Welcome to the second episode of Patterns and Stories. Joining us today is Ben Nelson, the founder of Minerva University, an independent, non-profit educational institution whose classes are conducted as seminars capped at 19 students, who travel to and live together in residential housing in a new country each semester, starting their education in San Francisco, and then living in Seoul, Taipei, Hyderabad, Buenos Aires, Tokyo, Berlin, and then ending their program in San Francisco. Ben founded Minerva in 2012, and before that, he was the CEO of Snapfish. We will discuss the assumptions of traditional higher education that Minerva challenged.
We are your hosts, Luca Dellanna and Ismail Manik.
The AI-generated transcript was lightly edited for grammar and fluency.
Highlights:
By the end of summer, after their last year in high school, a typical high school student has forgotten 60 % of what they've learned in three months. It is an outrageous, colossal failure.
In order to know something, you have to actually have space and deliberate practice in applying it. [But what the education system is doing is] the equivalent of trying to teach somebody the violin by letting them listen to the music. Even getting a piano and saying, okay, you know, press this key, press that key, press this key, and now you're done. Now you know how to be, now you're a pianist. And it's kind of absurd. Acquiring knowledge is not the same as the ability to use or deploy that knowledge.
What cannot be replaced by an AI is the learner. Sure, you can easily make the argument that says you can train an AI to deliver content. [...] But what you cannot do is have an AI rewire somebody's neurons, so they learn something they didn't know before. [...] In fact, in an age of AI, when so many of the standard elements are done by the machine, the imperative to know becomes even greater.
If you don't understand the core principles, you're vastly slower. You need more human resources, more brute force. And you can still be beaten by somebody with vastly fewer resources who understands the core down to first principles.
So, how does AI actually improve learning? Well, first and foremost, by enhancing the teacher's capability.
We're finally admitting that there is a deep rot at the core of secondary and post-secondary education, and that the only way to address it isn't with incremental tools for the teachers and professors that are stuck in the system, [but] by ensuring that we are providing an ability to reform the system and therefore uplift teachers, professors, and university and high school administrators to actually reform. And that's the core of what we're trying to do at Minerva.
Full transcript:
Ismail (00:00)
Today, we have Ben Nelson, founder of Minerva University, as our second guest on the podcast, Patterns and Stories. Welcome, Ben, to the podcast.
I was just going through the book about innovative universities, and there is a chapter dedicated to Minerva, which mentions the pitch you made to Larry Summers. Maybe you could just recount a little bit from that story, where you are, and how Minerva moved and developed.
Ben Nelson (00:41)
Sure, happy to. For those of you who may not know, Minerva was built as a prototype university – a university that demonstrates to the rest of the world what is possible when you reimagine learning and center it on wisdom or systems thinking, as opposed to this kind of cram for the test, teach the test, pass the test, then everything that was the model traditional universities employ. The premise was to generate the best university in the world, with the best student outcomes, better than Harvard, Stanford, Oxford, and Cambridge, but do it from scratch.
And I think today, certainly since we've done it and proved that it's possible, and in general, because the collapse in faith in higher education has happened all over the world, today, it doesn't seem like such a crazy idea. Fifteen years ago, it was an absolutely crazy idea. Nobody believed me. People thought I was out of my mind, by and large. And I knew that I needed real, what was known as social proof, right? The ability to demonstrate that it's not just me, that serious individuals would back the idea, back the concept.
And there really was no one more prominent in the world of global higher education than Larry Summers, former president of Harvard, former treasury secretary of the United States, a polymath, and brilliant economist. And I did have the opportunity to finally meet him after more than a year of thinking about this idea, being told by almost everybody I met that I was completely crazy.
When I met Larry, we had half an hour, and he came in 15 minutes late to the meeting. It was all rushed, but he stayed for two hours, and he finished my sentences. He immediately understood what Minerva was gonna be about. And by the end of the meeting, he said, “Look, this is a great idea that should happen. I'd love to be the chair of your advisory board.” But I didn't have an advisory board. It was just an idea. But it was thanks to that that I could form the advisory board with Larry as the chair. I went out and successfully raised the capital that was necessary to start the university. As one says, the rest is history.
Luca Dellanna (03:02)
I've seen from some of the other podcasts that you said some interesting things about the pedagogical approach. I think I've heard that, for example, you don't have 101 courses where you teach the basics, because there is an assumption that students can use technology to find it. What are other ways in which you challenged the assumptions of traditional education?
Ben Nelson (03:32)
Yeah, you know, there are these two core fallacies that exist in the world of higher education. And the first fallacy is that exposure to knowledge equals the acquisition of knowledge. We're perfectly happy saying, hey, here's biology 101, the textbook is this thick, read the entire thing over 15 weeks, we'll administer a final exam, maybe a midterm. You cram that information in your head, you're able to retain it just enough to pass the exam, and now you know it. Well, you don't know it, right? We all know that we all took biology in high school, chemistry, and physics. Almost anybody listening to this podcast who then didn't go on to further study in those fields couldn't pass a high school biology test today. And that's because we simply don't retain information that way, right?
In order to know something, you have to actually have space and deliberate practice in applying it. [But what we are doing is the] equivalent of trying to teach somebody the violin by letting them listen to the music. Even getting a piano and saying, okay, you know, press this key, press that key, press this key, and now you're done. Now you know how to be, now you're a pianist. And it's kind of absurd. And so that's kind of a fallacy number one.
There's a second and even more dangerous fallacy about education, which is that knowledge and acquiring bits of knowledge are equivalent to a true education or real learning, authentic learning. That's also a fallacy because acquiring knowledge is not the same as the ability to use or deploy that knowledge, right?
You know intellectually the difference between correlation and causation. You can study the concept, you can remember it, and you can apply it a few times. It's not a very difficult concept to know. It's really difficult to go around life and encounter all of these correlated events and understand that they may or may not be causal. That's a very hard thing for human beings to actually practice. They see things that wind up being correlated and assume one causes the other. Not necessarily the case. Could be underlying conditions that cause both. It could be unrelated, but just coincidental. It could be that what you actually think is the cause is the effect and not the cause, et cetera. And so there are all sorts of these types of things where you can quote-unquote know something, but you don't know when to deploy it.
And that's again, if you want to use the piano example, you could learn to play chopsticks on the piano, very different than being able to do jazz and classical music, very different being able to do rock and roll, very different than being able to do a slow emotional piece versus one that is very fast and technical, one that requires a certain level of humor versus a certain level of seriousness, not to mention as the keyboard itself switches, You know, acoustic versus electronic, having various manufacturers, different timbre, and how to manage that sound. So there's a recontextualization, even in piano playing.
Whereas if you think about it, you know, life and the infinite possibilities of applying the various tools that you learn, the imperative to learn knowledge in an applicable way that is applicable to what we refer to in psychology as far transfer and transferable way is really at the heart of what a real education is. And the Minerva model fixes the pedagogical problems that keep individuals from actually acquiring the knowledge that they're exposed to. So it ensures that people actually retain what it is that they learn by and large. Can't retain everything, but a large quantity. They are then able to apply that knowledge, no matter what context they are presented with. Basically, they're learning in a transferable way.
Those two areas are perhaps the biggest ways in which we have challenged the orthodoxy of what education is all about.
Ismail (08:14)
One thing unique [about Minerva] is that there is no comparable kind of institution like that. So the students in Minerva, for the degree programme, study in seven cities. What has been the experience, and how did you manage during COVID? What are the lessons that can be learned from this approach to living in cities, and what is the lesson of it, or what can you learn from it for traditional universities or traditional education institutions?
Ben Nelson (08:45)
One of the components that you mentioned is the concept of moving from culture to culture. One of the abilities of flexibly applying what you learn is to change context. Minerva courses, though they're done on the web, much like we are now talking via live video, have developed their proprietary platform called Forum, which is indeed managed on the web. And that platform is able to engage with the learner and the professor in unique ways. It also gives a lot of flexibility as to where the students are. When you can take your class from anywhere, it doesn't mean that you have to be stationary for your entire degree.
And so we created this, or I created this rotation model, where students go from country to country every semester. And they have this ability through location-based assignments to take what it is that you learn in the formal classroom and not just apply it to the real world, but apply it in these radically different real-world contexts. And that's a part of their education. And that's quite important. Now we know, because they spend their first year in San Francisco, that it is the systems thinking, the foundation that they learn in that first year, which is the biggest delta in their learning. Global rotation is useful, but it is certainly not necessary for human development. It improves; you can do a large bulk of the knowledge acquisition while staying stationary. But you must find other ways of recontextualization. And indeed, in Minerva University, we are not only recontextualized by travel, but we are also recontextualized by giving the same assessments and the same pieces of knowledge as you go from subject to subject, right? So in a history class versus computer science class, when you produce work versus when you critique somebody else's work, when you think spontaneously versus when you have time to deliberate and think, and so forth and so on.
And so during COVID, where we were constrained to four cities for two years as opposed to seven, the students traveled a little bit less, but they had different dimensions of transfer in the other components. And so their education was never compromised. And they were able to, during those two-year spans, generally to visit three to four cities, which they would have done anyway. And so it just meant that after COVID, we had to put on the cities that we didn't go to during COVID for a year, and the students kind of caught up. Not everybody was able to catch up with all seven cities, obviously, but certainly the vast majority were visiting at least five. And that's what really mattered.
Luca Dellanna (11:46)
Thank you. Since you mentioned that you have this platform, Forum, I've heard that one of the things you do is that you also use it to see how the students engage with the courses. How do you use that information to maybe adapt the way the teacher acts?
Ben Nelson (12:06)
In general, any good technology, of which there are shockingly few, thinks about what the things are that a human being should be able to do in the ideal. Then, they build technologies that enable that ideal. So you can imagine, hey, if I'm running a seminar, I'm trying to teach 12, 15, 18 kids or adults, depending on if you're doing it in high school, if you're doing it in university, if you're doing it in continuing education. What do I want to be able to do as a teacher in science fiction? Forget reality. Again, remember this is 15 years ago when I was initially sketching out the plans for Minerva. And so one of the core things that you want to make sure of is that every single student is engaged at all times. Right? So rather than saying, Oh, let me ask a question of one student at random, and I hope that the other students have done their preparation, or they know the answer. What if you could actually ask all students at the same time? Well, that's actually a relatively easy process. You just ask them to type their response as opposed to saying it. Then, submit, and you can see everybody's thinking. Then, you can call on somebody. You can say, well, if we're having a conversation, having a debate, having a rapid-fire set of questions, how do I ensure that all of the students are actually participating? You can say, well, I guess there's a sound stream. Maybe I can measure the number of seconds that any given person is talking.
You can build a technology that would do that, right? And so forth and so on, right? And so what you do is you wind up tooling the digital learning environment to give the professor, if you will, bionic powers, the ability to really understand and look into what everybody is doing. And that is the real value of what we've put together. So, that, to me, is how you build great technology, right? That you don't say, here's a piece of technology. What do I do with it? You say, no, no, no. What is the future state that I want to get to? And then, how do I build technologies to allow us to get to that state? And that's why for since forum debuted 12 years ago, it continues to be the most sophisticated digital learning environment in the world, because it was designed with purpose in mind, as opposed to saying, we have this tool, let's use it in education, right, which is which is where so much of the rest of education technology is has evolved from.
Ismail (14:55)
One thing, so I was talking to a colleague who is a tutor, he teaches year 12 A-level students, and he was saying that this year he has seen an increase in demand for tutoring. He was saying that one parent told him that the student, his son, uses AI, and he doesn't trust AI. So he thinks that because of AI, his demand has increased. However, AI is present everywhere now. And what do you think AI's role should be in education, in higher education, in secondary education, and teaching?
Ben Nelson (15:38)
You know, in a recent conference, I was asked just a couple of days ago on a panel, I was asked exactly that question. It was to react to a Bill Gates quote that in 10 years, teachers and doctors may be and will likely be fully replaced by AI. And what are the implications of that?
There are all sorts of societal implications. If that occurs, who knows if that'll occur in five years, 10 years, 15 years, or never? I don't try to predict the future. However, what can't be replaced by an AI is the learner.
Sure, you can easily make the argument that says you can train an AI to deliver content. You can train the AI to give feedback on how the learner is using the content. You can train the AI to provide emotional support, to read the room, to be able to tailor a new learning experience based on what the student is saying, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. What you cannot do is have an AI rewire somebody's neurons, so they learn something they didn't know before. So they're able to transfer it to new contexts, so they'll be able to apply it correctly, so they will be able to think about it optimally. In fact, in an age of AI, when so many of the standard elements are done by the machine, the imperative to know becomes even greater.
I'll give you an important anecdote. My father, who is a very prominent scientist, a molecular biologist, and a structural biologist, he's in his late 80s and has still published about a dozen papers since COVID. He is extraordinarily active and has been able to, with an extraordinarily limited budget, with one technician, one postdoc or one doctoral student, one master's student and then at a given time beat labs on the same research endeavor that have a fleet, 20 post-docs, know, dozens of student assistants, technicians, et cetera, from the best labs in the world. Why? When my father was learning science, science was vastly more integrated. You didn't know that the field of molecular biology barely existed. And so he understood biology from its very core bases. He really understood why the principles and laws of nature, principles of physics, affected biology. He also mixed his own chemicals. He didn't use kits. There were no kits to use. And so he ran experiments from first principles, constructing them from the base level on up. Now, one oftentimes assumes that automation makes people more productive. But that's not true when it comes to knowledge. Right? It's true that if the kit existed for the particular experiments that my father was doing, right? Then yeah, it would be faster than mixing the chemicals themselves. But the reality is that you have no idea which could be used for what experiment. And if you don't understand the core principles, you're vastly slower. You need more human resources, more brute force. And it's still, you still can be beaten by somebody with vastly fewer resources who understands the core down to first principles. That is a microcosm of what we are in education, or what we're seeing in education today in any field. You can say, Hey, I have an AI, and why do I need to analyze something when the AI can analyze it for me? And that's lovely when there is a correct answer, one correct answer. It's problematic when there are several potential correct answers, when you require judgment, when you don't really know if what the AI produces makes sense or doesn't make sense, or when you have to discern. Right? And so, the imperative to have that artisanal handcrafted ability married with the intuitions that enable you to do so at a speed that is faster than brute force is becoming more and more critical. It's actually one of the reasons why by many measures, the rate of scientific advancement has slowed down over the past couple of decades, especially when you look at practical outcomes, you know, they look at the number of blockbuster drugs that come to market in any given year compared to where they were 40 years ago. It's a remarkable slowdown. And that's an important thing to understand, to understand what it is that is possible around the world of AI. So, how does AI actually improve learning? Well, it does improve learning by first and foremost enhancing the teacher's capability. Again, maybe down the road, you won't even need the teacher. I remain somewhat skeptical about that, but you never know. And again, I don't want to rule anything in or out looking at the future. But for the learner, right, AI must be a tool that, of course, they need to use, of course it's there, must be incorporated into their lessons, but it's gotta be a tool to be used to train the student more rigorously as opposed to less rigorously. That's the orientation that will mark a great use of AI versus a poor use of AI.
Luca Dellanna (22:07)
Thank you. I love that because I also think that since AI can streamline some parts of the task, it can leave more space to train the judgment. One question I wanted to ask is, you started Minerva with some ideas about what you wanted to change, what the new approach would be, and so on. But what are some new things you discovered that you didn't think of at the beginning, and then as you went on, you discovered?
Ben Nelson (22:36)
Yeah. One of the things that may sound silly for me not to have thought of ahead of time was, you know, universities are administratively and cost-wise extraordinarily bloated institutions. They spend money on all sorts of ridiculous things in all sorts of ridiculous ways. In fact, one of the reasons you see relatively low public outcry about the admittedly terrible things that are happening to American universities today is that people broadly know that universities are doing a lot of bad things. They may not agree with the tactics that the current government is pursuing. I certainly do not. However, it is hard to defend the practices of the institutions; by and large, they do require vast reforms. And one of those reforms was just being cost-efficient. And indeed, when you look at it, you know I built Minerva initially, and we were able to be a much more streamlined and cost-effective university. Having said that, the price of a hands-on personalized education, especially when you live together, is just the cost of being alive, which is really substantial. And this idea of learning in a physical community, when you are not from that community, meaning when you don't have a home to go to, is a prohibitively expensive endeavor. And, and I was, you know, I think living in the United States living in San Francisco, and say, oh look at all the money that i've seen students take a degree that at the time costed a quarter of a million dollars, they don't know I can chop that in more than half, and look at how much money i'm saving, that's amazing… What I didn't realize is that, whether or not you're spending a hundred thousand or 120,000 versus $240,000 a year, or for the degree, for 98%, 97 % of the human population, you might as well tell them they'll be paying you a hundred million dollars. These are both astronomical numbers that have no bearing on the reality of their circumstance.
And so, I think the thing that I really dramatically underappreciated was how challenging, and this is why, you know, Minerva University over the years, I've had to raise so much money to allow anybody that had the merit to be accepted into Minerva University to be able to afford and participate, simply because the costs of living together in a planet community in some of the world's greatest cities was just too high in order to be able to make it effective for the students. And so that to me is still one of those unsolved dilemmas. How do you provide the richness of an in-person learning experience to a diverse student body, to a student body that doesn't all come from the same city or doesn't all come from the same location, how can you crack that problem and ensure that students can experience the world in its richness, experience their colleagues in their varied backgrounds, while not making it cost prohibitive and therefore limiting the number of people to benefit from it?
Ismail (26:10)
Minerva University offers a degree program. As you have progressed, you have now developed this downstream of higher secondary education. What has been the reason for that, and what do you think is the value added from the baccalaureate or the diploma program that you have?
Ben Nelson (26:31)
Yeah, so we built a high school program specifically to address some of these earlier issues that we just talked about regarding access. At the university level, one could make the argument that the ideal experience is certainly to leave home, to be in residence, to live together with students, despite the fact that the majority of students around the world don't leave home for university. They actually commute to their university. And so it's certainly not a given that that is the case. High school, on the other hand, is very much flipped. A tiny fraction of learners leave their homes to go to high school or boarding school. The vast majority of high school students around the world, and we're talking about well into the 90s, live at home and then commute to school. So, the idea of bringing systems thinking to that audience can be done at a fraction of the cost. Whereas a university degree that has a residential component that is, robust, et cetera, is very hard to deliver for under a hundred thousand dollars a year, to deliver, to transform a high school education, much of which is paid for by the taxpayer by government sector, not suggesting that there's no underlying cost to it, but to transform it into a Minerva quality systems thinking education costs less than $1,000 a year per student. That's a 99 percent differential in cost. And so it's extraordinarily compelling to be able to bring that quality of an education to that many potential students at a much lower cost.
We've developed the Minerva Baccalaureate over the past few years. And just this past year, in 2024, I created a company to spin out of the Maneuver project that will focus on propagating it beyond the pilot program we did in Korea over the past three years, four years now. And now we're bringing the Minerva Baccalaureate to other countries. So we have several schools in Korea that use it. We have a presence in Kazakhstan and Taipei. We're having conversations with schools in half a dozen other countries. And we expect over the coming five to 10 years to really have the Minerva Baccalaureate be a pervasive model of high school education.
Ismail (29:06)
Can you expand a little bit on how different it is compared to the IB program or the Cambridge A-level?
Ben Nelson (29:16)
Sure. So, high school programs of any certifiable size, the International Baccalaureate, the Cambridge A-levels, the American Advanced Placement exam, you could put two or three of those out of business, and the world wouldn't notice at all because there's no difference between them whatsoever. You study a subject matter. At the end of some period of study, you sit for a centrally administered test for which you cram and you pass the test, and get a certain grade. And you proceed to forget everything you took on the test. That is not an education. These are anti-educational systems that the vast majority of humanity goes through. And again, we all know this. We all know that when we think back to our high school education, and it's not when we're as old as maybe the three of us are, but people in their twenties cannot remember what it is that they learned in high school. By the end of summer, after their last year in high school, a typical high school student has forgotten 60 % of what they've learned in three months. It is an outrageous, colossal failure. And it's documented to be a colossal failure. And yet these quote-unquote nonprofits generate hundreds of millions of dollars of profit, yet they don't pay taxes in any of their jurisdictions. And they are continuously dismantling the ability for us to educate our students in our schooling environments.
The Minerva Baccalaureate is the antithesis to that model. The Minerva Baccalaureate uses the concept of measuring the breadth of application of knowledge as the indicator of true learning. So for the first time, your assessment regimen is connected with what you're actually able to do consistently and across context with what it is that you've learned. What that means is that it is not based on summative tests. It is based on continuous feedback year after year on the same pieces of knowledge, the same cognitive tools that you then apply to different subject matter, to your math studies, to your science studies, to your language art studies, to your history and social studies studies, to your personal growth, to your academic work, to your project work to the work that you create yourself, to the work that you evaluate that others have created, to work that, or to assessments around how you think on your feet, versus assessments to how you think when you've got some real time to put something together, to evaluate when you're asked to apply something versus when you're not asked what expected to. And the Minerva Baccalaureate provides a true index, a true view of the student by having multiple individuals, and now even AI-generated assessments, all contribute to developing a profile of the learner over multiple years. And so it is a radical shift in the assessment, a radical shift in outcomes, which necessitates a curricular reform, which also necessitates a pedagogical reform to ensure that the students are actually learning. And so, the outcomes of the Minerva Baccalaureate provide by far the finest high school education in the world. That's what we are now taking to learners all over the planet.
Ismail (32:46)
Then you worked with a lot of new universities that are coming up, especially in emerging countries. What trends do you see emerging globally that excite you? Where do you see the trends? Is there any difference between, say, emerging countries, the Gulf, Latin America, or even Europe?
What do you see as the trends? Is this change happening, or how do you see the vibe? Is the vibe changing, kind of?
Ben Nelson (33:17)
It's an excellent question. The reality is that we have all known individually that the emperor has had no clothes for decades. No one is under the illusion that what they do day to day, their job, their efficacy, they learned in university or high school. We all know that those are certifications that we needed because they were some kind of signal. Sure, you know, we may have learned bits of information. Sure, we had a great time. We made friends. Sure, we had opportunities for internships. We did some interesting research. Maybe we built some great things and gave ourselves some training. But by and large, we know that the classes that we took could have been achieved by watching the videotape, right? And we wouldn't have been worse off, or significantly worse off. And so the difference is that finally, certainly after decades of this having occurred, certainly after 15 years of us shouting at the top of rooftops all over the world that he emperor has no clothes. We're finally talking about it out loud. We're finally admitting that there is a deep rot at the core of secondary and post-secondary education, and that the only way to address it isn't by incremental tools for the teachers and professors that are stuck in the system, right, that can't traverse the problems, the institutional problems that the system has, and not by admonishing the administrators that are similarly incapable of fixing what is the large systematic problem. It is by ensuring that we are providing an ability to reform the system and therefore uplift teachers, professors, and university and high school administrators to actually reform. And that's the core of what we're trying to do at Minerva.
Luca Dellanna (35:15)
I wanted to ask one last question: How do you uplift teachers at scale? What do you see as the path forward to do that, at the scale of a nation, for example?
Ben Nelson (35:28)
Yeah. In some ways, national-level reforms are the easiest. You know, again, you can imagine somebody going back to 18th-century France and going to the court of Louis and saying, Look, you believe that draining bad humors is the way to cure diseases. Here's the evidence. It's a sugar pill, right? It's a placebo. Sure, it works for some people, but so would giving them a sugar pill. And here is this thing called an antibiotic, right?
And in most cases, the antibiotic will be three times more effective at curing a bacterial infection than this placebo is in the court of, of, of the Kings of France, that would, even if you were to convince the court, you know, the, the, process of bloodletting would have been extinct pretty quickly. In fact, when penicillin and antibiotics were discovered, their rollout was very fast. When vaccinations were discovered, they were very quickly widespread. We know what works in education; there is no mystery as to what works in education, and because of that, governments would incorporate authentic assessments, right? They could easily scale that to every school and university in their country. The Minerva Baccalaureate, for example, is ready and willing to have any government in the world adopt it or a version of it that we can work with them on, takes the boldness to say that the emperor has no clothes out loud, and then to do something about it.
Ismail (37:27)
And one final question on my side, we asked our guests on the podcast about this recommendation on books to understand the education issue. We certainly recommend your book. You wrote it with Kosslyn on building the intentional university and the new global universities, which have a chapter devoted to Minerva. Do you have any recommendations on trying to understand?
Ben Nelson (37:59)
You certainly took the two recommendations that I would have. If you really want to understand not only what we did to build the nervous system but also how new universities are created in general, I would highly recommend picking up those two books.
Luca Dellanna (38:14)
Thank you so much, Ben. It's been incredibly instructive, and I really believe, not just in Minerva, that there is a big need for reform. It's such an opportunity cost and waste right now, and we could, I don't know if people see how much better the world could be if we took education more seriously. So, thank you very much. It was really great. Thank you for giving us your precious time.
Ben Nelson (38:45)
Thank you for having me.
Share this post