What's your e-mail, Ogged? I want your opinion on something.
ogged at unfogged dot com
But there are plenty of my opinions all over this site y'know.
Well, in that case I won't deny the denizens of Unfogged the chance to opine. I'm a senior in high school and I have to decide where to get my undergraduate degree within the week. Is prestige worth the debt?
L, we'll need more information, like LB says. What are the schools, and what are the competing aid packages? You're anonymous, so don't be shy.
In descending order of cost: Carnegie Mellon, Wellesley, Tulane, Iowa, or Minnesota.
I have no idea what I'd like to study or what I'd like to do when I'd graduate.
It is also probably important to note that I could go to Minnesota debt-free. I'm a National Merit Scholar and have a perfect ACT, which is probably not so important but makes me feel special.
Are you looking at a Liberal Arts program?
How much debt are we talking about at the other schools, and you must have some idea what you'll study.
Debt principal over four years is about $94000 at Carnegie Mellon, $74000 at Wellesley, $26000 at Tulane, $12000 at Iowa, and $0 at Minnesota.
I've been admitted to liberal arts programs at all of the above-named institutions, plus the College of Science at CMU and the Institute of Technology at Minnesota.
I've been sort of leaning toward economics/finance/pure math. Ish. And I assume I'll change my mind at some point.
On the phone, at the moment, but...forget mellon and wellesley...
CMU's got a kick-ass compsci program.
The NYT had an article about life at big big big state schools, though the worries brought up can almost certainly be circumvented if you're disciplined, go to office hours, make an effort to do work, etc.
Ok, this is one guy's opinion, obviously, and other people will weigh in, but debt of the kind involved at Mellon and Wellesley is never worthwhile. It seems abstract when you're starting school, but take it from a guy in his thirties who is still paying it off: it affects your life for years and years, and seriously narrows the range of things you can do. Not worth it.
Of the remaining three, to my mind, there isn't an appreciable difference in prestige between them, so I don't see, absent new information, why you'd choose Tulane, because $26,000 is still pretty steep.
That leaves Iowa and Minnesota, which are both big state schools, and both quite good. If I were making the decision, it would be about whether putting up with Minnesota's weather is worth $12,000 (not that Iowa is Miami). But there must be other considerations for you. Do you know anyone at either school? Do you know, even by reputation, any professors there? Etc.
The short answer though, is this: getting out of school debt-free is a wonderful and enviable position to be in, and you've done good by earning the chance. Minnesota is a good school, and the Twin Cities are actually quite nice. Unless the thought of Minnesota's winters is unbearable to you, it seems like a great choice.
You're a Minnesota native, right? Outside of the academic thing, have you thought about what the climate at Tulane might be like for you?
Does getting far enough away from the family to really feel like you're on your own play into it?
I have a personal bias against big state schools (I went to Macalester College in the Twin Cities for my undergrad), and I also think that there is some very real worth in investing in an education at an institution with rigorous standards and a peer cohort that you'll be challenged by. (As a comparison, I'm in the MBA program at the University of St. Thomas, another TC private school, and my classes are bordering on ludicrously easy--grad school has been something of a disappointment). You will likely be able to find academic rigor and challenging peers at big state schools, but you'll have to actively work to find them.
Oh, and I'll note that I graduated with an English/Creative Writing BA. 10 years later, I find myself wishing I'd studied Economics and Public Policy.
Actually, I'm a Kansas City native, so I'm pretty confident in my ability to endure crappy weather at both ends of the spectrum.
I think at least one person from my high school is going to Minnesota and Iowa. I don't know any professors, by reputation or otherwise.
No appreciable difference between Tulane and Iowa? Really?
No appreciable difference between Tulane and Iowa? Really?
To my mind, yes. Really, outside the top five or six schools, the importance of being able to put this or that school on your resume is way overestimated (especially in a case like yours where none of the schools is a true no-name).
Ah. I'd assumed you'd gotten some sort of instate tuition-reduction on top of your fancy-pants National Merit Scholarness to bring you down to zero.
The Twin Cities are a great town to be a college student in. On top of all of the opportunities the U of M offers, there's a vibrant music scene (punk/alternative/ underground hip hop), multiple cool neighborhoods not far from campus, two downtowns a short bus ride away, a good running/biking trail system...and the Mississippi River runs right through the middle of campus. I don't think Iowa can offer all of that.
Oh, and one last thing: don't feel guilty about being proud of your ACT score. In Minnesota it gets much, much colder that you might think (KC gets nowhere close). When you're living off campus in an underinsulated/drafty apartment with 4 other students, sometimes memories of standardized test scores are the only thing you have to keep yourself warm.
Look at me! I killed two threads at once!
On going to big big state schools: Along with the good advice w-lfs-n gave above, I'd recommend being very discriminating in your course selection. Every semester I'd go to a bunch of classes during the first few weeks, maybe even enroll in more classes than I could take, and then drop the ones that seemed less worthwhile. At state schools there can be a huge range between the best and worst courses/teachers so you have to seek out the best ones. At the upper end, though, you can get the kind of education that "prestige" schools offer/advertise.
For example, I had a hell of a time getting decent courses to fill my composition requirement: I ended up dropping four English courses along the way. So a two semester requirement took four semesters to fill (because, after taking the first half in my first semester it took me until the end of sophomore year to find a good second class).
Most of this won't matter if you don't go to a state school, but I'd take a look at the catalogs for your choices to make sure they offer the kinds of classes you'd be interested in both within and outside of your potential major(s).
Really, outside the top five or six schools, the importance of being able to put this or that school on your resume is way overestimated (especially in a case like yours where none of the schools is a true no-name).
This is pretty much the case -- once you're out of the Ivies, Stanford, etc., all reasonably good schools, which all of your options are, are equivalently statusy. The only thing I'd say is that if you're the kind of person who will slack off if allowed, or who will lose yourself in the crowd, Tulane may be a better bet -- big state schools can be easy to get through without learning much. If you're more self-directed, though, you should get just as much out of Minnesota as Tulane.
In my experience, especially if you're not sure what you want to study in undergrad, the overall experience you're looking for is far more important than the reputation of any given faculty member.
I spent a lot of money to go to Northwestern for my first year because it had a great reputation, but it was so very far from the college experience I was seeking, and I was unspeakably miserable. When I transferred to Texas I was in a generic state school with 50,000 others, deliriously happy, and now three years out, doing fine in career and ongoing studies. But I certainly knew people at Texas who weren't temperamentally suited for the huge school. Where I saw boundless opportunity, others saw suffocating anonymity.
Nothing beats visiting the campuses and getting a sense for what life there is really like. And definitely: do not go into debt for undergrad. You can always distinguish yourself and hit up an extravagant grad school should you desire. I vote Minne eapolis. The twin cities are surprisingly hip.
"...big state schools can be easy to get through without learning much.
Gotta second this. Nobody's going to hold your hand at the big schools. This suited me fine, but it's not for everyone.
Interesting question. I think huge debt is soul-crushing. I also think that UM (or Iowa, really) will offer you plenty of opportunity to excel; it will also offer you many chances to be a doofus. If you know what you're about, you can do some great things at Big State. But, as many people here have pointed out, you'll need to be more self-motivating, etc.
No, it was a concise summary. Well, *I* liked it anyway. I surely didn't understand, and would have loved to have it drilled into my head, that huge debt is soul-crushing.
Plus, it helps to hear it from many people, and despite it being a cosmic joke, you are, in fact, a professor.
And don't forget that one can often transfer from school A to school B, should the A experience not be satisfactory. Sometimes it's worth it to go to a less-expensive school for a year or two, knock out the gen-ed requirements, then transfer.
There is also an amazing amount of money out there in esoteric scholarships. Look into them. I had one in law school that was specifically for a single working parent who attended law school at night. A friend of mine had one for the third daughter of a Methodist minister. Odd, but good for one's budget.
I can't be the only person who's really interested in why L chose this site to ask that question. Not that I don't think the advice people gave is good, it was. But if I was asking advice for college from a blog, I'd be sorely tempted to ask Leiter, and probably a couple of others.
Unless L is a lurker here and has developed a good level of trust in the opinions of the commenters. In which case, L, I question your judgment.
Washerdreyer has a point. Why trust this site? Not that they haven't been giving you good advice, but is it the right advice for you? Talk to some people doing things that look interesting to you, and figure out how they got there. In some fields, the contacts you make at school matter -- so it might help to go to school near where you want to live. Susan's advice to save up for a big name grad school makes sense -- if you might go to grad school. If you are going to major in a small field (physics, sanskrit) you can get personal attention anywhere. If you are going to major in a big field (econ, english) you'll have to fight awfully hard to be noticed on a big campus.
I've done it all: student at a small Minnesota college, postdoc at a high powered tech "institute," faculty member at an Ivy, administrator at an R1 public. They've all been great places. Everywhere on your list is a great place, and worth the cost to the right student. I wouldn't be as fast as others here to rule out CM or Tulane. But it isn't easy doing double-blind advising.
Tongue firmly in cheek for second graf of 28.
some pretty fucking awesome partying goes down at Tulane. and the food is amazing. but don't take my advice since I'm a trust fund baby. you should probably follow teh free.
And another vote confirming that debt sucks. I got a free ride through college -- my folks just paid -- but covered my own law school. Even coming straight out of law school into a job making a shitload of money, it is taking me forever, and a painful forever, to pay my debt off.
(I'm assuming that L. has more sense than to take the advice of a bunch of random lunatics on the internet without buckets and buckets of salt. In case I'm mistaken about this: L -- the most reliance you should place on any of this is to use it as a base for your own thinking, or to take concerns to a real-life person whose opinion you trust.)
L, if you do choose to go to a state school, I have to also and emphatically recommend that you seek out professors. At the University of Texas (hook 'em), I asked anyone I could (school officials, older students) about the better professors in different fields, and by following them I think I got more out of certain classes and requirements than I might have otherwise. I was an English and art history student but have a passion for physics because I took the right classes. It's important to recognize, though, that the popular professors aren't always the greatest, but you'll figure that out.
Second point about the big school, perhaps most important—go to every football game.
Second point about the big school, perhaps most important—go to every football game.
Unless you go to Minnesota, in which case you'll have to figure out how to root for a Golden Gopher and maintain some shred of self respect.
(Please overlook that at Texas I cheered for a glorified cow for three years and counting...)
L, Carnegie Mellon often will match aid if you have a competing offer. When I was accepted there back in the day, they were usually very conservative on their initial aid offer, but were willing to bargain if the student was being courted with more money from somewhere else.
If you really want to go to CMU, that might be one thing to look into. Otherwise, don't worry about the name so much and what everyone else said about debt. Find the school that fits and have fun.
You, know, I've heard that that's true of lots of places, and it would never have occurred to me when I was in high school. Wherever you decide you really want to go, you should absolutely call the financial aid office, tell them about the Minn. free ride, and tell them that you want desperately to go to their school, but you don't know how you can justify the decision financially. Obviously, no guarantees that it will work, but my impresion is that it works more places than you'd think.
(Is L. even still reading this? Next week: Ogged gives advice to the lovelorn.)
Thanks everyone. L. has heard lots of conflicting advice so she's looking for the wisdom of the crowd. Ogged (and others) made the same points I did, thus increasing my credibility. Maybe.
(L. - I'm proud of you...but make up your mind!)
L is a girl?
Is she cute?
Kidding, L's mom, kidding.
Jesus, Ogged.
And another point for the 'most people perceive non-gendered pseuds as male' theory.
For the record, I perceived L as a girl. Not quite sure why. Subtle pick-up on writing style (as compared with my own stereotypes)?
Why am I getting a Jesus?
'most people perceive non-gendered pseuds as male'
This is indubitably true, no?
I perceived L as a girl because she listed Wellesley as one of her options. Wellesley's still all-women.
No, I think it's fair for LB to give you a "Jesus". She's got kids who are probably closer to L's age than you are to L's age, so ya know....
I think "Jesus" means "Pretending to hit on high-school seniors is a way of joking about one's desperation that is more sad than funny." Amazing how you can pack so much into one word.
I perceived L as not quite a girl, but not yet a woman.
Wow. Maybe w-lfs-n does have a sense of humor.
People, people, I was just trying to ease the transition for L and Mom from the innocent world of high school to the shark tank that is Big U. I was kidding, but her English prof won't be.
or philo prof. Labs doesn't work at any of those institutions, does he?
Given that she's a regular reader of your blog, I'd say she's not totally naive. Good thing L's Dad doesn't read your blog, though.
(She runs more to beautiful than cute, but I might be biased).
I wonder if we can connect ogged's emphasis on cuteness to a tendency towards infantilization.
You know, it honestly never occurred to me that a high schooler and his/her parent would both be readers of the blog. Puts a smile on my face. Thanks, L's Mom.
Why am I getting a Jesus?
This is going to go in the humorless column, but, for what it's worth (and L. or L.'s Mom -- to the extent you're reading, I'm making general points here, not about you in any specific sense, I'm sure you weren't particularly bothered.) I'll explain.
The point of the joke you made (mild, you backed off from it with the 'just kidding', I am in no way thinking that you were remotely serious) was -- "Hey, underage girl on the internet -- let's sexually harass her!" Now -- obviously you're not like that for real, no one who comments here a lot is, it was just a joke. But, you know, a it's joke that reminds her that while this may be a nice place, in general she can assume that even when she's trying to communicate about a neutral issue, she's going to be treated as sexual prey by virtue of her age and gender. God forbid she should get a chance to be present in a public space without being reminded of that at every opportunity.
And I should have remembered Wellesley too -- I always get it mixed up with Wesleyan.
That's a fair point, LB, generally speaking, and I wouldn't even have made the joke if I couldn't have addressed it to L's mom.
Which does provide some cover here. L's Mom isn't annoyed so no big deal.
She's got kids who are probably closer to L's age than you are to L's age, so ya know....
I don't know how old ogged is, but my daughter's five. So, pretty close.
If I read my ap-ogged-rapha correctly, that's right of the line of making my claim [Top Secret].
So if L.'s 17, ogged is 29? Suddenly, Unfogged becomes the logic section of the LSATs.
You know, I've dropped the biggest clue to my age in this very thread.
It seems abstract when you're starting school, but take it from a guy in his thirties who is still paying it off:
That's not really oblique enough to be a clue.
How do you get from "Has a five year old daughter" to 41? I missed the other data point.
And I also missed the 'guy in his thirties' upthread. So Sally (short for 'Salamander') is closer to L's age than ogged is.
I would have guessed that L is 18, because to me, that's the stereotypical HS senior age. Suppose that Tim knew that LB's daughter was 5; at a difference of 13 years, that would make ogged 31. However, would a 31-year-old man refer to himself as being "in his thirties"? I doubt it--it probably rankles too much, and he probably thinks to himself, "hey, I'm only 31. That's not really 'in my thirties'. 35 is 'in my thirties'. I'm still pretty young!". He's got to be older than that, but how much? Well, he's still paying off debt. Do we know how much he makes? He seems to have lots of neato gadgets. We can probably establish an upper bound of, say, 37. I say, ogged is between 32 and 36.
Didn't Ogged once mention that he'd been out of his master's program for 10 years? Wouldn't that put him (ballpark) around 34?
Sure, none of us like him, but the man's a genius.
if Ogged is claiming to be "in his thirties", he's obviously 42.
He seems to have lots of neato gadgets.
On the other hand, he's been driven to making his own floor lamps.
he's been driven to making his own floor lamps
That was an aesthetic choice, LB.
On the other hand, he's been driven to making his own floor lamps.
He wanted to get back in touch with the everyday work-world. Craftsmanship, baby!
Word problem:
Sally is as close to L's age as Ogged is to LB's age. LB is older than Ogged.
If Sally is 5 and L is 17, Ogged is 29.
How old is LB?
Solution: Let x = LB's age. x - Ogged's age = L's age - Sally's age. Substituting the given values, x -29 = 17 - 5. Adding 29 to both sides, x = 29 + 17 -5 = 41.
But I may have misread some of the hints somewhere. (OK, I see that I had some reason to think ac is my age, and if you went to high school together you can't be much more than 4 years older than her unless you got left back. Thought I thought you were younger'n that.)
Wait a second, I just can't read. Problem solved!
you can't be much more than 4 years older than her unless you got left back.
My secret shame -- revealed!
I have named my age, Matt. It's true that LB could have been in ninth grade when I was senior. But then I'm sure I'd have no idea who she was.
It's true that LB could have been in ninth grade when I was senior.
Vice versa was what Weiner was thinking -- he knows you're his age, and thought I was older.
Ah, I see. Then I would have been following your exploits with close attention, while you didn't know me. I meant to say earlier - I remember your (older) sister very well, and always thought she was very cool.
There's pretty conclusive evidence that ac is either 34 or 35. I don't know if this changes anyone's estimates.
She is pretty cool, isn't she. You know she transplants livers now?
Yeah, if you guys were trying to guess ages, was everyone looking at this thread? Because there are plenty of good clues there.
And LB graduated from law school in '99 and was living in Samoa for IIRC two years (presumably post-undergrad). This makes me tempted to say she graduated college in '94.
No, I did not know that, LB. It's odd, though, I have the feeling that I knew your sister better than I knew you. But I don't know why that would be.
If we really wanted to, we could probably sort everyone's age pretty well. But the process would inevitably lead to w-lfs-n Indiscretion Errors, which could be bad or creepy.
'92 -- there were 18 months of various jobs between Samoa and law school.
And everyone knew her better than they knew me -- she's always been wildly impressive, while I am, in contrast, distinctly unobtrusive.
re: 85 - I seem to remember that line having been crossed in a thread a while back.
Don't short yourself, LB. I think a lot of us would say your not just obtrusive, but very obtrusive.
(Frist?)
Re: 88; I just thought perhaps forewarned/forarmed as regards repeating the same mistake twice.
distinctly unobtrusive.
Is it possible to be so extremely unobtrusive that you are not even distinctly so?
Text-based, sure. In person, I am frequently upstaged by wallpaper.
85, 88, what are you talking about?
Is 94 one of those "jokes" that usually lead to someone typing "a mind so fine"?
I think they're talking about the comment thread where my cover got blown -- you're getting the credit for that. FTR, now that I've cleaned up the relevant security hole, I'm not particularly concerned -- my only reason for anonymity is to be inconspicuous to people I might know professionally, and, for the same reason, to Google.
Your cover was blowing itself, man.
Yeah, that wasn't so much 'cover' as 'total absence of cover'. Just hadn't thought anyone would bother to look.
Apostropher hasn't taken my bait.
No paging Ogged, she's taken. Maybe not for long if I don't do some laps.
Just thought I'd go wild and say something relevant to the original post.
The weird thing is that while I generally think women are the sexier gender—well, in most given situations, but specific to Olympic sports—the women don't hold a candle to male swimmers. I think Unfogged has already hosted this conversation once, but Michael Phelps looks like a god (a goofy one, albeit) whereas his female counterparts just look like swimmers.
Ogged needs to practice flirting with women around whom, being taken, he can relax.
The exaggeratedly broad shoulders and wide lats you get from swimming do look better on men than on women -- the men look more masculine, and the women get androgynous.
Something strikes me as off with your use of the appositive there, b-wo, but I'm having trouble articulating it. Possibly that it's not clear to whom "being taken" refers, but I don't think that's it.
Ogged here! Damn, I was off swimming, does that make it better?
It's ok Kriston, I'm a reasonably loyal guy, and anyway, if I try to make a move on Susan, LB will smack me down for cradle robbing.
I had a similar concern, w/d. Too bad we can't rely on cases to disambiguate.
I think it's the ambiguity of what is meant by "being taken." Though, if ogged can't relax after that second sense, there's no hope for him at all.
I like the laxity of "reasonably loyal" guy, ogged.
I wouldn't presume to intrude on PG's turf anyway.
Good lord, you mean not only is PG stringing me along while she arranges to have sex with god knows whom, but her stringing me along is scaring off other lovely ladies? Hey, thanks PG, owe ya one.
You know, loyal except where there's a good reason not to be. Like, say, a particularly enticing cradle.
Nice! A truly ethereal cock block, executed entirely by women and entirely in the abstract.
Leave it to LB to twist the knife. I was actually thinking of you when I didn't just say "loyal:" I probably would have to turn in even a good friend who was contemplating, say, a murder. That's the kind of disloyalty I had in mind (though if the potential victim deserved it, who knows....)
You know, LB, you've spent a fair bit of time here, but I can't recall you ever offering to set up the very tall Labs with your very tall sister. And since you were considering setting her up with KC Johnson, we know it's can't possibly be a matter of high standards, so what gives?
What were we saying, Ogged's 29? Somewhere therein? L's too young, but Susan's in your price range.
You know, it's a shame you aren't in the NY area -- you'd like my sister, and she's single. (I can't remember offhand how she feels about Jeff Goldblum lookalikes).
Cross-post. I thought Labs was dating someone.
Does he need a new liver? I understand she gets a discount.
Kriston, I'm a bit older than that, but I really admire your commitment to truth and fairness, putting your lady back in play like that. We should duel, sir.
Hey, according to ogged, people move every few years these days anyway. Maybe one or both of {ogged, LB's sister} wants to change locales (and I'm not talkin' 'bout LC_ALL).
Jeff Goldblum lookalikes
Draw your own conclusions.
I think you need to hook lilshahir up.
Yes, why would LB chose Goldblum over Noth as the reference?
I don't watch enough TV to know what Chris Noth looks like. Although, presumably, something like Jeff Goldblum.
Does anyone believe that LB didn't watch L&O back in the day? Weak! It's alright, LB - I have barely concealed hostility towards Ogged, too.
L&O? I'm terrible with actor names -- I associated Chris Noth with Sex and the City, which I've never seen. I should know what he looks like from L&O.
(quick visit to IMDB)
Oh, that guy.
It's alright, LB - I have barely concealed hostility towards Ogged, too.
I was thinking I was more in the open ambivalence rather than the barely concealed hostility category. I mean, I am entertaining the thought of fixing him up with the esteemed Dr. Oops, would I do that if I were concealing hostility? (No one who knows her answer that, please.)
Indeed. Chris Noth. Jeff Goldblum. They don't really look alike, do they?
If we're trying to work out what you look like by identifying common features of the two, I think all that we can know for certain is that your brow is furrowed.
...putting your lady back in play like that
I like to let him think he has some control over this.
It's ok, LB. Anyway, as I recall, your sister is 6'1", which is a bit tall for a guy a mere 6'. Labs is the better match.
107, 109: It's a participle (appositives are noun phrases), and not dangling--'being taken' applies to 'women', also the antecedent of 'whom'. I vaguely feel as though the problem is that you can't put a participle between 'around whom' and 'he can relax', but I'm not sure. Have to call in a professional.
Hmm... seems like that clause would be obtained from 'Ogged can relax around them', and you can't say 'Ogged can relax around them, being taken'. Can those participles only modify to the subject of the sentence?
I'd say that this illustrates Thurber's dictum, "Not even Henry James could escape intact from a sentence containing a 'which', a 'whom', and a 'being'," but I'd hate to call any of the taken ladies witches.
I like to let him think he has some control over this.
Do you mean to say by this that if he were to break up with you, you wouldn't consider dating anyone else?
What is with the new breed of gigantic women?
Hmphf. Closed-minded tall-phobic person.
(Given that she'd kick my ass if she knew I were shopping her around the Internet, just as well. Sadly, I may not be able to avoid the Johnson fixup -- I really like the mutual friends, and they think it's the greatest idea ever. I will simply have to rely on her innate good taste.)
Hmm... seems like that clause would be obtained from 'Ogged can relax around them', and you can't say 'Ogged can relax around them, being taken'. Can those participles only modify to the subject of the sentence?
You see—this is why we need cases. You can do that in latin, no problem. Except there's no present passive participle (I wonder how you get around that? I probably used to know).
You know, at least you're hostile to me; you haven't even acknowledged the Labs possibility. He doesn't really have undergraduates blowing him, you know.
Is Johnson really such an odious fellow?
You know, ben, I used to think you were quite charming.
I have to ask: given that FL hates basketball despite the fact that he's ginormous and gym-fit, can one in good conscience set him up with a tall Dem? Isn't that sort of a waste of height potential on a child who is less likely to appropriately use it?
Old(e) English - back when it was pretty close to old German, Dutch, Icelandic, etc. - had cases, right? Maybe we should just look them up and bring them back.
Has anyone else ever brought up cases in conversation with others about languages only to have someone think you were talking about things like capital letters?
You know, at least you're hostile to me; you haven't even acknowledged the Labs possibility.
Mostly because he just doesn't give off the same air of desperately needing a date that you do.
Is Johnson really such an odious fellow?
His blogging makes him sound like a bit of a twerp. On the other hand, I like the mutual friends a lot, and they think he's great, so he may not be that bad.
At first I thought I was no longer charming because of the comment about participles, until I remembered the distant past of five minutes ago.
Isn't that sort of a waste of height potential on a child who is less likely to appropriately use it?
Dr. Oops can safely be relied on to cover the transmission of general jock-type-skills. Medicine wasn't the alternative to a professional ball career, but she's pretty good.
he just doesn't give off the same air of desperately needing a date that you do.
I'm going to take this to be your way of saying that I'm a very good blogger.
Re 136--A couple anecdotal data points:
I'm 5'10". The wife's 6'1". It works.
My best friend is 5'9", his wife is 6'3". They work.
You've already said you don't like dancing--what other activities does having a SO taller than you inhibit?
Shoot me now, w-lfs-n beat me to it.
(Though I was going to say "puffing myself up.")
Ah, but you miss the advantages:
To women, you look good for being secure enough to date/marry a women taller than yourself.
To men, you can say "they're all the same height in bed."
And to my wife, should she ever come across this, I can say, "Ow, Ow, Ow, I'm sorry, Ow, let go of that, Ow."