 6-7-8 ACC Tournament Landover, Maryland 1986-87 BASKETBALL GUIDE Table of Contents Section I: Administration and Coaching Staff 5 Section III: The 1985-86 Season 51 Assistant Coaches 10 ACC Standings and Statistics 58 Athletic Department Biographies 11 Final Statistics, 1985-86 54 Athletic Director — Charles F. Sturtz 7 Game-by-Game Scoring 56 Chancellor — John B. Slaughter 6 Game Highs — Individual and Team 57 Cole Field House 15 Game Leaders and Results 54 Conference Directory 16 Maryland Hoopourri: Past and Present 60 Head Coach — Bob Wade 8 Points Per Possession 58 President — John S. -
DOCUMENT RESUME ED 125 318 Hr 007 142 TITLE 74-75 Faculty
DOCUMENT RESUME ED 125 318 Hr 007 142 TITLE 74-75 Faculty Handbook. University of Maryland. INSTITUTION. Maryland Univ., College Park. PUB DATE 74 NOTE 45p. EDRS PRICE MF-$0.83 HC-$2.06 Plus Postage. DESCRIPTORS *Administrative Policy; Ancillary Services; *College Facnity; Faculty Promotion; Fringe Benefits; *Higher Education; Institutional Facilities; Instructional Programs; Job Tenure; *Personnel Policy; Salaries; *State Universities IDENTIFIERS *Faculty Handbooks; University of Maryland ABSTRACT The 1974-75 University of Maryland faculty handbook provides information on the university and its structure including programs of study, research facilities, campus governance,and undergraduate and graduate academic structure. Faculty policies and procedures are detailed including appointments, promotions,salaries, leave policy, benefits, and research policy. A listing offacilities and services available to the faculty is also provided. (JMF) *********************************************************************** Documents acquired by ERIC include many informalunpublished * materials not available from other sources. ERICmakes every effort * * to obtain the best copy available.Nevertheless, items of marginal * * reproducibility are often encountered andthis affects the quality * * of the microfiche and hardcopy reproductions ERIC makesavailable * * via the ERIC Document Reproduction Service (EDRS). EDRSis not * responsible for the quality of the original document.Reproductions * * supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made fromthe original. -
News and Notes 1980-1989
NEWS AND NOTES FROM The Prince George's County Historical Society Vol. VIII, no. 1 January 1980 The New Year's Program There will be no meetings of the Prince George's County Historical Society in January or February. The 1980 meeting program will begin with the March meeting on the second Saturday of that month. Public Forum on Historic Preservation The Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission will sponsor a public forum on the future of historic preservation in Prince George's County on Thursday, January 10, at the Parks and Recreation Building, 6600 Kenilworth Avenue, in Riverdale. This forum, is the first step in the process of drafting a county Historic Sites and Districts Plan by the commission. (See next article). The purpose of the forum is to receive public testimony on historic preservation in Prince George's county. Among the questions to be addressed are these: How important should historic preservation, restoration, rehabilitation, and revitalization be to Prince George's County? What should the objectives and priorities of a historic sites and districts plan be? What should be the relative roles of County government and private enterprise be in historic preservation and restoration? To what extent should the destruction of historic landmarks be regulated and their restoration or preservation subsidized? How should historic preservation relate to tourism, economic development, and revitalization? Where should the responsibility rest for making determinations about the relative merits of preserving and restoring individual sites? Members of the Historical Society, as well as others interested in historic preservation and its impact on county life, are invited to attend and, if they like, to testify. -
Part Two: Area and Site Analysis
PART TWO: AREA AND SITE ANALYSIS Anacostia Trails Heritage Area Heritage Tourism and the Heritage Area Maryland=s Heritage Preservation and Tourism Areas Program, by recognizing and certifying heritage areas, fosters partnerships between preservation organizations, parks and open space advocates, and local government officials to preserve not only individual historic sites, but their historic and cultural contexts. Successful heritage areas link sites, parks, greenways, and transportation corridors. More important, they encourage collaboration among large and small historical organizations, museums, visitors= centers, historic preservation groups, and others to form a network of interpretation that will support heritage tourism and thus add to a region=s economic development. Heritage tourists, who typically stay longer and spend more per visit than any other category of visitors, are an especially coveted market in today=s economy. This section of this report advances concepts and recommendations for the Anacostia Trails Heritage Area to develop a collaborative, region-wide system of interpretation, reflecting the historical context set forth in the preceding section. Such a system will enable this Heritage Area to capitalize fully on the significant, excellent investments in many special sites that can clearly take greater advantage of the rising trend in heritage tourism, realizing a return on that investment that will benefit not only ATHA visitors, but also its residents. The first portion of this section reviews the recommended interpretive framework, a set of themes encircled by an Aordering concept,@ or primary theme that helps visitors comprehend this historically rich, extensively developed region. In only a few square miles, fully fourteen municipalities, many major federal and state institutions, and multiple major transportation corridors jostle for space. -
University of Maryland, College Park (66-035)
University of Maryland, College Park (66-035) The University of Maryland, College Park (UMCP) is located in northwestern Prince George’s County, nine miles northeast of Washington, D.C. The main campus is situated on 650 acres within the boundaries of the City of College Park and serves as the flagship institution of Maryland’s university system. Current enrollment at UMCP is more than 36,000 students. 1 The University of Maryland began as the Maryland Agricultural College, established in 1856 by Charles Benedict Calvert and eighteen other wealthy planters. The new institution was created to modernize agricultural practices and enable local farmers to increase productivity. 2 To provide a site for the college, Calvert sold 428 acres of his Riversdale Plantation known as Rossborough Farms to the investors of the college. The site was on top of a hill that overlooked the Washington and Baltimore Turnpike. The Rossborough Inn (PG: 66-035-02) was the first stagecoach stop after leaving Washington, D.C. and was part of this parcel. The Federal-style tavern was constructed circa 1803 by the Calvert family and was enlarged in 1938.3 In 1858, the cornerstones were laid to the Barracks, which served as the first main building on campus. This structure served many functions including dormitory, lecture hall, dining room, classrooms, and offices. 4 On October 6, 1859, the campus was dedicated and the first classes were held for the 34 students enrolled at the college. 5 The school struggled for several years, but eventually benefited from the Morrill Land Grant Act of 1862, which provided federal funds for state colleges to teach agriculture, mechanical arts, and military tactics. -
Final Environmental Impact Statement and Draft Section 4(F) Evaluation 4-1 4.0 Environmental Resources, Impacts, and Mitigation August 2013
Chapter 4.0 Environmental Resources, Impacts, and Mitigation Chapter 4.0 assesses the impacts of the Preferred Alternative and the No Build Alternative upon the built and natural environment within the Purple Line study area. The No Build Alternative is the future condition of transportation facilities and services in 2040 within the corridor if the Purple Line is not implemented. The Preferred Alternative is the future of transportation facilities and services in 2040 within the corridor if the Purple Line is implemented. The Preferred Alternative and the No Build Alternative assume the implementation of the funded transportation improvement projects, excluding the Purple Line in the No Build Alternative, that are included in the National Capital Region Transportation Planning Board’s (TPB) Financially Constrained Long-Range Transportation Plan (CLRP) for implementation by 2040 within the Purple Line corridor. The No Build Alternative provides the basis against which the Preferred Alternative is compared. A consolidated discussion of the effects of the No Build Alternative is presented in Section 4.1.2. The findings in this discussion are based on the information available about the planned projects at the time of this writing. Detailed assessment of the effects of the No Build Alternative projects will be the responsibility of each project sponsor at the time each project design is developed sufficiently to complete such an assessment. MTA compared the effects of the No Build and Preferred Alternatives where reasonably feasible. Additional discussion of the No Build Alternative is presented in Sections 4.10 and 4.17 in which quantitative comparisons of air quality effects and energy use are made by MTA. -