Tuesday Talk*: COVID Come Fall, What To Do?

On the one hand, the argument has the benefit of an actual reason: online courses are far less costly to colleges than in-person courses, and if they cost less, the cost of a college degree will be less, making it more accessible to those of modest means.

Covid-19 is about to ravage that business model. Mass unemployment is looming large and is likely to put college out of reach for many. With America now the epicenter of the pandemic and bungling its response, many students are looking to defer enrollment.

Deferring enrollment, taking leaves of absence, transferring, are questions asked by many students and parents, though cost is only one piece of the puzzle. The much larger piece is whether the education they will get is third-rate.

Up until now, online education has been relegated to the equivalent of a hobby at most universities. With the pandemic, it has become a backup plan. But if universities embrace this moment strategically, online education could expand access exponentially and drop its cost by magnitudes — all while shoring up revenues for universities in a way that is more recession-proof, policy-proof and pandemic-proof.

Here’s the fear, that the unduly passionate see a crack in the outrageous tuition charged by moving online, which they argue had been treated poorly before but is now “proving” to be a viable substitute for in-person education. Not only can tuition be reduced in light of the less expensive delivery mechanism, but all the ancillary costs, dorm and food, go away as well. Sure, students still need a roof over their heads and food to eat, but they no longer have to be profit centers to admins.

But Zoom sucks?

March did not go well. Faculty members were forced to revamp lesson plans overnight. “Zoom-bombers” took advantage of lax privacy protocols. Students fled home, with many in faraway time zones prolonging jet lag just to continue synchronous learning. Not surprisingly, the experience for both students and faculty has left much to be desired. According to one survey, more than 75 percent of students do not feel they received a quality learning experience after classrooms closed.

But what surveys miss are the numerous spirited efforts to break new ground, as only a crisis can be the impetus for.

And “spirited efforts” aren’t the same as a sound education. If you value the cost of education more than the quality, then online is the way to go. It will certainly cost less. It will certainly be worse, and given that classroom education isn’t what it used to be as it’s become unduly concerned with the self-esteem of students, their sense of safety and their opinions being respected despite the fact that they don’t know what they’re talking about, and then there’s the pinking down of education lest diversity suffer for the demands of competence.

But it will bring in more poor people, which will enhance diversity and create equity between the wealthy and the oppressed. Isn’t that worth it?

For good reason, many educators have been skeptical of online learning. They have questioned how discussion-based courses, which require more intimate settings, would be coordinated. They wonder how lab work might be administered. Of course, no one doubts that the student experience would not be as holistic. But universities don’t need to abandon in-person teaching for students who see the value in it.

They simply need to create “parallel” online degrees for all their core degree programs. By doing so, universities could expand their reach by thousands, creating the economies of scale to drop their costs by tens of thousands.

To be fair, academics are in constant search for the next new thing, and what COVID-19 is doing is providing an opening for a novel new normal. It’s like fashion trends, if hemlines don’t rise and fall, what is there for designer to do to prove his worth?

Alessandro Michele, the creative director of Gucci…wants to do away with the distinction between menswear and womenswear, and the traditional appellations of fall/winter and spring/summer.

“We need new oxygen to allow this complex system to be reborn,” Michele said, speaking from his studio in Rome while pensively waving a large black fan.

The cynics will see this as more evidence that Harrison Bergeron was prophetic, and it may yet be true, but we’re still fairly high up on the slippery slope, as the stage where homogenizing variables in society for the sake of social justice takes precedence over quality and competence, and new ideas and changes are embraced for no better reason than they’re not the same old ideas.

Over the past few weeks, I’ve been asked by a number of college and law school students, and their parents, what they should do come the fall. Attending in person has its risks, and some schools will open up because they need the money, even though dorms are petri dishes and they don’t want a degree conferred on their dearly departed child. But online fails miserably to provide the quality of education needed to succeed, plus schools aren’t cutting a break in tuition.

Hems go up. Hems go down. Online or off, or take a gap year until we know better. And whatever will they wear on campus, now that boys and girls can share all their clothing? What should students and parents do, as the fall will be upon us soon enough?

*Tuesday Talk rules apply.

40 thoughts on “Tuesday Talk*: COVID Come Fall, What To Do?

  1. Jerry

    For students like me, now, regardless of motivation it’s hard for me to get work done at home vs. in social classroom settings. It would be an enormous waste of time and money. I’d advise a gap year, or outdoor work for the forest service, or usps, or plain old beach hopping.

    Even for students who can successfully work at home, I still think the value I received at college was linked to my presence there. Classroom discussions, guest lecturers visiting campus (Feynman) redirected into our classrooms by a professor, on campus resources (libraries, labs, equipment) and of course the social benefits from parties, to figuring out how to live with all these people, to plays and concerts and lectures in different departments, to dinner parties with professors.

    I’d suspect for undergraduate freshman, if they can’t take a gap year, they should go online to their favorite community college, probably same classroom experience but far cheaper and with professors much friendlier to off campus students

    1. SHG Post author

      As you rightly point out, there’s much more to the college experience, where a young person is supposed to transition to adulthood, than just lectures.

  2. CLS

    My kids need school, in person.

    This fall my son’s going to Kindergarten. Even now he needs the structure and supervision of summer camp/day care. His teachers are absolutely amazing at getting him ready for the transition this fall, even if they have to wear masks and change shoes every time they go on break.

    My daughter needs the in person school structure to thrive and live as close to a normal life as possible. In addition to her peer interaction and the structure of a daily routine, school is where she gets her speech and OT services we can’t provide at home.

    Sure, we tried the Zoom stuff, and it was nice of her teacher to set one up weekly so the kids could see each other. With just a screen sitting in front of my daughter, the novelty wore off and it was harder to keep her engaged than if she had her teachers in the room with her.

    As far as clothing, they’ll wear what I set out for them the night before as they always do. Makes things easier that way.

    1. SHG Post author

      Most of the teachers I’ve talked to told me that same, that the zoom classes lasted for a few days before the kids, and their parents, had enough of it and drifted off. Are college students more dedicated to their education than public school children that they will overcome its huge shortcomings?

  3. Erik H

    Honestly the risk of CV death for a young healthy college student is pretty damn low. I would let my kid go; I hope she can. Lots of Other kids would go, too, I think. It would suck not to be able to see them during the year and to wait 2 weeks every vacation, but that’s OK.

    But There would have to be 25 percent who stays at home: the old, ill, immune compromised, or anyone with a higher risk. Colleges may be socially and politically unwilling to split Their student body on health, just as many Public school systems were downgrading their online classes to avoid a split on wealth or ADA access. . “Open for all or not at all” will be an issue.

    As for a gap year… yeah, sure, it’s an interesting idea. But: doing what? Not much is gained during a year as a low paid barista; even top HS students are not much value in a firm; and a year isn’t long enough to learn a trade. Not to mention the glut of competition due to high unemployment . If the Prez was a different person he’d expand national service programs to make lemonade—I’d push my kid to do a gap year in Americorps—but that’s a pipe dream.

    Better to go to school and suck it up for a semester, I think.

    1. SHG Post author

      Are you sure the risk is so low that it’s worth it? Even if the outcome isn’t death, but weeks in the hospital, on a ventilator, lung damage, is it still low enough to put your child into the middle of it? Bear in mind, this isn’t the same as a random risk that anyone could confront, but a known possibility that you’re affirmatively choosing. Are you really that cavalier with your child’s welfare?

      1. Grant

        (Responding to, “Are you really that cavalier with your child’s welfare?”)

        Yes. You’re a lawyer. Your job is to be cold-blooded and analytical about risks even when other people are running around like chickens with their heads cut off. And every lawsuit is about flirting with disaster. And you’re never sure. So this should be right up your alley. You weigh the odds and roll the dice.

        Also similar to law, it should be your kid’s decision. They are punitively grown up, this is a grown up decision, and it’s their rear on the line.

        1. SHG Post author

          I really hate it when some simplistic dolt does the “you’re a lawyer” thing. Yes, I’m a lawyer. You’re not. But that answers nothing. If we know what the actual risks are, we can make a “cold-blooded” analysis of them, but we don’t have the magic ability to distinguish between the conflicting bullshit that non-lawyers believe because they choose to believe. We also avoid taking risks that don’t need to be taken. Cold-blooded isn’t the same as stupid.

          1. Grant

            I believe our difference of opinion is that I believe I can estimate risks for this at least as well as I can in the typical lawsuit.

            Which is probably a function of you being a better lawyer than me.

            1. SHG Post author

              When someone is sued (or arrested), they have to deal with it and make their choices based on the fact that they can’t just say, “sorry, but I prefer not to be sued.” Nobody puts a gun to your head and says, “go do college or else.” Are you getting this?

      2. Erik H

        Yes.

        After all, this is a *marginal* risk. She isn’t going to spend a gap year locked in my basement, wearing a mask and learning to code. Nor do I have any friends who will give her a cushy sinecure of an office job. Rather she will probably train as a nurse or EMT; volunteer or work in a hospital or nursing home; join Americorps; work in a customer-oriented job where she’ll encounter the public on a constant basis (be it Starbucks, Stop & Shop, or something else); or something similar. All of those would have risks (of CV or otherwise) which are not all that different from carefully attending college.

        And I already let my kids surf in large waves; go mountain biking; windsurf; play high school sports; use power tools; climb trees; and so on. I also allow my high school senior to drive. Those activities are inherently high risk as life activities go, and all include an distinct risk of severe injury or death. When your kids swim out into surf in 45 degree water, or head out solo in heavy air on a windsurfer, they are possibly going to get stuck underwater, or knocked out, and die. People do. Other parents let their kids play football; are less picky about driving with friends; send them out solo in more dangerous areas; encourage them to join the infantry; etc.

        Most risks can be minimized–and we have minimized it as best as we can–but we are parentally accustomed to thinking about this in an objective way and I do not have nightmares about it. While I obviously hope that all my children will outlive me, I (and they) are willing to accept a degree of risk in order to live the life that we want.

        And on that similar note, part of their desire is to be a participative and productive member of society. I think they can easily come to the conclusion that the risk/benefit of attending school will outweigh the risk/benefit of the likely alternatives. I suspect they will, if given the choice.

        * Not to mention that these kids are 18 and up; it isn’t entirely our call anymore.

        1. SHG Post author

          Your kids, your call. But when it comes to COVID, you have no clue what the risk it (I’m not saying you’re wrong, but that nobody has a firm grip yet) and yet are pretty darn certain. Dunning-Kruger will not be denied.

          1. Erik H

            Don’t you currently believe that the evidence suggests that elderly people and those with pre-existing conditions are at relatively high risk?

            I do! So do most folks. That analysis may change, of course, but we all make the best predictions we can based on the evidence we have.

            Similarly, the best evaluation of the current evidence strongly suggests that the 18-21 age group, if otherwise healthy, is one of the lowest-risk cohorts. That analysis may also change, but it is a reasonable evaluation for now. If the information changes between now and August, then my mind will change.

            If you think that comparison is Dunning-Kruger I’m not sure what to say, other than that you’re using DK wrong.

            1. SHG Post author

              Higher and lower risk is relative, but still fails to provide the critical piece to make a knowledgeable choice. The difference is that I don’t know the answer. You believe you do.

            2. Erik H

              Of course I don’t know the precise risk. Nobody does. All people can try for is this:

              “Right now, based on the data we have, what are reasonable estimates of the likely risks and a rough confidence interval within which to evaluate them?”

              So in the beginning, when the reasonable risks included the possibility that CV was highly lethal across all age ranges, and usually, highly, contagious, I responded in kind. Now that we know more about transmission rates and dangers, I adjusted. If we get new data which makes it better (or worse) I’ll adjust again.

              Everything is subject to change; all science involves adapting to changes in data and information. But unless you have the opportunity to put decisions on hold, then you need to make the decisions you can with the data you have, imperfect as they may be.

              For example, as of May 12, NY had 15,233 CV-related deaths. 8.3 million, 15233 deaths, equals about a 0.18% rate of death. A 0.2 death rate is really very high and if you are seriously opposed to college attendance I can only assume you are encouraging everyone you know to flee NYC or lock down entirely, damn the cost.

              But of those, only 3 were of minors who lacked an underlying condition. That’s a tiny minority.

              And urrently, the worldwide data suggest that the death risk from infection for the 0-19 cohort is somewhere in the range of 0.002%, or 2 in 100,000. Maybe it’s as high as 1 in 10,000. Maybe it’s much lower (there are encouraging numbers regarding asymptomatic cases.) Obviously it would be nice if it were lower, but these are RELATIVE risks, so you have to consider the alternative. Unless you also think “don’t work as an EMT / volunteer in a hospital / join a vaccine trial / join Americorps / live in a city where you commute by subway / hold a busy public-facing job in times of CV / do anything that may similarly increase risk” then I don’t understand why you are focusing on college, specially, as a problem.

            3. SHG Post author

              “Nobody does, so Ima write a lot of words anyway.” Brevity is the soul of wit. Others hit the tip cup for wasting my bandwidth.

            4. Christopher Best

              Sorry for the day-late reply, Boss, but this meme I keep seeing is really getting to me…

              “Don’t you currently believe that the evidence suggests that elderly people and those with pre-existing conditions are at relatively high risk?”

              Not being in the “high risk” group doesn’t make taking the risk a good idea. Yeah, you might not die, but you might wish you had. There are 30 year olds falling over dead from strokes, 40 year old Broadway singers losing a leg and possibly a lung, and elementary school kids suffering horribly from entire body inflammation. And we won’t know for years what sort of long-term effects infection has (see for instance: shingles).

              All this to say I’m with our host: We don’t know enough to even guess at what the actual risk of going to college is. If anyone asked me what their kids should do, I’d be firmly in the gap year camp.

              You won’t learn much on a ventilator anyway.

    2. Skink

      Your position is, “my kid isn’t likely to get sick, so let her live her life.” It’s medically ignorant and socially bereft. But that the virus is overblown is a reaction held by many, so you’re hardly alone.

      My practice requires me to interact with infectious disease docs, and at times epidemiologists. I’ve done that many times in the last five months. I won’t turn this discussion away from the primary issue by explaining what I learned during those dozens of conference calls and in-person meetings. You can take my word or not, but this is far from overblown. You might want to think about the value of your information before making life choices for your kid and the others with whom she will be in contact.

      1. Erik H

        Sigh. What is it with the Internet these days, where every dog on a computer assumes that the only way to have a differing opinion is to be an uneducated idiot?

        If you want to shake your knowledge rattle at me… OK. Here ya go:

        I spent years in the sciences before switching to law. Including a year in hospitals, a year at grad school, and, as it happens, two years of research lab work with infectious bacteria, both in vitro and in vivo. I know a LOT about science and statistics, more than any other lawyers I know except some med/mal and patent specialists. I’ve probably read far more papers than you have, unless you have a similar background, and I probably understand this far better than you do, if push comes to shove.

        So you, who probably lack deep background understanding of how all of this works, have had five months of conference calls with people who you trust? Okey-dokey. People in the world will have differing opinions regarding their own needs for safety, and people will choose who to listen to, and–unlike you–I don’t begrudge people those choices, as a rule.

        But every position is dependent on a lot of assumptions and predictions–yours, for example, appears to be based on assumptions that the alternative to college are much safer. To avoid being an asshole, perhaps you should not head straight for the “least charitable interpretation.”

        Just a tip.

        1. Skink

          “I spent years in the sciences before switching to law. Including a year in hospitals, a year at grad school, and, as it happens, two years of research lab work with infectious bacteria, both in vitro and in vivo. I know a LOT about science and statistics, more than any other lawyers I know except some med/mal and patent specialists.”

          Well, I’m one of those medmal lawyers with more than 2000 cases. My education the last five months has been directed to this virus. I talk to the people that know what they’re talking about because they are epidemiologists. For those that don’t know, they are rare. If medical practice was restaurants, epidemiologists would be the restaurant that only serves popsicles. They are that rare. You, Erik, are not.

          That you have some background in “science,” however limited, does not make me toss the conclusions of those that actually do this kind of work as physicians. You see, when shit starts coming out of my kitchen sink, I call a plumber, not an electrician. Although they both work on houses, they ain’t the same, if you know what I mean. Among the group of pseudo-knowledgeable people discussing this virus, there’s you.

          That you have some knowledge, and maybe even some access to experts that actually deal with epidemiology and its parent, infectious disease, makes your conclusion that your kid is safe just dumb. Somewhere in this here Hotel, we have a hat for you.

          1. Erik H

            Shit, I wish I had learned everything I know science in 5 months, that would have been so much easier than all of those years. Cheaper, too. Oh well, if it works for you I’m happy for ya. Anyway, you can certainly feel free to believe and interact with whom you want. Hopefully you aren’t assuming that I am making my own decisions in a cave without, ya know, consulting anyone, though you know what they say about assumptions.

            But since you seem so incredibly sure you accurately know what is real here and that you aren’t just shitting upwind, perhaps you can explain what the relative risk is?

            My summary position is that–based on what we know now, and subject to change–it seems likely that the decision of a healthy 18 year old to attend in-person college will be a rationally defensible choice as of fall 2020, given a) the alternatives I described; b) the risk tolerance I described; and c) appropriate future data.

            If you think that is wrong, and not just “think it’s unlikely” wrong but “you’re a danger to all” wrong: Which data, precisely, are you relying on? What relative risk are you assigning to the alternatives? How dangerous do you think it is, relatively speaking, and what’s your general risk risk tolerance?

            You may not understand statistics and epidemiology well enough yet, but the answers to a lot of these “what should we do” questions are highly dependent on both the assumptions and on the assigned weights to various outcomes. If you think you’re knowledgeable enough to point out where I’m wrong, please elaborate. I’m happy to adopt new data. If you can’t explain why I’m wrong beyond “my friends say so,” perhaps you should reconsider.

            1. Skink

              Erik, you miss the obvious because you assume you know what you’re talking about. I don’t know the medicine, so I discuss the medicine with those that do know the medicine. They aren’t my friends. You don’t know the medicine because you are neither an ID doc nor an epidemiologist and you aren’t studying this virus as one of either.

              I wouldn’t consult you on the virus because you don’t have the credentials to make your opinion valuable. You shouldn’t consult you, either.

            2. Erik H

              So:
              1) You have no data that you understand well enough, with enough confidence, to put out there.
              2) You don’t have any specific comments on the specific points that I made, even to attempt to explain how you think that they are incorrect, ideally w/ data.
              3) For some reason, you apparently think that I am making my decisions all by my lonesome, without asking anyone at all, reading data, reading advisory reports, or anything else.
              4) You think I’m incredibly stupid and unsafe. You must also think that about everyone else you don’t instantly agree with, from folks in Sweden to those running NYU, to the teams of PhD epidemiologists that are advising those folks.

              That is truly bizarre.

              It’s gotta be an interesting experience to disagree with so many people without actually having enough of a fundamental understanding to make an argument.

  4. KP

    The unemployment might be short-lived. The Post-lockdown way of carrying on will take more people as we space further apart. Fewer people can shop at once, so more shops needed. More spacing in transport means more buses and trains for the same number of commuters. Fewer people per SqM of office means more offices… and the politics of ending The West’s reliance on China for everything might actually create more jobs at home!

    It will be different, better for some, worse for others…. and all forgotten when the next over-hyped fear-mongering panic gets going, be it Cold War 2, the Greater Depression, The Russians, global warming, The Chinese, AIDS…

    1. losingtrader

      ” Fewer people per SqM of office means more offices”

      This is the argument being pushed by commercial real estate agents.

      On the issue of the post, doesn’t a switch to online learning make a great case for far cheaper options–either colleges that couldn’t previously obtain accreditation, or a degree from the few that have it being treated with much more respect?

  5. Scott Spencer

    I am typing this from my phone. Sorry in advance….

    I think that most people in education would agree that in person, face to face, hands on instruction is the way to go. The problem arising is that we (administration) are super risk adverse.

    Faculty can be on the older side. Most of my peers in administration at schools across the country are not worried about the student as much, but we do worry about the faculty. No one wants to see that favorite, or even hated, faculty member get sick. It’s not just them dying but then you have to find a replacement in the middle of the term and deal with learning disruption in the middle of the term again. Faculty gets sick then what? Shut down the campus again and we have massive disruption again.

    This all costs money, which as you know, many small schools don’t have coming out the wazoo.

    What if a student gets sick? Then we have the same thing but we add hysterical parents to the mix and now a potential lawsuit and the bad press that goes with any negative thing happening at a college.

    See above regarding money and wazoos.

    Most of my peers are working through plans that have students on campus for in person learning. We are reworking calendars, room capacity, and dorm space to accommodate the ‘rona the best we and still deliver what we say we are delivering. We don’t know what to do with elevators or narrow stairwells. Do we cancel breaks? Have classes on Sunday to minimize contact during the week?

    As was mentioned either in a comment or the original post, moving things online means room and board cannot be charged. Unfortunately we rely on those cost centers to pay for things like campus security, software that keeps the records, and the electricity.

    It’s a mess that all interested parties have valid questions and concerns about. If I had answers, I could be a millionaire.

    1. SHG Post author

      I’ve read various bits of various plans and can’t wait to see how colleges get to defy the laws of physics. The room is only so big, so how you’re going to fit the same number of students in it while keeping them 6 feet apart will be interesting to watch. Or how you tell the students paying the same tuition that they only get to attend a class in person on Tuesday but not Thursday.

      Or how you put 3 people in an elevator and move 500 in ten minutes between classes. Good times ahead.

      1. Scott Spencer

        Because of expected lower enrollments actual lecture based classroom space is probably not going to be the main issue.

        Like you said, elevators, hallways, dining resources and all that will be where the trouble arises. Changing elevator capacity from weight based to floor space based is a start. But how do you add time to the day to get everyone where they need to go.

        Happy to share as things become more clearer.

        1. Erik H

          Notre Dame just announced a fall reopening, letter is in the NYT editorial section. Its interesting to read, apropos of this.

  6. B. McLeod

    Following the Great Recession and its several years of market interruption, thoughtful, intelligent students began passing on law schools in significant numbers. Although the effect was gradual, over a period of 5-8 years, the lower tier schools that kept signing less and less capable students to meet cashflow requirements began to have problems with bar passage rates and accreditation. By 2017, several of them had failed.

    This chain of events brought a twofold lesson. First, it actually IS possible to hand law students such an incredible shit sandwich that the competent ones will not have it. Second, seemingly inexhaustible waves of mooncalves will swarm in to sign for that same shit sandwich, and it is only the shuttering of the sandwich shop that will eventually halt that madness.

    I predict a replay with the schools pushing the remote learning. The hiring market in all sectors is down by the bow. During this pandemic, the legal profession will likely sack more than 200,000 employed attorneys, who will be predominantly the young staff lawyers and associates at the bottom of the law firm food chain. There will be no place for most of the thousands of newbie graduates the schools will seek to churn into this debacle each year. Law school in any form is currently a worse risk play than in 2009-2010. Offering quasi-law school in diminished, digital form, simply tarnishes the wonderful “opportunity” even more. Intelligent students will find a less costly, more beneficial path, and droves of mooncalves will take their places, until the schools go down in flames.

    1. losingtrader

      Well, then, maybe there will be a lot of low-cost lawyers hanging out a shingle, and I can stop paying $900-$1250 / hr . The question is whether a response by or ” threat” from an attorney who has no capability to back it up in court will be sufficient .
      Of course, I have no competency in court and can write better letters that many attorneys so my guess is I stay with the expensive guys when dealing with regulatory authorities, and write my own letters for the rest .

      1. B. McLeod

        During the Great Recession, there was a particular online commenter at several blog sites who posited that experienced lawyers (whom she tended to term “boomers”) should do their all to save the hapless, unemployed newbies, because the noobs would otherwise be hanging out shingles and competing with $10 rates. Due to client desires for survival (and other factors connected with reality), the $10 thing never happened. It won’t happen this time either.

  7. Skink

    Silly us–we thought mediocrity would be a result of everyone getting a cookie, a puppy and a tranquility room. Education hasn’t reacted well, but we’re early in reinventing everything. Give it some time.

    No lawyer has to search far to find mediocrity right now. My little office is tech-present. When those that run my life work from home, they are setup exactly as they are here, with three monitors, Teams and instant access to the server. They tell me it’s just like being here, except it isn’t.

    No, I don’t have to look far for mediocrity: it’s right there in the mirror. Even with the best of tech, I’m doing a pretty shitty job compared to two months ago.

  8. Richard Kopf

    SHG, I remember when a “gap year” taken by 18-year old kids meant getting shot at, and possibly killed, in sweltering jungles by folks who were not afraid of napalm. I hear that “gap year” means something different now, something far less challenging and dangerous and threatening yet far more childish. Strange.

    All the best.

    RGK

    1. B. McLeod

      I do not like green eggs and SPAM,
      I will not eat them, Uncle Sam,
      I will not eat them in the mire,
      I will not eat them under fire,
      I will not eat them here or there,
      I will not eat them anywhere,
      Not in the mire, not under fire,
      Not here or there, not anywhere,
      I do not like green eggs and SPAM,
      I will not eat them, Uncle Sam.

      I will not eat where Charlie crawls,
      I will not eat them with Lee Rawles,
      I will not eat them by the wire,
      I will not eat in peril dire,
      I do not like green eggs and SPAM,
      I will not eat them, Uncle Sam.
      Not in the mire, not under fire,
      Where Charlie crawls, or with Lee Rawles,
      Not by the wire, in peril dire,
      Not here or there, not anywhere,
      I do not like green eggs and SPAM,
      I will not eat them, Uncle Sam.

  9. ShallMustMay

    A 1st for me. I passed along this post to family (teachers of sped & others in & entering college with high achieving). I asked them to read the comments as well but ignore the ego pissing contest. Good & thought provoking.
    Now go ahead – bite me. Still hopeful you can find a way around pay pal

Comments are closed.