More faculty hiring practices from economics that ecologists might (not) want to consider

Following up on my recent post noting that in some social science fields, including economics, faculty hiring places heavy (though far from exclusive) weight on one “job market” paper, here are some other aspects of how faculty hiring works in economics. Tweets from @LauraEllenDee were part of my inspiration, and comments on that previous post were a big help too (have I mentioned lately how much I love our commenters?)

I find it interesting to think about which if any of these formal and informal practices could or should be adopted in ecology and other scientific fields (even though I think current practices in ecology are mostly reasonable). Learning about how things work in other fields stops you from taking things for granted* and helps you imagine how things could work in your own field. It also gives you a more realistic sense of what any reforms in your own field might achieve. Learning about how things work in other fields both helps you dream and keeps you grounded.

One challenge in thinking about this is that to some extent these alternative clusters of practices may be “package deals”. You can’t always pick and choose, at least not very easily, because any one practice might well be undesirable or unworkable in isolation from other practices.

So here are some other hiring practices in economics (follow that link for the post from which I’ve gotten much of my information. See also.) This is obviously a broad-brush picture and I’m sure I haven’t gotten all the details right; comments welcome. If all you know about is hiring practices in ecology, get ready to enter the Twilight Zone. A world like ours in many respects, but weirdly different in others…🙂

  • The job market in economics is centralized. Everyone posts their “job market papers” (which often aren’t yet published) in a centralized repository that’s used by pretty much every university that hires economists. All faculty jobs are centrally posted too, on a website run by the American Economics Association, the econ equivalent of the ESA.
  • Your department helps you prepare and submit your applications. Which aren’t tailored to the job, at least not very much.
  • I’m guessing a lot of you probably like the sound of a centralized, standardized job market, to which your department will help you apply. Convenient, right? But remember: when something becomes easier to do, people do more of it. It’s typical for economists to apply for >100 faculty jobs, and for strong candidates to get a dozen or more first-round interviews.
  • The first round of interviews is not via phone or skype. Rather, they’re held in a hotel room at the econ equivalent of the ESA meeting. The search committee just sits in a hotel room all day while one candidate after another files in to meet with them for 20 minutes or so at a time. I’ve seen economists advised to wear something distinctive to these interviews (say, a funky tie if you’re a guy) to help the search committee remember who you were. And candidates with lots of interviews presumably spend all day going from one to another.
  • The second round interviews are on campus, and are only granted to the top 3-5 candidates for the position, just like in ecology.
  • Where you got your Ph.D. matters to a much greater extent than it does in ecology, or at least matters more directly and explicitly. There’s a widely-agreed hierarchy of economics departments, and if you didn’t get your Ph.D. from one of the top departments your odds of being hired by one of the top departments are low. This is at least in part because postdocs barely exist in economics, and in part because the lag from submission to journal publication is measured in years. So faculty job candidates are almost all finishing grad students, most of whom have yet to publish anything. In the absence of much direct information about applicants’ abilities and accomplishments, search committees rely on what little direct information they have (especially job market papers), plus indirect information such as where applicants got their degrees.
  • Because of the hierarchical nature of the field, and because several candidates from any given department often will be applying for any given job, departments and their faculty members often do a lot of work behind the scenes informally pushing their “top” candidates for the “top” jobs.
  • Participating in the econ job market is a stressful experience for candidates, at least as much if not more than in other fields as best I can tell. As one of the posts I linked earlier notes, the highly-organized and hierarchical nature of the process has a way of reinforcing the unfortunate feeling that an academic job is the only job worth having, and that you’re somehow failing or settling if you don’t get a “good” one. Which is part of why Econ Job Market Rumors exists and is so popular. If you don’t want to click the link (and honestly, I don’t recommend it), imagine the “venting” section of the ecology jobs spreadsheet on steroids. With a lot of other stuff besides venting mixed in, much of it quite nasty. (aside: this is not a criticism of the “venting” section of the ecology jobs spreadsheet or the folks who vent there. Everybody needs to vent sometimes, me very much included.) (second aside: the existence and popularity of EJMR probably also reflects other factors besides the organization of the econ job market, such as that economics is much more male-dominated than, say, ecology.)
  • Note that the econ job market stress described in the previous bullet is mostly not stress about whether you’ll get an academic job at all, and to the extent it is it probably shouldn’t be. Because most everybody who participates in the centralized job market gets a good job that makes heavy use of his or her degree (certainly if it’s a degree from a mid- to high-ranking program, and probably even if it’s from a low-ranking program). Not so much because of the centralized organization of the academic economics job market, but because of other forces that ensure that the supply of academic jobs in economics is pretty well-matched to the supply of grad students who want one. Basically, economics Ph.D.s have many good-paying and otherwise-desirable options outside of academia (e.g., consulting, finance, state & federal government agencies), which reduces the number of economics Ph.D.s who want to go on to academia. And the supply of Ph.D. economists is limited, especially from mid- and high-ranking programs. In part because a non-trivial fraction of people who are admitted to top programs (anecdotally, as many as 25%) flunk out at the prelim exam stage.

Again, I’m not recommending all or even any of this as a model for ecology. Just throwing it out there as food for thought.

*I like to imagine that somewhere there’s an economist learning how faculty hiring works in science, scrunching up his face and going “Wait, what? Scientists have to send in a separate application for every position? With no departmental support? That’s crazy!”:-)

35 thoughts on “More faculty hiring practices from economics that ecologists might (not) want to consider

  1. My initial reaction is that it sounds like the perfect environment for a corrupt, nepotistic culture to flourish in which jobs are allocated on the basis of where you went to university and who you worked with (which is not to say that ecology is immune to that….. And giving academic posts to people who are largely untried in the wider world of academia doesn’t strike me as a very good idea at all.

    • Just to be clear, economics jobs mostly *aren’t* allocated on the basis of who you worked with, as far as I understand. Who your supervisor was is less important than what your dept. was.

      It’s funny. There are definitely some elements of it that give it at least the appearance of a corrupt, crony-based system. Placing heavy weight on the dept. in which you got your degree, in particular. Then again, there are other elements that are kind of the opposite. For instance, more candidates get one of their papers read by the search committee and get a first-round interview than is typically the case in ecology.

      “And giving academic posts to people who are largely untried in the wider world of academia doesn’t strike me as a very good idea at all”

      That’s another element of this about which I have mixed feelings. On the one hand, in retrospect I didn’t feel “ready” for a faculty position until at least the second year of my postdoc. So it’s hard for me to imagine many people being “ready” straight out of grad school. On the other hand, in many fields of science there’s a strong argument to be made that postdocs are getting too long, longer than needed to function as useful apprenticeships.

    • “And giving academic posts to people who are largely untried in the wider world of academia doesn’t strike me as a very good idea at all.”

      I really disagree with this. Good for who? Perhaps not good for the university who would like some more information, but remember in economics, computer science, statistics ect. the best PhDs are being snagged by industry. So if Universities don’t offer freshly minted PhDs positions with good job security and benefits these PhDs simply do not go into academia. In order for the universities to be competitive, they have to offer their tenure-track positions right away.

      If every talented ecologist had a 6 figure offer in hand from an NGO or government body, to do applied ecological research, every time they got a postdoc offer, the field of ecology would have very few postdocs.

      So it is good for the University because otherwise they only hire the people who weren’t competitive at getting at getting high paying industry job [or were willing to accept a 60k pay cut for several years to get a job in academia]

      As for whether it is good for the new PhDs I think the answer would be yes. Sometimes you just have to dive in and see how it goes.

      • Thanks for the comment Matthew and I appreciate what you are saying. However the underlying assumption of your perspective is that universities are only interested in hiring the applicant with the greatest (though still untested) potential to be a high-flyer researcher. That may be true of some elite universities, but it’s far from true of all of them. But even those where this is true, what they are hiring is an individual who has only partly engaged with the world of academia. They may not have even steered their first publication through peer review, or done any significant teaching, or engaged with professional service, or written a grant application, or demonstrated their ability to work as part of a team delivering one or more taught programmes. What if, after five years, it turns out that they are not very good at those things? Both the individual and the university will have wasted a significant amount of time.

        If individuals wish to work outside academia, for larger salaries, that’s their choice. But working in academia and working for industry are very different things suited to different personalities, approaches, etc. Few make the transition (Brian excepted of course!). But the “people who weren’t competitive at getting at getting a high paying industry job” might actually be the people who are best suited to a collegiate environment of cooperation (though I appreciate that this is not always the case in academia!)

      • I certainly agree that in ecology, under the current job market, this system would be a bad idea for any university who wanted the best academics [I think we agree on that]. However, the economics system is not as big of a risk as you propose. There is tenure review, and a poor performer can simply not be offered tenure.

        I’m still curious as to whether you think the ecology model would remain unchanged if NGOs and Governments were paying entry level PhDs 6 figure starting salaries *and most importantly* these positions were for doing interesting applied research [which is what many of the quantitative positions are like in industry in computer science and statistics]. Industry in these fields [not so sure about economics] in many regards resembles the postdoc, just a bit faster paced. Take facebook for example, 20% of a person’s time is dedicated to any research project you like [potentially completely unrelated to anything specifically about facebook], while 80% of your time is spent on facebook related projects. My thought is that it would be a lot harder to get good postdocs in ecology if NGOs and Government agencies were offering the exhilarating research environment of a postdoc at double to triple the salary.

        Do you think that ecology departments wouldn’t be forced to start hiring people fresh out of the PhD as faculty in such cases? Maybe it wouldn’t be as extreme as it is in other fields, but I believe the system would change. But who knows. These are just hypothetical predictions.

      • “There is tenure review, and a poor performer can simply not be offered tenure.”

        Yes there is (at least in the US system – not here in the UK) but it seems like a terrible waste of everyone’s time.

        “I’m still curious as to whether you think the ecology model would remain unchanged if NGOs and Governments were paying entry level PhDs 6 figure starting salaries *and most importantly* these positions were for doing interesting applied research”

        Hmmm, hard to know, but it’s a good question. Probably something would shift, but the chances of anyone paying ecology PhDs six figure starting salaries is very low. Unless governments start to take seriously the idea of valuing natural capital such that ecological survey work prior to land use change (e.g. large building developments) is an opportunity for organisations to make big money. But clearly there;d be industry resistance against that….

  2. So is it correct that you absolutely *have* to attend the big centralised conference if you want a faculty job?

    I would find that quite concerning — it biases against people who can’t afford to attend (especially if you’re outside NAm) or have personal reasons (e.g. caring responsibilities, health) that make it difficult to attend.

    The stream of interviewees would lead to bias towards particular personality types — the same types that interviews select for overall yes, but the short nature of these interviews would make that effect stronger.

    • “So is it correct that you absolutely *have* to attend the big centralised conference if you want a faculty job?”

      Good question to which I don’t know the answer. My impression is that there’s certainly a strong expectation that you’ll attend. But I’d guess (and I am guessing) that accommodations get made at least occasionally?

      • English departments use a very similar search process. They don’t have the same ‘job paper’ exactly, but they do have a highly centralized list and most first round interviews are conducted at the Modern Language Association conference in the first week of January. In general, candidates are expected to get themselves to the conference for the interviews and there is no financial assistance (unless the candidates own grad program will chip in). Search committees are notorious for waiting to notify people about initial interviews until a few weeks or even a few days before the conference. If you are already planning to attend or expect to have multiple interviews this may not be a huge problem. But it is quite common for grad students to feel forced into buying a plane ticket and hotel at the last minute in order to participate in one interview for which there are ~15 other candidates. Often, students don’t end up even attending the conference in these cases since abstracts are due almost a year ahead of time and registration adds even more cost. Obviously, this puts an unequal burden on students depending on their financial situation and how willing their grad program is to chip in (and of course top programs that are well funded are more likely to chip in). Accommodations might be made by reasonable search committees, but I’ve also heard stories of people being told that if they can’t make the conference they are off the interview list. I don’t know if economics is as bad as english in this regard (they do have more money, I’m sure), but I think the idea of expecting interviewees to attend a conference and pay their own way to get there is a really terrible one. Some english departments have realized this and have started to shift towards Skype interviews for the first round. Others have given candidates an option of Skype or conference, but to me that doesn’t really solve the issue since you are essentially giving the option of in person interviews only to candidates who can afford it. There are a lot of things that I don’t like about the ecology/evolution job market, but these other approaches seem quite a bit worse to me!

      • Making people fly to a conference on short notice in order to interview horrifies me too. Even if many potential candidates were planning to attend anyway.

    • I’ve seen this in other disciplines (English literature and their MLA meeting), where attendance of the big meeting is more or less a requirement to be on the job market, irrespective of whether you can personally afford it or have travel funds available through your institution to support interviewing. MLA is a big meeting and tends to default to pricier locations than e.g. ESA (think L.A., Chicago, Vancouver, etc.) – I’ve known people to be very stressed about lacking funds to attend but being effectively required to go to interview. Some departments have moved more to phone or Skype interviews, but it’s a seemingly entrenched preference to require interviews at MLA.

      And it’s my (outsider) sense that this massively changes the tone or culture of that big meeting: imagine an ESA where students & postdocs are shuttling from hotel suite to hotel suite to interview for the same limited pool of jobs all day. Less informal and friendly; more directly competitive and stressful. I think it’s the last model we should aspire to emulate in ecology; phone or Skype for the first round of interviews (pre-campus invite) is fine. Competition through e.g. networking is a bit implicit at an ESA or similar meeting, but I don’t think the tone of the event is improved by making it extremely explicit.

      One that (I think) you’ve missed here, as well, is what the job talk in economics looks like: I’ve only sat in on a few econ job interview seminars, but they: a) run long (up to two hours or so?), and b) don’t hold until the end for questions; the audience interrupts and debates e.g. models or theory as the talk is underway. Was a bit shocking from an (American?) ecologist’s perspective, especially as many of the early interruptions were unnecessary and anticipating things that would just be covered a few slides in the future if the speaker was allowed to continue. Much more combative than what we usually see.

      • Yes, seminar culture varies among fields. Mathematicians interrupt a lot too, because they want to be totally clear on the details of your proof.

  3. “because several candidates from any given department often will be applying for any given job, departments and their faculty members often do a lot of work behind the scenes informally pushing their “top” candidates for the “top” jobs.”

    I wonder if this makes econ more susceptible to a version of what philosopher Eric Schliesser calls ‘boy-wonder’ syndrome: http://www.newappsblog.com/2013/09/on-boy-wonders-in-philosophy.html

    • Possibly, though the details would differ. “Boy wonders” in econ, to the extent they exist, will have somewhat different traits than in philosophy. I don’t think you can get designated a “boy wonder” in econ *just* by being able to think on your feet and impressing top people in seminars. For starters, you actually have to have a job market paper and it actually has to be good. That is, identifying good work in economics (and thus, identifying good economists) is probably somewhat less subjective than in philosophy. Not that it ever is or could be *totally* objective in any field (even physics), of course.

      EDITS (hit “post” too soon): Philosophy does share with economics an outsized (to my scientific eyes) concern with ranking philosophers, departments, and subfields. And it’s also a heavily male-dominated field, like economics. That may not be a coincidence. Then again, those features don’t always go together. Mathematics also is heavily male-dominated, and cares a lot about identifying “brilliant” youngsters at an early age. But I don’t have the impression that mathematicians are collectively obsessed with ranking themselves and their departments, though they definitely have (and debate) hierarchies of different subfields.

      The existence of “boy wonders” in philosophy, and the correlated outsized concern with rankings and status games, also is at least partly a historical legacy of the influence of Ludwig Wittgenstein. Kieran Healy sometimes jokes about this on Twitter:

      I don’t think that any toweringly influential economists (Keynes, Friedman, Samuelson, Lucas…) had a Wittgensteinian “style” as far as I know. Though there certainly are individual economists who have inspired many students to ape them, sometimes arguably to the point of derailing entire subfields. Paul Romer has been arguing that this happened with Robert Lucas and macroeconomics.

      • Yep, that makes sense. And to be clear, I think the job market paper seems like a good way of focusing attention on demonstrated research quality, at least for economics. (I wouldn’t necessarily advocate a switch to that style in ecology.) What concerns me more is the apparent role that powerful faculty and departments have in advocating for their perceived ‘best’ students — Schliesser, at least, contends that there may be biases in the gender or topics of study of those perceived to be future stars. If, as you suggest, economists can be more objective in evaluating work and predicting future success, perhaps this isn’t an issue. I certainly wouldn’t argue that Daron Acemoglu, Raj Chetty, Susan Athey, or other economists who got amazing faculty positions incredibly young were undeserving!

        On the other hand, some of my economist friends will whisper (or shout) that they think some senior economists are frauds whose flashy style and technical brilliance conceal more fundamental failures in thought. Actually, in the Schliesser comment thread, someone leveled that accusation at Larry Summers, though I can’t comment about that.

        Re: Wittgenstein (and the lack of comparable figures in econ) — that makes sense. I suspect Wittgensteinian temperaments are most likely to build status, rather than alienate peers, in fields that prize iconoclastic, lone-wolf type thinkers, which I associate (rightly or wrongly) with the type of mentality that seeks to identify boy wonders. And I’ve found economists — not including environmental / agricultural / resource economists — to be much more aggressive in seminars and meetings than ecologists, which I associate with the kind of status-seeking behavior that seems to be linked to boy-wonder syndrome. But perhaps this is just because I’m at Minnesota, where the economics department leans freshwater in ideology but can be quite salty in temperament!

      • “On the other hand, some of my economist friends will whisper (or shout) that they think some senior economists are frauds whose flashy style and technical brilliance conceal more fundamental failures in thought.”

        Well, that’s more or less what senior economist Paul Romer is shouting about a particular school of thought in macroeconomics and its leaders. So your friends are far from alone in whispering or shouting that. My anecdotal impression as an outsider who only reads econ blogs is that this is mostly an issue in macroeconomics, and that it’s perhaps good for the health of the field of economics as a whole that macroeconomics is suffering a bit of a fall in prestige these days.

        Thanks for sharing the insights and experiences. I do like being a bit of an anthropologist about how other fields work.

        Re: aggressiveness in seminars, an old post and good comment thread that’s somewhat relevant: https://dynamicecology.wordpress.com/2012/09/06/how-to-make-your-graduate-student-seminar-series-better-training/

  4. Having recently hired an economist in our Energy and Resources Group at UC Berkeley, following the procedures usually used in economics departments, I add two things to the discussion:
    1. Not all candidates, including the ultimately successful one, interviewed “in a hotel room” before making the short list.
    2. The most interesting contrast to me was that the position was more broadly defined than is typical in biology or ecology and evolution departments. My general sense is that in economics departments, as well as in some of the sciences such as physics, positions are often advertised very broadly and the search committee looks for the best candidate, which then determines which subdiscipline is ultimately represented. I have not been a big fan of ecologists advertising in the area of “Tropical Forest Physiology” or “Grassland Restoration Ecology” or “Avian Behavioral Ecology” (to exaggerate only a little).

    • Cheers for this John.

      Re: your #1, did you do phone or skype interviews instead?

      Re: your #2, I’m with you. Worth noting that at least some prospective ecology faculty find broad searches frustrating, though. I think because they often don’t realize that there are good reasons for broad searches. Anecdotally, I think they tend to assume that the search is “really” much narrower, the narrowness merely being unspoken, and so worry that they’re wasting their time applying for a position for which they aren’t actually a good fit. Or perhaps they think (incorrectly) that a broad search indicates a department that hasn’t thought sufficiently carefully about exactly what narrow area it wants to hire in.

      • 1. To the best of my recollection, the only communication was after a short list had been compiled, and it was to set an interview date. An economist on the search committee knew of the candidate’s work but it was by no means a biased, “good old buddy”, decision.
        2. if we habitually defined positions in ecology more broadly, the response you describe would become less of an issue. And it would also do away with candidates trying to peddle themselves to be something they are not in order to meet the job description. And faculty recommenders could describe actual strengths, not make up ones that match the description.
        I also think that the faculty debate over which candidate is the most brilliant is likely to be less rancorous, and more interesting, than is the discussion about which narrow subdiscipline deserves the next hire, but here I could be overly optimistic!

      • ” if we habitually defined positions in ecology more broadly, the response you describe would become less of an issue. And it would also do away with candidates trying to peddle themselves to be something they are not in order to meet the job description. And faculty recommenders could describe actual strengths, not make up ones that match the description.
        I also think that the faculty debate over which candidate is the most brilliant is likely to be less rancorous, and more interesting, than is the discussion about which narrow subdiscipline deserves the next hire, but here I could be overly optimistic!”

        All very good points.

  5. Interesting…
    Have you also looked at faculty hiring practices in other countries?
    For instance: for public universities in Brazil (the good universities here are the public ones, with a few exceptions) hiring takes place via a public “concurso”/contest. All candidates fill a form and must pay a fee of around 100-200 BRL (so some 50 USD), although the fee may be waived for poorer candidates. Then the candidates have to go to the university (or sometimes a larger university if the one they’re applying to is in the middle of nowhere) for a three-stage process: a written exam, a teaching exam and (I think) an interview. For one position I was going to apply to but gave up (because post-doc is fun!) this process was supposed to extend for one month, meaning that I’d have to go probably three times to interior Sergipe and clearly favouring local and rich candidates. Never heard of a department providing funds for the trip.

    • I had never heard of anything like this!

      Having postdoced in the UK and interviewed for a few faculty positions there I’m aware of some differences between UK and N. American ecology application processes. These mostly relate to the conduct of the on-campus interviews. For instance, in the UK it’s common for all the candidates to be interviewed on the same day. Their job seminars ordinarily are only 15-20 min. long (in contrast to the 50 min. typical of N. American ecology interviews). And it’s not unheard of for the candidates to all go out for dinner together with the search committee, and even watch each other’s seminars. My theory is that this is done to maximize the awkwardness of the experience for the candidates, for the amusement of the search committee. The British are very sensitive to awkwardness–which I presume is why they find it so amusing to watch other people experience awkwardness. I have a great story about this, which sadly I can’t really share on a blog…

      • Weird, right? I did no apply to any position yet, as I wasn’t feeling ready right after my PhD, so don’t have personal experience in it. But it’s weird.
        Although it’s probably made like this to ensure a fair selection… Which doesn’t usually happen, but anyway.
        Oh, and I think it may even happen that the best-placed candidate candidate cannot assume the job for not having a required qualification. The contest regulations states which qualifications are needed, e.g a degree in Biology or Ecology and a PhD in Ecology or Plant science or ….., but there is a gray zone and these qualifications are not always checked by the evaluation committee.
        The teaching exam is a 50-min lecture on a subject, with the candidate being notified on the subject a few days before, and I think it’s open for other candidates to watch.

      • “The British are very sensitive to awkwardness…”

        …and Americans speak with loud voices, and Italians are all great lovers, and the Spanish have a thing about bulls, and Australians all wear hats with corks! Come on, Jeremy, I know it was a throw-away line and I know that national stereotypes exist (to some extent) but we are not all like Basil Fawlty🙂

        I have no idea why we allow candidates to meet each other (though it’s not universal) but I think enjoyment of others’ awkwardness is a rare motivation.

      • For an interview I had in the UK earlier this year, my prepared presentation was max. 7 min!

        Pavel, I’m pretty sure stories I heard about concursos involved the candidates being at the hiring university for a few days in a row but not having to travel there multiple times.

      • It’s usually a few days, but that one stretched for nearly one month! It was really unusual. It may have been shorter though, if more candidates gave up as I did..

  6. Here is an off the wall hypothesis, with very little knowledge about the subject: perhaps the PhD program matters more in economics because economic departments are competing with industry. In industry, the program matters more than in academia, because most people making hiring decisions at a company can’t really evaluate your research or usually don’t know who your advisor is. So, since industry values the program, academia sees these PhDs as harder to get, a scarcer resource, and hence of higher value.

      • The “fallback mentality” certainly seems true for ecology, and probably true in the past for economics, but I’m not sure it is still the default for econ. My impression from a very small sample size of quantitative economics grad students is that, for them, a job at Facebook or Google was preferred over all but the most prestigious academic departments. This might have just been the culture where I went to school and not elsewhere. I may very well be wrong on this, but I think the tides are changing.

        On a somewhat unrelated, but interesting note, academics working with economists at Uber just created the first ever empirically estimated demand curve (from econ 101’s theory of supply and demand).

        pop-sci article: http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2016/09/19/ubers-pricing-formula-has-allowed-economists-to-map-out-a-real-demand-curve/
        Paper: http://www.nber.org/papers/w22627.pdf

      • Interesting. This may of course depend on the student or the program. FWIW, I think it’s slowly changing in ecology too, though with lots of variation among students. Might be interesting to try to poll on this some day.

Leave a Comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s