Six reasons NOT to send your daughter to college

[EasterJoy]

In the interest of full disclosure, I have a PhD in chemistry. Due to a variety of factors, including a choice to attend to public universities, I never had to take out a student loan. We opted to have me stay at home with our children and with my live-in MIL after our children were born; my husband is the sole bread-winner. My father believed very much in traditional gender roles. I was a top student, but I also grew up with the intention of being a wife and mother. If my father had told me I could not go to college, I would have found a way to go on my own. There is simply no way that library books or even college-level DVD courses from the Teaching Company could have substituted for a higher education. Denying me an education that my brothers were given would not have made me more content to stay at home. To the contrary, I am more content knowing that I was given the time to develop my talents and then, having done so, positively chose the role I have now.

I have had many other SAHMs thank me, actually, because when you choose staying at home when you could have been a doctor or lawyer or professor, instead, that says something. They say it validates the role of a SAHM. I believe it says something to my kids, too. They know that I spend time with them not because I am not trained to do anything else, but because there isn’t any better use of my time. I could be teaching at the college level, and I chose to be with them, instead. Having said that, I feel very strongly that it is parents who have the duty and the right to decide how to raise their children and manage their family affairs, including whether or not and how much each parent works outside the home.

Parents who believe they can guarantee that their grandchildren will be brought up as faithful Catholics by merely denying their daughters higher education could not be more wrong. Most of them are in for a rude awakening.

 

[JustPink]

In the interest of full disclosure, I have a PhD in chemistry. Due to a variety of factors, including a choice to attend to public universities, I never had to take out a student loan. We opted to have me stay at home with our children and with my live-in MIL after our children were born; my husband is the sole bread-winner. My father believed very much in traditional gender roles. I was a top student, but I also grew up with the intention of being a wife and mother. If my father had told me I could not go to college, I would have found a way to go on my own. There is simply no way that library books or even college-level DVD courses from the Teaching Company could have substituted for a higher education. Denying me an education that my brothers were given would not have made me more content to stay at home. To the contrary, I am more content knowing that I was given the time to develop my talents and then, having done so, positively chose the role I have now.

I have had many other SAHMs thank me, actually, because when you choose staying at home when you could have been a doctor or lawyer or professor, instead, that says something. They say it validates the role of a SAHM. I believe it says something to my kids, too. They know that I spend time with them not because I am not trained to do anything else, but because there isn’t any better use of my time. I could be teaching at the college level, and I chose to be with them, instead. Having said that, I feel very strongly that it is parents who have the duty and the right to decide how to raise their children and manage their family affairs, including whether or not and how much each parent works outside the home.

Parents who believe they can guarantee that their grandchildren will be brought up as faithful Catholics by merely denying their daughters higher education could not be more wrong. Most of them are in for a rude awakening.

Good post.
Just curious, may I ask how old are you?

 

[EasterJoy]

Good post.
Just curious, may I ask how old are you?

In the neighborhood of 50. Married just a few years shy of 30, but believe me sticking in my home town would not have helped that! Had I not been able to bear children, I would have stayed in teaching, and of course I would have gone to work if the family had needed me to do it for the salary.

 

[57thDimension]

What, like the kind who might make enough to allow her to be a SAHM?

It depends where she goes to school, though. If she chooses a school that has a high male-female ratio (that is, more men than women), she runs a significant risk of not actually finding anyone (e.g.: Gordon, Shanlea. “Fear And Loathing In The Hookup Culture: A Study Of Female Engagement In Non-relational Sex On A University Campus.” (2013)). She also runs a greater risk of engaging in premarital sexual behaviors than if she attended a school with a low male-female ratio (that is, fewer men than women). In other words, she will have more temptation and far fewer (if any) opportunities to meet such a man.

Also, going to college can lead to the sunk cost fallacy, vis-a-vis a career and delaying of marriage (e.g.: Dessy, Sylvain, and Habiba Djebbari. “High-Powered Careers and Marriage: Can Women Have It All?.” The BE Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy 10.1 (2010)., Slaughter, Anne-Marie. “Why women still can’t have it all.” The Atlantic 310.1 (2012): 84-102., Hewlett, Sylvia Ann. “Executive women and the myth of having it all.” Harvard business review 80.4 (2002): 66-73.).

University an “occasion of sin”. Sure, instead, let’s lock up our daughters.

A strawman.

When 50% of marriages end in divorce, a woman simply has to have a way to support herself should the unthinkable happen.

This is just the ecological fallacy.

Those who use NFP are proud to state that their divorce rate is incredibly low, around 5%.

That study was flawed (and it didn’t control for confounders - e.g. waiting until marriage).

It’s actually pretty easy to avoid most of that stuff at college.

Based on the actual results (see Gordon, above), no, it seems it’s not easy to avoid (or they just don’t want to).

This is a gold mine of information! Is there any way someone could identify those hormones and turn them into an aerosol spray?

There’s a nasal spray in development that contains neurochemicals that is supposed to help relationships. The results so far are good.

Offensive misogynist junk article.

I recommend checking the definition of “misogyny.”

Thus, the simple fact of saying, " you are a girl (female human being), there are many reasons for not going to college " means that there is an ontological inferiority of the woman

I’m not sure how you’ve concluded that such a statement means “there is an ontological inferiority of the woman.” Could you explain how you made the connection?

College or a career doesn’t “cause” a woman to dislike housekeeping.

Actually, it can (e.g.: Kluwer, Esther S., José AM Heesink, and Evert Van de Vliert. “Marital conflict about the division of household labor and paid work.” Journal of Marriage and the Family (1996): 958-969., etc)

The cost of a degree is becoming more difficult to recoup.

Back to the Match.com survey: 47% would not date someone who is in debt. (Debt in marriage is a negative, too: Dew, Jeffrey. “Two sides of the same coin? The differing roles of assets and consumer debt in marriage.” Journal of Family and Economic Issues 28.1 (2007): 89-104.)

Do you personally know what it is like to go through this world with a high school education and to be surrounded by people who have been to college?

This is dependent on many factors. However, the typical US public school education is pitiful, and college is definitely needed to make up for it (even if it is just two years). That said, if a person attended a private high school and enrolled in IB (for example), they (in my experience) don’t benefit all that much from college (at least, in terms of getting a B.A. - other degrees will be different).

These men who think women should be forbidden to go to college want to keep their wives and daughters dumb enough and dependent enough so that they can continue to have control over them.

I’d be interested to see a source for this.

Actually, I think English is not his first language.

I find their failure to notice that, combined with their previous comments, to be quite ironic.

+Sebastian

 

[57thDimension]

I don’t see how this couldn’t all be solved by distance education. I mean (besides the debt part) it seems to strike a fairly reasonable balance between both sides.

+Sebastian

 

[Miss_Felicity]

I’m breaking a promise to myself even responding to this but I couldn’t hold my tongue (fingers?) any longer. As someone who did a year of college away from home and ended up coming home and working and going to a commuter University, there are a lot of unfair assumptions about this article. I payed my way through school and with the exception of some small loans during my last year when my hours and pay were considerably less when I was carrying a 21 credit load I’m relatively debt free.

College also gave me an opportunity to travel internationally which I was blessed to do a bit of in High School. If my parents had read or believed in a article like this they probably would not have allowed me to have a high school or college study abroad. I am offended that these reasons are geared only to women and that none of this seemingly applies to male children and I’m also a bit peeved at the line of thinking about college not preparing women to take care of homes and more domestic situations. Critical thinking, multi tasking and determination which college provides regardless of major do a great job of preparing PARENTS of being able to take care of a home. I say parents because I don’t think ALL of the onus should be on mom, what if mom is also sick with a bug, or any number of situations arise, sick child still needs care, dinner still needs cooked, clothes still need washed and someone needs to do it.

I think back to an great aunt of mine, who was 1 of 2 out of 7 siblings that went to college, she studied to be an extension agent and she did radio broadcasts of cooking and homemaking tips as part of her job. The lines are not clearly defined here and lets not forget many colleges have cooking and textile classes for those who want a literal course that can be applied to homemaking.

 

[fpt]

vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_cons_19651207_gaudium-et-spes_en.html

The Pastoral Constitution, “Gaudium et Spes” (29) discusses equality and differences among men.

1. Since all men possess a rational soul and are created in God’s likeness, since they have the same nature and origin, have been redeemed by Christ and enjoy the same divine calling and destiny,** the basic equality of all must receive increasingly greater recognition.**

True, all men are not alike from the point of view of varying physical power and the diversity of intellectual and moral resources. Nevertheless, with respect to** the fundamental rights of the person,** every type of discrimination, whether social or cultural, whether based on sex, race, color, social condition, language or religion, is to be overcome and eradicated as contrary to God’s intent.** For in truth it must still be regretted that fundamental personal rights are still not being universally honored.**** Such is the case of a woman who is denied the right to choose a husband freely, to embrace a state of life or to acquire an education or cultural benefits equal to those recognized for men.**

This text is clear. No discrimination, in the noble sense, in function of sex, concerning the education, the instruction, the learning, the formation and even for the higher education (college or university). It is a moral obligation of avoiding and of struggling those mentalities and those practices (refusal the education to females, the same rights than men) for the mother, the father and thus for the parents.

 

[fpt]

A blog on the man, on the baby boy, on the male teenager, on the son, on the adult male, on the husband, on the father, on the grandfather: his rights, his obligations, his duties, his roles, his functions, his ontological nature, his sins…etc.!!!

Not to be a machist;
Not to be a sexist;
Not to be a misogynist;
Not to be in favor of the war of genders (male and female);
Not to be a dictator;
Not to be a tyran;
Not to be a pharisee;
Not to be a cathar;
Not to be a jansenist;
Not to be a puritan;
Not to be a puritanist;
Not to be a victorian;
Not to be a victorianist;
Not to be a pessimist;
Not to be a scrupulous person;
Not to be a fideist;
Nor to be a quietist;
Not to be a theoritical providentialist;
Not to be a primary anti-personalist person;
Not to be an externalist person;
Not to control his wife;
Not to control his daughters;

…

…etc.

:thumbsup

 

[on_the_hill]

In the interest of full disclosure, I have a PhD in chemistry.

Coincidentally, my wife has PhD in engineering, and gave up a promising career on the corporate ladder after our first child was born. She’s a part-time college teacher now, and loves it not only because she loves teaching but also because she gets to spend a lot of time being a mom.

Ironically, she encouraged me to quit my lackluster job to be a stay-at-home dad but I knew I wouldn’t be happy. My decision to keep working allowed her the financial freedom to restructure her whole work/home lifestyle.

 

[JustPink]

In the neighborhood of 50. Married just a few years shy of 30, but believe me sticking in my home town would not have helped that! Had I not been able to bear children, I would have stayed in teaching, and of course I would have gone to work if the family had needed me to do it for the salary.

I must say, that is the longest response I’ve ever gotten to “how old are you.” Heh heh, you crack me up lady.

I’ll probably be a SAHM myself if there is enough $$

 

[EasterJoy]

I must say, that is the longest response I’ve ever gotten to “how old are you.” Heh heh, you crack me up lady.

You said you were curious.

I’ll probably be a SAHM myself if there is enough $$

That’s the thing. Gotta feed 'em. There are many out there that work full-time without an education, and have a hard time managing that.

 

[Just_Lurking]

I must say, that is the longest response I’ve ever gotten to “how old are you.” Heh heh, you crack me up lady.

That’s one of the potential hazards of asking someone with a Ph.D. a question.

 

[marymary1975]

It depends where she goes to school, though. If she chooses a school that has a high male-female ratio (that is, more men than women), she runs a significant risk of not actually finding anyone (e.g.: Gordon, Shanlea. “Fear And Loathing In The Hookup Culture: A Study Of Female Engagement In Non-relational Sex On A University Campus.” (2013)). She also runs a greater risk of engaging in premarital sexual behaviors than if she attended a school with a low male-female ratio (that is, fewer men than women). In other words, she will have more temptation and far fewer (if any) opportunities to meet such a man.

Also, going to college can lead to the sunk cost fallacy, vis-a-vis a career and delaying of marriage (e.g.: Dessy, Sylvain, and Habiba Djebbari. “High-Powered Careers and Marriage: Can Women Have It All?.” The BE Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy 10.1 (2010)., Slaughter, Anne-Marie. “Why women still can’t have it all.” The Atlantic 310.1 (2012): 84-102., Hewlett, Sylvia Ann. “Executive women and the myth of having it all.” Harvard business review 80.4 (2002): 66-7

I recommend checking the definition of “misogyny.”

I’m not sure how you’ve concluded that such a statement means “there is an ontological inferiority of the woman.” Could you explain how you made the connection?

Actually, it can (e.g.: Kluwer, Esther S., José AM Heesink, and Evert Van de Vliert. “Marital conflict about the division of household labor and paid work.” Journal of Marriage and the Family (1996): 958-969., etc)

+Sebastian

Sincerely, your first paragraph makes no sense to me. If a woman goes to a school with more men than women, how come she runs a “significant risk” of not finding anyone? Unless that particular woman is either not interested in men, ridiculously picky or difficult, (which in any of these cases it has nothing to do with the school and male female ratio) her chances of finding someone are actually greater. I went to a University where there were more men than women and I meet my fiancee at the University. Also many of my classmates at the University meet their current husbands/fiancees at the University. Also the idea of she will have more temptations, calls my attention as again, generally speaking men are the ones who engage more frequently in bad behavior, who historically have been engaging statistically more in sinful behavior than women and while it is true that the numbers of women behaving wrongly have gone up, men still fall into the temptation more, so then why are we not talking about the men??

Now, if you want to speak specifically about the hook up culture, that in and of itself doesn’t have anything to do with College but with radical feminism and the anti life movement who has brainwashed people all over the United States. Again what happens in College is only a reflection of a bigger problem in the American society: the lack of values and morals and the introduction of all these pro choice/radical feminism/freedom without control ideas that have been sold to all Americans. The solution to this is not keeping women out of College but instead to have more faithful people in all, College, society and starting families.

I don’t see how delaying marriage to finish a career is nothing but a good thing. First and foremost, building a career and finding a good husband are not mutually exclusive (I can give you a long list of women who have done that). Second who do you think has a better chance of being more stable emotionally and economically: the child of an 18 year old who barely finished high school and is not mature enough or the child of a 30 year old who actually wants that child, is stable economically, is mature, responsible, educated, made a responsible discernment as to marriage, and has experience running a household? Obviously, the child of a woman in her late 20’s or 30’s who has an education (regardless of whether the mother decided to be a SAHM or is working, the issue is that the mother is educated, mature and stable) is going to fare much better. Again, I think what you are looking at here is radical feminist women who bought into the lies of radical feminism that men and women are the same, sexual promiscuity etc and due to personal bad decisions ended up as what is described in the women can’t have it all.

The definition of misogyny is hate towards women. Suggesting that women should not go to college but men should, is sexist and denotes a view that women are inferior. That is misogyny at its best.

That women with a career doesn’t like housekeeping? I have a bachelor’s, two LLMs and a JD and have a professional career and I am very good with housekeeping. In fact I have to say I started liking housekeeping more while being at the University. The same goes for all my female friends with careers. The complain that you do hear in the real world though is when both the woman and the man work and the man not contributing with housekeeping and having double work, that is the problem with housekeeping, not education and careers.

 

[marymary1975]

That’s one of the potential hazards of asking someone with a Ph.D. a question.

LOL so true

 

[EasterJoy]

That’s one of the potential hazards of asking someone with a Ph.D. a question.

Oh, heavens, dear…I’ve been talking like this since I started talking, and even the other PhDs scratch their heads when they hear me talk!!

 

[fpt]

vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_cons_19651207_gaudium-et-spes_en.html

The Pastoral Constitution, “Gaudium et Spes” (29) discusses equality and differences among men.

1. Since all men possess a rational soul and are created in God’s likeness, since they have the same nature and origin, have been redeemed by Christ and enjoy the same divine calling and destiny,** the basic equality of all must receive increasingly greater recognition.**

True, all men are not alike from the point of view of varying physical power and the diversity of intellectual and moral resources. Nevertheless, with respect to** the fundamental rights of the person,** every type of discrimination, whether social or cultural, whether based on sex, race, color, social condition, language or religion, is to be overcome and eradicated as contrary to God’s intent.** For in truth it must still be regretted that fundamental personal rights are still not being universally honored.**** Such is the case of a woman who is denied the right to choose a husband freely, to embrace a state of life or to acquire an education or cultural benefits equal to those recognized for men.**

This text is clear. No discrimination, in the noble sense, in function of sex, concerning the education, the instruction, the learning, the formation and even for the higher education (college or university). It is a moral obligation of avoiding and of struggling those mentalities and those practices (refusal the education to females, the same rights than men) for the mother, the father and thus for the parents.

The fact of being a housewife is not a moral obligation for the catholic wife / mother: morally speaking, the catholic wife / mother can work outside the house, if she wants and if she needs; the fact of choosing the home-schooling is not a moral obligation for the catholic couple; the fact of having a large family is not a moral obligation for the catholic couple;

The fundamental rights of the [female] person** [baby girl, female teenager, adult woman, daugther, wife, mother] **is to have right to choose a husband freely, to embrace a state of life or to acquire an education or cultural benefits equal to those recognized for men.

The moral obligation of parents is not denied the right for** their daughters** to choose their husband freely, to embrace a state of life or to acquire an education or cultural benefits equal to those recognized for their sons.

No discrimination from catholic parents about the education, about the instruction, about the learning, about the higher education (college or university), because you are a female, **IS THE RULE. **Otherwise, it is totally wrong, morally speaking.

 

[EasterJoy]

vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_cons_19651207_gaudium-et-spes_en.html

The Pastoral Constitution, “Gaudium et Spes” (29) discusses equality and differences among men.

1. Since all men possess a rational soul and are created in God’s likeness, since they have the same nature and origin, have been redeemed by Christ and enjoy the same divine calling and destiny,** the basic equality of all must receive increasingly greater recognition.**

True, all men are not alike from the point of view of varying physical power and the diversity of intellectual and moral resources. Nevertheless, with respect to** the fundamental rights of the person,** every type of discrimination, whether social or cultural, whether based on sex, race, color, social condition, language or religion, is to be overcome and eradicated as contrary to God’s intent.** For in truth it must still be regretted that fundamental personal rights are still not being universally honored.**** Such is the case of a woman who is denied the right to choose a husband freely, to embrace a state of life or to acquire an education or cultural benefits equal to those recognized for men.**

This text is clear. No discrimination, in the noble sense, in function of sex, concerning the education, the instruction, the learning, the formation and even for the higher education (college or university). It is a moral obligation of avoiding and of struggling those mentalities and those practices (refusal the education to females, the same rights than men) for the mother, the father and thus for the parents.

The fact of being a housewife is not a moral obligation for the catholic wife / mother: morally speaking, the catholic wife / mother can work outside the house, if she wants and if she needs; the fact of choosing the home-schooling is not a moral obligation for the catholic couple; the fact of having a large family is not a moral obligation for the catholic couple;

The fundamental rights of the [female] person** [baby girl, female teenager, adult woman, daugther, wife, mother] **is to have right to choose a husband freely, to embrace a state of life or to acquire an education or cultural benefits equal to those recognized for men.

The moral obligation of parents is not denied the right for** their daughters** to choose their husband freely, to embrace a state of life or to acquire an education or cultural benefits equal to those recognized for their sons.

No discrimination from catholic parents about the education, about the instruction, about the learning, about the higher education (college or university), because you are a female, **IS THE RULE. **Otherwise, it is totally wrong, morally speaking.

Thank you, thank you, for the citation from Gaudium et Spes, that is perfect. It is directly from one of the four Apostolic Constitutions, the highest level of decree issued by a Pope, and treats the question directly.

That is not to say that a parent might not discourage their children from an educational path that cannot be pursued without undue compromise of their morals. It is saying, however, that females are not to be unjustly singled out when this kind of question comes up before parents.

I think your answer is what The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith would say. Perfect!

 

[JustPink]

Sincerely, your first paragraph makes no sense to me. If a woman goes to a school with more men than women, how come she runs a “significant risk” of not finding anyone? Unless that particular woman is either not interested in men, ridiculously picky or difficult, (which in any of these cases it has nothing to do with the school and male female ratio) her chances of finding someone are actually greater. I went to a University where there were more men than women and I meet my fiancee at the University. Also many of my classmates at the University meet their current husbands/fiancees at the University. Also the idea of she will have more temptations, calls my attention as again, generally speaking men are the ones who engage more frequently in bad behavior, who historically have been engaging statistically more in sinful behavior than women and while it is true that the numbers of women behaving wrongly have gone up, men still fall into the temptation more, so then why are we not talking about the men??

Now, if you want to speak specifically about the hook up culture, that in and of itself doesn’t have anything to do with College but with radical feminism and the anti life movement who has brainwashed people all over the United States. Again what happens in College is only a reflection of a bigger problem in the American society: the lack of values and morals and the introduction of all these pro choice/radical feminism/freedom without control ideas that have been sold to all Americans. The solution to this is not keeping women out of College but instead to have more faithful people in all, College, society and starting families.

I don’t see how delaying marriage to finish a career is nothing but a good thing. First and foremost, building a career and finding a good husband are not mutually exclusive (I can give you a long list of women who have done that). Second who do you think has a better chance of being more stable emotionally and economically: the child of an 18 year old who barely finished high school and is not mature enough or the child of a 30 year old who actually wants that child, is stable economically, is mature, responsible, educated, made a responsible discernment as to marriage, and has experience running a household? Obviously, the child of a woman in her late 20’s or 30’s who has an education (regardless of whether the mother decided to be a SAHM or is working, the issue is that the mother is educated, mature and stable) is going to fare much better. Again, I think what you are looking at here is radical feminist women who bought into the lies of radical feminism that men and women are the same, sexual promiscuity etc and due to personal bad decisions ended up as what is described in the women can’t have it all.

The definition of misogyny is hate towards women. Suggesting that women should not go to college but men should, is sexist and denotes a view that women are inferior. That is misogyny at its best.

That women with a career doesn’t like housekeeping? I have a bachelor’s, two LLMs and a JD and have a professional career and I am very good with housekeeping. In fact I have to say I started liking housekeeping more while being at the University. The same goes for all my female friends with careers. The complain that you do hear in the real world though is when both the woman and the man work and the man not contributing with housekeeping and having double work, that is the problem with housekeeping, not education and careers.

Stop making so much sense. You’re going to give some folks a head ache.

 

[StMonicaGuideMe]

Here’s the response I gave (pieces of it) on the actual blog:
*
“Out of Catholic charity, is my moral obligation to correct such a terribly mislead opinion piece, not only for yourself, but for anyone reading this thinking you are representing official Catholic teaching. Firstly, if you wish to make comments on the teachings of the Church, please actually refer to Canon Law or any official doctrine that states, verbatim, what you are trying to express.
Secondly, I suggest that you speak to a priest or your local bishop on these matters before spreading them on the internet…Thirdly, the existence of Catholic universities which have accepted women for a very long time completely negates this opinion post. Women have been educated by the church itself. How about nun’s with PhD’s? I’m sorry - this is just not common sense…I am not only a university graduate but also a** practicing traditional Catholic**. My priest knows very well that I’m educated and currently employed. Doesn’t seem to be a problem. In fact, it’s my education that gave me the skills to set up my church’s website”. *

 

[LSK]

I guess what I do not understand is why this person believes Colleges are training grounds for jobs.

I have a degree in Rhetoric and Dramatic Art from UC Berkeley. I also have a degree in Business Management from University of Phoenix Online.

When I graduated from Cal there were no jobs in the paper for Rhetoricians. I was working in my field for about 20 years when I decided to go back and get another degree.

I think, and I could be wrong, that the person who wrote the blog is also forgetting a basic truth that many do not want to face: on the average, women live longer than men. I do not want to tell you the number of people I have had to help learn how to write a check or pay basic bills after their husband dies. They discover that their wonderful spouse - who was a good spouse and loved them dearly - neglected to provide for them in the event they lost their life. Not all men think about this part of providing for their family. Their widow needs to go back to work to make sure there is food on the table and a roof over their heads. Nothing particularly wrong with that; however, it is very difficult to get a job if one has not been in the job market for 20 or 30 years. Those women who have done things like worked part time while children are in school and so have a work history sometimes have a better chance of getting a job if they need one.

While Catholic theology supports an intact family with the mother of children at home caring for those children, God often has other plans. To not prepare oneself for those possibilities is, in my opinion, foolish. I know many well educated women with advanced degrees who chose to stay at home and raise their children. That education kept them in good stead, and allowed them to interract with their husbands and their children in a full and graceful manner.

But what do I know? I’m a Dominican…GO BEARS!!! BEAT STANFORD!