Asymmetrical Information

An even better question: Why are Harvard students so dissatisfied with Harvard - when rampant Hahvahd grade inflation almost all but assures them entry into top-shelf grad programs?

Ungrateful louts.

From http://chronicle.com/free/v47/i30/30b02401.htm

"This term I decided to experiment with the grading of my political-philosophy course at Harvard. I am giving each student two grades: one for the registrar and the public record, and the other in private. The official grades will conform with Harvard's inflated distribution, in which one-fourth of all grades given to undergraduates are now A's, and another fourth are A-'s. The private grades, from the course assistants and me, will be less flattering. Those grades will give students a realistic, useful assessment of how well they did and where they stand in relation to others. A longtime critic of grade inflation, I have seen my grades dragged gradually higher over the years, while still trailing the rising average. I could not ignore the pressure to meet student expectations that other faculty members have created and maintained, but I did not want just to go along silently. The two-grade device is a way to show my contempt for the present system, yet not punish students who take my course. My intent was to get attention and to provoke some new thinking." ... Harvey C. Mansfield is a professor of government at Harvard University.

Several of those theories can be tested by comparing Harvard's satisfaction rates with other schools. Are Yale and Princeton students so unsatisfied?

My son graudated from another Ivy League school several back but had considerable interaction with numerous Harvard students through his participation in the marching band. According to him, Harvard's primary priorities are its graduate schools and its research and publishing activities. Undergraduate education is the lowest priority, gets relatively short shrift and that may have at least something to do with the low student satisfaction ratings. If undergrads are getting relatively little exposure to and contact with many of the "name" professors on campus, the value and quality of the education received may not live up to its hype. I really have no idea, however, how Harvard stacks up against its Ivy League competitors in this regard.

BC, given my experience at the law school and what I hear from a friend who is still a grad student in FAS, producing happy students has not typically been a priority in Harvard's graduate schools. The new dean of the law school was met with almost puppyish gratitude for such small concessions as free coffee and tampons. The university administration (which afflicts undergrads and grad students alike) combines the worst characteristics of an HMO and the DMV. It's not a happy place.

Zero impact on demand? Come on--give students and parents at least a little credit for wanting a good experience. I've met many people (some of the students I taught at one of the big famous northeastern prep schools, for instance) who would choose Harvard no matter what. But a lot of people will also let their decision be affected by negative information. It's been a few years, but I turned down admission to Harvard precisely because the school seemed dismissive of undergraduate education. It doesn't take many similar-minded students to create a yield impact larger than zero.

For whatever it's worth, I now teach at a highly-ranked national liberal arts college, and I'm continually impressed by the seriousness and good sense of most of the prospective students I meet. I believe a lot of them would be put off by detailed information about Harvard's treatment of undergraduates.

At least in my field (AMO physics), Harvard has a reputation for buying its prestige. They hire extremely smart, driven young faculty members -- and give almost none of them tenure. They're expected to get tenured somewhere else , partly through the advantages of the Harvard name. Then they give tenure to prestigious names who all earned that prestige somewhere else besides Harvard.

I'm not sure that the model is infinitely sustainable, and I doubt it's sustainable for any institution _except_ Harvard, but it does suggest that Harvard is able to almost uniquely trade on the value of its name. If you're looking for the missing connection between yield and satisfaction, you should probably begin the search in the bookshop at the shelf where they sell the "Harvard" sweatshirts.

The hardest part of Harvard is getting in. (By contrast, at that school down the street, MIT, the hardeset part is getting out.)

But once in, there's little there that's actually intellectually stimulating or rewarding in most of the majors (other than if you were in the undergrad math program.) You aren't pushed to become a better thinker, writer, philosopher, historian, etc.

So the answer is 7: to get into Harvard you need to focus on studying, not partying. Once you're in there, you see no reason not to party, because little is asked of you. And when all you do is "party"--get smashed, get stoned, get high-- that really isn't any fun. It's really quite quite monotonous.

AMO Physics = Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics, or so a Google search told me. (I can't be the only person who wondered about that.)

That aside, I suspect a _few_ other institutions are able to trade in the way that Harvard does, but not many. One thing I do wonder about, though. In some fields, the best work is generally done by the young. In those fields, institutions following Harvard's pattern of hiring and tenure would have famous professors, but not especially productive professors.

as a graduate from the yale perspective, which i'm sure has similar statistics, i can state emphatically 4 & 6 are the root cause!

The real puzzle is why employers and grad schools don't discount this degree relative to other selective schools which provide double information signals (being difficult to enter AND graduate from) such as MIT, Chicago, and Caltech. To say that Harvard is number one and therefore provides the strongest signal doesn't answer the question of why it remains the best signaller of ability. Or is it?

jsm, here's some guesses:

1. Rational ignorance. The contribution of school quality to graduate quality isn't high enough to justify in-depth research by employers and grad schools, and the difference in quality between a Harvard graduate and an MIT graduate isn't high enough to force a reevaluation of Harvard's reputation for having really good graduates.

2. Actual high quality of education from Harvard's graduate programs further confuses the issue from 1.

3. For grad school admissions, perhaps there's some sort of informal agreement between Ivy League schools to reinforce eachother's reputations.

20+ years ago when I was at that street down the school, the kids I knew at Harvard were completely miserable. All of their classes (not just the sections) were taught by grad students and TAs, and they weren't happy about it. Oh, sure, they all liked the prestige the name gave them, but the Harvard experience was miserable.

I went to school with one guy who went on to get an MBA from Harvard, and he said the B-school was much better in comparison, and I used to be married to a Harvard Law grad who loved it -- two of his profs were Alan Dershowitz and Larry Tribe, so you know they're not hiding the big names there. But even 20 years ago, the undergrads really did seem to get screwed.

But the name still means a lot, and most people are willing to put up with 4 years of misery for what they think that name will get them.

I don't think it will have zero impact, for one reason: Stanford. I know plenty of Harvard College grads who weren't wild about their school, but I can't think of a Stanford grad who didn't love the place. I have to believe that, in time, Stanford undergrad will overtake Harvard (and I'm surprised it hasn't occurred already).

The little brownnosers are miserable because they don't have adults telling them every little hoop to jump through anymore.

Zach: Yale ran their faculty hiring much the same way when I was there. I don't know about other comparable institutions (obviously, you have to be pretty prestigious for this method to work). I don't know why this method isn't infinitely sustainable. Also, Jim Miller, older professors are especially good at producing magisterial treatises (maybe produced mostly by their graduate students, but whatever), so the Yale/Harvard method results in a lot of the canonical reference works in a field having the Yale/Harvard logo.

Although I would vote mostly for Jane's reason number 3, there is also such a thing as corporate (or in this case university) culture. For whatever reason, Yale when I was there seemed like a much more cohesive, school-spirited, kind of place. (Maybe it still is.) I think people prefer that sort of environment and the feeling that they are part of a supportive group which is larger than any individual.

I believe it is a combination of all 5 with heavy emphasis on number 1. And it would be a pearl backscratcher, only a New Orleans prostitute would have an ivory backscratcher.

I'll go with 5 as the most likely explanation. Harvard no longer draws most of its students from a relatively small number of mainly Northeastern prep schools. What you'll see are students who were among the very top achievers at their high schools - no doubt a significant percentage were valedictorians - who now find themselves among other students *just like themselves*. It can be very frustrating to go from being King of the Hill to being Run of the Mill.

I agree with Peter. Many of the entering freshmen were the biggest thing in their high school. Then as freshmen, many of them are not even in the top half any more.

Also, judging by the top three degrees award at Harvard: Economics, Government, and Psychology, (as reported on Princetonreview.com) my guess is that many of the kids became frustrated with their original plan (med school?) and are now working on Plan B. Of course, Plan B requires graduate school or Law School.

I second Peter's thought. I went to one of the top 3 hardest to get into schools in the country (Me AF Academy, plus West Point and Anapolis). Attrition ran 30% +. A lot of kids showed up from being the top dog in their high school, validictorian, all-state in some sport (plus Captain of the Team) etc. They got out here and suddenly they were just another plebe. Then add a grueling schedule, 10-to-1 male/female ratio, obviously no drugs or booze, and you lose a ton. Lot's of kids got over it (I did), but many didn't and hated the place. It's a big ego hit.

On the other hand they pay you to attend and I got fly high-performance jets when I graduated!

From my undergrad experience, I also went to that school down the street, I think that one of the factors that has not been listed is the ego-bruising that routinely takes place.

In high school virtually everyone at the top schools was one of the very best students, but a top university by definition most students will be at or below the median. When you are used to always being intellectually superior (and when in fact you derive a lot of your self-worth from such a fact) the experience of realizing you are average is quite humbling.

It hurts even worse when being smart is the one definable ability that separates you from most other people.

This was made immediately apparent to me when I entered college.

As for why employers don't prefer MIT grads to Harvard grads, I would say that very much depends on the field you are talking about. In any profession that requires deep analytical thinking (For example, I work in quantitative finance) we have a pronounced preference for people from MIT over those at Harvard. In fact, I don't think that I would such such a resume particularly impressive.

Other, more customer facing, professions or roles would probably tend to prefer the polish and erudition one can acquire from a more liberal-arts based education.

Yale ran their faculty hiring much the same way when I was there. I don't know about other comparable institutions (obviously, you have to be pretty prestigious for this method to work). I don't know why this method isn't infinitely sustainable.

Heck, it probably is for all intents and purposes. As long as you can still get the candidates you want at both ends, it should work great. My concern would be that it substitutes collecting superstars for _institutional_ added value. People go to Harvard because it's extremely prestigious, has high-quality colleagues, and top-tier graduate students. It's like they're the New York Yankees of science.

But buffpilot is only making my point even more forcefully. Unlike the service academies, almost everyone at Harvard graduates and always has. Moreover, for the last couple of decades, most have graduated with honors. The average student at H is NOT academically better than the average at MIT or Caltech, but the latter two will have a harder time graduating AND will probably have lower GPAs. The worst five or six students at H probably couldn't graduate from M or C. To say it's rational ignorance makes no sense for the small groups -- such as top grad schools or employers -- that select from all 3 since they have plenty of time to update.

My best guess -- Top PhD programs do discriminate, using letters of recommendation from buddies to signal for "true" ability. Law schools and business employers don't care because they aren't just looking for brains, they want social connections and social skills which presumably the Ivies do better than Tech schools. And the very top students are excellent at all the selective schools.

I'm throwing in with a big dose of #1 and a little #4 to spice up the stew.

I attended one of the Ancient Eight (hint: the least ancient) in the mid-late 80s, as a bright-eyed, bushy-tailed high school killer, like the rest of my fellow freshmen. I'd worked my butt off for 4 years, and I was ready for my reward, whatever that reward was to be.

Instead, I actually got the cliched "Look to your left, look to your right . . . " crap from the Dean at the Welcome to the 'Nam address. In addition I was a number, not a name, standing in endless lines to register for classes that seemed to fill up before dawn.

And, of course I rarely saw my "professors," instead getting taught by grad students with greasy hair, incomprehensible accents, bad attitudes and not a inkling whatsoever of the concept of grade inflation.

Sorry if I sound bitter. I'm not now, but man I was then! I ended up "taking a break" and finishing up years later at another of the Ivy-covered institutions. Much better that time around; you could go to the University of Hell as an adult, and it'd be no problem. Perspective's a powerful tool, you know?

Anyway, I'll also note that #6 seems dead wrong. There was pul-lenty of time for partying, and that was pretty much what kept us out of the gor-- (oops, almost gave it away; gotta keep the name of the school secret). Might not have learned much from my Chemistry T.A., but I could explain the science of a beer bong (or any other varieties thereof) pretty well.

JSM,

I believe what you are saying is correct, but in the end I think there is a worker differentiation affect taking place.

Certain types of companies (Consultancies, Sales Jobs, Marketing) need employees to be smart, but also personable, with good social skills.

Other jobs primarily care about your capacity to think (PH.D, Programmers, Data Analysts).

The first type of job suits those at Harvard quite well, they are bright but perhaps not in the technical way folks at MIT would be.

Whereas the opposite would be true for people at MIT.

The hardest part of Harvard is getting in. (By contrast, at that school down the street, MIT, the hardest part is getting out.)

That wasn't true of MIT when I was there. Virtually everyone I knew as a freshman wound up graduating, including several who were quite diligent about never studying.

Granted, things might have changed since then. It's been 35 years.

There must indeed be something unique about the undergrad experience at Harvard that makes it score so low in student satisfaction. Whether it's the school itself or the students that attend it that are the cause, who knows? (probably a little of both)

Either way, as a Yale grad, I can attest that in general, the students loved their experience and had a far superior quality of life to the Cantabs. (just go to the yale-harvard football game in new haven and then compare it to when it's held in boston to see the difference)

Indeed, I actually believe the school should work on making the experience less enjoyable as the few years since graduation have seemed quite depressing in comparison:)

I went to a university that really values undergrad education (Rice) and competes in the same pool of students as Harvard. Complaints about the undergrad experience there were common when I was an undergrad (mid-70s), and for many of the same reasons: lack of rigor, most classes taught by TAs. Rice tends to have significant undergrad satisfaction in part due to the teaching (I had no classes taught by TAs, only had them in labs and some discussion sections of large classes.), research opportunities (I co-authored a paper as an undergrad.), and the residential college system (combined with a ban on social fraternities/sororities/eating clubs/etc.)

The campus at Harvard struck me as pretty ugly, also.

Rex,

Always good to hear from fellow MIT alums. I believe that Harvard's graduation rate is usually in the high 90's

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/edu/college/rankings/brief/natudoc/tier1/t1natudoc_brief.php

whereas MIT's is closer to 90%.

http://web.mit.edu/fnl/volume/183/usnews.html

So it is true that virtually everyone graduates, but a significantly lower fraction of MIT students graduate.

Also, I don't know what the grading system used to be. But I graduated in 2000 and virtually every class was curved so that some students would fail most classes, and achieving passing grades required some effort.

Many of my friends did not put forth this effort and spent extra years at the lovely campus.

In high school virtually everyone at the top schools was one of the very best students, but a top university by definition most students will be at or below the median. When you are used to always being intellectually superior (and when in fact you derive a lot of your self-worth from such a fact) the experience of realizing you are average is quite humbling.

Of course a similar phenomenon also occurs rather lower on the socioeconomic spectrum. It's practically a cliche: the toughest meanest streetfighter from his 'hood, who gets sent to the state penitentiary and for the first time has to deal with plenty of guys who are tougher and meaner than he is.

It's not really a paradox. Harvard is a disaster of academics. The rubber stamp argument is dead on. It's just a giant cattle ranch, with high entry standards. And now that even high schools (and middle schools, and elementary schools) are inflating grades, what does that even mean?

It's not like it really matters. Harvard grads in fields like engineering are either already smart (and would succeed with or without Harvard) or idiots. Trust me, the workplace will sort them out.

For fields like Psychology and other fluffy stuff, they'll get jobs/positions where actual talent doesn't matter anyway -- where they're being selected for their "connections." Thankfully these jobs don't build bridges or software, so society won't be harmed. No offense to liberal arts majors, but if say, anthropological research grinds to a halt without quality Harvard grads, the world will keep on turning.

Everyone else in the world will just laugh at the rich morons who send their kids to the Ivy League because they're too stupid to figure out that it's a giant money hole. In the end, Harvard is a giant, voluntary money redistributing scheme -- from rich stupid (stupid is as stupid does) parents and alumni to the genuinely hardworking administrators and research professors of Harvard, who actually do produce, from time to time, real things that help people. In addition to babysitting a bunch of brats for 4 years. I can live with the status quo.

To Employers -- if you really want quality employees, go recruit at real colleges, like MIT.

When I arrived on campus 30 years ago, I was advised in my first meeting with the Wigglesworth dorm proctor never to tell anyone that I went to Harvard -- always just say, "I go to school in Boston." It went downhill from there. The prevailing zeitgeist was one of shame for being associated with such an imperialist, capitalist, elitist, blah, blah institution. The idea of cheering for the football or basketball team would have been too bourgeois to contemplate. The Anti-Harvard Harvardians basically sucked the life out of the experience.

The simple answer is that Harvard really does suck as an organization. Students go there because it's the most prestigious school, not the best run.

Well, I went to Columbia in 1960 and one thing that rings true is the grade inflation mentioned above - a former class mate that teaches at Columbia told me that Columbia does it too. In 1960 you got what you earned and if you didn't like it that was tough. Columbia at that time still had a determination to make you actually read people like Aritotle not just about them. That alone - actually confronting the work of the major thinkers of Western Civilization - is still useful to me every day. Harvard, I have heard, was the quickest to retreat from high undergraduate standards in the face of student unrest. (There was a New Yorker article in the 80s I think on this topic) but I expect Columbia has backed off standards too. I think reason number 1 above has a lot to do with it - to some extent my expectations of Columbia in 1960 were unrealistic and I think dissapointed youthfull idealism may still have a big effect on Harvard students.

The data presented for is for the undergraduate school and my experience is with the graduate school of business, but I think some of my experience can still help answer this question.

At the time I attended, I was sure that the Harvard Business School (HBS) was the best place for me to attend.  I still think that is true.  First, it had (and has) a great reputation with both people hiring for jobs and the general public.  The Harvard diploma has power, power that hasn't lessened even 20 years later.  Second, it had a style that worked well for me personally.  I sat in on classes at other business schools, but HBS classes had an interactive, and often combative, style that I loved and thrived in.  Yes there was work, but the workload never was worse than my undergraduate school.  I would not change my decision.

That being said, while I have showered my undergraduate school with cash, Harvard has not gotten one dime from me.  Because as an institution, it sucked.  It had an incredible arrogance to it, often stating publicly that its customer was NOT the students, but was the businesses who hired its graduates and society at large.  And this was the attitude at the business school, which I was often told was the most student-friendly part of Harvard.  My college roommate Brink Lindsey apparently had a similar experience at Harvard Law, as he was part of a group that founded N.O.P.E., which stood for Not One Penny Ever (to Harvard).

At every turn, one ran into petty, stupid stuff that did nothing to contribute to the educational experience but were frustrating as hell.  The faculty was often arrogant and the administrative and housing staff uncaring. 

At the risk of sounding petty, I will share two examples.  These are small things, but are representative of hundreds of similar experiences over two years. 

• At winter break the first year, we were all given a "gift" of a coffee table book about Harvard.  Then, next spring, we all found a $100 charge on our spring term bill for this "gift"
• My Harvard dorm room had a broken heater in my second year.  It got so cold that ice formed on the inside of the windows.  After weeks of trying, we finally got a maintenance guy to come out.  He set a thermometer down in the center of the room and stared at it for ten minutes.  Then he picked it up and started to leave.  "Why are you leaving?" I asked.  He replied "Because its 53 degrees in here.  State law does not require us to fix the heating until it falls below 50."  I finally had to go to Walmart and buy several space heaters.  Several weeks later I was ticketed by the campus police for having a fire hazard -- too many space heaters.

I do not think it an exaggeration to say that had Harvard scoured every post office in the country for employees, it could not manage to provide worse customer service day-to-day.

And I think this is the answer to the paradox.  If you can tolerate the faculty arrogance, you can get a great education, but Universities are more than just a school.  For most students, Harvard is also their landlord, their only restaurant choice, their local police force, etc. etc.  And for all these other functions, they are terrible.

I go there now, and I think many of your points are right on. One thing I might add, though, is that maybe the dissatisfaction is sort of a natural product of the material studied. When you have a bunch of (supposedly) intelligent, engaged young people burying their noses in nietszche all day, you're bound to get a few depressed kids. Or maybe very reflective people in general are more likely to feel down; the phenomenon of smart harvard kids drowning in sorrow goes at least as far back as Quentin Compson, I think.
On a different note, what struck me the most when I got here is that, for so many of the students, classes are an afterthought. I am still amazed that someone can work so hard to get in, pay so much to attend, and then sleep through lecture after lecture without a second thought. Kids here are really, really, really intense about joining all sorts of groups (newspapers, political clubs, activist groups, and all sorts of random cultural organizations) and about 'having fun' (grinding drunkenly on sticky floors in the dark), while academics are a distant third. This is not just a reflection of grade inflation ( although you can miss all the lectures, hand in awful papers weeks late, and still get good grades), because a dedicated student would work hard regardless of grades. My theory is that these people honestly couldn't care less about whether or what they learn, they just want to build their resumes (and don't think it doesn't matter - as the roberts confirmation showed, the groups you join when you're twenty stick with you for life [and chief justice is probably on the low end of career expectations for many of my peers]). Also, as the summers affair hinted, individualism is out of fashion these days, and a lot of the kids just want to feel like they belong, thus the groupthink and mindless partying, though I think that's a wider cultural problem and not just a harvard thing.
Me? I'm happy and I like it here, but that's because I'm not worried about getting into med school or starting my campaign for the presidency or anything else, I'm just chilling in my room with some good books. In other words, I'm a loser, but I'm down with that :)

p.s. the oft-repeated line that kids here have no contact with their professors may once have been true, but is completely false today. i'm in my third year, and a semester hasn't gone by without at least one small seminar with a very famous professor. and even if that is just a product of my smaller field (history and literature), it goes for the big subjects, too. I've been in classes with the likes of Mankiw and Pinker, and they're incredibly friendly and approachable, holding frequent office hours, enthusiastic about setting up lunches, etc. - it's just that kids here rarely take the initiative to go see them! And then they complain that there's no interaction with faculty; I don't know what they expect, that Mankiw is supposed to come by their room unannounced and suggest a game of tennis? Yes, there are a few professors who are genuinely mean and dismissive of undergrads, but the overwhelming majority are kind and engaging, yet find themselves holding office hours to which nobody comes.

The reasons for disatisfaction at Harvard must be as various as the number of students attending Harvard, but perhaps the old "status anxiety" rule applies.

In general, Harvard students must be going from the big fish in a small pond academic status at their schools to pond scum in the great lake of Harvard's academic history. Wasn't there just an article on the web recently suggesting that buying a dump in a neighborghood of mansions was the surest route to unhappiness?

Years ago, I attended commuter mega-university Northeastern, where I became popular around term-paper time as a ghost writer. I thought I was pretty sharp stuff because I knew what a thesaurus (which, to me, rhymed with brontosaurus)was. Later, I joined a non-profit organization which held a rummage sale in that Baptist Church on Mass Ave not too far from Harvard. I'd donated some books that I'd bought cheap from a used furniture shop; among the tomes I'd given was Plutarch's Lives, and I never felt so miserable as when a squirrely Harvard kid picked it up, leafed through it, then tossed it back saying, "Pfah! English! I wanna read it in Latin!"

sgfcztygpq zoalsdow fisulq

I'm inclined to discount the role of graduate TAs doing all the teaching as a reason to explain the low morale of Harvard undergrads.

I turned down Harvard to attend Chicago. During my college years, the only TA I encountered was a 10th grader in the university's Lab School who ran the review sessions for a freshman calculus course. Every other instructor was a real professor.

And I had some good ones, especially in the social sciences. Three professors who taught me in undergrad classes won Nobels, including one during the term I was his student (enrollment was about 10 students). Richard Posner allowed me to take a seminar he was teaching in the law school -- and when I invited him to a party I was throwing, he came. I may well have received the best undergrad education possible.

That said, Chicago had the world's most miserable student body. Everyone was (clinically) depressed at a school that was monochromatically academic. Academic pressure was unrelenting. A week into a new term and we all felt a month behind in our work.

I feel about Chicago the my dad feels about basic training durng WWII -- an incredible experience he'd never wish to relive. Looking back, I wished I'd applied to Stanford. But in those days, going to college in California made about sense as going to college on Mars.

I always thought college experiences were pretty much what you made of them. An on-the ball undergrad who knows how the navigate the system could go to a place like Berkeley and still find courses taught by real faculty. But it takes effort.

Spoon's Chez Spoon (formerly SpankMeWithASpoon)

I would wonder how satisfied these same people were before they arrived at Harvard? There's always the possibility that the place tends to admit people who were unhappy in the first place.

and i figured that was what the ropes were for. to stop me squirming away when the body odour hit.

Fear, loathing, and perfunctory seduction

My main areas within linguistics are semantics (about the general linguistic meanings of words and things) and pragmatics (about how we work out what people mean in a particular context).

She pulls out the garment tag and reads it. "This is for babies," she scowls. She unbuttons the skirt, slides it on, and it fits.

and he started to come, bucking and thrusting me about in my bonds, the satin sheets complicit.

Don't take your next California road trip without it! This is the tiny version of the big book listed below, but with some of the more popular names. (*****)

Just been listening to the new album on their website and it sounds just as good.

We have diveded all the sites into different niches, so it will be easier for you to find exactly what your looking for.

I forgot to mention that Donald Davidson also climbed mountains and wrote radio plays (some of which featured Edward G. Robinson). I wonder what heÒd have made of The Dark House?

I finally got round to posting about it on London Language today and found Mai had beaten me to it. I then discovered that the language nerds of the world are all linking to it.

Hope youÒre enjoying Berlin. I enjoyed the night out last week and taking part in the Laurel and Hardy sketch on Saturday morning.

Comments are Closed.