Comments on "Ten Things I Hate About Prenuptial Agreements"

As I have indicated on this blog before, nobody should sign a marriage contract that he/she thinks is unfair. I recently encountered a web page that includes in one place many of the specious arguments against prenuptial contracts that I have encountered over the years. The link is:



http://www.ivkdlaw.com/the-firm/our-articles/prenuptial-agreements-and-lawyering/ten-things-i-hate-about-prenuptial-agreements/


Read this attorney's "Ten Things I Hate About Prenuptial Agreements." The essential thing is that the default marriage contract so favors her clients that she would find it essentially impossible to ever negotiate a more favorable contract than the default marriage contract for any of her clients. She cannot maintain this wildly favorable bias in a negotiated contract, so she uses a number of specious arguments to disparage a negotiated contract.


I have discussed some of these issues in previous posts, but I think the following has value as it is a response to a specific attorney's collected comments on prenups.

To see some associated previous posts:

http://smolyhokes.blogspot.com/2015/11/what-people-especially-wealthy-people.html

http://smolyhokes.blogspot.com/2015/12/the-pros-and-cons-of-forced-marriage-in.html

http://smolyhokes.blogspot.com/2015/11/no-means-no-except-when-man-says-no.html



(As I think the attorney in the link does, assume the man to be the wealthier party both in assets and in income for the discussion.)

Lets take the arguments one at a time: (Note that there is a copyright indication on the page I link to, so I decided not to duplicate the author's comments on this page. You can find her original comments that I am replying to at the linked site with the corresponding numerical item label.)

"A significant part of my law practice is a steady stream of prenuptial agreements for clients who are embarking on marriage. Generally (but not always), I represent the less-moneyed spouse. She (usually) is presented with the concept as a limited means to, say, protect the fiancé’s (or his parent’s) wealth. Somehow, this morphs into an all-encompassing financial contract that drastically limits her marital rights with far-reaching effects extending into the future."

With or without a prenuptial contract, marriage is an all-encompassing financial contract. As far as "her marital rights," a prenuptial contract defines her "marital rights." This quoted paragraph above attempts to imply that something has been taken away from the woman. This of course is logical nonsense. The woman does not have any marital rights until she is married. The prenuptial contract can give her marital rights, but it cannot take away any marital rights. (In contrast, a post-marital contract can take away marital rights because the marital rights exist per the marriage contract.) The prenuptial contract simply replaces the default contract.  Inasmuch as peoples' individual circumstances are enormously varied, a "one size fits all" default marriage contract will not be fair and appropriate in many circumstances. Prenuptial contracts allow people to take their individual circumstances into account and ditch the "one size fits all" mentality.

The "wonderful" thing about the default marriage contract is that it gives her clients more than they could possibly hope to obtain in a negotiation. It is unlikely a man would sign a default marriage contract wildly in her client's favor if the man had legal counsel on the implications of the default contract. The law does not require that he understand the default contract whereas, by contrast, the law requires that her client understand the prenuptial contract. This attorney is essentially practicing a form of "gold digging" for her clients. The fact that the default contract promotes gold digging does not change the fact that it is gold digging. The beauty of gold digging by default is that her clients do not have to explicitly identify themselves as gold diggers. Gold digging by default contract depends on the innocence and ignorance of the man signing a contract whose terms are not even written down.  Gold digging in a prenuptial negotiation is much harder to do and much more likely to expose her clients as gold diggers.

Click link and go to item 1 on the linked page:

1. http://www.ivkdlaw.com/the-firm/our-articles/prenuptial-agreements-and-lawyering/ten-things-i-hate-about-prenuptial-agreements/

This coercion argument is nonsense. Both parties have a free choice.  The fact that a man will not sign a contract that he considers outrageously unfair does not qualify as "coercion." If she refuses to sign a contract that she considers unfair and insists upon getting married under the default contract because it is much more lucrative in a divorce, is she then coercing him? The purpose of the prenuptial contract is to prevent a devastating effect on the man. Apparently this attorney thinks that it is proper for a woman to be concerned about a devastating effect on the woman, but it is somehow not proper for a man to be concerned about a devastating effect on the man?

The attorney notes that a "typical fact pattern is a couple that has been together for some time." It is also a typical pattern that the man is happy with just living with the woman and it is the woman who wants to change the circumstances. There is often a lot of pressure to get him to "commit" or "put a ring on it." The reference situation is living together with no "marital rights." Women often tell men that repeatedly "nothing will change and it will just be like living together, I just want to be married." This, of course, is dramatically false, but I am not aware of any case where this statement (even in writing or with witnesses) has protected a man's financial position. (On the other hand, women sometimes succeed at using a man's comments to acquire part of his assets. It seems to be a  "promise" when a man says something without sufficient thought nor legal counsel to a woman, but not a "promise" when a woman says something without sufficient thought nor legal counsel  to a man.)

As noted, the current reference situation (A) is living together. The proposed change (B) is being married under the terms of the prenuptial contract. When a woman gets legal advice about a prenuptial contract the legal legerdemain does not compare the woman's current reference situation of living together against the proposed future situation of marriage under the prenuptial contract. Instead, the legal legerdemain supplants the current reference situation with a fictitious reference situation (C) that never existed. The attorney advises the woman about all the things the man is "taking from her" if she signs the prenuptial contract, based on what the woman would be given in the absence (C) of a prenuptial contract. This seems incredibly dishonest. The proposed change is from  A to B and yet the attorney discusses the change from in going from C to B. In this way, the woman is made to feel that the man is "taking" something from her, despite the fact that this is impossible because she never had it in the first place.

Exactly which party is being treated unfairly under this legal legerdemain?

Click link and go to item 2 on the linked page:

2. http://www.ivkdlaw.com/the-firm/our-articles/prenuptial-agreements-and-lawyering/ten-things-i-hate-about-prenuptial-agreements/

This argument is ridiculous for three reasons. First, it is circular in the sense that it presupposes that the default marriage contract is fair and that she is entitled  to the marital rights associated with the default contract. The entire reason for the prenuptial contract is that the man does not agree that she should be entitled to the default marital rights. She does not have these rights, so she cannot give them away. Nothing is being "taken" from her.

Second, under the default contract what "consideration" is the man getting? The man essentially hands the courts a blank check to fill in if a divorce occurs. Without a prenuptial contract he is at huge financial risk as detailed by the attorney's own words as the wife might have "access to everything the future husband presently owns, might own in the future, and any possible support rights." What "consideration" is the man getting that is commensurate with giving the woman such access? Exactly what does the law require her to give to the man because she puts him at huge financial risk, with her as the beneficiary of the risk? Under the default contract, there is indeed a severe imbalance in which she can appropriate his assets even if she has done absolutely nothing for him. Provided simply that she "married well," the default contract enriches her for the sole fact of marrying well.

Third, the attorney has some confused thinking. The fact that the law specifies default marital rights in no way means that the default is fair and reasonable in many cases. Suppose that the default were that the wife pay her ex husband 80 per cent of all her future earnings and he pay her none of his future earnings? Under the attorney's argument, if the wife wanted to change this default with a prenuptial contract, then he would be "giving up" his default marital right to the 80 per cent. Under the attorney's argument the man is giving away more and she thus should give him "consideration" on the other side to balance that fact? Except for the fact that this would be an even more unfair example of "marital rights" specified by default law, the principles involved are the same.  If the default contract allows one spouse to plunder the other, it is irrelevant what the plundering spouse "gives up" in a prenuptial contract. There is no "consideration" due because a spouse foregoes a right to plunder that they never should have.

Now consider the attorney's ridiculous analogy of buying shoes.  Suppose the shoes are normally sold under a standard contract (say, the manufacturer's suggested retail price, i.e. the msrp) that provides X dollars in exchange for the shoes and a buyer proposes paying less, say, Y < X dollars. No reasonable person would say that the seller is due some "consideration" for the fact the seller is getting less than the seller normally gets. The seller either wants to sell the shoes according to the buyer's proposed contract or the seller does not want to. It is not the buyer's responsibility to ensure that the seller makes his usual profit. If no agreement is reached, then the buyer and seller are in the same situations that they were before the proposed sale. In particular, the seller still has the shoes and the buyer still has his Y dollars.  This attorney's argument is not only without merit, it is so bad that it would be ridiculously silly for any reasonable person to take it seriously, except as a logical fallacy that, with luck, will trick the buyer into paying X dollars.

Click link and go to item 3 on the linked page:

3. http://www.ivkdlaw.com/the-firm/our-articles/prenuptial-agreements-and-lawyering/ten-things-i-hate-about-prenuptial-agreements/

This is ridiculous. Either party can take as much time as they need to make an informed decision. The man is neither responsible for a woman's ignorance nor any bad decision she makes. At what point can an adult woman be held responsible for her actions and/or inaction? A wealthy man who gets married without a prenuptial contract, and without having professional legal advice about why he needs a prenup, is still held responsible for signing a default marriage contract that may give his wife "access to everything the future husband presently owns, might own in the future, and any possible support rights."  Despite the fact that he has far more to lose in marriage than his wife, the law cuts him no slack for not understanding just how awful the default contract can be in his case. It does him no good to say  he did not understand or that he did not have legal counsel. His wife, on the other hand, can have the prenuptial contract tossed out because she did not seek legal advice.

"Young people really have little or no idea of what marriage is and what it takes to make it successful," which is even more reason that a wealthy man needs the protection of a prenuptial contract. This is especially significant because women apparently initiate the divorce about 2/3 of the time.

Click link and go to item 4 on the linked page:

4. http://www.ivkdlaw.com/the-firm/our-articles/prenuptial-agreements-and-lawyering/ten-things-i-hate-about-prenuptial-agreements/

It is quite reasonable for the parents to be concerned about their son. The attorney's implication that  "real" marriages cannot have prenuptial agreements is ridiculous. Furthermore, divorce laws and settlements can be drastically different in different places and different times. It is a ridiculous notion that radically different divorce settlements (given the same circumstances except location) can all be "fair." Really?  If one location's law gives a woman ten thousand dollars and another location's law gives her ten million dollars, they are both fair? And, if they are indeed both "fair" there should be no problem with a prenuptial contract that picks the most favorable of the "fair" outcomes. I wonder how many of the parents who took her advice watched the wife divorce their son and plunder his assets?

Click link and go to item 5 on the linked page:

5. http://www.ivkdlaw.com/the-firm/our-articles/prenuptial-agreements-and-lawyering/ten-things-i-hate-about-prenuptial-agreements/

The attorney seems to be espousing the unsubstantiated notion that "reducing risk" by a prenuptial contract is somehow incompatible with fostering the upcoming marriage. Like most of the arguments against prenuptial contracts, this is a self-serving argument for maintaining the "marital right" to plunder a wealthy man. Women can ask for any "marital rights" they want in a prenuptial contract, so there is no reason that a prenuptial contract cannot be fair. Many women like the default marriage contract because it obscures just how much they have to gain by marriage to a wealthy man. Because they do not even have to explicitly specify the "marital rights" that they think are fair, they escape all discussion of why these default "marital rights" are fair in the particular marriage under consideration. In fact, a prenuptial contract will effectively filter out the gold diggers from the women who have more honorable intentions. This alone makes a prenuptial contract worthwhile for a wealthy man. Furthermore, if a wealthy man does not get a prenuptial contract, the default contract will pay her handsomely if she divorces him. Even if she is not, or at least did not start out, as a gold digger, this is a tremendous incentive to divorce him. The less she stands to benefit from a divorce, the less likely she is to initiate a divorce. People respond to incentives. Exactly how does providing an incentive to divorce help in "supporting or fostering the upcoming marriage?"

This attorney seems to have no "no sensitivity to the destruction" she is causing by insisting that a couple avoid an open discussion of what "marital rights" will apply to their marriage. Furthermore, on a societal level, following her ideas promotes both gold digging and divorce. In the end, neither of these things are good for either society as a whole or for honorable women who have no problems with discussing their concept of fairness.

Click link and go to item 6 on the linked page:

6. http://www.ivkdlaw.com/the-firm/our-articles/prenuptial-agreements-and-lawyering/ten-things-i-hate-about-prenuptial-agreements/

This argument attempts to justify simple thievery. If he has sole and separate (non-marital) property that he wants to leave to his children, or perhaps charity, he should be entitled to do so. She was not involved in the generation of the wealth represented by the non-marital property and she should not be entitled to a dime of it.  To use the attorney's own language, what did the wife give him in "consideration" for this property? Grabbing his non-marital  assets that the man intended for his children would amount to legal larceny and it rightly should be prohibited. If the man can give his children his sole property assets before he dies, he certainly ought to be able to give these assets to his children when he dies. If not, exactly what would this attorney be suggesting? The man could give his separate assets to his children 10 minutes before he died, but not after? If the man agrees to sign this attorney's "correction" to the prenup, that is his choice, but there are many circumstances in which this "correction" would be totally unwarranted.

Click link and go to item 7 on the linked page:

7. http://www.ivkdlaw.com/the-firm/our-articles/prenuptial-agreements-and-lawyering/ten-things-i-hate-about-prenuptial-agreements/

If there are any corrosive memories and tears associated with a prenuptial negotiation, attorneys like this one are responsible. She intentionally and inaccurately misrepresents the prenuptial contract as taking away marital rights instead of defining marital rights. Instead of focusing on the change from cohabiting to married under a negotiated prenup, she supplants this actual change under consideration to the change from the terms of the non-existent (and explicitly rejected) default marriage contract to the prenuptial terms. The tears come from an emotional reaction to the attorney's intentional misrepresentation that something the fiancee never had is being taken away from her.

Click link and go to item 8 on the linked page:

8. http://www.ivkdlaw.com/the-firm/our-articles/prenuptial-agreements-and-lawyering/ten-things-i-hate-about-prenuptial-agreements/

More nonsense. First, the man is not responsible if his fiancee lies. Second, "fair and reasonable" is a matter of judgement. Third,  "the very fair and reasonable laws of divorce" in practice are a farce in many cases. The very fact that divorce laws in different locales result in very different outcomes shows that the laws are most definitely not fair.

Even if the prenup has exceedingly beneficial terms for the wife, this attorney and her ilk will describe it as "unfair" if the default marriage contract is even more beneficial. The default marriage contract in some locales treats a man's premarital assets as his separate property, but any increase in value of that property is shared by default in these locales. (In California, the wife is not entitled to any increase in value of his separate property.) For example, the man may start with one million dollars of separate property in a stock mutual fund that, after five years of marriage, becomes perhaps three million dollars. If a divorce occurs under the default contract, the wife would get half of the two million dollar gain. She did nothing to enhance the value of the mutual fund, yet she is entitled to one million dollars? Why?

Suppose the man thought that this was outrageously unfair, yet still wanted his wife to benefit a little if he had good luck with his separate property 1 million dollar mutual fund. Lets say that instead of cutting her in on 50% of the gain, he has her sign a prenuptial contract that cuts her in on 25% of the gain? Rather than focusing on the man's generosity in giving his wife a 25% risk-free  (if he loses she does not share in the loss) stake in the gain, this attorney and her ilk will say that the man is taking away her "right" to the full 50%. Never mind that if the man divorced in a different locale (say California), the default contract would  not give her a dime of the mutual fund's gain.

This attorney and her ilk, because they so steadfastly assert the fairness of the default marriage contract, probably would not suggest asking a California man to sign a  prenuptial contract giving the wife a 25% share in his mutual fund's gain. The California man, and probably California society generally, would almost certainly reject such a suggestion as abject gold digging. But, a man in the other locale is lambasted for "taking away" her marital rights because he "only" will agree to give her 25%. Logically, a woman demanding to share in his mutual fund's gain is a gold digger whether she is in California or another locale. But, in some attorneys' view the wife is  not a gold digger but rather a "victim" of an unfair prenup in another locale if she "only" gets 25% of the gain.

"Very fair and reasonable laws of divorce?" The evidence shows that this is an outright lie.

Click link and go to item 9 on the linked page:

9. http://www.ivkdlaw.com/the-firm/our-articles/prenuptial-agreements-and-lawyering/ten-things-i-hate-about-prenuptial-agreements/

First, this is ridiculous, they are not always unfair. Second, one can always include provisions in the prenup to give credit to the wife if she makes certain sacrifices for the family. These examples of the things that a wife might do are often times little more than a smoke screen to hide and divert discussion from some provisions in the default marriage contract that sometimes have outrageous divorce consequences.

Although this attorney focuses on what the wife might do, default divorce laws compensate the wife of a wealthy man far more for who she married than what she did or did not do. A wife may have promised to bear a man's children, and though fertile, she breaks this promise. She may start refusing to have sex with him. She may refuse even to live with him. She may break her wedding vows by sleeping with another man. But, if a divorce comes the fact that she broke her promises, refused him sex or even simple companionship, broke her wedding vows, and did not sacrifice one iota for the family makes little difference. The primary thing that matters is that she married well and he has a lot of assets to go after. In some locales, the default divorce laws entitled her to one half the gain on any of his premarital assets. She gets this independent of anything that she actually does or does not do. If he has  (premarital) 10 million dollars in a stock mutual fund that becomes 20 million during the marriage, the law in some locales gives her 5 million dollars (half the gain), independent of her contributions or behavior. So, although I am in favor of prenuptial contract provisions that recognize and reward contributions and good behavior on the wife's part, the default divorce provisions are abominable because they essentially depend on who she married, not what she did. These examples of what a wife might do are largely irrelevant because she has no obligation to do these things and can do them, or not, as she alone chooses, and her divorce settlement from a wealthy man will be almost independent of what she has done.

The attorney's stated concern about major sacrifices the wife might make by "mutual decision" can be specified in the prenuptial contract. There are a small enough number of  common major sacrifices that a prenuptial contract can specify appropriate compensation terms for common sacrifices such as a wife staying home and raising children. Indeed, this attorney indicates that she can fix the prenuptial contracts that she gets her hands on. For any uncommon major sacrifices not specified in the prenuptial contract, a post-marital agreement can be written (before the sacrifice is made) establishing both that the sacrifice was a mutual decision and the agreed upon value or "consideration" due for the sacrifice. But, this attorney is against prenuptial (and presumably post-marital) agreements that openly and explicitly deal with these concerns. Instead, this attorney prefers to wait until divorce comes and it is impossible to establish unequivocally that the sacrifice was mutually agreed upon and a mutually agreed upon valuation for the sacrifice. The attorney does this, of course, because she knows that the default law will:

1. assume that the sacrifice was mutually agreed upon (absent exceedingly strong evidence to the contrary), and

2. will obtain a better valuation than the attorney can obtain by negotiation

With respect to item 2, note that the attorney is not acting in her client's interest if the attorney could obtain a better valuation in a prenuptial (or even post-nuptial) agreement. She wants the default because she believes (with good reason) that the default gives her client more than she could ever hope to obtain with a prenuptial (or even post-nuptial) agreement. Indeed, under the default contract the man is disregarding the common wisdom "don't buy a pig in a poke." Inasmuch as the default contract is not written down and the terms vary depending on time and locale, this is very much "buying a pig in a poke."

I have some sympathy with some of the comments in this item, but there is no uniquely agreed upon definition of what is "fair."  Nobody should sign a contract that they consider substantially unfair. Indeed, this is the very reason that wealthy men refuse to sign default marriage contracts. This attorney seems to think that her assessment of "fairness" supersedes the fact that "fairness" is as agreed upon by the parties involved in the contract. Kudos to her for advising her clients about what she thinks is fair. But, in the end, this attorney has no special right to define "fair" for anybody but herself.

Click link and go to item 10 on the linked page:

10.  http://www.ivkdlaw.com/the-firm/our-articles/prenuptial-agreements-and-lawyering/ten-things-i-hate-about-prenuptial-agreements/

Inasmuch as the law includes the ability to modify the default marriage contract in accordance with needs of the parties involved, to say that there is a "disregard of the law" is absurd. The law is certainly used to modify the default contract to fit the needs of the people involved, but this is hardly "disregarding" the law. That is nonsense. The attorney's ludicrous assertion of "fair distribution" is belied by the fact that "fair distribution" can be orders of magnitude different depending on the locale where the divorce occurs.


I am done responding to this attorney's 10 reasons, but one should understand one more point about family law.

To appreciate fully just how insidiously evil family law can be, note that even when men do not sign any marriage contract, attorneys try to separate the men from their money (it would be called grand larceny except for the fact that is "done legally") by asserting that some relationship is "marriage-like." Check out "palimony." The most evil family law that I know of is the 2013 British Columbia law that simply changed the definition of "spouse" so that a woman could plunder a man even if he explicitly and publically refused to marry her.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/common-law-couples-as-good-as-married-in-b-c-1.1413551

http://smolyhokes.blogspot.com/2015/11/no-means-no-except-when-man-says-no.html

Life in Los Alamos: Nuclear Missiles and Toasters

In the days at Los Alamos National Laboratory before we had voice mail or answering machines, office partners would routinely answer each other's phones and take messages. (For instance, see  stupid secretary.) I often knew roughly what my office partner (Jane Doe) was working on and this knowledge helped in taking a message with sufficient context. Occasionally, Jane was working on a new project that I was not yet aware of.

One day a man from General Electric Corporation called on Jane's phone. I knew that  Jane was either doing calculations for General Electric or perhaps advising General Electric about how to set up calculations for some aspect of the Navy's ballistic nuclear missile submarines. To ensure that this was not a new project and to provide context for the message, I asked "Does this concern the Navy's nuclear missile submarines?" There were perhaps two or three seconds before the man responded.  (I thought maybe there was a problem with the phone call on my end or his end.) At long last, the man sheepishly said with some hesitation and uncertainty in his voice "She called about her General Electric toaster?"

My Lingerie Calendar Interactions at the University of California

Circa 1992 my first wife and I were Christmas shopping at a mall in Newark, California. Why we had to celebrate Christmas, especially the purchase of gifts, stretches my comprehension a bit as neither of us were religious at all. I don't like shopping very much, but I tolerate shopping when I need to buy something specific that I have in mind. Christmas shopping is particularly unpleasant because it is very crowded and noisy and one needs to buy something thoughtful; because it is the thought that counts (they say).

Despite telling my wife numerous times that I didn't want anything, she kept asking and I could see that I was not escaping the mall until she bought me a gift. When she asked yet again we happened to be walking past a Frederick's of Hollywood lingerie shop that was uncrowded enough that I could see a sign by the cashier advertising lingerie calendars at a small fraction of the original price. I seized the opportunity and told my wife that I would like a calendar. So, for one dollar and less than a minute wait at the cashier, I made my escape! I felt very clever indeed.  Anyway, I actually did need a calendar and, as a bonus, there were some fetching photos on the calendar.

Although a Los Alamos employee, I had a guest office at the University of California (Berkeley) in the Nuclear Engineering Department. I posted the calendar above my desk and all was well for about two weeks. One day I arrived and saw the department secretary (who had access to my office for administrative reasons) staring at the calendar. As a matter of courtesy and consideration, I asked if the calendar bothered her. She said no, she just liked to look at the lingerie. Had the calendar bothered her, I would have removed the calendar as a matter of personal courtesy. There are a lot of things that I would do out of personal courtesy for women, or men, for that matter.

Perhaps two months later, a female student asked to talk with me. She indicated that seeing the calendar bothered her. Attempting to be courteous and reasonable, I asked if it would be okay to move the calendar to another wall inside the office that was not visible from the hallway where she walked. She indicated that moving the calendar would be okay. I moved the calendar, but the first time the phone rang, I realized I needed the calendar close to the phone as before. So, I moved the calendar to its original location and covered the photo with a blank sheet of paper, leaving the calendar part usable.

The next week when I saw her pass my doorway, I asked if I could talk with her. I pointed out that:

1. The calendar was a gift from my wife.
2. I had to be in the office roughly 8 hours a day.
3. The calendar made my work space more pleasant.
4. She seemed to pass by my office perhaps twice a week (she accepted that frequency)
5. She knew the calendar was in my office, could she just not look into my office for the half second it took to pass my doorway?

She rejected my suggestion that she could simply not look into my office and allow me a pleasant work space. She explained that my calendar was somehow responsible for nearly every problem in society and seeing it made her uncomfortable. (The explanations seemed ludicrous to me, especially the claim that my calendar was somehow responsible for slavery?) Despite her intolerance, I was a guest in the department and did not want to make an issue the department would have to deal with. So, I decided to ensure that she did not have to be "uncomfortable." I kept the photo part of the calendar covered, though I was not comfortable kowtowing to her intolerance. Courtesy and consideration were part of my family upbringing; kowtowing to self-important and self-appointed tyrants exceeding their authority was not.

It occurred to me after about a week that covering the entire photo was not a good solution to the problem. Instead, I used "post-it" notes to cover what I presumed to be the objectionable parts of the women in the photographs. The post it notes looked a bit like an exceptionally modest bikini. When the student did not complain about my "bikini" solution, I was relieved. Problem solved. Confrontation avoided.

Although the post-it notes had been a good idea, it occurred to me after another week that the post-it notes could be used in an even better manner. I took the post-it notes and folded them 90 degrees at the glue border so that the glued portion stuck to the calendar and the remainder of the post it notes protruded outward at 90 degrees from the calendar's plane. The view from the hallway was now blocked by the protruding post-it notes, but the post-it notes were no longer obscuring my view of the calendar. Again, no complaints from the student. An all around great solution: She did not have to view the calendar and I could view the calendar!

One unforeseen side-effect was that a number of people would pass by my office, do a double-take on the protruding post-it notes, and ask to see what I had blocked from hallway view. I was happy to oblige.

The Sky is Falling ...

My parents told me that from a very early age they had suspicions that I might be inclined toward science.

The evidence they gave was that when I was a toddler playing in the front yard  of our northern California house, they witnessed something both amusing and telling. As typical for California summers, it had not rained from late May to the middle of October. I was playing in the front yard and they observed my astonishment and concern when water started falling out of the sky  (It was a very light rain and my parents made no motion toward the house.) Instead, they observed my reaction to the rain. After an initial moment of shock, I toddled into the back yard and then into the house and informed my older siblings with some trepidation that "water was falling from the sky all over." 

My parents were amused that, despite my obvious concern, before I went into the house I checked the locality of the phenomenon and discovered that it was occurring all over the known world. From this they concluded that my curiosity exceeded my fear and my curiosity might incline me toward science. (They reported that when  my older sister told me that "it was just rain," I was no longer terrified.)