Jun 18th, 2009 at 12:58 pm
French Teenagers Answer Hard Questions
Alex Massie observes that the questions asked on le bac—basically France’s college admissions test—seem mighty ambitious. From the literature series (my translation):
— Does objectivity in history presuppose the impartiality of the historian?
— Does language betray though?
— Explicate an excerpt from Schopenhauer’s The World as Will and Representation
And from the science series:
— Are there questions that are un-answerable by science?
The correct answers are no, no, I don’t know anything about Schopenhauer, and yes. Apparently there’s also a question asking if it’s absurd to desire the impossible. I think it is.
Either way, I think it’s safe to say that Barack Obama’s nowhere near turning us into France.
79 Responses to “French Teenagers Answer Hard Questions”
Register
RSSLogin
Advertisement
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Books By Matthew Yglesias
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Afghanistan
Basketball
Budget
China
climate
COIN
Congress
DC
Denmark
Economics
Economy
education
Energy
Environment
Finance
Gender
Health Care
History
International Law
International Relations
Iran
Israel
Media
Monetary Policy
National Security
NBA
Pakistan
Palestine
Philosophy
planning
Political Reform
Proliferation
Public Health
Public Opinion
Race
Regulation
Russia
Science
Sports
Stimulus
Sweden
taxes
Technology
Trade
transportation
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Contact Matthew Yglesias
Use this form to contact blog author Matthew Yglesias.
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
June 18th, 2009 at 1:02 pm
Not to quibble, but Le Bac (or more accurately Les Bacs) is structurally much more like a series of AP exams than the SATs.
June 18th, 2009 at 1:04 pm
— Are there questions that are un-answerable by science?
Yes, that one.
June 18th, 2009 at 1:04 pm
How smart can they be? They like socialism, and wouldn’t join our Iraq invasion!
June 18th, 2009 at 1:08 pm
Language might not betray thought but spelling sure as fuck does. Grammar too, mabye.
June 18th, 2009 at 1:09 pm
“Does language betray though?”
No, but Matt Yglesias betrays language.
June 18th, 2009 at 1:10 pm
Am I the only one perplexed by the asymmetry of subtle, complex questions and yes/no answers?
June 18th, 2009 at 1:12 pm
My guess is these are essay questions, so the point is not so much to nail the right answer as it is to stake out a position and argue well for it.
Either that or they’re fricking stupid.
June 18th, 2009 at 1:12 pm
I beg to differ with your answers.
They are (in order, spoken in your best bad impression of Maurice Chevalier): “anything is possible, no?”, “she always does (sigh)”, “henh, c’est la vie” and “science will never fully address the question of how there can be such a little difference between men and women but viva la difference!”
*
In all seriousness, EU_expat, I think that is part of (what should be, at least) the point. Here we have the SAT (with only quasi- required AP exams), there, someone hoping to get into college will be tested with what we consider here to be freshman already in college level exams. I don’t know enough about French college (or their equivalent to high school) to know whether it is more difficult than ours (and hence the difference in questions) or whether the testing strategy is different: rather than trying to assess “aptitude” they through at the college hopefuls the sort of exam that the students will face in college at them to see how they do. I suspect the “oh noes, American education is teh suck” crowd (of which I am sometimes a member but not when the “solution” becomes pushing kids too hard too young) will say the former, but if it were the latter, it wouldn’t surprise me.
June 18th, 2009 at 1:13 pm
I don’t understand the point of this post. Is Matt saying we should have the French educational system? To what ends? I am not a knee-jerk defender of the U.S. educational system, but were I to look abroad for models to emulate, I’m not sure France is the place to start. Though maybe he’s not saying that. We’ll never know b/c this just reads like a toss-off, lazy post.
June 18th, 2009 at 1:14 pm
Speaking as someone who went through the British education system, they don’t seem that tough for an A-level equivalent exam. They’re much more theoretical than the average A-level question, which tends to be more tied to specific texts (which may or may not be available to the student during the exam). Which leads me to think they’d be pretty easy for a smart student to bullshit their way through.
June 18th, 2009 at 1:14 pm
Does language betray thought?
What does this question even mean?
June 18th, 2009 at 1:16 pm
“My guess is these are essay questions, so the point is not so much to nail the right answer as it is to stake out a position and argue well for it.”
Of course that’s the point.
June 18th, 2009 at 1:18 pm
I heard the UK college admissions test includes the following…
- Was Jack the Ripper actually the Loch Ness monster?
- Tony Blair. Huge wanker or hugest wanker?
- If you could trade Simon Cowell for Madonna straight up in a citizen swap with the US, do you make the trade?
June 18th, 2009 at 1:22 pm
“Am I the only one perplexed by the asymmetry of subtle, complex questions and yes/no answers?”
No.
June 18th, 2009 at 1:25 pm
oh, matt….how your though(ts) make me think and your comments section makes me laugh. thank you and thanks to your spelling police.
June 18th, 2009 at 1:27 pm
Does language betray thought?
It means language isn’t the same as thought, it’s a representation of thought. Just like a translation of one language to another isn’t going to be exact and therefore at least a tiny betrayal of the original, your language isn’t the same as your thoughts, it’s just a representation of them.
‘Yankees Suck’ hardly encompasses the exact thoughts that most of Red Sox Nation feels towards New York yet that’s the language most of them use to express themselves.
June 18th, 2009 at 1:27 pm
Re: Apparently there’s also a question asking if it’s absurd to desire the impossible. I think it is.
It depends what you mean by ‘desire’, and what you mean by ‘impossible’. As the medieval Scholastics were fond of point out, there’s a difference between physical impossibility and logical impossibility, and there’s a difference between concrete desire and abstract desire.
June 18th, 2009 at 1:28 pm
“Am I the only one perplexed by the asymmetry of subtle, complex questions and yes/no answers?”
Reply hazy, try again
June 18th, 2009 at 1:35 pm
Thanks joejoejoe, that’s what I figured, but the binary nature of the question makes it seem kind of stupid. Surely language accurately represents thought to some degree, and surely some degree of partial and distorted representation is inevitable as well. I guess I’m having trouble seeing how another answer could be remotely plausible!
June 18th, 2009 at 1:38 pm
Matt, you’re missing something by not knowing Schopenhauer, one of the most insightful and readable of all philosophers. Of course, as a musician I’m predisposed to like him, since no philosopher took the arts more seriously.
But I can understand someone being put off by the opening of “The World as Will and Representation,” where he says, basically, don’t even try to read this unless you’ve already read and understood Kant’s “Critique of Pure Reason.” As if!
I too find the second question perplexing. If it’s asking whether language and thought are different, the answer is unquestionably “yes.”
June 18th, 2009 at 1:38 pm
Humans have always thought there were things that were unknowable by rational inquiry. They have been consistently proven wrong.
June 18th, 2009 at 1:41 pm
qb – Don’t take my word for it! That’s just my opinion. It’s not like I have a Bachelor’s in Philosophy from Harvard or was Provost at Stanford or anything.
June 18th, 2009 at 1:43 pm
I too find the second question perplexing. If it’s asking whether language and thought are different, the answer is unquestionably “yes.”
I think the question is whether the act of capturing a thought in language distorts it.
June 18th, 2009 at 1:43 pm
My answers are:
1. 無 (since neither one is possible)
2. Depends on what “betray” means
3. No
and
4. Not if you A) count economics as a science, and B) drop the requirement that the answer be in any way useful or correct…
June 18th, 2009 at 1:43 pm
These are essay (dissertation) topics, not questions. Goes like this:
Language betrays thought?
And you’re supposed to write both why it does and why it doesn’t, from both angles.
My daughter’s recent dissertations (this is Suisse Romande, not France):
Freedom has a price?
Property is theft?
June 18th, 2009 at 1:46 pm
I can’t decide whether 21 is irony or self-parody.
June 18th, 2009 at 1:51 pm
Yeah, umm — this is kind of one of those Fish Called Wanda moments: “Ape read philosophy, they just don’t understand it.”
I love France just as much as the next francophile. But as Ginger Yellow @10 points out, it is “pretty easy [and encouraged] for a smart student to bullshit their way through.” The French are taught to the test just like U.S. students; it’s just that their right answers are expressed structurally rather than in multiple choice. The questions focus on testing the mastery of the logical dissertation form which is drilled in to high school students as being the pinnacle of studied discourse. What results is an idealistic and homogenized academic culture.
I have been in undergraduate classes in France, where professors will literally map out “the right” answer to research papers. I have also been in graduate classes where students were struggling to learn how to form their own thesis questions.
Is the bac model, centered on the logical dissertation, beautiful and rigorous? Certainement. Does it it cultivate deep, independent critical thinking? Malheureusement, non. Should we emulate the French educational system? Vive la difference !
June 18th, 2009 at 1:53 pm
were I to look abroad for models to emulate, I’m not sure France is the place to start.
In what sense? The lycée hothousing and college dropout rate aren’t great, and you might object to the streaming by general field in the final year, but the bac is a broad, robust secondary qualification. (For what it’s worth, Jodie Foster took it at the Lycée Français de Los Angeles before heading off to Yale.)
Point is, the students taking the bac already have a sense of what they want to do in life, and the system is designed to funnel them in that direction.
In contrast, I recently encountered the argument that the US educational system is built around “constant paths to redemption” — that you can make substantial changes to your study goals and career plans, with the occasional bad choice, right through to the end of your sophomore year at college. (And perhaps further on.) That’s fine in some respects, but it’s also limiting in others.
June 18th, 2009 at 1:59 pm
I’m confused. For the third question, is the student supposed to answer “Je ne sais rien au sujet de Schopenhauer” or “M. Yglesias ne sait rien au sujet de Schopenhauer”?
June 18th, 2009 at 2:02 pm
to bullshit their way through
Hmm, to bullshit – as opposed to what?
June 18th, 2009 at 2:02 pm
As someone who’s spent a fair amount of time thinking about the French educational system (as it relates to the recent history of philosophy in France), I’d just like to echo LIJ @ 27’s comments, which neatly summarize the complaints that most critical French observers have about their own system.
There very much are ‘right’ answers to most of these questions, and furthermore, right ways of going about producing those answers. Given that almost every one of those same questions (Matt’s preferred responses aside) is subject to serious discussion at higher levels and that there certainly is not consensus among experts on any of them, this is disturbing. For all the very serious fights against this that have gone on in the past 40 years or so, the French educational system is still very much dominated by a culture of mandarinism that is, as LIJ says, not something we want to emulate, at all.
June 18th, 2009 at 2:02 pm
Does language betray thought?
What does this question even mean?
If you can’t talk about it, point to it.
June 18th, 2009 at 2:02 pm
@27: the relevant US comparison here is to the SAT or AP tests, which cultivate neither “beautiful, rigorous logical dissertation” nor “deep, independent critical thinking”.
If your point is that the US could emulate someone even better than France, well perhaps. But there is no doubt that les bacs are better than what we have now.
June 18th, 2009 at 2:02 pm
As someone who’s spent a fair amount of time thinking about the French educational system (as it relates to the recent history of philosophy in France), I’d just like to echo LIJ @ 27’s comments, which neatly summarize the complaints that most critical French observers have about their own system.
There very much are ‘right’ answers to most of these questions, and furthermore, right ways of going about producing those answers. Given that almost every one of those same questions (Matt’s preferred responses aside) is subject to serious discussion at higher levels and that there certainly is not consensus among experts on any of them, this is disturbing. For all the very serious fights against this that have gone on in the past 40 years or so, the French educational system is still very much dominated by a culture of mandarinism that is, as LIJ says, not something we want to emulate, at all.
June 18th, 2009 at 2:04 pm
I could answer all those questions if I wasn’t predisposed to ennui.
June 18th, 2009 at 2:04 pm
“Does language betray though?”
Greatest typo ever?
June 18th, 2009 at 2:11 pm
Ed K, I’m curious what the “official” answers are. Based on blind prejudice, I’m going to imagine it’s a weaksauce post-modernism that manages to capture all of post-modernism’s bullshit and none of its power.
June 18th, 2009 at 2:18 pm
Schopenhauerian nihilism is a key element in Jim Morrison’s sensibility.
June 18th, 2009 at 2:21 pm
“to bullshit their way through”
great typo! should read “to bullshit their way though”!
June 18th, 2009 at 2:24 pm
“Does language betray though?”
Folks you are not giving Yglesias enough credit for the subtlety of his wit. By leaving off the “t,” from “thought,” Yglesias demonstrates how systems of discourse contain embedded meaning structures that are socially, historically and culturally entangled with the signified. As Levi-Strauss taught us, we cannot disentangle language systems from hierarchy, hegemony and modalities of power.
Yglesias understands that to ask if “language betrays thought,” one can simply answer, as a Buddhist might, that “language betrays though.” Though it does, and though it doesn’t.
It is a critique of a question in the guise of a question which signifies its own answer.
June 18th, 2009 at 2:30 pm
“Does language betray thought?”
Does the dog betray the fire hydrant?
June 18th, 2009 at 2:30 pm
“I don’t know anything about Schopenhauer…”
Wife: “Oh, I never knew that Schopenhauer was a philosopher!”
Man: “Yeah. He’s the one that begins with an S!”
June 18th, 2009 at 2:41 pm
Wouldn’t it be wild if the question really were “Does language betray ‘though?” instead of “Does language betray thought?” Now that would be Gallic profundity!
June 18th, 2009 at 2:42 pm
WinSmith:
Hah! I hereby pronounce you Doctor of Yglesiology!!
June 18th, 2009 at 2:58 pm
The French are taught to the test just like U.S. students; it’s just that their right answers are expressed structurally rather than in multiple choice. The questions focus on testing the mastery of the logical dissertation form which is drilled in to high school students as being the pinnacle of studied discourse. What results is an idealistic and homogenized academic culture. [...] Vive la difference ! – LIJ
C.f. also WinSmith’s comment, which is interesting on a meta-level considering that here that difference between the US and France seems to be the difference between Levi Strauss and Levi-Strauss
June 18th, 2009 at 2:59 pm
OK, who permitted the semiotics major to comment?
June 18th, 2009 at 3:09 pm
Language expresses what is already dead in the heart.
I read that somewhere.
I also read that if a lion could speak we couldn’t understand it.
I wish these guys would get their stories straight.
June 18th, 2009 at 3:13 pm
KITTENS!
That does accurately betray my thoughts. I really like kittens.
June 18th, 2009 at 3:20 pm
WinSmith @40 wins the thread.
June 18th, 2009 at 3:23 pm
They left out the most important question:
“Can you and your neighbors fight off a German armored division?”
June 18th, 2009 at 3:24 pm
[pretty easy for a smart student to bullshit their way through.]
Lord forbid that public examinations should ever have questions that are easy for a smart student and difficult for a dull one … what is the purpose of an exam, remind me?
June 18th, 2009 at 3:24 pm
Wife: “Oh, I never knew that Schopenhauer was a philosopher!”
Man: “Yeah. He’s the one that begins with an S!”
Does Nietzsche begin with an S?
June 18th, 2009 at 3:40 pm
The Académie française defines “absurde” as “Qui est contre le sens commun”. My sense of common sense is that people desire the impossible all the time–certainly things that are practically impossible and also things that are or that one would suspect of being logically impossible. Would common sense categorically counsel against such desires? I rather doubt it–you know, the whole “shoot for the stars; if you miss and hit the moon, it’s still cool” thing. Wouldn’t most Christians recognize a desire to be sinless as both good and unattainable (in this life, at least)? So I disagree with Matt Y.–it is not absurd to desire the impossible.
Hmm. I am rather fond of em dashes, it seems.
June 18th, 2009 at 3:46 pm
Comments très funny. I may have to return to reading this blog. Anyone have some technique for completely ignoring Yglesias’s feeble attempts at orthography, diction, and proofreading?
June 18th, 2009 at 4:07 pm
@ 37. I’ve never graded them, so I have no idea, but I’d say almost definitely not what you think.
There’s a very conservative standard of proper reasoning, which is very formal and regimented, at work here. Much of the more convulsive aspects of some ‘post-modernist’ thought was a response to the versions of this that were current at the end of the 1960s, as were the student revolts more generally (many of which had nothing at all to do with anything recognizably ‘post-modern’). The thing is, the ‘reformed’ systems that were put in place after ‘68 did essentially nothing to change the centralized, regimented, and deeply conservative aspects of the system. The net effect of the 1970s was to quite thoroughly purge most of the more radical elements from the mainstream of the French academy–and in any case those elements never had any influence over something like the administration of the Bac. Further, there is a very specifically French understanding of the history of philosophy, especially as it bears on the development of French thought, that carries an institutional weight that would dwarf anything as transient as the ‘post-modernist’ movement, insofar as it ever existed to a meaningful extent in the mainstream of the French academy.
June 18th, 2009 at 4:14 pm
Does this not simply demonstrate that there are various ways to suss out the abilities of students to think critically, reason logically, and humor the inane questions of insufferable professors?
June 18th, 2009 at 4:30 pm
It’s not absurd to desire the impossible, because like many things, what is impossible is often a social construct dependent on culture and time. It was once thought impossible that men would fly, or that they would make it to the moon, or that a black man would be elected president. It’s only through desiring these things and working towards them that we make the impossible possible.
Also, everything is absurd. Life is absurd. Our beliefs about ourselves are ridiculous. So, even if there is something that is absolutely impossible, and it is in fact absurd, that’s no reason to not desire it.
June 18th, 2009 at 4:46 pm
Also, everything is absurd. Life is absurd.
That is correct. Also, everything is bullshit.
June 18th, 2009 at 4:55 pm
Ed K, now you’ve done gone and intrigued me. If you’re interested in discussing this further/having your brain pumped by a complete neophyte, toss me an email at salaciousinquiry(at)gmail.com
June 18th, 2009 at 5:14 pm
they’d be pretty easy for a smart student to bullshit their way through.
True, but I would say that being able to bullshit your way through stuff is a requirement for a vast field of highly regarded and well paid jobs out there, so testing this capability in a leaving exam makes a lot of sense.
June 18th, 2009 at 6:17 pm
Either way, I think it’s safe to say that Barack Obama’s nowhere near turning us into France.
=============================================================
Especially the way he keeps waffling on encouraging nuclear power
June 18th, 2009 at 6:45 pm
“True, but I would say that being able to bullshit your way through stuff is a requirement for a vast field of highly regarded and well paid jobs out there, so testing this capability in a leaving exam makes a lot of sense.”
Oh, absolutely. It’s pretty much what the Oxbridge interview system tests for.
June 18th, 2009 at 7:42 pm
These questions are less impressive when you realize they are multiple choice.
I second the recommendation on Schopenhauer. His writings are quite readable (and often funny), especially compared to those of other philosophers.
June 18th, 2009 at 8:36 pm
That would seem to be the only correct answer. I would assume any French student giving it would receive 0 credit.
June 18th, 2009 at 9:13 pm
[...] for the questions Yglesias posted earlier, namely: “— Does objectivity in history presuppose the impartiality [...]
June 18th, 2009 at 9:38 pm
To Don Williams # 50
The answer is:
Yes, using ERYX and MILAN infantery Antitanks missiles, VAB Mephisto and 20 mm bitubes carriers, LECLERC, AMX 30 and AMX 10 RC battlefield tanks, GAZELLE HOT and TIGRE armoured helicopters and , if needed, some AN52 and APACHE nukeheaded cruise missiles…
Others questions?
June 18th, 2009 at 11:08 pm
Matt: “Are there questions that are un-answerable by science?
The correct answers are…yes.”
Idiot.
Not to mention another pointless throwaway Yglesias post.
June 18th, 2009 at 11:39 pm
Wow, I hadn’t realize the French had adopted the Imperial Chinese Mandarin system.
That science question is ridiculous. To answer it well you would have to have a pretty good understanding of the metaphysical implications of empiricism and hopefully know a lot about logical positivism. All of which are interesting topics, but are completely useless if you want to be a physics, chemistry or biology major.
By the way, the correct answer is, “it depends what you mean by ‘question’ and ‘answerable’”.
June 18th, 2009 at 11:44 pm
Why the hell would you want to do that?
And fuck off, RSH. He’s right (see 2), and it’s a fucking blog…bitching about throwaways is like bitching that sitcoms have laugh tracks. It’s part of the form. Shape up, or you’ll find yourself calling everyone hipsters.
June 18th, 2009 at 11:48 pm
Actually, knowing the limits of your own discipline is awfully useful, especially from the perspective of the society that is doing the educating. If we could gin up some test that prevented scientists from thinking they were competent philosophers or theologians, it would help the discourse a lot.
June 19th, 2009 at 12:40 am
Re: If we could gin up some test that prevented scientists from thinking they were competent philosophers or theologians, it would help the discourse a lot.
Theologicans should not claim expertise on science, nor scientists on theology. In the matter of philosophy, however, everyone is as much an expert as everyone else, because most of today’s philosophers appear to be complete jokes with nothing of value to say. Exhibit A being Foucault and his other postmodernist buddies (Judith Jarvis Thomsen and the like).
June 19th, 2009 at 1:22 am
Actually, knowing the limits of your own discipline is awfully useful, especially from the perspective of the society that is doing the educating. If we could gin up some test that prevented scientists from thinking they were competent philosophers or theologians, it would help the discourse a lot.
So scientists should just accept whatever the philosophers tell them about science, but they shouldn’t give their thoughts on philosophy?
Even if we accepted that, since epistemologists and philosophers of science don’t agree on everything (anything?), how is a scientist to decide who he/she listens to? There’s probably a good reason scientists have time for Popper and maybe some of the Bayesians rather than Feyerabend–try running a research program based on “anything goes”.
June 19th, 2009 at 3:09 am
And there it is: How a nation learns to bullshit without saying anything.
And I am not anti-french btw. It’s just that the questions remind me of the essay questions I had to deal with in the Greek system which I suspect owes a lot to the French; problem is we had to deal with these essays without any preparation or research or anything of that sort. So you go in the test facility and get asked of a question which chances are you never contemplated in your life or done any reading on. Supposedly if you read enough or developed your mind enough, you would be able to grapple with those questions. But in truth you don’t. You just learn some basic narratives which comport with the social propaganda of the state and bullshit yourself around them.
SAT multiple questions might be simplifying, but the way most Americans get to be more concrete in what they say and what they want to argue about is through their papers I think.
June 19th, 2009 at 5:14 am
I quite agree with you, Nick Kaufman, but you can’t think only on your own. I’m a French teenager, I don’t feel like being manipulated or something, but seriously, I learnt a lot with the philosophers we had to study. As far as the literature series are concerned, they only show us the history of philosophy and the debates that still remain. And we must think by ourselves, develop our opinions and mainly go further than the basic prejudices. This is certainly the best courses I have had in my entire life, even if it’s quite hard to be good at it. There is basically no perfect answers to the questions, teachers give good marks to students which are able to build a right demonstration. Actually, some people want to make it easier to pass this precise exam, and it’s a shame because it’s really useful for further education (I mean, not for college because it tends to suck out there, but for other schools). Apart from that, le Bac is a quite basic exam, depends on your series, and as numerous people say about its importance: ‘You can’t do anything without having passed it, but you can’t really work somewhere even if you’ve passed it’. I chose the question ‘Does language betray thought?’ and my outline was 1- Nope, it’s a useful tool for the human beings (René Descartes said you could use it in all the new situations thanks to periphrases or neologisms) 2- But we tend to forget language was invented by us and it prevents us from expressing the singularity of our thought (Bergson, Le Rire) 3- (Thesis) However, without language one coudn’t think, we have to learn as much as we can and to live cultural experiences to be able to say what is deep in us (Hegel) because language is the only link to the others etc. That’s it ! I think I didn’t make huge mistakes, ’cause I asked my teacher if my demonstration was alright.
Schopenhauer’s text was about happiness and quite difficult to me. It dealt with the effect on ourselves of the lack of something we used to desire.
June 19th, 2009 at 8:22 am
Exhibit A being Foucault and his other postmodernist buddies (Judith Jarvis Thomsen and the like).
This is really the most pretentiously inaccurate thing I’ve heard anyone say about philosophy in a long time. Unless there’s a postmodernist out there called Judith Jarvis Thomsen, as opposed to Judith Jarvis Thomson, the hyperanalytic philosopher at MIT whose work doesn’t have a blessed thing to do with Foucault.
On the other hand, JJT did write an article arguing for the right to abortion, which by your lights probably means you’re allowed to say anything you feel like about her.
June 19th, 2009 at 9:09 am
Matt Weiner,
Most of the things I feel like saying about Ms. Jarvis Thomson are unprintable on a family blog. So I call her a postmodernist instead.
Ms. Jarvis Thomsen was a philosopher, I suppose, in the same sense as Julius Streicher was a philosopher.
June 19th, 2009 at 9:20 am
So I call her a postmodernist instead.
Yeah, that makes sense.
June 19th, 2009 at 9:58 am
Hmm, I wasn’t expecting you to admit that. All right then.
June 21st, 2009 at 1:49 pm
[...] Matthew Yglesias And from the science series: [...]