| 0:00:00.88 | 13.8s | Mushtaq Gunja | You're listening to For the Record, a registrar podcast sponsored by AACRAO. I'm Mushtaq Gunja, executive director of the Carnegie Classification Systems and senior vice president of the American Council on Education, and this is what the new Carnegie classifications mean for you. |
| 0:00:23.15 | 44.5s | Doug McKenna | Hello. Welcome to For the Record. I'm your host, Doug McKenna, University registrar at George Mason University in Fairfax, Virginia. George Mason is categorized as a research one or an R1 institution, which means that we award doctoral degrees and that there's a significant amount of research being conducted at our institution. But how did it receive that designation? Who defines significant amount and why are there categories in the first place? Today we're going to be talking all about the Carnegie classification system, where it comes from, why it's used, why there are new classifications for the first time in a long time. And joining us is a special guest from the American Council on Education, ACE, Mushtaq Gunja. Mushtaq, welcome to the podcast. Thank you for being here. |
| 0:01:08.8 | 0.9s | Mushtaq Gunja | Thanks for having me, Doug. |
| 0:01:09.62 | 8.0s | Doug McKenna | So to kick us off a little, would you tell us a little bit about yourself, where you're from, what you do, maybe a little bit how you wound up working at ACE. |
| 0:01:17.97 | 99.8s | Mushtaq Gunja | Yeah, sure, thanks, Doug. It is uh a little bit of a weird and winding story. I'm a lawyer by training and I've been working in the Obama White House doing uh confirmation work, vetting work, that sort of thing. Um, and I met the person who was going to be in charge of higher education for the Obama administration, Ted Mitchell, and he was looking for a chief of staff. Uh, I was working at the US Attorney's office in Baltimore at the time. I was looking for something a little bit different, and I had been teaching both at the law school level and at the undergrad level for a few years and was interested in doing something in higher education. He asked me to be his chief of staff and I joined, so I was chief of staff in the uh Undersecretary's office in the Obama administration's Department of Education from I guess 2014 to 2016, and uh a couple of years later Ted became the president of the American Council on Education. He asked me to be his chief of staff again, and I, I wanted to keep working on higher ed policy issues, so I did, and I was chief of staff here at ACE for goodness, about 4 years. In that time, around early 2022, the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching was looking for a new home for the Carnegie classification. So they've been running this thing for 50 years, um, and they were looking for a new partner to be able to help them put together these classifications. So, uh, I was so intrigued by the project and the process that I, I helped to bring the project over to ACE and we've been partnered with the foundation, uh, since early 2022 in this, in this project. And I thought it was so interesting that I, I left the chief of staff job to run this thing full time, which is how I'm now the executive director of the, the Carnegie Classification systems. That |
| 0:02:57.72 | 12.6s | Doug McKenna | that is an amazing story. Couple of things. You have said A C E now twice. I said Ace, do you, does it? Is there one that is correct? ACE is the preferred sort of nomenclature, |
| 0:03:10.75 | 10.0s | Mushtaq Gunja | you know, like, um, in a world of picking pronouns, yes, I think A – C - E is the preferred pronoun, and you know, it's easy to sort of see it as a, but yeah, we typically say, right? |
| 0:03:20.83 | 18.4s | Doug McKenna | A C E. OK, I will say A C E for the rest of ever. And then second, when I talked to some people about the Carnegie Unit, Carnegie unit. This is the differentiation, like this is caramel or caramel, do you say Carnegie or do you say Carnegie? |
| 0:03:39.41 | 4.0s | Mushtaq Gunja | I say Carnegie, I'm not sure that that's quite right, but that's what I I think that's |
| 0:03:45.10 | 17.3s | Doug McKenna | it's like a litmus test for people. So um since you mentioned the foundation, would you talk a little bit about what the foundation is, the Carnegie Foundation, and you also alluded to the fact that the classifications have been around for some 50 years since the early 70s, I believe. Is that right? |
| 0:04:02.61 | 129.1s | Mushtaq Gunja | That's right. So the Carnegie. Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching has been around for, I think, more than 100 years, um, and they were really dedicated to studying and advancing teaching and learning, um, and have been sort of in this space forever. They are indeed the sort of the creators of the Carnegie Unit, um, many, many, many generations ago, and that has lasted. And about 50 years ago, they helped create the Carnegie classification. And what happened was back in 1973, um, even a little bit before that, you know, some folks were trying to make sense of what the higher ed landscape looked like, right in a pre-internet age, it was a little bit difficult to know like what are, what was the right way to categorize in group institutions. And so a set of institutional researchers decided that they should put together a classification system. And so they did, uh, it was wildly successful at grouping like institutions together. And what they did was they grouped institutions primarily by the highest degree that they awarded, right? So your institution would be a bachelor's institution if that was the highest degree that it awarded, even if it awarded some associate's degrees, and uh so on and so forth. So that. Sort of view of the world that sort of originated in 1973 has been around since, and it was declassifications that we uh inherited when when we started partnering with the project in 2022. The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching had a new president that came on board shortly before 2022, Tim Knowles, who took a look at the classifications and along with uh my boss Ted Mitchell here at ACE sort of said, you know, this thing is, it's the gold standard of higher ed classification systems, you know, it's really the thing that people use and Maybe we should take a look at whether or not we continue to be sort of classifying institutions in the right way. I mean, the way higher ed has changed a lot in 50 years and the classification systems didn't change along with, so they asked us to to take a look at the, at the systems and we, we started by sort of trying to understand what was the full sort of scope of, of the classifications, whether or not we were indeed grouping institutions correctly. |
| 0:06:12.10 | 21.0s | Doug McKenna | Yeah, so let's talk a little bit about the new classifications. You've previously said. With this redesign of the Carnegie classifications, we set out to measure what matters. What did you mean by that and what changed as part of that evaluation of the higher ed landscape and the way that the classifications unfolded? Yes, |
| 0:06:33.23 | 248.0s | Mushtaq Gunja | it's a great question. So the, the classifications used to be sort of a singular classification, we call it the basic classification, as I said, grouping institutions by the highest degree they awarded. So George Mason, as you noted, was an R1 institution. The reason they are an R1 is because you are an R1 is because uh there are a sufficient amount of sort of doctoral production at your institution and the sufficient amount of research expenditures. Wonderful. That, that our oneness is the only thing that we told the world about George Mason. We didn't tell them anything else about the rest of the degrees that they offer, like, you know, the size of the institution. Now all we said was that you did a lot of research. It's fine. It's an important thing to be able to tell the world, but um we thought that a classification system that was a little bit more multi-dimensional, and that also centered students would be the right way to sort of be able to help the world think about our higher ed landscape when we're thinking about grouping like institutions together. So the new classifications come in three flavors. First, we have a set of research activity designations. So this is the set of institutions out there that are doing research. We put them on a list of um our one institutions, our two institutions, and then research college and universities. These are institutions that are doing large amounts of research and we categorize them. And we've now taken that research work and taken it out of the base classification and are publishing sort of a separate list of those research institutions. Wonderful. Want to make sure that the world knows about them, but also want to make sure that the world knows the rest of the higher ed landscape as well. So we undertook a redesign of the what we used to call the basic classification, what we're now calling the institutional classification. What we did there was we wanted to take again a more multi-dimensional 360 degree view of the institution. We are now sorting institutions in this institutional classification by uh by size, by the types of degrees they offer from an award level focus. So do you produce master's and undergraduate doctors? Where, where are most of your students? And then what are the subject matters that that your institution is offering? So are you primarily. A nursing school or do you have more of a mixed focus? Those sorts of questions are what we ask and we put together a new set of groupings, so your institution may well be a large professions focused graduate undergraduate school. Not a very sexy name, but, um, but we think that it does a better job of sorting and grouping like institutions together. So there are 31 new classifications and some uh pretty huge move away from only uh sorting institutions by highest degree. We think that this institutional classification does a better job of grouping like things together. The third thing, the 3rd classification is a student access and earnings classification, right? And when I said that, um, students were nowhere to be found in the old classification, this is our attempt to be able to sort of send our students in one of the classifications. So, uh, we are now sorting institutions by how well they are doing at providing access to the geographies they serve. Uh, to students and then how well those students go on in the job market. So, uh, what are their earnings post attendance? Uh, and so we've sorted institutions into higher access and lower access schools and higher earnings, medium earnings, and low, lower earnings. Schools and uh you end up in one of sort of 6 boxes uh and every institution in this country that grants degrees and has sort of a sufficient number of undergraduates that for whom we have earnings data or access data are in these one of these 6 boxes uh and so we are hoping. And that third parties will use the full suite of classifications together and sort of thinking about grouping like institutions. So it's good to know what an institution's institutional classification is. It might be good to know what their access and earnings classification is. You might want to know what the research designation is, you know, depending on who you are and what you're looking at. Uh, so we're, we hope that we've given the world a broader, more interesting way to be able to look at our, our 3,927 classifieds, |
| 0:10:41.91 | 76.2s | Doug McKenna | give or take, yeah, give or take. So if I'm an institution, and I'm interested in figuring out what my new classification is. There is a site, the CarnegieClassifications.Acenet.edu. I'll put the link to that page in the show notes. So if you're listening and are curious, go to the show notes, you can click on it and then search by your institution name. And so George Mason is now institutional classification, mixed undergraduate, graduate, doctor at large. Our student access and earnings classification is opportunity colleges and universities, higher access, higher earnings, go us, and the research activity designation is research one, very high research spending and doctorate production. I can go through and look at any and all of the 3, almost 4000 institutions using this lookup. How in in practical terms, I mean, you've alluded to how you would like people to use it, but in practical terms, how does someone translate this information into Some kind of action and what action would you want them to translate it into as, you know, as a meaningful, I've interpreted this, now I'm gonna do something with it. What does that look like? |
| 0:11:58.34 | 51.0s | Mushtaq Gunja | What a wonderful question. So I think the place I might have, I might have you start is with the institutional classification page. So you might want to sort institutions, you might want to look up your own institution. And then see what are the other institutions that are in our group, and most of the groups have somewhere between 100 and 225 institutions with them. The reason that's a good place to start is because we hope that we've done a nice job of uh grouping peer institutions. Once you've done that, then the world is your oyster in terms of what you might want to go, um, look up. But from an access and earnings classification point of view, if you wanted to see how well your institution is doing on either access or earnings. It's really helpful to be able to look at that within institutional type so that you're not comparing George Mason to, I don't know, |
| 0:12:49.52 | 1.5s | Doug McKenna | uh Berkeley College of Music |
| 0:12:51.0 | 71.8s | Mushtaq Gunja | or right or Anne Arundle Community College, right, or Nova, not because they aren't all wonderful institutions, they all are, but just they have a different focus. They have a different mission. They're organized in different ways. It's really important to try to look at yourself in comparison with other, with your peer institutions and from there. We hope that a whole set of third parties, third party users will use it for all sorts of purposes. So first and foremost, the institutions themselves, you know, to the extent that you're an institution that for institutional benchmarking purposes, um, you want to know how well your institution is doing compared to others on earnings or on access or on types of degrees or um. You know, we have this whole zip code map of how many institutions are the registrars know as well, right? I mean, how many degrees are in, you know, history versus psychology, you know, you can do all of that work um within the Carnegie classification, so it's perfect for benchmarking, and I think that the the beauty of the new classifications is. We give you the right way to benchmark. So you're not trying to benchmark against all 3,927 institutions. We're giving you the, what we hope is a decent peer group. And then if you want to change the peer group a little bit by looking at all the schools in the state, or, you know, you want to include a couple of others, we give you the tools. be able to do that. |
| 0:14:03.13 | 4.5s | Doug McKenna | Yeah, so some aspirational schools where you're like, let's, let's see what, you know, |
| 0:14:07.89 | 86.7s | Mushtaq Gunja | absolutely. I mean, really all of this is for the purpose of institutional improvement, right? I mean, institutions are constantly wanting to know how they can get a little bit better and we're hoping that these will be some of the tools. Those are some of the third party users, but there are all sorts of people who use the Carnegie classifications for other reasons too. So funders have used the the classifications to sort of understand. What's happening in the research space or in other spaces. And so again, being able to understand, you know, who's an R1, who's an R2, who are these research colleges and universities, and then how are they doing on things like access and earnings, like many of the third party funders have said we'd love to be able to give funds not just to folks that are, that we've always given the funds to, but to a different, you know, newer set of institutions. But who are those institutions and how, where are they on the landscape have been, um, we're hoping that these sets of tools will be able to help there. Interesting often use the Carnegie classification state systems to dole out sort of state dollars. And so again, a newer set of classifications, you might want to know how an institution is doing on either access or earnings when you're thinking about the dollars that your your state system is giving. Uh, so we're hoping those sorts of tools will be useful here too. So it sort of depends a little bit on where you are in the ecosystem, right? If you're NSF, you might spend a little bit more time on the research activity designation, you know, if you're an accreditor, you might be a little bit more focused on some of the, the access and earnings questions, right? And if you're an institution. I mean, you might be interested in all of it, right, gamut. |
| 0:15:36.47 | 63.7s | Doug McKenna | You mentioned bringing students back in or bringing students into the way that the classifications work and sort of centering the student. Is this, are the classifications meaningful for students? I'm from my own experience, I didn't know what a Carnegie classification was until I worked in a registrar's office. And so it seems. Difficult for me to imagine that we will have high school students looking at the classifications and saying, no, I'm going to do this one. I just went through a college search with a high school senior and like getting him to look at things beyond like I need a football stadium and I need, you know, and an engineering school, like those are, that was it. How do we as higher education and how do you as ACE hope students or guidance counselors or people who interact with students, even high school students, how do you hope that they can use this information? |
| 0:16:40.39 | 119.3s | Mushtaq Gunja | Yeah, it's, it's a, it's a, it's an important question and one that doesn't have a super easy answer because I think you're quite right that it's, it's unlikely, I think. That in the first instance that your high school senior is likely to use the Carnegie classification website as the place that they go to be able to determine which school they should go to. We don't think that that's probably quite right. That said, you know, I think there is a decent amount of useful information there. And as one thinks about um peer institutions, one of the things that's sort of interesting is that there are a whole set of institutions that that show up as peers that are intuitive, and then often a couple that show up as not as intuitive. So I have a high school junior as well, just met with the with the college guidance counselor, uh, and I showed her the the the classification website and we hovered over a couple of the groups and she said this is really useful because it opens the aperture of my students. So I think it could, right? So they're interested in X college and that X college has a very nice access and earnings number. But look, there's another school that's like that's right next to it that has a very similar number and hasn't been on, isn't on the radar of many of our students in our school. This sort of shows that maybe it should be and it gives us an ability to be able to open up a conversation about something else. So I'm hoping that over time that guidance counselors at least might start using it, if not the students themselves. Now, we did not design this website at the moment to be used by the By students, that said, I think the, the goal over the next couple of years is to really think about whether there is a way to be able to design something that's more consumer facing, um, using some data. So we're hoping we'll get there. Um, I don't think it's quite there yet though you never know what happens when you unlock a bunch of data, you know, like it's possible that that folks are gonna be able to use this. We're a public utility. This is all free data. People can use it and, you know, hopefully responsible ways, but you know, people can use this, and what we are hoping that that many people will. |
| 0:18:40.9 | 40.5s | Doug McKenna | Yeah, so let's talk. It's been, it's been a minute since the last time the classifications were updated. What is the idea now for sort of ongoing review or are these like the new let's settle in and use these classifications for the next 20 years, 50 years? What's the idea behind the process given How rapidly higher education has been changing over the last several years and looks to continue to change. What's the, what's the plan for reviewing and and updating, keeping Evergreen the classification system? |
| 0:19:20.91 | 47.9s | Mushtaq Gunja | Yeah, it's a great observation, Doug. The classifications have been traditionally published every 3 years and uh that's the plan going forward as well. So we published just last week, two weeks ago, Spring 25, and the plan is to publish again in spring 28. So uh we will continue to sort of see how the, how the higher ed landscape evolves. I'm hoping we'll keep this methodology something akin to this methodology for the next cycle too, because it's nice to be able to do some longitudinal work to be able to see how the sector has evolved, but certainly as things change, you know, we'll continue to take a fresh look at the, the classifications, but you should expect your institutions should expect that there will be another set of classifications to come out in 2028. So stable for now, um, with the regular updating. |
| 0:20:09.18 | 6.4s | Doug McKenna | Got it. And what happens if an institution disagrees with how they've been classified? Has that ever happened? Does that happen? |
| 0:20:16.15 | 69.9s | Mushtaq Gunja | It does happen. Uh, you know, we, we did send um institutions there sort of underlying data back in January of this year, and many of the institutions sort of said actually this this number that we had reported to scorecard or reported to the Um, to iPads isn't exactly right. And so, you know, had we, we heard some of that before, but after we published, we, you know, there may be some institutions that are a little bit unhappy, you know, and we have an appeals process. It's on our, there's an appeals form that's on our website, Carnegieclassifications.net.edu as you noted earlier, and you know, we'd be happy to hear from you. You know, there are, when you put together one of these classifications, there are hundreds of methodological choices. So like, you know, one might in very good faith say, oh, I wish you would measured, you know, factor X in a different way than you did. I think, you know, we spent a lot of time sort of putting this together. I think we're unlikely to revisit the methodology, but there may be a way in which like the methodology doesn't quite capture your institution. We're happy to sort of hear you out, and no promises, of course, but you know, we're happy to, happy to sort of hear you out. Um, so if, if, if somebody doesn't appreciate sort of the where they are in the classification scheme, please reach out to us. |
| 0:21:26.36 | 14.9s | Doug McKenna | I know. Can we talk about the data for a second? Where you mentioned like we you sent the data back to the schools. How did you gather the data initially where and what are all of the various data streams that feed into the methodology? |
| 0:21:41.56 | 97.2s | Mushtaq Gunja | So 3 main data streams, and I should say first and foremost, we collect no data ourselves. So, um, institutions don't report any data to the Carnegie classifications. All the data that we pull are from available public third parties. So the biggest source of data is from IPEDS, um, the data that's collected by the Department of Education is data that that the institutions themselves report straight to, straight to the department. The second source is the IRS college scorecard. So we pull earnings data from the scorecard. Uh, that's data that, you know, is of course collected by and through the the Internal Revenue Service. And then third, we pulled a bunch of data from the US Census. Because one of the things that we did was we made some geographic contextualizations when we were assessing how well institutions did on access and earnings. So, you know, some institution has a median earnings of $40,000 let's say. Is that good? Is that not good? Well, I mean, that completely depends on where your institution is located and where the students are coming from. So we needed to be able to get some earnings data and access data from from the census. We took both some microdata and some uh metropolitan data from the census and state level data as well, so that we could be able to do some good contextualization from where your student. You're coming from so that we can answer that question of is $40,000 is a good number is not as good a number and that again depends on whether you're sitting in, you know, the Rio Grande Valley or you're sitting in Manhattan, right? So we did that sort of work. Those are the three big data sources census, IRS, iPads. |
| 0:23:18.96 | 24.4s | Doug McKenna | Right on. How many people were involved in this? Because you're talking about like, a bunch of different data scientists and education policy people. And tell me about the, the sort of the makeup of the team. What is your, I'm assuming it's your staff or Because of your title, I'm assuming that you're responsible for the group that did this. So yeah, tell me about who's on the team. |
| 0:23:43.75 | 75.9s | Mushtaq Gunja | Yeah, so it's a set of we, we've been partnering with the Carnegie Foundation, that just the great folks there, and then we've got a small team here at ACE as well. Uh, my deputy Sarah Gass. I have a chief data scientist Kyle Whitman, a couple of, uh, and then the whole. Staff here at ACE has been giving us a whole set of feedback, but, but really we designed this too with two main advisory groups. We'll put together a technical review panel, so I think it's 16 or 18 folks that are economists, data scientists, folks that have been studying the higher ed sector and social and economic mobility in particular, and uh we met with them over the course of 3 years. I think we met with them. Goodness, 18 times something like that over the whole 3 years we got a lot of feedback and putting this thing together. When I say we made hundreds of methodological choices, we did, and that wasn't me alone. I mean that is a sure we also put together an institutional roundtable. This was a roundtable of precedents, um, from across sort of the higher ed sector. That also came together I think about a dozen times to help again give us advice about the right ways to be able to put this thing together and especially help answer the question of what are the hidden incentives in the current system and how do you make sure that you're intentional about the incentive structure that you're putting. Together, when you put together a new classification, |
| 0:24:59.82 | 4.6s | Doug McKenna | right? You want to avoid those unintended consequences that is a nudge in the wrong direction. |
| 0:25:04.67 | 48.1s | Mushtaq Gunja | Absolutely, you know, and it's easy to fall into those unintended consequences if you don't go in eyes wide open. So we really got a lot of advice from those two groups. And then lastly, I've been on the road a lot over the last 3 years, so we've met with the field as much as we could. I think we met in groups small and large with I think 13,000 people over the course of the last 3 years to get as much feedback as we could. Tried to hit as many of the sectors as we um as was possible, and, you know, that feedback was tremendously helpful too, you know, we got feedback about. About zip codes, we got feedback about size, we got feedback about geography and the right contextualization. We got all sorts of feedback that really helped us design this. So this is a tool for the field, and I hope that the field sees themselves in the work too because it's a, it's a. I think that's that's by the field. |
| 0:25:53.29 | 24.8s | Doug McKenna | Yeah, it's remarkable work. And I appreciate you sharing sort of the scope and the number of people involved in their level of expertise. I think that helps people feel like, oh, this is a real thing. And like they were very intentional about these things. How has the reception of the new classifications been? What feedback have you been receiving post announcement and |
| 0:26:18.11 | 74.7s | Mushtaq Gunja | launch? Yeah, I mean, I think by and large, the reception has been, um, has been pretty good. I mean, there are, there are a couple of pieces of feedback that we, we've been really pleased to receive. I think folks have been excited about the transparency in the system. I think that by and large most institutions are extremely excited by the By the centering of students, by the calling out of access and earnings, I think that that reception has been, has been really good. I think change is hard and, you know, for 50 years institutions got a particular classification. They were masters large or, you know, baccalaureate arts and Sciences and, you know, to get now three different classifications with totally different words, was upset of peers that often will look familiar, but every once in a while, there might be somebody who's Who looks a little bit different and that might feel, you know, like it's in the wrong spot, uh, you know, I think that some of that is Well warranted sort of not knowing where the methodology is coming from. And so in that spirit, we published a 16-page technical manual. It's on the website under the resources tab of the website. So please go look at the the full methodology if you want a little um like bedtime reading, you know, |
| 0:27:35.59 | 8.2s | Doug McKenna | there are some geeky people in registrar's offices, so I guarantee there will be more than one download of that. Based on what you just said, |
| 0:27:44.6 | 48.2s | Mushtaq Gunja | Well, I hope, I hope so. Please, please take a look, you know, and, and might help answer some questions and certainly I think we, we try to keep it simple. We try to keep, keep it at the level of algebra, um, and not calculus, and I think we, we succeeded, but you know, there's, we're classifying 3,927 institutions, which is a tricky thing to do because every institution is unique. You know, and, and truly every institution is an end of one, but you also need to put institutions a little bit together for purposes of benchmarking and other things. And so, you know, I think in some ways, institutions are always going to want to be with their aspirational peers and not necessarily with exactly who they are as they currently exist. And so that's just a little bit of attention that |
| 0:28:34.81 | 32.8s | Doug McKenna | that one will, I appreciate you sharing this so much. I find it fascinating and I've always Really sort of enjoyed discussions about methodologies for how we're classifying things and how we're looking at the higher ed sector overall and how to make sense of it. So this is great that we're also pulling in the student as part of this overall effort to classify institutions. So. Thank you for being here. I appreciate you sharing your time and giving the explanation for the new classifications. It's wonderful. |
| 0:29:07.77 | 12.5s | Mushtaq Gunja | Well, thank you for the great questions. I really enjoyed this, and please do download that methodology document, download the full data file, and any feedback, it would be, would be much appreciated from you and, and the very good people in the registrar's offices. So thank you so much |
| 0:29:21.53 | 1.7s | Doug McKenna | fantastic. Thanks very much. |
| 0:29:25.58 | 52.8s | Doug McKenna | Thanks very much to Mushtaq for sharing the behind the scenes information on the new Carnegie classifications. Click on the link in the show notes to look up your institution's new classifications and feel free to download the paper explaining the methodology behind it all. And thanks very much to you for listening. I hope that you're doing your level best to nurture your sense of hope and that you are practicing gratitude and being gentle with yourself. It's a marathon, not a sprint. More than ever, it's important to reach out and build up your community. Make a commitment to do one thing, any one thing, every week, to make or build a connection. Write a letter, make a phone call, meet someone for coffee, visit a neighbor. There's a lot of bad out there right now, but there's a lot of good too, so shine a light. |
| 0:30:25.50 | 8.7s | Doug McKenna | Until next time, drink some more water, stretch your legs, take care of yourself. I'm Doug McKenna, and this is For the Record. |