As anyone who has graduated from or worked for one knows, colleges and universities are in constant need of money, and fund-raising for these institutions has become a growing industry in and of itself, as the creative titles for fund-raising positions advertised in the Chronicle of Philanthropy attest. College and university administrators have always been scrambling for money, and the papers, pledge books, and office files of John D. Rockefeller document the find-raising efforts of many school administrators in the late nineteenth century. Rockefeller, a devout Baptist, was interested in the educational work of his denomination, including the growth and maintenance of missions, academies, and colleges; and in the 1880s he was especially interested in the campaign by the denomination's leaders to create a great Baptist university.

The General Education Board's (GEB) substantial contributions to African American education in the South are well documented, but how the Board prioritized what types of black educational institutions to fund has received less attention. How did the Board decide between public and private schools, industrial training and academic curricula, common schools and colleges? And how did the Board's thinking on these issues evolve over time due to changes in personnel and leadership? Furthermore, to what extent did the preferences of white Southerners influence the Board's decision making in these matters? My research at the Rockefeller Archive Center focused on three institutions that represented the full range of possibilities for black education in the early twentieth century. North Carolina College for Negroes at Durham, which was chartered in 1925 as the region's first state-sponsored four-year liberal arts college for African Americans, began as the privately funded but denominationally unaffiliated National Religious Training School in 1909. The Mississippi Negro Training School, which did not became part of the Mississippi state system until 1940, began in 1882 as Jackson College, an institution supported by the American Home Baptist Missionary Society. Virginia State College for Negroes in Petersburg, chartered in 1930, had been part of the public system since its establishment as Virginia Normal and Collegiate Institute in 1882. In 1902, its name was changed to Virginia Normal and Industrial Institute. Each of these institutions received financial support from the GEB at some point in their developing years, though none was ever a favorite institution of the Board. Thus, the correspondence records and reports for these schools in the GEB files reveal more rejections than acceptances of funding proposals. But within these interoffice discussions of why the Board chose not to fund these schools is a treasure trove of information. Because of chronic underfunding, several historically black colleges and universities possess little in the way of archival records concerning their institutional pasts. The state bureaucratic records pertaining to the establishment and maintenance of publicly funded historically black institutions, particularly in Mississippi and Virginia, are also limited. Thus, my research in the GEB records has allowed me to fill in several gaps with regard to the institutional histories of these colleges.

The early years of the General Education Board are usually studied in reference to its efforts to shape the education of African-Americans. The board took a racist paternalist stance which encouraged the industrial education of blacks, such as through its support and funding for the Tuskegee Institute of Booker T. Washington. And it discouraged or, at least, did not encourage, the higher education of African-American education in areas such as the liberal arts. Yet, in an era where support for the education of African-Americans was politically and physically dangerous, the Rockefeller philanthropies were unusually progressive and, through the GEB, contributed millions of dollars of funding for black schools and colleges. What is often forgotten is that the education of blacks was not a priority of the early years of the GEB. Instead, as W.E.B. Du Bois confirmed, 'it put stress on and gave precedence to the education of whites'. In the early years of Rockefeller educational philanthropy, the Southern and General Boards of Education made sure that the focus was on Poor Whites.

The famous dedication ceremonies of the Peking Union Medical College in September 1921 have attracted much attention, and their significant historical implications have been well studied. However, one revealing detail has not received proper attention: the dignitaries invited to the ceremonies ranged from leading medical scientists from all over the world to Chinese high officials, yet only one woman was among them. This woman was invited due to an interesting incident.

To localize the PUMC in China was one of the primary objectives since the College was founded. Many researchers have mentioned this topic, while few have discussed it from a personal case. Robert Kho-Seng Lim was the first Chinese professor and Department Head in PUMC history. Securing and promoting Lim can be considered an important stage in the localization of the PUMC. From his case, it can be seen that the process of localization was not a smooth one.

The American university in the first half of the 20th century was a success. Yet, the history of this "national" institution includes little mention of southern scholars or universities in the South. The purpose of my dissertation is to explore and reconstruct the discussions and debates about university structure and mission that took place in the South between 1920 and 1950. Largely my study concentrates on the social science institutes funded first by the Laura Spelman Rockefeller Memorial, and later by the Rockefeller Foundation, at three universities in the South between 1920 and 1950 - namely the University of North Carolina, the University of Virginia, and the University of Texas. My hypothesis is that the individuals and ideas attracted to and supported at these institutions were a fertile source of ideas and influence about what the southern university ought to be.

Clevelanders sometimes seem to have a "What have you done for me lately?" attitude with regard to John D. Rockefeller. As if the creation on the Cuyahoga's shores of one of the country's most powerful and influential corporations is not enough, some Clevelanders look to Rockefeller's enormous charitable giving and wonder why he built no major institution in Cleveland to provide jobs and world renown under the Rockefeller banner. Most people who express such opinions often point, with a hint of jealousy, to the University of Chicago as an example of Cleveland's missing Rockefeller landmark.

In 2011 I received a Rockefeller Grant-in-Aid for my project which enabled me to conduct a whirlwind trip to the Rockefeller Archive Center (RAC) to collect as much material as I could on the relationship between the Rockefeller Foundation (RF) and Australian universities in the interwar period. After a couple of days of detailed reading and taking notes from a variety of sources, it soon became abundantly clear that the RAC holdings on this topic were so rich that even by limiting the topic I would not get through the material without the generous offer made to photocopy significant items. Ten days later I headed back to my university in Australia, filled with ideas about this topic and looking forward to reading the material in an even more contemplative manner. The large bundle of photocopied material joined me about a month later, and in the course of wrapping up marking and other duties for the year, I have yet to reflect fully on the implications of what I found. In the meantime however, I am offering an introductory report on some of my preliminary thoughts.