Guest Post: Informed Recipient

As noted earlier, the USPS is a struggle bus that stops at no good locations. But here's an idea for transforming Informed Delivery into something useful. Something others could and some do.

This estate is gonna be the death of me yet. I swear. Finally got the Final Report in. How do I know? Well, UPS reliably delivers and offers tracking. Then, as they should, the Probate Court cashed the check. That's right, every move you make, there's a check they take. Not that that necessarily means anything, at least not for certain. Now here is one thing the Probate Court does really, really well: they answer the phone. And you can talk to a real live person who, given the proper info, can tell you the current status of the estate. I know folks just love to bitch about government incompetence but they better not be dissin' DeKalb Probate.

Now it was time to get this done and dusted, so I filed the petition to close the estate. Much like the final report it was: complete the petition; get supporting docs; write a check; and deliver via UPS. UPS got it there overnight with confirmation of delivery. Probate cashed the check 5-7 business days later. Then. Nothing. Not for another week. Not for another two weeks. Then three. Before it was an entire month I call. Same experience as before. Come to find out the judge had signed off on the petition and it had mailed out the same day. USPS. I'm subscribed to "Informed Delivery" and though it has been over two weeks there has been no delivery and no information. 

So I got to thinking if I've signed up to be informed why do they restrict it to delivery? Keep in mind, what they show in that email is only loosely related to what they put in my mailbox and they have never informed me that a neighbor's mail would wind up in my box though it happens all the time. What seems reasonable is that the USPS could inform me when they get any mail, except maybe "resident" junk mail, that is addressed to me. As soon as they stamp that postmark an email should be headed my way. After all they have my physical address and my email address. That way I would know that the Probate Court had sent something my way. 

You might argue that would expose the incredibly long time local mail takes to go across town, but we already know that from the postmark, which is timestamped, and the time we pull it out of the mailbox. There may be some concern that notification of mail entering the system that somehow never exits the system. Lost mail, never found, but now we'd know. Heaven forbid.

Guest Post: Postal...Going...Going...Gone

This is a tale of woe regarding the United States Postal Service, but not what you might expect. This is not about the new Palmetto facility that our grandstanding senators have been bleating about. This is far worse.

So look, I've been trying to close out an estate and as you may know, or soon will, filing a Final Report is a must-do. Cannot file the petition for Done&Dusted until the probate court gets that report. And likes it. Here's where it gets interesting. You can file lots of things online like death certificates, petitions and some forms. But they got no category for these reports, so whatcha gonna do, right? Now you could hand deliver but since the pandemic the probate court really likes keeping the public at bay so you need an appointment which is about two weeks out. And yes, I did call to see if they had a drop box, left a message and never got a call back. So then I decided to mail it. Good ole USPS. 

Now I didn't go to the post office 'cuz that is a special circle of hell. I went to one of those Mailboxes-R-Us, had them notarize the Report, print the mailing label for Certified Mail and paid for Return Receipt. This happened on April 2. Since I tracked it on Informed Delivery I'll show you what happened next.

It took three days, three whole days, for 30338 to scan it in. Keep in mind that April 2 was a Tuesday so they didn't scan it until Friday. What's up with that? Do they just let mail stack up and have a processing party on Fridays? But then, overnight, it makes a boomerang tour of North Georgia, going down to Palmetto and then back up to Decatur where it disappears. Ain't looking like Palmetto is the problem so maybe someone should share a clue with some clueless senators. And why were they whining about thirty something percent on-time delivery? Hell, what about the mail that ain't getting delivered at all. Like MINE.

So I wait a couple of days to see if it ever gets delivered and I check on the bank account to see if the enclosed check gets cashed and if so is it the proper amount. That's right, you gotta pay the probate court to do their job. It's kinda like cable TV, you know how you pay a monthly fee and then still have to watch commercials only here we pay taxes and then have to pay for ever little form we file. The very day after I put this in the mail, Carl the know-it-all tells me I should never send certified mail, especially to the court 'cuz everyone knows there is a check in there, and it will get stolen, and the check washed and cashed. So I'm waiting and watching until I figure it's time to chase this down. Then I call the Decatur post office and actually talk to a real person who says she'll look around for it and call me back. She does. She says it's not there and that someone from the courthouse comes and picks up their mail. Questions leap to mind. I asked if this means their mail doesn't get scanned as delivered? Says it should have been. Then I point out this is Certified Return Receipt and does this mean the person who picked it up didn't sign and post the receipt? Silence. Then she says she will look for it again and call me back. She doesn't. 

'Bout now I'm getting pissed. The angry kind. The wine kind comes later. I'm too old to run for the Senate and too young for the White House, but I gotta do something. After a few more days of watching, I put a payment hold on the check, for which my bank charges $23, just to make sure a lost check doesn't turn up putting money in someone else's account. But I still check in with Informed Delivery just in case the probate court finally gets the mail and gets a bum check. That is until the package disappears from Informed Delivery. So I go to USPS tracking, enter the number and click on "add to informed delivery" figuring somehow Informed Delivery had sudden amnesia. Nope. Got this:

That's right. I cannot use Informed Delivery to track a package that they have not even delivered yet. The last reported status was "Awaiting Delivery" and they have the nerve to say it's now expired and they ain't gonna say anything more about that package. It went postal and now it's just gone.

Guest Post : Product Endorsement

TOD generally doesn't do endorsements, not political nor product, but it is Black Friday Eve so perhaps this is a timely review provided by someone-other-than-TOD. It is worth noting this is a product that is designed and manufactured in the good ole U S of A.

A little background is in order. Over the last few years I've spent quite a bit of time and made quite a few trips to doctors, clinics and hospitals. It was immediately obvious that a purse was not going to cut it: too cumbersome and depending on the purpose of the meeting is just another thing to keep track of and to worry about. But you must have all manner of cards and sometimes cash and you'd think the average wallet would be just the thing. You'd be wrong. Folks burn logs in their fireplaces that are smaller than my wallet so I took to carrying just the essentials with a makeshift card/money clip:

Makeshift Moneyclip

This worked just fine. Secure. Easy to carry. Fits in any pocket. Intuitive operation. But my husband didn't like it. He had visions of me slipping and flipping cards and cash all over the room. I could see that. If he used it. He also did not like the "flashin' yer cash" aspect and the fact that to get out an insurance card you had to unclip the cash as well. So he got me one of these:

Flipside 4

It is called a "wallet" but it doesn't look like one and it doesn't operate like one either. Push the button at the end and this thing springs open exposing the top two card holders. These hold three to four cards each and provide RFID protection. Now THAT appeals as I'm pretty paranoid about identity theft. The card holder on the bottom of the divider and the money clip do not but that's OK. I still have plenty of cards that would not benefit from RFID protection. For easy access without the potential of cash-flash he also got me this option:

FLIPSideKick

It attaches to the bottom providing easy access to three or four of your most needed cards at any medical facility: ID; Credit Card; Insurance Card; and Medicare Card. These are held very securely but slide out with a thumb push. There is also a small drawer that can be used instead of the cards for a few keys and/or coins but I don't expect to use it.

This wallet is secure, easy to use with spring-loaded opening and pretty small, not that much bigger than my previous bills+cards+clip. It looks more like an old flip-phone than a wallet which makes me think it is less likely to be stolen. It comes in colors that make it easy to find and less likely for me to be misplaced which was another problem with the life hack money clip. I don't know what it costs and I'm sure my husband didn't either. 

Guest Post: Beaten With A Culture Club

We interrupt our regular programing for a PSA from outside The Other Dunwoody. Unedited and without further ado...

culture, noun. the cultivation of microorganisms, as bacteria, or of tissues, for scientific study, medical use, etc.; the product or growth resulting from such cultivation.

Some bacteria is good. Probiotics (allegedly) are good bacteria. Some bacteria is...not so good. Staph comes to mind.

Of course, that's not the only meaning of the word culture.

culture, noun. the arts and other manifestations of human intellectual achievement regarded collectively.

This is where we get the idea of "pop culture". This is why almost every newspaper has some section related to "Arts and Culture". This definition really all but excludes the sciences, but we'll even grant it the "human intellectual achievement" part. Why not?

That's it, though. Those are the only two definitions of "culture" (at least according to google).

Now, while these arguably are the only two definitions, there are more uses of the word. People on college campuses LOVE to use that word. Here are a few instances from my own life, and from colleagues who wish to remain even more anonymous.

• "It's the culture here to handhold our scholars through their lifelong journeys of education and development." (spoken by a Dean telling a faculty member to be more flexible with students handing in work late)
• "Just to tell you a bit about the culture, typically someone in my position does not grade homework." (spoken by a TA to the professor they "work" for)
• "Well, my other professors give us typed notes of lectures. Isn't that the culture?" (spoken by many students to many professors)
• "It's not that he's necessarily a misogynist. He's just Russian, and you have to understand their culture." (spoken by a male superior regarding a male insubordinate to a female colleague)

In each of these instances, the speaker did NOT mean the word "culture" (you might think in some weird way the Russian case was the closest appropriate use, but...you want to talk about a comment that insults absolutely everyone involved...).

These speakers mostly meant the word "custom":

custom, noun. a traditional and widely-accepted way of behaving or doing something that is specific to a particular society, place, or time.

So why not use the correct "custom" over the incorrect "culture"? Simple. "Custom" implies tradition, tradition implies stuck-in-your-ways, stuck-in-your-ways implies inflexible, inflexible implies intolerant, and that's just bad. Even if it's what you really mean--you can't use the word nowadays without risking sounding like a bigoted oaf. "Culture", on the other hand, implies intellectual and well-rounded, intellectual and well-rounded imply of-the-world, of-the-world implies open-minded, open-minded implies good. Moreover, using the good word "culture" in reprimanding or dismissing conversations makes the person being reprimanded and dismissed feel in the wrong. Who can say you're an oaf when you're winning TWICE?!

But this is creating a wide-spread issue. Words are no longer being used because of their definitions, but because of their connotations, because of the feelings they elicit. This makes listening to others remarkably confusing--what is this person really trying to say? It also makes speaking a frightening thought--what if you don't realize a word you're using has a connotation that's going to come back to haunt you? Even I have to admit, after 15 years as a student and faculty member of various colleges, I hear/read the word "culture" and cringe.

If you're unconvinced that these seemingly minor things are having an impact, let me present one more bit of evidence (which I will completely admit right now is personal). I do contract work for a company providing pay-by-the-course online classes for 3rd thru 11th graders. The classrooms are chat-based with no video or audio. Weekly all online course instructors get a newsletter with "tips of the week" and other typical newsletter items. Here is one recent tip from a fellow online course instructor:

Teaching in the classroom happens in real time, so it's natural to make a conversational remark here and there. However, be aware of the impression your words leave on students and the classroom environment you’re creating.

For example, in a younger class, there was this [idea] that we covered, and after passing some students' positive comments about the [material], I said something like, "Yeah, it is an intriguing [idea]."  The students then began to [use] that word, "intriguing," later on in the lesson. It made me realize the impact that my descriptors have, and made me want to be more careful to ensure that my descriptors are as accurate and positive as possible.

We are joking, right?

Once more unto the lexicographic breach (but I'll take it away from here). "Intriguing" means creating a sense of intrigue. Intrigue has as synonyms fascination, wonderment, and curiosity. I will now argue that especially in a classroom setting, this word being used by faculty and student alike is GOOD. And yet this example of the use of the word "intrigue" is in a paragraph in the "pro-tip" section for online course instructors which ends with the punchline that descriptors need to be as "positive as possible".

Clearly (though this is a low blow) at least one person does not know what the word "intrigue" means. But doesn't it make you wonder what inappropriate prior uses of that word have made the pro-tip writer think it's so negative? What word was actually meant instead? Is it not sad that an instructor uses the word "intriguing" in a classroom and almost immediately regrets it?

Just remember: "culture" is a plate of bacteria. Not a socially-accepted form of traditionalism to which you must conform. Don't follow the culture--you're a better life form.

Guest Post : Colleges Cannot Afford Their Own Tuition Bills

One of the biggest financial burdens Americans face is college debt. Student loan debt is higher than the national credit card debt (which is kinda ironic because a lot of people try to pay their bills with credit cards). Even more of a rut-roh is the reality that student loan debt cannot be forgiven upon declaring bankruptcy--you are NEVER getting out of this. And this college-debt burden is not restricted to the 99% (or the complement of the 1%). I recently went on a series of (what will probably retrospectively be "good stories") dates with someone who graduated from a highly-ranked, highly-selective college his GRANDFATHER was president of for twenty years; he "only" had $80,000 of debt left five years after earning his four-year degree. And this was a person who literally and figuratively was grandfathered in and provided with what in academia amounts to an "employee discount" on tuition. And let's not even begin to talk about any law or med-school student. Those 3-4 year post-baccalaureate programs NEVER give students scholarships or stipends. You want to know why your doctor charges $150 for a five-minute visit or why your lawyer charges you for every word he utters? It's because they're up to their eyeballs in debt.

Just so we can say we did, let's talk about public colleges and universities. Many--like those in the university system of Georgia--have a history of giving in-state residents essentially free rides; it used to be that if you had a 3.0 GPA and were an in-state student at any public college in Georgia, you were good to go. The HOPE scholarship (running mostly on lottery funds) would cover your bill. Except…the state started going broke. Oops? What did they do to remedy this situation? They raised the minimum GPA requirement. Instead of a 3.0 for a full ride, you needed a 3.2 (or something like that…You get the idea. Less than 10% increase.). Suddenly, there was an uproar. Critics argued that--among other things--this would prevent students from majoring in STEM subjects, which historically are "tougher" than BA classes and subsequently feature lower average GPAs. Others argued that this would "weed out" lower-income students or first-generation college-goers and those who may not have *the* strongest of education backgrounds. Imagine this: you have a 3.55 high school GPA (qualifying you for a full ride), but from a really craptastic public school. I don't care if it's inner city or the setting for Deliverance. Everyone--whether he admits it or not--knows you are going to struggle to keep that up. You lose HOPE, literally and figuratively, you can't stay in college without loans or at all…and you're out.

Now for the private schools. The ones, in particular, that are well-established (interpret at will). First, why do they care about subsidizing student debt--they're going to get paid anyway, right? Well, it actually does comes down to money. And--unlike a lot of public schools--private schools also care a LOT about how they look. They need to--they can't rely on the state governments or taxes for their money. They rely solely on the ability to convince "everyday people" to give them ridiculous amounts of money. So if you advertise zero debt and no loans, the number of applications (and application fees) you receive is going to shoot through the roof. That is a HUGE money maker. Think of the statistics you always hear: 34295 people applied to be in the Harvard class of 2018 with an application fee of $75 (that means you're being paid almost three million dollars just to CONSIDER applications). And the number of applicants increasing drastically means your acceptance rate is going to decrease which makes your school automatically (yet vacuously) "more selective". And that makes you very prestigious. Oh, and then there's the highly politically incorrect (yet highly realistic) truth that private schools spin this as a way they are "diversifying" their student body. No more is this just a school for old money WASPs, Asian kids whose intelligence no one can deny, and the occasional Jew. Now YOU can attend the same schools the presidents did, the schools where the Nobel prize winners work, and you can't afford it WE'LL PAY THE BILL FOR YOU! This is the American dream! This is democracy, fairness, and equality at their best!

But…and there are of course a few exceptions…even the private schools can't afford this.

The first widely-acknowledged school to start a no-loan/no-debt policy is Princeton. They've done this for close to fifteen years. But it's Princeton. Their endowment is almost 20 BILLION DOLLARS. They are not going anywhere anytime soon and they can take the financial hit. Because it started a trend that made them look extra prestigious, of course others felt the need to follow suit. Ivies such as Dartmouth seconded the emotion. Even the top-tier liberal arts colleges (which still have HIGHLY nontrivial endowments) such as Williams ran to join the cool kids' club. Press releases were issued. The deans and presidents were quoted in Forbes and US News and World Report. The schools were praised for their generosity and forward-thinking. But they hit the same road block that the state colleges of Georgia did; namely, they couldn't handle their own tuition bills. THIS is not highly publicized (so, see the references below) but Dartmouth and Williams both had to suspend their no-loan/zero-debt programs--Williams did it after only three years (so, not even seeing the inaugural class to graduation). Their endowments respectively are $3.4 billion and $2.25 billion. And they could not afford this level of generosity.

What about those still playing ball? My date's highly selective college states on their own websites that 40% of their student body receives need-based financial aid packages from the college, with the average aid package valued at $45,000 a year. With 740 kids that's $33.3 million. A YEAR. Over 5% of their endowment and Lord-knows how much of the general operating budget which also pays for tenure-track positions that keep class sizes low and intimate, and fund study abroad opportunities and bring in guest lecturers. This is not looking very sustainable.

But here's the real kicker. The private schools--including the ever-successful Princeton--frequently lack the ONE caveat the public schools insist upon. That is, they do NOT enforce a GPA minimum beyond that which just constitutes "not failing out". That means they offer academic scholarships to highly prestigious institutes of learning that are not merit-based (or, if you want to be really picky, not merit-REwarded). Does that make sense? Yes, you have to work to get in. Yes, it's almost a lottery that decides whether or not you're in the chosen few. But after you get in, you really don't have to do anything to STAY in? In what alternate universe are the academic rules and regulations of the University of Georgia more strict than those of Princeton?

You could argue that problem will fix itself. Not doing well in school and not having connections will eventually kick students in the rear. Doesn't matter where they went. A friend of mine is a highly intelligent, highly lazy Princeton grad. He has no debt, which is good, because he's essentially unemployable; he's got a GPA so low there's no way to spin it positively on his resume (and so when the question comes up in interviews, the answers are always stellar). He almost failed out. He did not get to know any of his professors (and wasn't doing well in their classes), so his letters of rec are vague at best. He was not involved in any clubs or organizations (because he couldn't afford it in the cases of eating houses or because he was too busy going to the parties the eating houses hosted). But, he's got a degree from Princeton.

Why is this such a big deal? There is an unending list of students willing, wanting, and waiting to go to these "elite" schools; is keeping someone who is not earning their intellectual keep worth it? ESPECIALLY when the bill is so high?

REFERENCES:

• Peers End Student Loans, Duke Keeps Its Aid Policy
• No Loans Colleges

Guest Post: Educator Speaks

Today's regular programming is interrupted by a pop-up post from a guest author. While you may read this and think "that's my kid they're dissin'" we assure you that any resemblance to any child, genius or idiot, is purely coincidental. Without further ado... 

I'm in the middle of a culture shock.

My previous institution was a very large public state school. 40,000-45,000 students. It was a decent school despite a decent party reputation. You'd have the gamut of students: jocks trying to stay academically eligible (which was sometimes a challenge…for them and for their instructors), Greeks bearing zero gifts, first-generation college students, and the brainiacs trying to save money going to the in-state school for undergrad (knowing full well their grad school would leave them up to their eyeballs in debt).

My current institution is less than 5% of the size of the last place. Private. "Highly selective". It has graduated dozens (in the plural) of Rhodes scholars. At the first faculty meeting, I learned the lower quartile of incoming freshmen "only" scored around a 1300 on the SAT math+verbal. One year of tuition, board and room is 20% more than my pre-tax annual salary. The student union has two grand pianos, but only one TV.

Which university, do you think, would create a more enjoyable teaching experience for a professor?

I was surprised by the answer.

There are a few problems in teaching students who lie in the intersection of "highly intelligent" and "very wealthy". In no particular order:

• These students would not have been offered entrance if they weren't "complete packages". They are very sharp and very hard-working; they've traveled the world, speak multiple languages, play musical instruments or "sports" (the quotation mark is to indicate the athletes are more in the golf and lacrosse leagues than baseball and football). They were--without having to do more work than they were trained to do--the best at everything they ever attempted. And--by sheer numbers alone--that can no longer be the case. Put 2000 people used to being in the top five on one campus, and the nuts are off the buggy.

Some kids take this really well. By some, I mean about 20%. They adjust, learn to take constructive criticism, and have a cheery attitude. And given their natural intelligence and work ethic, that makes them ideal students. Seriously, you couldn't ask for more, and they are the students you rarely see at larger schools (again, just by sheer numbers). But then there are those who internalize every point deducted. They've been perfect their whole lives and now they aren't; they become depressed, stressed, and hyperactive. They are the reasons why every stall in every women's restroom on campus has a flier about bulimia. As an instructor, you feel guilty because you know that it's your assessment of their understanding that is making them "lose it" (for lack of a better term); however, you know that your assessment is correct and so you really just feel sad for these kids. I'm guessing about 30-35% of the student body's in this category. The last category, and also the majority, are those who interpret "I didn't get an A" as "it's not me, it's them." They're the combative ones. The ones that say "Just so you know, I'm an 'A' student" like it's a threat.  The ones that speak to you in ways that--if it were reciprocated--would get you fired in a heartbeat. The ones that make you pray their first spouse takes them to the cleaner because you don't know how to make a voodoo doll.

At the larger schools, this problem isn't as pronounced. Perhaps it's because not all the students are type-A, A-students to begin with. But they seem more understanding of the fact that "Some of these classes will be hard. And I will not always be the top dog." This doesn't mean that the students don't want to do well. But it means they are more "realistic"; if they see they're performing at the class average, they recognize that that just means they are average. They may not like it, and they frequently will work their butts off to get a "B" or "B+", but they don't take it personally. And they don't take it out on the instructor. They realize, "Hey. I'm just not as good as some of the others at this."

• Office hours. At the big state school, there may have been a University-approved minimum number of weekly office hours; however, I can guarantee you it wasn't enforced. Many professors were "by appointment only" and they never checked their emails. Or, they'd post office hours, but only show up if you had made an appointment prior. Consequently, if you actually were there, with your door open, during the times you said you'd be there, your students were like kids at Christmas. They would come whether they had just a quick question about one particular section, or major and fundamental questions about the entire course. They WANTED to see their instructor outside class. They were appreciative of ANY time--and they all would mark office hours of the professors they had in their calendars and/or their phones so they knew when to show up.

At the current institution, it doesn't matter how many office hours you have. But now, the reason is different. It doesn't matter because first it's significantly harder to get students to come at all. This again probably comes from the fact they're not used to needing help or asking for help, and they're embarrassed because they're clearly a disappointment to the whole world or because they're angry this school with all its money can't hire someone who realizes just how awesome they are. The other reason why the number of office hours doesn't matter is because the students who do come have zero respect for the schedules of their instructors. They will send emails "informing" their instructors that they are "on the way"--whether it's during office hour time or not. They will ask if it's OK to meet right before class, or right after class, or right after THEIR last class (no surprise, they never want to meet BEFORE their first class). And, of course, the INSTRUCTOR'S first/last class is never mentioned or suggested. And the institution recognizes this; my teaching mentor told me the best way to ensure my students respected my time was to work from home as much as possible. 

The reasons for this again are many. First, the students again probably aren't used to needing help, so they don't realize that help is not always available. Next, they are probably used to instructors bending over backwards to spend any time with them BECAUSE they were the top students (and who wouldn't want to spend more time with their top students?). Again, as an instructor, you feel bad and want to accommodate; ANY academian has had a moment where she realizes she's not the top dog, that she's struggling. And it's a hard pill to swallow. You want to be available to your students; but you cannot pander to them. And letting them trample over your life and dictate your schedule is pandering.

• Parents. In seven years of teaching at the large state school, you want to guess how many parents contacted me? Zero. In seven years. Hundreds to thousands of students and I heard from zero parents. My department head would probably hear from about a dozen a semester--which at the time I thought was insane. But again…24 a year out of 40-something thousand students? That's practically nothing.

The new faculty orientation at the current institution scared the crap out of me. Multiple talks were given on ways to deal with parents. We were told to expect to hear from about 10 parents a year. Maybe more or less, depending on your grade distribution. You would think, thanks to FERPA, this wouldn't be a discussion (or at least it would be short). Even if biologically and emotionally and financially we are talking about their child, legally we are talking about an 18+ year-old and therefore a legal adult. It is against the law for me to discuss the grades and specific academic performances of any of my students with their parents. There are no exceptions. It is the law. There are certain schools that offer a form students can sign so parents can call the REGISTRAR and get access to grade reports; however, as an instructor, you still can't really tell the parents much of anything.

But try telling THEM that.

To some extent (and to as much extent as someone who is childless and makes less than a year's tuition can have), I get it. You're paying a lot of money and you want to know why you're not seeing the "results" you'd like. But that's something you need to take up with your KID. If you really believe the school is worth the above-average cost, and if you think the school itself is above-average in academic rigor, then you should believe the school is capable of making above-average decisions in hiring. You shouldn't feel the need to question the intellectual authority of the faculty. And when you challenge a professor's assessment of your child's performance, that is exactly what you're doing. The professor has the PhD, not you. The professor has the published work and the years of college teaching experience, not you. You're 100% correct that you know your kid better as a human being; however, the professor's job is to judge your child's competency in ONE subject, not their worth as a human being. Go to the bathroom and read a flyer. This is like paying $60,000 for your child's wedding, and blaming the caterer for any ensuing marital problems. The money went to the child and was effectively a "gift". The child's the one you should be speaking to harshly, not the instructor.