A Clamor in My Kindergarten Heart
April 8, 2017 4:27 PM Subscribe
It is hardly surprising, then, that the more years I spent in graduate school, the more often the anxiety about money that I’d tried to calm with temporary safety measures began to express itself in periods of debilitating depression.Sara Appel, writing in Rhizomes, about how anxiety expresses itself in her life as an academic from a working-class background.
More reading:
- We Are All Very Anxious, a manifesto on capitalism and anxiety by Plan C.
- Ann Cvetkovich's book Depression: A public feeling (Amazon). The first chapter (PDF) is available online.
Don't get a PhD. Don't get a PhD. Don't get a PhD.
posted by k8t at 7:48 PM on April 8, 2017 [8 favorites]
posted by k8t at 7:48 PM on April 8, 2017 [8 favorites]
Well, certainly don't rack up significant educational debt to get a PhD.
posted by spitbull at 8:09 PM on April 8, 2017 [5 favorites]
posted by spitbull at 8:09 PM on April 8, 2017 [5 favorites]
...I had a 20% paycheck garnishment happen for student loans in 2005. It caused me to eventually lose my house to foreclosure and file for chapter 7. In the end sallie got 40k, and Wells Fargo home mortgage lost 400k in 25 future years of mortgage payments that I never made.
It's funny how sallie and Freddie rob peter to pay Paul.
America fucking sucks like that sometimes.
posted by Annika Cicada at 9:27 PM on April 8, 2017 [10 favorites]
It's funny how sallie and Freddie rob peter to pay Paul.
America fucking sucks like that sometimes.
posted by Annika Cicada at 9:27 PM on April 8, 2017 [10 favorites]
Well, certainly don't rack up significant educational debt to get a PhD.
Even with no debt, forgoing the years of income is a massive opportunity cost. You may find yourself 10,12 years later just competing for the same entry level jobs as young college graduates, especially if you're ABD, and in the meantime, you're 35 or 40 and just starting to be able to afford to have children or save for retirement.
posted by jb at 11:24 PM on April 8, 2017 [17 favorites]
Even with no debt, forgoing the years of income is a massive opportunity cost. You may find yourself 10,12 years later just competing for the same entry level jobs as young college graduates, especially if you're ABD, and in the meantime, you're 35 or 40 and just starting to be able to afford to have children or save for retirement.
posted by jb at 11:24 PM on April 8, 2017 [17 favorites]
Yeah, I think his may have had an influence:
Tenure track academic gigs are not plentiful for a variety of reasons and jumps to one university to another are not frequent.
I will keep reading the article.
posted by jadepearl at 4:47 AM on April 9, 2017 [2 favorites]
. Per my admissions packet, I did receive five years (ten semesters) of funding from the Literature program, and also managed to acquire two further semesters of dissertation write-up stage funding from the graduate school. In addition to the more general issue of the high cost of acquiring a PhD from one of the most expensive private universities in the country, however, two factors influenced my mounting debt burden like no other: May-October of each year, the summer semester not covered in my funding packet; and the fact that it took me nine years and a summer to finish my dissertationAnother issue would have been the job market year she would have entered and compounding factor is the length her program. Reading a CV, on the search committee side, is all about constructing whether this person is going to build programs, teach, publish, be a good colleague, university service, bring in prestige, money or any other factors that influence tenure. Her taking almost double the time to finish her doctorate without other factors off setting that, on the line of Brian May of Queen, makes her shot at very well paying faculty gigs low.
Tenure track academic gigs are not plentiful for a variety of reasons and jumps to one university to another are not frequent.
I will keep reading the article.
posted by jadepearl at 4:47 AM on April 9, 2017 [2 favorites]
almost double the time to finish her doctorate
I thought, oh, 7 years to finish, isn't that unusual in humanities PhDs.....is that time length already considered dubious?
posted by thelonius at 4:52 AM on April 9, 2017 [1 favorite]
I thought, oh, 7 years to finish, isn't that unusual in humanities PhDs.....is that time length already considered dubious?
posted by thelonius at 4:52 AM on April 9, 2017 [1 favorite]
Sara and I were at Duke at the same time, and I vaguely knew who she was through campus writing things and women's things. While she was struggling every summer just to pay rent, those of us in the sciences got summer stipends (and got paid more during the school year). It always struck me as vastly unfair, given that the grad students in the humanities were actually the primary teachers of record for courses, courses for which their students' families or loans were paying ridiculously high tuition, while I was getting paid to either lead lab sections or just do my dissertation research.
And that's not even touching the class thing. Like most of my peers, I come from a comfortably middle class family who could have and would have helped me out if I got in trouble. The main help I got from them was in a series of old cars that they gave me after they were done with them, and sometimes help to pay to get those old cars fixed. I know how lucky I was to get those old cars.
At Duke, 9 years to a PhD is not at all unusual in the humanities. I finished in 6, which was in line with the average in the sciences, and that difference is of course entirely because of the funding situation.
posted by hydropsyche at 5:05 AM on April 9, 2017 [16 favorites]
And that's not even touching the class thing. Like most of my peers, I come from a comfortably middle class family who could have and would have helped me out if I got in trouble. The main help I got from them was in a series of old cars that they gave me after they were done with them, and sometimes help to pay to get those old cars fixed. I know how lucky I was to get those old cars.
At Duke, 9 years to a PhD is not at all unusual in the humanities. I finished in 6, which was in line with the average in the sciences, and that difference is of course entirely because of the funding situation.
posted by hydropsyche at 5:05 AM on April 9, 2017 [16 favorites]
Each discipline is different, but if 7 is standard for Lit she still blew past that time standard. I don't want to blame the victim because being a first generation college student has so much disadvantage from the tacit knowledge expectation. For instance, knowing to ask average length of program completion and running your support against that average length and cross that data to average salary based on Cup-hr data. One of the questions I have is where was her advisor in this situation?
posted by jadepearl at 5:13 AM on April 9, 2017
posted by jadepearl at 5:13 AM on April 9, 2017
One of the questions I have is where was her advisor in this situation?
Almost certainly nowhere? Elite programs in particular have a habit of allowing graduate students to sink or swim, and there usually aren't any penalties for graduate programs for poor time-to-completion rates (whereas there can be for the undergraduate equivalents). And there's the expectation that students will do this kind of legwork themselves, without prompting.
posted by thomas j wise at 5:35 AM on April 9, 2017 [11 favorites]
Almost certainly nowhere? Elite programs in particular have a habit of allowing graduate students to sink or swim, and there usually aren't any penalties for graduate programs for poor time-to-completion rates (whereas there can be for the undergraduate equivalents). And there's the expectation that students will do this kind of legwork themselves, without prompting.
posted by thomas j wise at 5:35 AM on April 9, 2017 [11 favorites]
That Plan C manifesto is really good--don't skip it.
posted by The Horse You Rode In On at 12:23 PM on April 9, 2017 [1 favorite]
posted by The Horse You Rode In On at 12:23 PM on April 9, 2017 [1 favorite]
Time to completion is a metric measuring how much financial support the student is receiving from their school, their family, and their spouse. That is all it is.
All ye tenured on hiring committees out there: it is your responsibility to not just refrain from using time-to-completion as a metric, but to also suppress the hell out of any of your colleagues who attempt to use time-to-completion as a metric. This is serious — this may be the most important concrete political action you can take as a professor.
Yes, sometimes there are grad students and assistant professors who do not yet have tenure on hiring committees. But because of our social position, we cannot be the people leading on this — there is a good chance we will lose our careers if we stick out our necks first and the tenured don't follow.
If you're not making hiring decisions based on the need to elevate the voices and scholarship of working-class people, PoC, and women, you are not doing the political work that could justify your scholarly work. Get to it.
posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 12:51 PM on April 9, 2017 [10 favorites]
All ye tenured on hiring committees out there: it is your responsibility to not just refrain from using time-to-completion as a metric, but to also suppress the hell out of any of your colleagues who attempt to use time-to-completion as a metric. This is serious — this may be the most important concrete political action you can take as a professor.
Yes, sometimes there are grad students and assistant professors who do not yet have tenure on hiring committees. But because of our social position, we cannot be the people leading on this — there is a good chance we will lose our careers if we stick out our necks first and the tenured don't follow.
If you're not making hiring decisions based on the need to elevate the voices and scholarship of working-class people, PoC, and women, you are not doing the political work that could justify your scholarly work. Get to it.
posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 12:51 PM on April 9, 2017 [10 favorites]
Even with no debt, forgoing the years of income is a massive opportunity cost. You may find yourself 10,12 years later just competing for the same entry level jobs as young college graduates, especially if you're ABD, and in the meantime, you're 35 or 40
A concept I'm familiar with to the point of having written about it, as a PhD adviser and the developer of a PhD program over more than 20 years (with an 85% placement rate for my advisees...). If you are taking "10-12" years or ABD at 40, in most cases you're doing it wrong, or your grad program is lying to you.
If you finish in 7 or fewer, and before you're 35, my question is "compared to what, law school?" You're not competing for entry level college grad jobs. You're competing for postdoc and tenure track jobs. If you're the sort to do a humanities PhD you're not avoiding any obvious lucrative career path for liberal arts BAs anyway. And indeed a PhD can be leveraged for an accelerated career outside academia in the nonprofit sector if you approach it that way going in (I know many examples).
A PhD program worth attending fully funds its students (summers included) for 5-7 years and places 70% or more of its graduates in postdocs or tenure track teaching jobs within 3 years of the PHD. Period. If it can't do that it shouldn't exist.
None of this is to deny the obvious classism of academia. I am in fact a scholar of working class culture. A good 25% of my own nearly two dozen advisees have come from working-class backgrounds and all have had solid careers. Classism is real and pervasive. But every PhD student accepts that you do this profession at an opportunity cost vs. more lucrative careers.
Duke Literature sold this woman a bill of goods.
posted by spitbull at 5:04 AM on April 11, 2017
A concept I'm familiar with to the point of having written about it, as a PhD adviser and the developer of a PhD program over more than 20 years (with an 85% placement rate for my advisees...). If you are taking "10-12" years or ABD at 40, in most cases you're doing it wrong, or your grad program is lying to you.
If you finish in 7 or fewer, and before you're 35, my question is "compared to what, law school?" You're not competing for entry level college grad jobs. You're competing for postdoc and tenure track jobs. If you're the sort to do a humanities PhD you're not avoiding any obvious lucrative career path for liberal arts BAs anyway. And indeed a PhD can be leveraged for an accelerated career outside academia in the nonprofit sector if you approach it that way going in (I know many examples).
A PhD program worth attending fully funds its students (summers included) for 5-7 years and places 70% or more of its graduates in postdocs or tenure track teaching jobs within 3 years of the PHD. Period. If it can't do that it shouldn't exist.
None of this is to deny the obvious classism of academia. I am in fact a scholar of working class culture. A good 25% of my own nearly two dozen advisees have come from working-class backgrounds and all have had solid careers. Classism is real and pervasive. But every PhD student accepts that you do this profession at an opportunity cost vs. more lucrative careers.
Duke Literature sold this woman a bill of goods.
posted by spitbull at 5:04 AM on April 11, 2017
Which is to say that there is structural classism in PhD education: public and poorer institutions rely on PhD students as labor to teach large undergrad classes as the source of their less attractive funding. They create PhD programs for this purpose and admit the less qualified students willing to accept heavy teaching loads, lower or more insecure funding, and lesser resources compared to elite grad programs, which are increasingly concentrated in wealthy private or semi-private universities.
I moved from an Ivy League BA to a large and highly regarded public university for my PhD to a similar public university for my first job to an Ivy League school for the last two decades. I left my first job in part because it was obvious to me what a shitty deal our PhD students (who were disproportionately working class) were getting compared to the students at my wealthier but still public Phd alma mater and even more to PhD students at Chicago or Princeton. Their "funding" was really a (shitty) job, not meant to support their research or training. Tuition (in state) was low enough that you could make it work with loans and the occasional stint as a bartender or barista when you didn't get a TAship, but the anxiety and insecurity and lack of time to focus on your own work explained the department's poor placement rate for out PhDs relative to our supposed prestige and high powered faculty.
Duke, however, is filthy rich. PhD students I've known there (many, I've been on several Duke committees and have a long relationship with the institution) have generally been very well treated. I am still a bit unclear on how the author here managed to rack up $120k in debt because she wasn't funded during summers and because yes, she took far too long to finish.
She also entered a field (literature) where the ratio of PHDs to good jobs is absurdly bad for the job seeker. That was already well publicized at the time.
In my experience the real cost of being a working class prospective academic or going to a working-class undergrad school is that you are often not well (that is, individually, by someone currently training PhD students who are succeeeding on the market) advised in the years before you pursue a PHD. It's also personal in that working-class students frequently lack the confidence that they are entitled to such advising and can seek it out, as well as of course classism among those who dispense such advice. Or they go to undergrad schools where such advice is rare or non-existent.
If you go to an elite school and show academic promise and get interested in an academic career, you can get good life-shaping advice from your sophomore year on. I know because I've sent literally dozens of undergrads on to PhDs (some are now tenured professors, eek).
The whole structure is classist because the whole society is classist.
I tell working-class undergrads right away that if they're serious they should set their sights on Harvard or Chicago. The *only* good PhD program is one that *fully* funds you for 5-7 years at a good base rate, gives you at least two of those years completely to yourself, requires no more than 20 hours of work per week in the other years, covers summer support and routinely offers additional funds for research, attracts external funding for its students, and as I said, and most importantly, can point to a 2/3 or better professional placement rate over a long period of time.
In my field that describes *maybe* 10 out of over 30 PhD programs in the US. The rest just need to be shut down (and, lol, replaced with proper full time faculty positions to teach undergrad classes). The former is already happening, and has been for a while, largely by attrition and a declining quality spiral where even more of the new jobs go to graduates of the role 10 programs every year.
The issues raised here are at the core of my own research and career focus, sorry for carrying on a bit!
posted by spitbull at 5:36 AM on April 11, 2017 [3 favorites]
I moved from an Ivy League BA to a large and highly regarded public university for my PhD to a similar public university for my first job to an Ivy League school for the last two decades. I left my first job in part because it was obvious to me what a shitty deal our PhD students (who were disproportionately working class) were getting compared to the students at my wealthier but still public Phd alma mater and even more to PhD students at Chicago or Princeton. Their "funding" was really a (shitty) job, not meant to support their research or training. Tuition (in state) was low enough that you could make it work with loans and the occasional stint as a bartender or barista when you didn't get a TAship, but the anxiety and insecurity and lack of time to focus on your own work explained the department's poor placement rate for out PhDs relative to our supposed prestige and high powered faculty.
Duke, however, is filthy rich. PhD students I've known there (many, I've been on several Duke committees and have a long relationship with the institution) have generally been very well treated. I am still a bit unclear on how the author here managed to rack up $120k in debt because she wasn't funded during summers and because yes, she took far too long to finish.
She also entered a field (literature) where the ratio of PHDs to good jobs is absurdly bad for the job seeker. That was already well publicized at the time.
In my experience the real cost of being a working class prospective academic or going to a working-class undergrad school is that you are often not well (that is, individually, by someone currently training PhD students who are succeeeding on the market) advised in the years before you pursue a PHD. It's also personal in that working-class students frequently lack the confidence that they are entitled to such advising and can seek it out, as well as of course classism among those who dispense such advice. Or they go to undergrad schools where such advice is rare or non-existent.
If you go to an elite school and show academic promise and get interested in an academic career, you can get good life-shaping advice from your sophomore year on. I know because I've sent literally dozens of undergrads on to PhDs (some are now tenured professors, eek).
The whole structure is classist because the whole society is classist.
I tell working-class undergrads right away that if they're serious they should set their sights on Harvard or Chicago. The *only* good PhD program is one that *fully* funds you for 5-7 years at a good base rate, gives you at least two of those years completely to yourself, requires no more than 20 hours of work per week in the other years, covers summer support and routinely offers additional funds for research, attracts external funding for its students, and as I said, and most importantly, can point to a 2/3 or better professional placement rate over a long period of time.
In my field that describes *maybe* 10 out of over 30 PhD programs in the US. The rest just need to be shut down (and, lol, replaced with proper full time faculty positions to teach undergrad classes). The former is already happening, and has been for a while, largely by attrition and a declining quality spiral where even more of the new jobs go to graduates of the role 10 programs every year.
The issues raised here are at the core of my own research and career focus, sorry for carrying on a bit!
posted by spitbull at 5:36 AM on April 11, 2017 [3 favorites]
A concept I'm familiar with to the point of having written about it, as a PhD adviser and the developer of a PhD program over more than 20 years (with an 85% placement rate for my advisees...). If you are taking "10-12" years or ABD at 40, in most cases you're doing it wrong, or your grad program is lying to you.
Or maybe you fell ill, or had a child - or your mother had a stroke while you were writing up - or maybe two out of three happened. And then you're out - and the years of work you put in and the years of (higher) income you didn't have don't disapeer. You're older, you have less energy, you have no savings - and everyone your age got on the property ladder 10 years earlier and you probably never will. It puts a real dent into your dream for making it into the middle class.
I went to an elite university for my PhD, with full funding. Yes, most of my classmates graduated within 7 years - notably 7, even for those who have done very well.
But that still doesn't take away from the fact that those of us who don't finish - for whatever reason - have had a significant opportunity cost. I am ABD - and will be ABD when I'm 60, because I have changed fields. I needed to find work as an ABD because I needed to pay the rent, and I most certainly was applying for entry level jobs (because a masters doesn't get you far these days). I ended up taking a job at Starbucks for part of the time, where I met two other people with masters degrees. I had 1/2 of a PhD written, but that's worth bupkis outside of that specific field (though, ironically enough, one of the things I studied is working class culture).
I'm glad your students have done well. But that's like being thankful they just didn't happen to get cancer. Shit happens - and no one can guarantee that they will finish a PhD. No amount of good advising could have helped with my chronic condition or my mother's stroke (and the fact that my mother had a stroke in her mid-50s is directly related to the fact that we aren't middle class, given that her health was much worse even before).
Telling me "You're doing it wrong" -- well, I agree with you. As someone from a working class background, who came from middling state university - trying to get a PhD does feel like the wrong choice. The risks are too great for people who don't have a good safety net. That kind of life wasn't meant for the likes of me.
posted by jb at 7:32 AM on April 11, 2017 [2 favorites]
Or maybe you fell ill, or had a child - or your mother had a stroke while you were writing up - or maybe two out of three happened. And then you're out - and the years of work you put in and the years of (higher) income you didn't have don't disapeer. You're older, you have less energy, you have no savings - and everyone your age got on the property ladder 10 years earlier and you probably never will. It puts a real dent into your dream for making it into the middle class.
I went to an elite university for my PhD, with full funding. Yes, most of my classmates graduated within 7 years - notably 7, even for those who have done very well.
But that still doesn't take away from the fact that those of us who don't finish - for whatever reason - have had a significant opportunity cost. I am ABD - and will be ABD when I'm 60, because I have changed fields. I needed to find work as an ABD because I needed to pay the rent, and I most certainly was applying for entry level jobs (because a masters doesn't get you far these days). I ended up taking a job at Starbucks for part of the time, where I met two other people with masters degrees. I had 1/2 of a PhD written, but that's worth bupkis outside of that specific field (though, ironically enough, one of the things I studied is working class culture).
I'm glad your students have done well. But that's like being thankful they just didn't happen to get cancer. Shit happens - and no one can guarantee that they will finish a PhD. No amount of good advising could have helped with my chronic condition or my mother's stroke (and the fact that my mother had a stroke in her mid-50s is directly related to the fact that we aren't middle class, given that her health was much worse even before).
Telling me "You're doing it wrong" -- well, I agree with you. As someone from a working class background, who came from middling state university - trying to get a PhD does feel like the wrong choice. The risks are too great for people who don't have a good safety net. That kind of life wasn't meant for the likes of me.
posted by jb at 7:32 AM on April 11, 2017 [2 favorites]
jb: Telling me "You're doing it wrong" -- well, I agree with you. As someone from a working class background, who came from middling state university - trying to get a PhD does feel like the wrong choice. The risks are too great for people who don't have a good safety net. That kind of life wasn't meant for the likes of me.
Thankfully for me, I wasn't from the first generation of university-goers in my family. I was from the first-and-a-half generation. My mother had already learned the lesson that you did, the hard way, about the wisdom of working class people with minimal support being cautious when the promises of higher education are dangled in front of you. If you're working class, higher education is something to approach with realism and calculation, not hope and easy optimism. The higher the education, the more you turn to calculation and the less you turn to optimism.
posted by clawsoon at 8:43 AM on April 11, 2017 [2 favorites]
Thankfully for me, I wasn't from the first generation of university-goers in my family. I was from the first-and-a-half generation. My mother had already learned the lesson that you did, the hard way, about the wisdom of working class people with minimal support being cautious when the promises of higher education are dangled in front of you. If you're working class, higher education is something to approach with realism and calculation, not hope and easy optimism. The higher the education, the more you turn to calculation and the less you turn to optimism.
posted by clawsoon at 8:43 AM on April 11, 2017 [2 favorites]
maybe you fell ill, or had a child - or your mother had a stroke while you were writing up - or maybe two out of three happened.
True story. I just had a student who took 15 years because of two out of three of the above happened (sick child). They came back to finish their diss and went straight to an excellent tenure track job. The department and the graduate school (and eventually their future employer) all understood and admired the reasons for the delay and kept their registration open all through those years. It can happen. Times are changing. It's an unusal story but it's true.
The whole system is set up to perpetuate privilege. In that sense it's much like the rest of american education and business and society, which, big surprise. There are however ways to bend it towards more fairness and more upward mobility and a lot of us in the business do try hard to make it so. I have written extensively on working class communities -- it is my primary research specialty. I am achingly aware of the obstacles. So while I facetiously said "you're doing it wrong," be clear that I mean "you" to include all involved parties -- student, faculty, undergrad and grad institutions, disciplines. We are doing it wrong, if meritocracy and diversity are truly the values we espouse. But the answer has to be either a reduction in the PhD production apparatus, most of which is exploitative, or a re-valuing of intellectual labor that is not likely to happen at the level of public universities (at least) in our lifetimes, I fear.
It's a broken system. But I keep waiting for someone to show me why that is surprising in the context of a broader structurally broken economy and culture.
Which reminds me to ask when PhD education in the humanities in particular was *ever* a smart economic choice if one prioritizes security? PhD education has been in "crisis" for as long as I've been engaged with it (30 years). The year I finished there were two tenure track jobs in my field for 30-35 or so new PhDs. Now it's more like 15 (and a similar number of new PhDs --30-35 -- annually) The odds still suck unless you went to one of the top 6-8 programs, and even then it is fiercely competitive.
American society is classist and racist. Solving for that at the PhD program level is a challenge I have eagerly taken up throughout my career,not with the goal of going back to something that never existed before but with the idea that we could slowly change the course of the ship from within its wheelhouse.
posted by spitbull at 11:35 AM on April 11, 2017
True story. I just had a student who took 15 years because of two out of three of the above happened (sick child). They came back to finish their diss and went straight to an excellent tenure track job. The department and the graduate school (and eventually their future employer) all understood and admired the reasons for the delay and kept their registration open all through those years. It can happen. Times are changing. It's an unusal story but it's true.
The whole system is set up to perpetuate privilege. In that sense it's much like the rest of american education and business and society, which, big surprise. There are however ways to bend it towards more fairness and more upward mobility and a lot of us in the business do try hard to make it so. I have written extensively on working class communities -- it is my primary research specialty. I am achingly aware of the obstacles. So while I facetiously said "you're doing it wrong," be clear that I mean "you" to include all involved parties -- student, faculty, undergrad and grad institutions, disciplines. We are doing it wrong, if meritocracy and diversity are truly the values we espouse. But the answer has to be either a reduction in the PhD production apparatus, most of which is exploitative, or a re-valuing of intellectual labor that is not likely to happen at the level of public universities (at least) in our lifetimes, I fear.
It's a broken system. But I keep waiting for someone to show me why that is surprising in the context of a broader structurally broken economy and culture.
Which reminds me to ask when PhD education in the humanities in particular was *ever* a smart economic choice if one prioritizes security? PhD education has been in "crisis" for as long as I've been engaged with it (30 years). The year I finished there were two tenure track jobs in my field for 30-35 or so new PhDs. Now it's more like 15 (and a similar number of new PhDs --30-35 -- annually) The odds still suck unless you went to one of the top 6-8 programs, and even then it is fiercely competitive.
American society is classist and racist. Solving for that at the PhD program level is a challenge I have eagerly taken up throughout my career,not with the goal of going back to something that never existed before but with the idea that we could slowly change the course of the ship from within its wheelhouse.
posted by spitbull at 11:35 AM on April 11, 2017
« Older They're all Doin' It The Best They Can. | Locked In Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
Selmer Strad Model 37 here. Paid for it by pounding fence posts.
posted by clawsoon at 6:15 PM on April 8, 2017