Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Education

Harvard Faculty Adopts Open-Access Requirement 147

Posted by CmdrTaco
from the step-in-the-up-direction dept.
Vooch writes "Harvard University's Faculty of Arts and Sciences adopted a policy this evening that requires faculty members to allow the university to make their scholarly articles available free online." I may not be smart enough to go to college, but at least I can pretend to have a Harvard eduction. I don't think that will be enough to get a gig as a Simpsons writer.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Harvard Faculty Adopts Open-Access Requirement

Comments Filter:
  • by mysqlbytes (908737) on Wednesday February 13, 2008 @12:47PM (#22407552) Homepage Journal
    A Harvard eduction?? Some of us learn english proper!
  • Nice of Them (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Mickyfin613 (1192879) on Wednesday February 13, 2008 @12:48PM (#22407572)
    Considering Harvard University's staggering $34 billion stockpile...
    • They can't be doing that well for themselves if they have to group arts and sciences into the one faculty, surely? >_>

      PS FArts&Scienceslol
    • Re:Nice of Them (Score:5, Insightful)

      by dkleinsc (563838) on Wednesday February 13, 2008 @01:27PM (#22408142) Homepage
      Yeah, silly idea for a university to use their endowment to promote research (including this measure as well as their numerous grants), drop tuition for lower income students [cnn.com] to improve learning, or recruit top-notch faculty. (in the interests of disclosure, I'm one of the few members of my family without a Harvard degree of some sort)

      You'd almost think their purpose was promoting the advancement of human knowledge.
    • by BeeBeard (999187)
      If they don't throw us crumbs like this every once in while, then we lowly commoners might get uppity and demand they put an end to their unfair admissions practices [harvard.edu] or something.
      • by mjpaci (33725) *
        Hmm. I didn't realize that Harvard did away with Early Admission. If my memory serves me right, there is something called Early Action which isn't binding like Early Admission is. I was admitted to my college under Early Admission mostly because 1) I didn't want to fill out more than one college application and 2) I was quite certain I wanted to go that particular school at that particular time in my life. (It wasn't Harvard.)

        --Mike
    • Re:Nice of Them (Score:5, Insightful)

      by poliopteragriseoapte (973295) on Wednesday February 13, 2008 @03:32PM (#22409988)

      This has nothing to do with Harvard's finances. In any case Harvard does not make money out of scholarly publications.

      This is a coup against publishers, the likes of Elsevier and Springer. What Harvard is saying is that, as a condition of sponsoring research at Harvard, the results MUST be accessible in open form. Hence, when faculty transfer the copyright of their papers to the publishers (a step that happens each time a paper is published), a clause will have to be added that Harvard reserves the right to make the works available in an open access way.

      This is great, and other universities are thinking the same (but acting with less courage).

      This leaves open the point of why one must transfer copyright when publishing papers -- why would a license to use the content not be enough? But traditionally, faculty and researchers have been slaves to publishers. Harvard's decision is a sign that the balance of power is changing, due to the internet.

  • I may not be smart enough to go to college, but at least I can pretend to have a Harvard eduction. I don't think that will be enough to get a gig as a Simpsons writer.

    You mean Springfield's Springfield Alderman Simpson? [illinoistimes.com]

  • by mhore (582354) on Wednesday February 13, 2008 @12:52PM (#22407634)
    Ok, that's fine and well that if the journal allows it, Harvard makes a copy of the article freely available. What about those journals (Nature and Science, maybe?) that do not allow this. Does this mean that Harvard faculty will not publish in Nature and Science? Somehow I doubt that. Does this mean that Harvard will break copyright agreements? Maybe? The article doesn't quite say.
    • by mhall119 (1035984) on Wednesday February 13, 2008 @12:56PM (#22407696) Homepage Journal
      I think their theory is that journals that don't allow this will have to change their policy, as they wouldn't want to lose out on publishing articles from Harvard profs.
      • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

        I think their theory is that journals that don't allow this will have to change their policy, as they wouldn't want to lose out on publishing articles from Harvard profs.

        Ah, good old fashioned Harvard arrogance. Let's see how long this lasts. In my field, the number of decent journals I can think of that allow open access and reproduction could be counted on the fingers of one hand. After playing with a live hand grenade.

        • You call it Harvard arrogance, I call it a noble effort. They have a strong hand, and I think they have every ethical right to attempt to enforce a more open atmosphere of knowledge in the face of academic journals which seem to be working contrary to that end.

          Whether anything comes with it is another matter, but I'm glad they're trying.

          • It's *BIG*! (Score:5, Insightful)

            by hawk (1151) <hawk@eyry.org> on Wednesday February 13, 2008 @04:02PM (#22410408) Journal
            The importance of this *cannot* be understated.

            Junior faculty, in particular, are currently *forced* to publish in the "best" journal they can, with the bulk of those being the "sign it over" variety. To publish in a lesser journal is to risk tenure.

            Now, suddenly, the University is providing a new list of top journals, and tenure will come from posting to the rest of those.

            The academic publishing industry is a dinosaur in desperate need of elimination. It charges tens of thousands of dollars per school for journals that would be more useful as web sites--, not and available several months earlier. As it exists, journals are for the benefit of the publishing companies, not the world at large, academia, or the authors. The economic model is that the faculty write, are paid nothing, and the libraries pay huge fees to the publishing houses.

            Will the publishers react to open up? I doubt it; they can't.

            The *real* result of this will be top articles going to online journals, which will first rival and then displace the printed journals. This is a good thing for everyone except the publishing houses.

            hawk, formerly junior faculty but now back in practice and paid well enough that *his* kids can go to school, too
            • Something that I don't think is clear in what I just wrote.

              The big deal is that this will make it the norm, and the *expectation of the university*, that faculty will publish in freely available journals. Right now this isn't an option to those seeking tenure or promotion. (OTOH, if Harvard suddenly expects faculty to get waivers for most of their articles, the whole thing becomes a bunch of dead letters).

              Again, the big deal is that it makes it *possible* for faculty to publish in these journals.

              hawk
            • by volpe (58112)

              The importance of this *cannot* be understated.
              "This is kinda important. Not a lot, but somewhat, I suppose."

              There. Does that qualify as understating the importance?

              Or, perhaps you meant, "The importance of this *cannot* be overstated"?
        • Yeah, whatever. Maybe it is arrogance but they're doing what is the right thing and they expect you to deal with it. It's what any moral principle is; worth fighting for.
        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by thsths (31372)
          > Ah, good old fashioned Harvard arrogance. Let's see how long this lasts.

          My university has the same policy, although it is only recommended, not mandatory. So far I had no serious issues, as most publishers will accept copyright forms that retain the right to make the paper available on-line. Change is certainly happening, and it is about time to hop on the band wagon. :-)
        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by Hatta (162192)
          The arrogance comes not from Harvard, but from the people who expect to make a living off of their reputation alone. The research is paid for by tax payer dollars. The reviewers work for free. They add literally no value besides their name. And in science what really matters is the quality of your research, not the name attached to it. It's a total racket, and everyone involved should be ashamed of themselves. I'll be glad to see them go the way of the buggy whip makers.
          • The research is paid for by tax payer dollars.

            That's not always true in a great many cases. Much research is sponsored by companies or private institutions. And if you think publically funded equates to free public access in this country, go try to stay a night in the White House.

            The reviewers work for free. They add literally no value besides their name.

            That's true, but it editing and production costs aren't free. Additionally, many, many of the journals published by professional societies (nonprof

            • Even though your UID starts with 666 you make a lousy devil's advocate.

              1. A paper is not physical property so the whitehouse analogy is just plain silly.

              2. Just because YOU don't value quality above authority does not imply the same intellectual weakness is prevalent amoungst scientists. It does however hint at the kind of sour grapes often expressed by those who lack the insight and/or work ethic required to perform quality research.

              3. Allowing anyone with an internet connection to read quality re
      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        Their theory also is that other professors and universities will follow Harvard's lead again. Laugh all you want, but so many aspects of the American education system originated at Harvard.

        This is an obvious and important adjustment to the internet.

        Go to SSRN and look at the law articles. A lot of very nice ones, the best ones published in a journal that allows a free copy to be distributed. I've seen first hand this trend. Journals will take notice and adjust.
      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by DoofusOfDeath (636671)

        I think their theory is that journals that don't allow this will have to change their policy, as they wouldn't want to lose out on publishing articles from Harvard profs.

        But wouldn't that just accelerate the demise of those journals, since then there would be little reason to subscribe? I know that lately I've been chaffing at the cost of IEEE and ACM journal subscriptions. The main reason I bother is to get access to the articles I need for my research.

        This conversation reminds me of the dilemma face

        • by mhall119 (1035984)

          But wouldn't that just accelerate the demise of those journals, since then there would be little reason to subscribe?

          Only if the only value those journals add is distribution. They will still provide a very important role in aggregating articles of interest, so you're not digging through hundreds that you don't care about. They can also provide a forum for criticism and defense of articles.

          Distribution is easy money, because you don't have to create anything to gain profit, so I'm sure many of these journals will be upset by this new way of doing things, just like the RIAA companies are upset by even legal music downlo

          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by DoofusOfDeath (636671)

            Only if the only value those journals add is distribution. They will still provide a very important role in aggregating articles of interest, so you're not digging through hundreds that you don't care about. They can also provide a forum for criticism and defense of articles.

            I agree. Knowing that an article got published in ACM's Transactions on Programming Languages is a great sign that it's a paper worth making time to read. I think it's terribly important that we somehow retain a set of reviewers who

        • by aztektum (170569) on Wednesday February 13, 2008 @04:29PM (#22410738)
          It reminds me of the argument put toward the "MAFIAA": Adapt to a new way of doing business or die.

          I don't see why Science or Nature should get a pass.
    • I study criminology and a large portion of studies that are found in scholarly journals are funded by government grants. A stipulation to getting that grant money is that the study is offered online for free. What often happens is that the same author writes two papers using the same data. The two papers will be about the same study, will arrive at the same conclusion, but the paper offered for free simply doesn't state that it is peer reviewed.
    • by proxima (165692) on Wednesday February 13, 2008 @01:14PM (#22407924)

      Ok, that's fine and well that if the journal allows it, Harvard makes a copy of the article freely available. What about those journals (Nature and Science, maybe?) that do not allow this. Does this mean that Harvard faculty will not publish in Nature and Science? Somehow I doubt that. Does this mean that Harvard will break copyright agreements? Maybe? The article doesn't quite say.

      My understanding of this system is that it's opt-out rather than opt-in. Faculty members retain the copyright to their papers if they're included in the archive, and they have to right to remove them from the archive (opting out). Publishing to many (most?) journals entails signing over the copyright of the final form of the paper to the journal.

      It seems entirely conceivable that some journals will require Harvard profs to remove the article from the archive as a condition for publication. On the other hand, in some fields it's common for "working paper" versions of a paper to circulate widely before they are officially published. Official publication does not usually entail the removal of these working paper versions. I suspect that this is part logistical (it's hard to revoke something that's been made available free on the web), part non-competing (the final version of the paper tends to be more polished and you'll almost certainly prefer citing it over the working paper version), and part publicity (it's easy to find working papers, and if you really like it you'll seek out the published version, serving as advertising).

      So basically, this archive can serve as a working paper repository for Harvard profs. They don't need to put it up on their own web page or have a website in their field dedicated to it, so hopefully this will make it even more convenient to have research available freely on the web.

    • What about those journals (Nature and Science, maybe?) that do not allow this.

      They'll just have to change their policy. I'm sure this is really what this whole policy is about. If enough research institutions make this a policy, the journals which have had so much control over controlling publication will have no other choice.
    • by kebes (861706) on Wednesday February 13, 2008 @01:23PM (#22408078) Journal

      What about those journals (Nature and Science, maybe?) that do not allow this.
      Well Nature Magazine [nature.com] actually does allow you to publish even if you've put the article on a pre-print server (see this blog post [nature.com] that explains their editorial policy [nature.com]). In fact, Nature runs their own pre-print server called Nature Precedings [nature.com], so they are obviously preprint-friendly. In fact, a large number of journals [nature.com] are preprint-friendly (about 2/3 of all journals, according to TFA). Although many journals are not yet supportive for open access (I can't find a preprint policy for Science Magazine [sciencemag.org]), the trend is clearly towards allowing preprint archiving.

      Does this mean that Harvard will break copyright agreements?
      According to TFA [chronicle.com]:

      The new policy will allow faculty members to request a waiver, but otherwise they must provide an electronic form of each article to the provost's office
      So evidently they will make it possible for authors to publish in more restrictive journals if necessary. But the overall push towards open access is clear.

      My guess is that within a few more years, all the journals will be preprint-friendly. After all, the journals need the authors more than the authors need them. Any journal that refuses to allow these kinds of policies will find it difficult to attract high-profile publications in coming years.
      • Although many journals are not yet supportive for open access (I can't find a preprint policy for Science Magazine), the trend is clearly towards allowing preprint archiving.

        Looking at their licensing agreement here. [sciencemag.org] it would appear that you can post your work in a very limited fashion... in some cases you'd need to ask the AAAS for permission to reprint your own material once submitted.

        ...but I'm not lawyer-shaped, so mayhaps one here can render an opinion...

    • by kripkenstein (913150) on Wednesday February 13, 2008 @01:41PM (#22408342) Homepage

      Ok, that's fine and well that if the journal allows it, Harvard makes a copy of the article freely available. What about those journals (Nature and Science, maybe?) that do not allow this. Does this mean that Harvard faculty will not publish in Nature and Science? Somehow I doubt that. Does this mean that Harvard will break copyright agreements? Maybe? The article doesn't quite say.
      Actually the article does say:

      The new policy will allow faculty members to request a waiver, but otherwise they must provide an electronic form of each article to the provost's office, which will place it in an online repository.
      In other words, to publish in journals that do not allow open access, the authors will simply need to request a waiver. Presumably this will be a minor bureaucratic matter. But note that even if a journal isn't 'open access', many such journals let authors do what they will with "author's versions" of the article (or the journals just ignore the practice). Such a version lacks the journal's formatting and so forth. So there might not be a problem here at all.

      Overall this is a very good move. The default will now be to publish articles openly, at least "author's versions". Yes, some authors might request the waiver to not do so, but this applies pressure on them and the journals. Very nice, Harvard, hopefully others will follow you soon.
      • A common term is "self-archiving" [wikipedia.org], and it's been widespread in physics and comp sci at least since the early to mid 1990s, and by now most journals have given in and officially allow it---it was so widespread already that their only choice was to bless it, or to try to put the genie back in the bottle by C&D'ing their own authors. I'm starting to see it more and more commonly mentioned in other fields as well; many statistics and math journals now allow self-archiving, for example, and one [imstat.org] even generate
    • "Harvard makes a copy of the article freely available. What about those journals (Nature and Science, maybe?) that do not allow this"

      How would Havard publishing online prevent them getting published in Nature or Science. Do you have any citations that say this?

      "the author grants AAAS exclusive rights to use and authorize use of the work, but retains actual copyright [sciencemag.org] and substantial reuse rights"

      "Nature Publishing Group offers a range of reprints and permissions [nature.com] services for authors, readers, writer
      • by mhore (582354)
        How would Havard publishing online prevent them getting published in Nature or Science. Do you have any citations that say this?

        No, I don't have any citations that say that. I was just throwing some high impact factor journal names out there. Furthermore, you misinterpreted the article I think. Harvard would not allow the authors to submit their papers to a journal whose policy didn't allow Harvard to post the papers, unless the authors apply for a waiver (as somebody later pointed out in this thread).

  • Not a bad idea (Score:5, Insightful)

    by KublaiKhan (522918) on Wednesday February 13, 2008 @12:53PM (#22407638) Homepage Journal
    One of my major frustrations is how it's very difficult to find serious scholarship outside of a certain number of journals, all of which require expensive subscriptions. It severely limits my ability to make a point on, say, evolutionary biology if I cannot cite and link to a peer-reviewed paper on said subject.

    Hopefully, we'll be able to see some more of this sort of thing in the future.
    • I share your frustration, and often wonder why work coming out of publically paid institutions (e.g., state colleges) is not freely available to the public, giving that taxpayers are paying for these researchers' salaries and expenses.

      I suspect that the authors themselves feel frustrated as well, since they usually want their work to be as widely available as possible, but at the same time want to publish in leading journals.

      Wasn't there some U.S. legislation on this?
    • Re:Not a bad idea (Score:5, Insightful)

      by nasor (690345) on Wednesday February 13, 2008 @01:29PM (#22408162)
      "Expensive" doesn't even begin to cover it. A subscription to the Journal of the American Chemical Society - which you pretty much must have if you want to do serious chemistry research - was $3165 last time I checked. And that was for online access only! These prices aren't "expensive," they're insane. Especially when you consider that the journals don't pay anything for the papers that they publish.
  • pfft... (Score:2, Offtopic)

    by djupedal (584558)
    iTunes U has a bit of a lead [apple.com], me thinks.
    • by gotzero (1177159)
      There are a lot of sources and schools doing this already, and I hope more and more continue to join! I have used some the available MIT lectures to learn about topics I was interested in, and I greatly appreciated these materials being available.

      More and more, the tools needed to learn about something are out there and cheap or free, so it kind of the eliminates the "I cannot get access to an education" argument. I think it is fantastic!
  • Eduction? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by timelorde (7880) on Wednesday February 13, 2008 @12:56PM (#22407698)

    ... but at least I can pretend to have a Harvard eduction.

    I was all set to make a snide comment about the esteemed Mr. Taco's spelling and/or typing abilities, perhaps combined with a Billy Gates Harvard dropout reference, but then I Googled "eduction":

    Eduction [thefreedictionary.com]

    *Sigh* I am NOT smarter than a fifth grader.
    • by langelgjm (860756)
      It's still an error, even if you happen to spell another word bye accident.
    • by NullProg (70833)
      I was all set to make a snide comment about the esteemed Mr. Taco's spelling and/or typing abilities, perhaps combined with a Billy Gates Harvard dropout reference, but then I Googled "eduction":

      Then you should be making snide comments about Mr/Mrs Vooch. Yes Taco posted the story, but the submitter wrote the title, introduction, and beginning comments.

      Enjoy,
  • but at least I can pretend to have a Harvard eduction.


    As opposed to being inducted, subjected, injected, inspected, detected, infected, neglected and selected for the school-for-learning-to-talk-through-your-teeth?
    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      As opposed to being inducted, subjected, injected, inspected, detected, infected, neglected and selected for the school-for-learning-to-talk-through-your-teeth?
      Toss in a ballgag and it sounds like my last date.
    • by afedaken (263115)

      As opposed to being inducted, subjected, injected, inspected, detected, infected, neglected and selected for the school-for-learning-to-talk-through-your-teeth?
      So you came to talk about the draft? :-)
    • by GeekZilla (398185)
      Isn't that a line from Zardoz?
  • Reading this material no more makes one a Harvard grad than reading Einstein's works makes one an expert at Physics; the good news is that I read through the material and it didn't not make me any more dumber.
  • Harvard isn't doing this out of the good of their own hearts. It's a federal mandate. One example is the NIH policy that now requires all articles produced from work funded by NIH to be available on-line to the public, free, within one year of publication. There's an article on it , the second one down on the top stories. Key line: "In accordance with federal law, the NIH now requires the submission of published articles resulting from NIH-funded research to PubMed Central." (emphasis mine) Journal copyri [nih.gov]
  • Bullshit!! (Score:2, Informative)

    by Sethosayher (812094)
    Not fair! I paid 40k a year to get an education and exclude people in the process!
    • Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)

      by jellomizer (103300) *
      You don't get an education at Harvard you get status. If you want education then go to school in a community college. Then finish your degree at a state college, You will get a good education there. Going to Harvard will provide you with less of an education. But you will end up doing more work (because the professors don't want to teach or don't know how) If you challange or ask a question for clarification they will itimidate you. Fail you on the details and grade very lightly on the overall idea. If yo
      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Stickney (715486)
        "Going to Harvard will provide you with less of an education."

        I beg to differ. Have you spoken to many Harvard undergraduates recently? There is good reason for the high price (and resultant status) of a Harvard education.

        (No, I'm not a Harvard undergraduate/alum/whatever, but I have had to compete with them at a few engineering design competitions, and it's rough! If they aren't getting an education, I don't know where you'd get one!)
        • Is it the school or the select group of people the admit.
          I would think the reason why the students who graduate from harvard are smart is because they were smart before they started school there. They already had the work ethic and the ability to do well in tests and study and a competitive drive to be the best. If you created a college and found a way to attact these type of people they will exceed even if you hire undesirables to teach. Because the students are so driven they will learn the information
  • Perhaps matriculating at Harvard doesn't garantee the best education, but just getting in is quite an honor.
    • Perhaps matriculating at Harvard doesn't garantee the best education, but just getting in is quite an honor.


      Please tell me that's a joke.
  • I'm taking the semester off and I'm thinking I should have taken basket-weaving (a class I would no doubt fail) just to maintain my access to journals. Just the other night, I was looking for information on fairly new algorithms for dealing with image processing and almost every reference I could find was a journal I'd have to pay to get access to.

    It seems to me that it's in everyone's best interest to make this information freely available. Think about it, as a programmer, having access to this information
  • I think this is a great move. No matter how respected a publication is, the publisher can't afford to lose the Harvard faculty articles. After all, they're from Harvard faculty. These people _WILL_ find a place to publish their articles, and those articles will be read no matter where they're published. So, the publishers, regardless of what their policy is now, will have to bend over and approve the waivers for Harvard faculty, and if they give waivers to Harvard faculty, I am pretty sure that the research
  • The NSF would really be in a position to push open access with such a policy. It they required all (partially) NSF-funded research articles to be available online, electronically, in their final published version, that would have a huge immediate effect on all scientific journals.
    Anyone have an idea whether this has been discussed or might be realistic?
  • Making connections with your peers at a specific level of status. Harvard, Yale, etc. could all give away every single class lecture for every single class, and it still wouldn't matter: the point of university isn't learning. It's learning WITH someone, and forging relationships that may well last a lifetime. And these relationships can have far reaching effects. Example: The Skull and Bones club at Yale has a habit of generating presidents or otherwise very powerful people. All the classwork online isn't
  • by kidcharles (908072) on Wednesday February 13, 2008 @03:48PM (#22410240)

    This is a move in the right direction towards an acceptable model of academic publishing. I find it interesting and not surprising that this policy was proposed by a computer science professor, I think this is the open source philosophy spilling over into non-computer-code realms. For those that are not familiar with the publication process, and who might have some misconceptions as to where money and labor comes from, here's a basic rundown:

    1. The author, more often than not funded with tax dollars, submits a fully written manuscript to a journal
    2. The journal arranges to have one or more individuals in the field review this manuscript and give their input. These people are anonymous volunteers and are unpaid.
    3. The journal sends the anonymous comments to the author, the author makes corrections and resubmits.
    4. Steps 2 and 3 are repeated until the manuscript is either accepted or rejected.
    5. If accepted, the author pays the journal for publishing (typically $1k or more for a single article).
    6. The journal fixes small typographical errors, typesets the documents, and publishes the article online (as PDF) and in paper form.


    In order to access the published material, one must have a paid subscription, either individual or institutional, the latter often being tens of thousands of dollars per year per journal, pushing total subscription costs for institutions well into the millions of dollars per year. So, for the revenues generated from both authors paying publishing fees and institutions and individuals paying (often hefty) subscriptions, the journal arranges unpaid peer reviewing and typesets and publishes the manuscript, that's it. In addition to the subscription fees, the journal retains copyright to the works published. So we have a situation where taxpayer-funded research is stuck behind a very expensive wall. In my opinion this research must be freely available to the public, period. The question then is, if journals are not replaced with a different model, who pays them to keep them in business? I propose that the journals be contracted by the federal government and paid directly. Government (whether state or federal in the U.S.) is already paying the journals, both through grant money for author publishing fees as well as institutional subscriptions, but what it is getting is closed to the public. A direct payment keeps the journals in business (they do provide an important service) and the information is publicly available. I don't know how feasible this scheme is, but it's an idea to fix a broken system.
  • Journals are costly and most publishers are for-profit, so they restrict contents access to paid subscribers. Else some charge authors per page, like the Public Online Journal of Science (free to readers; mostly biology topics). I've been on editorial committees for scientific societies and can say that even if printing costs or web costs were free there woudl still be other significant cost fo recover such a administering the editorial process. I dont have an answer of how to pay for it.

    So publishers
  • I don't think that will be enough to get a gig as a Simpsons writer.

    If you wanted to be a Hollywood writer you missed your opportunity now that the strike is over.
  • [...] not [...] smart enough to go to college

    Since then is formal education correlated with intelligence?

The first Rotarian was the first man to call John the Baptist "Jack." -- H.L. Mencken

Working...