« Law School Hiring, 2015-2016, Thread One | Main | Get "PRACTICE READY." Get set. Go! »

Thursday, August 27, 2015

A Clearinghouse for Questions, 2015-2016

In this comment thread to this post, you can ask questions about the law teaching market, and professors or others can weigh in.

Both questions and answers can be anonymous, but I will delete pure nastiness, irrelevance, and misinformation. If you see something that you know to be wrong, please feel free to let me know via email, slawsky*at*law*dot*uci*dot*edu.

We have a different thread in which candidates or professors can report callbacks, offers, and acceptances. That thread should be used only for information relevant to hiring, not for questions or comments on the process. This is the thread for questions.

You may want to take a look at the many questions and answers in the threads from 2013-2014 and 2014-2015

Here is a link to the last page of comments.

Originally posted August 27, 2015.

Posted by Sarah Lawsky on August 27, 2015 at 09:00 AM in Getting a Job on the Law Teaching Market | Permalink


Again, I think different faculties look for different things. At some schools, almost any PHD is seen as a big plus, assuming your scholarship is good as well. At least some faculties, however, are not fans of JD/PHDs, at least if it means that the candidate does not have much or any work experience. While work experience is usually not a big part of the evaluation of potential legal scholars, more and more schools are wanting at least a few years of work experience.

There are enough JD/PHDs, however, that I don't think that just any econ PHD would make you a "superstar." I am not sure if many law professors know the ranking of econ programs, except very generally. Also, while others may have different definitions of "superstars," I usually think of SCOTUS clerks and former Yale Law Journal EICs types with a few top-20 law journal publications as the main "superstars."

Posted by: AnonProf | Oct 8, 2015 11:41:38 AM

Can someone on the hiring committee comment on the ranking of the PhD Econ program: does any PhD Econ make a candidate a superstar or only PhD Econ from a top school (if so, from what rank)?

Posted by: anony | Oct 8, 2015 11:15:24 AM

Some of the schools seemed to post positions late in the game e.g., American, Drexel, Loyola (health law)...
They aren't listed on the other thread, has anyone heard from them?

Posted by: anonprof | Oct 8, 2015 10:36:23 AM

OK. That makes some sense. It would be appreciated, however, if schools would let you know if you did not make the first cut. It sounds like you do that, so thank you. Of course, we eventually figure that out anyway, but we worry and keep hope alive for at least a few weeks after AALS, so if you make the decision in the first week, for example, an email letting us know prevents a few additional weeks of worry. While there may still technically be a chance for those who don't may the first cut, we all know that is very unlikely and don't worry about it.

Posted by: AnonC | Oct 8, 2015 8:33:43 AM

anonprof is correct. Another aspect to consider is that, for most of us, we aren't just focusing on the individuals when we decide on the callback pool, but the callback pool itself. I aim to select the 3-4 folks who are not only some of the people the committee considered the strongest, but 3-4 who compliment one another in terms of what they bring to the table. Essentially, we're aiming to put together a menu of 3-4 strong options for the faculty to choose from. Thus, it may depend who we lose in a pool that would determine who we then substitute in that person's place -- but as anonprof suggests, this isn't something we want to think about until we have to. It can sometimes be hard enough just to get the committee to agree on who to callback, much less who the alternates would be.

Posted by: AnonHiringChair | Oct 8, 2015 7:07:58 AM

AnonC, you are imagining hiring chairs as dictators who unilaterally decide the people who will not get callbacks even if the school goes back to the pool. But that is not how decision-making by committee works. We make a decision on who to give callbacks to, and (implicitly) who doesn't make the cut at the present time. Nobody wants to have to think about, talk about, and then vote about the hypothetical situation of, if we have to go back to the pool, those who might make the cut and those who never will. The effort required to sort those two groups is more than "time to send a short e-mail".

Posted by: anonprof | Oct 7, 2015 10:02:05 PM


Saying that you have made callbacks is more than most schools say and is appreciated.

Most schools, in my limited experience, simply leave you in the dark if you are not on the callback list. Actually, in my experience, every school fell into one of two buckets....callback or silence. Not a single school called or e-mailed to tell me that I had not made the callback cut.

Also, are there not people you interview at AALS who you know will not get callbacks, even if you do need to go back to the pool? Why, other than sheer lack of time to send a short e-mail, would you not cut those folks loose?

Posted by: AnonC | Oct 7, 2015 9:47:42 PM

Yes, I think you can safely assume that.

Posted by: AnonHiringChair | Oct 7, 2015 7:23:32 PM

Can we safely assume that all schools are done booking for AALS? Wondering if it is safe to try to adjust my flight home to match my current schedule.

Posted by: Anon | Oct 7, 2015 4:53:45 PM

Here's the problem: We select the 3-4 folks we want to callback for each position. Sometimes that entire pool fails or sometimes after a few of them have come back to campus, we realize the faculty would like to see a different kind of candidate. Thus, we go back to the pool and look for that "missing thing" -- but at the time we determine callbacks, we don't know who those folks might be who possess that or who compliment the pool as it ends up looking. Thus, the best we can do is tell you that we have made callbacks and you are not being called back at this time -- and we do tell our candidates that. Beyond that though, we just can't tell you much more.

Posted by: AnonHiringChair | Oct 7, 2015 4:44:35 PM

Having experienced this process once before, expect a lot of silence, even from schools you talk to at AALS.

For any committee members reading, please don't keep us in the dark long. If you can quickly close the doors on the ones you are not calling back, that would be greatly appreciated. Even if there is an outside chance that you might dip back into the pool of candidates, if we are not in your first round of callbacks, please let us know that.

Posted by: Anon | Oct 7, 2015 4:33:25 PM

I just want to thank the schools that have alerted me that my application is no longer being considered. I can close those doors and move on; it's the silence and resulting limbo from other schools that is hard.

Posted by: Nona | Oct 7, 2015 4:22:52 PM

Thanks CBR. That is helpful. It is going to be an interesting hiring season.

Posted by: Anon | Oct 7, 2015 2:44:39 PM

I think the lateral number quoted above is misleading because most potential laterals are only "on the market" very selectively--interested in the right opportunity, but not necessarily in a hurry to leave their current position. And even then, the "100+" number is highly unusual. I can think of one T30ish school that recently recruited very broadly, essentially emailing every (or nearly every?) faculty member around the country, encouraging people to submit CVs. In that case, I wouldn't be surprised that more than a hundred faculty members took them up on it, but I also wouldn't read a lot into it.

Posted by: CBR | Oct 7, 2015 1:16:12 PM

We asked folks in the fields that we're interested in which junior laterals they thought were particularly exciting, and we then openly recruited those folks.

Posted by: AnonHiringChair | Oct 6, 2015 9:50:56 PM

So how do juniors hear about lateral positions (besides word of mouth) - are they buying a copy of the Placement Bulletin? This seems hazardous if, as many potential laterals likely do, the candidate hopes to keep their candidacy somewhat secret.

Posted by: guest guest | Oct 6, 2015 5:00:09 PM

If a big percentage of laterals are from for-profit law schools, then maybe it is not that surprising.

Posted by: Lateral Impact? | Oct 6, 2015 3:27:04 PM

OK, my math is wrong in my haste - 1 lateral for every ABA accredited school instead of two, if there are 200 on the market. And I now notice that AHC said his or her school had multiple positions. Still, I am a bit surprised that the lateral market is so large. I wonder how many of the laterals are serious and how many are just testing the waters or trying to get a raise at their home school.

Posted by: Lateral Impact? | Oct 6, 2015 3:25:30 PM

100+ lateral applications to one school? For one position or for multiple positions? Aren't there only about 450 entry levels on the market? Assuming there are at least another 100 laterals on the market, that means rough 2 professors from every law school is on the market. And I assume that the laterals are not evenly distributed, so there may be 5 or 10 laterals from certain schools on the market. Interesting. It is encouraging for entry levels, however, if AHC's experience is consistent and very few of the laterals are getting interviews.

Posted by: Lateral Impact? | Oct 6, 2015 3:18:17 PM

AnonProf is right, different faculty members view it differently. It's a bit like "Let's Make a Deal": "Would you like to keep the shiny new car (i.e. lateral, with proven track record) or take what's behind door #3 (i.e., entry level candidate with exciting potential)??" Different faculty choose differently, so I just try to give them both options when putting the pool together. Also, many of the entry level folks today have already been teaching and doing substantial scholarship, so it's less of the dice roll that it was even just a few years ago.

Posted by: AnonHiringChair | Oct 6, 2015 8:49:19 AM

I think the practices vary, but we mostly interview the laterals by Skype before AALS, unless the lateral is planning to be in DC during FRC. As to comparisons, opinions probably vary on this as well and we review each application, but, in general, I tend to prefer applicants with a good proven record, be it a lateral or a entry level with a VAP or two. I prefer a solid record that is not amazing to a very limited record with amazing potential. There are just too many entry level candidates with amazing CVs who have crashed and burned. But some of my colleagues are impressed by mere potential and it is easy to say there is unlimited potential when there is less of a track record and a top school, top clerkship, one polished and vetted article, etc. So I guess it could cut either way.

Posted by: AnonProf | Oct 6, 2015 7:05:49 AM

How does the lateral market work as compared to entry level? Do people who hear of lateral opportunities and send their stuff in typically get called before entry level/after entry level/wildly varies? Do shiny new entry level people with no track record and ergo no opportunities to do things that build constituencies against them tend to beat out non-superstar laterals with solid track records? Do (alternatively) laterals tend to squish and crowd-out entry levels with the unfair advantage of several years to publish? (Does publication record even work to distinguish candidates any more, what with the proliferation of phds and fellowships on one end and the push to focus more on teaching on the other? Or is it just everyone has the same baseline of publications in the competition and so we're back to other factors to make the difference?)

Posted by: Questions, Questions | Oct 5, 2015 11:35:54 PM

A few things:

1) if you haven't heard anything by now, I think your chances of hearing anything are in the single digits.

2) we received a HUGE number of lateral applicants for our positions (well over 100). I suspect, however, that most of our callbacks will be folks we interview in D.C. with perhaps 1-2 laterals.

Posted by: AnonHiringChair | Oct 5, 2015 9:30:08 PM

...and then next year, the school that lost the professor who lateraled will be looking to hire. Maybe.

Posted by: Anonymish | Oct 5, 2015 3:50:08 PM

There have been lots of laterals on the market the past few years, and, yes, it does affect the entry-level market. Some schools will move later on entry levels if they don't like the lateral pool, others will only be interviewing entry levels as an insurance policy, and, I'm sure, others will be swept off their feet by a lateral they didn't expect to be available.

Posted by: anon | Oct 5, 2015 3:36:09 PM

Anyone have a sense of how many laterals are on the market and how laterals may impact the entry level market? I know that the number of entry level candidates are down significantly, but I imagine there are more laterals than normal, given the problems at many law schools. But I have no special insight.

How many laterals are schools interviewing, on average, and are most of those interviews at AALS or outside of AALS?

If there is a significant increase in the number of laterals that are interviewing outside of AALS, for the same spots as entry level candidates, this could really throw off the normal callback chances for entry levels. Instead of competing again 20-30 people at AALS, you might be competing against those same 20-30, plus another 5-10 laterals who have more of an academic track record and more academic connections.

Posted by: Lateral Impact? | Oct 5, 2015 2:09:46 PM

If a far applicant hasn't heard from any law schools by this time, are the prospects likely not to get an interview?

Posted by: Anon | Oct 5, 2015 12:09:50 AM

I am on our hiring committee; we have not talked at all about who we expect to be top choices and this is how it's been in the past as well when I've served on the committee. It's almost entirely based on the interviews, as long as the people we like the most also have top credentials/impressive CVs. We do interview some people in DC that seem like a bit of a reach, but if they impress us in person, that's enough.

Posted by: anonprof | Oct 4, 2015 7:07:36 PM

And thanks to anonprof too. Really appreciate having you both on the thread.

Posted by: AnonC | Oct 4, 2015 2:24:41 PM

Thanks, AnonHiringChair. Helpful response.

Posted by: AnonC | Oct 4, 2015 2:24:06 PM

We probably come in with 1-2 that we all expect to be callbacks. Then each member of the committee no doubt comes in with some favorites. However, we don't interview anyone we couldn't imagine being called back and, honestly, at this point I could only guess who our callbacks will be, but they will come from the D.C. pool and the laterals we've been having phone interviews with.

Posted by: AnonHiringChair | Oct 4, 2015 10:43:32 AM

I think the general tips from past threads are still applicable. I haven't noticed myself asking different questions of candidates or judging them by different criteria. The bar has simply been raised a lot higher.

As for AnonC's question, I think it is somewhere in between. We do go in with preconceived expectations. But it is not as if we are interviewing 20 people when only 5 have a real shot and we are spending the remaining 7.5 hours just for the fun of the exercise.

Posted by: anonprof | Oct 4, 2015 10:29:43 AM

Following up on anon candidate's question, can you give us a sense of how much the AALS interviews really matter? Do you come in with your top-5 or so based on their materials and the interviews are just to check to make sure those 5 are not complete disasters in person? Or is it more wide open than that?

Posted by: AnonC | Oct 4, 2015 8:59:59 AM

Please keep the thread limited to questions and answers about going on the teaching market. I'm not going to delete the previous comments because in some of them there is a shred of information about hiring (e.g., assertion that a person's law school does care about teaching, etc.), but please try to keep this thread a clearinghouse for questions about going on the teaching market.

Posted by: Sarah Lawsky | Oct 4, 2015 8:38:29 AM

Ok, anonprof, trying to get us back on topic, I've read the interview tips available on Prawfs, Faculty Lounge, Yale, etc. Even though these posts are several years old now, I suppose most tips are still applicable but I'm wondering whether we can expect different questions in light of the current state of legal education? Also, what are the most common non teaching and scholarship interview questions? I just want to be prepared as much as possible, a lot at stake here.

Posted by: anoncandidate | Oct 4, 2015 8:05:58 AM

Is there a moderator in the house? The thread is being hijacked; please delete the last page of comments or so. If someone wants to vent about how legal hiring doesn't value what they think it should value, they can vent elsewhere. I thought this thread was to answer questions from candidates. If this thread is going to become just another complaint forum, then I'll stop reading and answering, and I don't think I'll be the only one.

Posted by: anonprof | Oct 4, 2015 3:33:58 AM

We, of course, can only do so much to discern teaching ability, but we try. We focus on presentation skills during the candidate's forum and we insist on seeing teaching evaluations for any candidate who has previous teaching experience. We also have the candidates meet with a group of students, and the students report their thoughts on each of the candidates at the meeting where we vote on the candidates. Are those rock solid predictors of teaching ability? No, but they help and we do look. And we are not a "lowly ranked school."

And why do we do that? Well, despite how "Anon" is trying to characterize me (and apparently the whole academy), we care about our students. Thus finding professors who will not only churn out quality scholarship, but who will also be strong teachers and mentors to our students. Again, that's hard to do, but we try.

Posted by: AnonHiringChair | Oct 3, 2015 3:48:02 PM

Been Around the Block, there are some law schools that care about teaching, but they are almost all very lowly ranked. Also, it is difficult for them to evaluate teaching, but some schools have a teaching presentation in addition to a job talk, or they use the job talk, in large part, to determine teaching ability. But I do agree with your general point for almost all schools.

Posted by: AnonProf | Oct 3, 2015 1:18:20 PM

"Give me a break" is a not a particularly reasonable response and, in fact, seems to support the claims of some that the academy has stopped caring. I guess attitudes will change once the old guard is replaced by the new, but change (and turnover) is slow.

Posted by: Anon | Oct 3, 2015 1:51:49 AM

Just chiming in, perhaps unwisely, here: if law professors were hired for their ability to place students in jobs, it would be perhaps good for the students of that particular school, but only at the expense of students at other schools---sheer job placement is a zero-sum game, and if professors at school A talk their old colleagues into hiring their students, that's fewer jobs for the students at school B.

In light of that fact, even if you think legal education is broken, I don't see how hiring for job placement contacts would fix it.

Posted by: Paul Gowder | Oct 2, 2015 7:31:11 PM

The idea that law school hiring committees focus on people who "know how to teach" is pretty funny. I've been in the business for 25 years and have taught at several schools. Law school hiring includes almost no controls at all for teaching ability, except for the use of very weak proxies (Maybe a year of teaching evaluations from a VAP if you're lucky. Often not even that). It's routine for faculty to cite job talks as evidence of teaching ability, which should tell you all you need to know about how seriously this part of the evaluation process is taken.

Posted by: Been Around the Block | Oct 2, 2015 5:44:10 PM

I don't think that is a fair summary of what Anon was arguing for - Anon is asking for both/and, not just placement ability. As you well know, AnonHiringChair, there are more than enough people on the market who can teach and research well. I think Anon is just saying you might consider taking a harder look at the Boston College grad who was top of her class and has experience, connections, and scholarship over the Harvard grad with 1 year practicing law and three fellowships.

All of that said, Anon does need to realize that the professors can only do so much. If you are at the bottom of your class, at all but the very top schools, you just aren't going to get a well-paying legal job in this market unless your mother or father hires you. The managing partner of my large firm couldn't even get his son a job at our firm because his son was not on law review or near the top of his class.

Yes, professors can open some doors, but students also need to take responsibility. Just as you are not likely to stay someplace long if you cannot do the work, you will likely be successful if you start low (even on your own) and do excellent work.

Posted by: Anon2 | Oct 2, 2015 9:31:39 AM

Give me a break. So I should look to hire someone who has connections and can place students in jobs without reference to that candidate's ability to train them in the first place? You may be able to PLACE a poorly prepared law student in a job, but they certain won't keep it very long if they can't do the work. So I think I'll continue to focus on candidates who know how to teach.

Posted by: AnonHiringChair | Oct 2, 2015 8:35:39 AM

With due respect, I think that perspective perhaps is symptomatic of the ways law schools (and by implication, hiring) are considered to be tone deaf to student needs and the perceptions that law school is no longer a "good choice". Yes, the ability to generate solid scholarship should be a critical hiring guide, but given that law schools are professional schools and not just pure academic institutions, the ultimate goal ought not to be fill the ranks with individuals who merely enhance the intellectual community. Instead, the primary goal should be to find people who can best ensure the outcomes that students desire -- i.e., a career in the law -- are realized. How that outcome is realized will depend on the school. E.g., a school at the very top may secure full employment by maximizing its reputation among academics, which may necessitate the hiring of the strongest academics. On the other hand, because increasing reputation is much harder than sustaining it, schools outside the very top where more than 10% of their students currently are not getting the types of jobs they want probably should look for more immediate ways to serve the reason that their students came to law school in the first place.

Posted by: Anon | Oct 2, 2015 12:38:50 AM

Personally, I'm more interested in a candidate who will teach our students and who will contribute to the intellectual atmosphere of the law school. If they can also help students get jobs, great! But ability to do so takes a back seat to those things I've mentioned.

Posted by: AnonHiringChair | Oct 1, 2015 7:40:10 PM

Let's be honest though: references only do so much work. Those of you on hiring committees know this. If the former managing partner of a firm is always trying to place students, from all ranks of a class, the firm is going to discount his referrals, assuming they valued them much in the first place.

Regardless, placing students is fundamentally the job of the career services office. And that assumes students have done the work they need to do to be qualified for whatever position it is they want to career services can help set up. We are a professional school, but we're not a trade school. Professors are there to teach you how to think about the law.

Posted by: AnonAnon | Oct 1, 2015 2:28:13 PM

Well, if each professor placed a dozen students, the entire class would be placed. Of course, even former managing partners couldn't place people at the bottom of a non-elite law school class, even at her old firm.

Think there are two sides to this. On one side, schools could hire professors with more connections and professor could work the phones for some students. On the other side, however, no matter how much help a student receives, that student still has to be qualified for the job and has to interview well, etc.

Posted by: Anon | Oct 1, 2015 1:25:46 PM

@Anon 0.5L: How exactly is a professor to do that? Even if law schools were able to hire former managing partners of major law firms, and their former firm hired many students, we're still talking about maybe a dozen jobs per year, at best.

Posted by: Explain how | Oct 1, 2015 11:50:10 AM

Yes, it's a good question. Hiring practices are notoriously slow to change and one shouldn't expect immediate changes from the recent implosion, even if students are now much more focused on making sure the schools they attend reasonably guaranty gainful post-graduation employment.

Posted by: Anon | Oct 1, 2015 9:29:12 AM

That is a good question Anon 0.5L. I actually agree with you, that should be an issue, but the people best at getting students jobs are usually those with significant practice experience. And most of the people making hiring decisions do not have significant work experienced and are either threatened by those with more practical knowledge than them or truly think that great academics come straight into the academy a year or two after graduating from Yale.

To be a bit less negative, excellent scholars can increase a school's peer reputation, which can increase job opportunities, though the peer reputation number moves slowly and a slow would have to move significantly to increase job opportunities.

Posted by: AnonProf | Oct 1, 2015 6:44:32 AM

I'm just poking around and wonder why there isn't any discussion about hiring being based on whether candidates will facilitate their students' job searches or secure employment -- the things that matter to students. The points about placing law review articles doesn't seem to have any real relationship to what students care about. Sorry for being so naive, but shouldn't the primary questions be whether the candidate can help students get the sorts of jobs they want (law firm, public interest, government, etc) and whether their background and resume/CV reflects that?

Posted by: Anon 0.5L | Oct 1, 2015 12:57:32 AM

How quickly do exploding offers tend to explode?

Posted by: Anon | Sep 30, 2015 10:22:56 PM

anonprofs: thanks. I am not in a fellowship so time constraints are one reason this is on my mind - that and fearing the two week offer in December, which has happened to at least two candidates I know in the past two years.

Posted by: anon | Sep 30, 2015 8:37:09 PM

anon, I fail to see why you would fear an exploding offer from TTT law school if the alternative is to decline a callback from TTT law school altogether. The advice to decline callbacks if you are not likely to take the job is for the benefit of the schools, not for the benefit of candidates. From a rational, self-interested, and utterly amoral perspective, the optimal strategy is always to take as many callbacks as possible, since there is no downside for the candidate (at least absent time-constraints on the number of interviews, which is not an issue for most candidates in fellowships, but may be an issue for those who are clerking or in practice).

Posted by: anonprof | Sep 30, 2015 8:07:06 PM

Perhaps someone has had too many callbacks, but I have not heard of that problem, especially not in the past few years. If you get 10 callbacks, that might be pushing the upper limit of the number you can do, but I know of people who scheduled roughly that many and still got no offers. Also, if you get 10 callbacks in this environment, you are probably so good that you should not be worrying on this thread.

Also, I haven't heard of exploding offers being a big deal. Instead, getting that first offer is usually a great thing. The schools that are truly interested in you can usually expedite their process, and many offering schools are surprisingly patient once they have given an offer. I know of one school that waited almost three months on a candidate that ended up during them down. Waiting that long, however, is unusual, but I think you can usually get the schools to wait until the offers start flowing around mid to late November (unless they are really anxious to tie someone down).

Posted by: AnonProf | Sep 30, 2015 7:57:19 PM

This is premature, but I need other things to worry about. Under what circumstances should you decline a callback? Of course you should if you're not likely to take the job, but what if you hear from your top ten choices after scheduling with your eleventh choice? Should you schedule as many as possible, even though that exposes you to early exploding offers?

Posted by: anon | Sep 30, 2015 6:36:16 PM

I agree that thank you notes have no bearing on much of anything. In most cases, the decision whether to invite someone back for an on-campus interview is made during the interview itself and, if not then, very shortly thereafter. Thus, by the time we get the thank you note, we've already made a decision, and I can't imagine those notes changing our minds. Even when they're from a candidate that we loved and plan to invite back, I typically read the thank you notes feeling bad for the candidate who wasted so much time on something that ultimately has little value (and quite frankly seems a bit silly).

Bottom line: if sending such notes feels like the right thing to do, by all means go for it, but I wouldn't fool myself into thinking that they give you any advantage.

Posted by: AnonHiringChair | Sep 30, 2015 6:28:19 PM

anoncandidate, I think it's fine to send a draft up to a week before the hiring conference, as long as they already have your older draft. I would mention in your email that you completely understand if they have already read the older version, etc.

As for thank you notes, most candidates send them, and it's typically an email after the hiring conference (typically the night or day after the interview). Most candidates send physical notes after a callback to the members of the hiring committee. Whether or not you do so has NO bearing on whether or not you'll get the job, imo.

Posted by: anonprof | Sep 30, 2015 5:44:02 PM

If a school hasn't specified a particular deadline for a job talk paper and already has an older draft, what's the latest point you'd send an updated draft? Obviously some committees may not read a revised one that comes late, but would there be anything rude about emailing the chair with an updated draft, say a week before the FRC?

Posted by: anoncandidate | Sep 30, 2015 2:03:32 AM

I think thank you notes are nice, but make sure to proofread and use traditional stationary if you do. I would send the notes post-AALS. You probably meet with too many people during a callback to send everyone a handwritten note, and I would not send the note only to select people.

Posted by: AnonProf | Sep 29, 2015 9:02:37 PM

The comments to this entry are closed.