Rating: 
Summary: Coyote Ugly
Review: I found many interesting ideas in THE TWO-INCOME TRAP written by the mother-daughter team of Elizabeth Warren & Amelia Warren Tyagi. The elder Warren is the Leo Gottlieb Professor of Law at Harvard Law School. Her daughter worked as a consultant with McKinsey & Co.They present an observation of the financial condition of middle-class families in the USA where both parents are employed outside of the home that many may find counterintuitive. The TWO-INCOME TRAP, as the term is coined by the authors, is the condition in which _Mothers now work two jobs, at home and at the office. And yet they have less cash on hand. Mom's paycheck has been pumped directly into the basic costs off keeping the children in the middle class_ . (p8) Now, these hard working, thrifty families find that they must forfeit decent public schools and preschools, health insurance, and college degrees [for their children] if Mom stays at home. How can this be? Wasn't Mom's new job supposed to bring in more money? Provide a safety net in times of trouble? Put the family in a better neighbourhood? Send the children to safer schools and better institutions of higher learning? This may have been the well-intentioned objective, however, the authors provide bountiful statitistics that tell a different story. _After an average two-income family [in 2000] makes its house payments, car payments, insurance payments and child care payments, they have less money left over, even though they have a second, full-time earner in the workplace_ compared with the average middle-class, single-income family of 1973 (p50). The Warrens are both professionals in presumably two-income families who add their own experiences to the data that identify the sources of this surprising situation. First, they argue strongly against the _Over-Consumption Myth_. Then, they enumerate more likely culprits, including, deteriorating public schools, a limited supply of homes in _good_ neighbourhoods that encourages a bidding war, and universities that have very little incentive to control their costs. Surprisingly, one of the culprits identified by the Warrens, even though they are both recipients of its benefits, is the Feminist Movement that encouraged equal employment opportunities for women. Despite the statement that _this book is dedicated to all parents_, there is precious little offered that a parent could use to improve their current situation. The TWO-INCOME TRAP has been sprung and only government policies can release it according to the Warrens. To each problem, a long-range policy change is recommended: Deteriorating Public School systems are solved through a voucher program that allows parents to choose from all the public schools in their area irregardless of postal code. Shortages of pre-school programs are solved by publicly funded, universal preschool, if and only if, the authors demand, the package includes improvements to public education from kindergarten that continue through high school. Otherwise, _day-care subsidies offer no help for families with a stay-at-home mother..because they would create yet another comparative disadvantage for single-income families trrying to compete in the marketplace_. Finally, the rising cost of a college education can be solved by simply mandating that all state colleges will not be allowed to raise tuitions. There are many who quite rightly bemoan the short-sighted interests of business and politics in our society. To their credit, the Warrens are presenting a long-term view and presenting far-reaching policy changes. The authors are suggesting that policy makers accept this opportunity to look beyond the next opinion poll. Regretably, the solutions offered are not supported with the same level of research as the problems to which they are addressed. The merits of the solutions appear to be enough for the Warrens to insist that federal and state governments should risk the status quo to implement. Naively, the role of campaign financiers is completely ignored. Absent are examples of communities that have succeeded with school vouchers, for example. With models of successful programs, politicians and business leaders have a plan to follow rather than simply empty promises to do the right thing. On the positive side, reading about the policies proposed in this book did influence me to contact my elected officials. Who knows? It might make a difference.
PEACE
Rating: 
Summary: Trap? More like a bit of Illusion
Review: Although the authors can bring out a few good points (like what to watch for when buying a mortgage), I think they focus too much on "victimization" of the consumer/worker and not enough on personal responsibility. There is no trap here. It's people buying into some idea that they HAVE TO live near a good school district, or have all that entertainment, or buy name brands - yes, I said it. People get buffaloed into thinking if it costs more, it must be better. Frankly, if something costs too much, I'm afraid if could break (and they all do folks), it can't be replaced so easily so I won't use it or enjoy it. Everything is made cheaply so nothing lasts like it used to. I still own things from the 80's that work better than the new ones. As for school vouchers....from my experience, all public schooling stinks, so what's the rush to buy into a mortgage you can't live with in a neighborhood for the schools? Vouchers? Let's watch more government regulation with that one. Hey, there's always homeschooling. And the best part is that you don't have to buy name brand clothes for your kids, no lunches at a higher cost, no rushing in traffic, less gas and wear and tear on your car, and free help with the chores, AND they kids get a private education. What we need are tax breaks for those people. Do we have to go to preschool and end up at an Ivy league school to become educated? What happened to FREE library access? Or clepping out of college courses, or going to the local Junior college for the first 2 years. Why are the authors blaming the problem on credit companies, interest rates, and regulations? Know your income and what you can afford, say NO and hang up the phone. Do the numbers for yourself. Watch how the market goes up and down. Grab that mortgage when the rates are down and don't get in over your head....simply common sense.
I had a real problem with some of the numbers these authors came up with. For instance she said that the middle class wasn't getting name brand items, yet the sales are up, malls are crowded and thriving, and I see kids walking around in name brand items - a lot! Friends I know are buying new furniture on credit when waiting for the savings will do them better, or when buying at 0% interest for one year and plan it out will do better? Or how the people I know who took out a 3rd mortgage on their home for the equity to "consolidate" credit cards? They would have been better off not shopping for clothes they can't fit in any closets anymore, or buying the 4 TVs, 5 VCR's, 2 PS2's, gameboys and a host of other "high quality" high dollar items, and plunking that money into their debts above the minimum payments. They knew the strategy, but wanted the stuff. I also see too many people in the 2 income bracket buying new cars, when a year old lease for sale could serve just as well for $10K less. People DO spend much more on entertainment today than we used to. Why not? There IS more. The sad part is people feel they won't be happy, or are "deprived" unless they have the toys, when taking walks, playing games, inviting over friends, etc. would do just as well. The authors' stance on how 2 income families aren't spending much on groceries compared to the 70's is weak. Of course not! They aren't cooking and opting to spend it at fast food or restaurants. Why would they NEED to buy more at the grocery store? The food cost alone could be cut in half with less "treats" and more quick home cooking (and less incident of food poisoning or doctor visits). The authors also make a statement to the effect that home entertainment for the average family with cable is a mere $170 a year. Have they looked into cable for entertainment lately? Most people I know who get cable buy the minimum package at $50-$70 a month! (not including taxes) That's at least $600/yr. Don't forget the DVD's they have to buy. I doubt that most people are using just basic cable to get channels and forgoing all entertainment to keep their costs under $200 a year. (Get me the name of that cable company. I want to see this for myself!) Of course people are filing for bankruptcy. They don't have the money. It's called a wake-up call to reality and basic math. But I do agree not everyone falls into this category, SOME have had truly unfortunate experiences. Likewise, I would think people would go to a consumer credit counseling service before hitting the costly bankruptcy courts, which offers similar benefits as bankruptcy and yet keeps your credit intact (at a fraction of the cost). Additionally, we all know that divorce causes financial disaster for most of us, not just the mom, but many times the dad as well. If people could get past the "no fault" divorce of "he said/she said" and work it out, they could fare better financially. But everyone's a victim and it's someone else's fault. They want a government to change the rules so they can play better because they don't know how to dive inside and make the best of it, or come up with a different idea...for anything. The authors do point out the thinking of 2 income families. 2 incomes means more money, a house, more stuff, etc. (and less time building relationships to avert the stress factor - my input). No one made them do it. It was a free choice. Creditors are simply opportunists for those that don't want to think for themselves. I agree with the authors on this: The cost of things has certainly gone up, and income hasn't kept up with inflation. If creditors can find a loop-hole for keeping up rates and prices, they will. But likewise, I can move around them and find my own loopholes to keep them out of my pocketbook. It's not a privalege to qualify for a loan. It's a privaledge to have my freedom and my responsibility from someone else's regulations and obligations. This book looked more like propaganda for more government regulations and less responsibility for those who make the choices. I think I'll go read "Affluenza".
Rating:
Summary: Trapped out of $18.20
Review: This book would be educational for a couple just starting out. Read it before the mortgage, the two SUVs, the kids... the voucher concept is intriguing, but the authors discount the benefits of private/homeschool education versus the obviously failing public schools. These alternative methods of education are worth it, in more ways than saving on a suburban home. Their suggested policies seem to be nothing more than more gov't regulation. Interestingly enough, the authors spend very little time on taxes and tax reform, something that is important considering most of the second income is needed to pay taxes. Socialism is not the solution. Although it could be argued that the book shows the reader what could trap them, it offers no real solution to those caught in the two-income trap.
Rating: 
Summary: The Two Income Trap-Reviews
Review: Elisabeth Warren and her daughter Amelia Tyagi are firmly convinced that today's families are not financially safer than families with stay-at-home mother from thirty years ago. Even though, mothers enjoyed entering in the workforce believing prosperity and security given by the two paychecks, the statistics showed that this decision conducted to a financial ruin for the most American middle class families. The Harvard's Law Professor Elisabeth Warren and Amelia Warren Tyagi book, The Two Income Trap, deserves five stars praise, because they explain in plain English essential solutions for mothers and fathers to prevent the financial disaster, and offer well documented answers to how or why so many families end up filing for bankruptcy. Although, Warren and Tyagi demonstrate statistically that the big items like mortgages, having kids, divorces and loosing jobs represent the real threat for family's budget; they did not approach sufficiently the "over-consumption myth". Most young couples today come from middle-class families with nice houses and good education. They are desperate now to get their children in good public school like they were before. The good schools today are found in the good neighborhoods. To live in these places, parents typically spend at least one paycheck on housing. Statistically, the house prices have raised with "79 percentage between 1983 and 1998". Apparently, these high housing costs have originated at the time when mothers entered in the workforce, generating parental bidding wars for good places with good schools. Also, the most recent credit system has dramatically changed the loan approval for housing from twenty percent down payment thirty years ago to three percent down payment today, attracting more and more families in the mortgage system. Without any good strategy, like to pay the high debt first, many of the two income couples seem to lose the loan's advantage, knowing that the late mortgage payment entails very high interest or even losing property. In order to reduce the long run mortgage bad effect, the book offers possible solutions such as school vouchers or a regulated mortgage market, making parents free to choose convenient public schools or financial nightmare release. More often the idea of moving into the safe place with good school arises when mom and dad decide to have children. The arrival of children adds more long-term expenses to the already fixed mortgage, which represents full-day preschool education and later college education. Warren and Tyagi researches demonstrate that, today, the preschool public institutions cost is "six thousand and five hundred dollars a year" in Chicago for one child. For the higher learning education "The price of college has grown twice as fast as the average professor's salary", and "Tuition room, and board now cost more than eight thousand and six hundred a year at the average of public university". Particular education is even more prohibitively expensive. Mentality about children education has changed from one generation to another. To succeed in life today, the mentality dictates at least high school diploma. A generation ago, the need of high education was not indispensable to reach the middle class level. Accordingly, the middle class parents are caught in the middle of another bidding war, budgeting once again the family's incomes for long term. Solutions to attenuate these high education costs remain to be solved by the public founds from government or by all state colleges themselves, mandating the increase of their tuition fees. Because the increasing frequency of divorces and job losses, in the past thirty years more and more families declare bankruptcy. Already in debt with the long-term payments, the family's financial position is in jeopardy at any time especially before these tragic events struck. The Warrens explain well that neither moms nor dads are protected against the bankruptcy's hit, once they declared the divorce. Since the fixed debts are made under the both signatures, there are no winners in this diabolic trial. Dads must pay their parts even though their incomes are lower than alimonies, and moms struggle to keep up the payments on debts. In most cases both parents financially are tied up for their rest of their lives. When mom or dad is laid off, or one of the two salaries at least is reduced, the crisis begins. Usually, both family members try to cut some daily expenses as much as they can, but in reality, these cuts do not allow them to cover the one lost or reduced paycheck. Evan though one member works extra hours and the other one has a part time job, the newest income is still not sufficient to cover the total family monthly expenses. If moms want to exit the financial disaster the book recommend that they should find other dads quickly, to cover the lost income. Dads should also find a way to help paying the old, common debt part as quickly as possible. For the laid offs, the best solution seems to be a saving plan, covering the fixed items payments for a few months. Finding quickly another job or selling the house represents two major actions that parents should take, before the disaster strikes again, and the debt rages out of control. In their way to middle class stage, two income families attempt to duplicate in few years what may have taken a generation ago fifteen years to accumulate. The results are well known. Within few years they have many assets, but they are all caught in many liabilities. The book is a good financial lesson for the condition of middle-class families in United States. However the book treats sensible financial proposals, Elisabeth Warren and Amelia Tyagi details the real life in a good neighborhood.
Rating:
Summary: Middle Class, Married, Two Cars, House ¿ and in Big Trouble
Review: Is this the modern middle class American dream: a married couple with two good jobs, a couple of kids, new cars, and a house in a good school district? Most would agree that it pretty well sums up what millions in this country work for. But as mother-daughter team Elizabeth Warren and Amelia Warren Tyagi argue in their insightful book, The Two Income Trap: Why Middle Class Mothers And Fathers Are Going Broke (Basic Books: 2003), it may all be a mirage. Despite incomes several times greater than their single-earner parents' households, more middle class Americans -- one in seven dual-income American families, to be exact -- are declaring bankruptcy than ever before. Both liberal and conservative commentators regularly take aim at what they perceive to be a rising level of consumption among American consumers, particularly the middle class. They attack swelling debt loads to pay for ever-larger McMansions, SUVs, and fancy restaurant meals while decrying either a lack of fiscal discipline (conservatives) or a lack of social concern (liberals). Warren and Tyagi say they have it all wrong: today's two-income paragons of middle income wealth -- the very image that brings immigrants to our shores -- actually have less discretionary income than their own mothers and fathers did on a single income. The main culprit? The authors argue that it's the overall cost of real estate and education, not runaway spending on consumer goods. As the supply shrinks and demand grows for quality housing -- especially in districts with public schools that excel-- people take on more debt and manage their lives on ever slimmer margins. The Two Income Trap is filled with sad testimonials of couples who thought they had captured "the dream," only to end up in bankruptcy court. These tales are no strangers to any of us- as much as we've become aware of the "millionaire next door," we also know those who are barely hanging on to their middle class status. This is no secret; polling recently released by the Drum Major Institute for Public Policy as part of a larger inquiry into the Myth of the Middle revealed that people who identify themselves as middle class -- living the dream -- do not necessarily feel secure financially. They are worried about the same things as the stressed middle class of the Two Income Trap: education, health care, and affordable housing. Solid majorities of working college graduates who identified themselves as middle class told DMI pollsters that they're worried about making ends meet and affording everyday things. As for saving for a rainy day: 51% said they either rarely or never are able to do so. What can reduce the two income trap and its increasing pressure on the middle class? Is it hopelessly liberal to suggest that more spending on better public schools would increase the pool of good housing units in more neighborhoods? Increased education spending alone won't solve the problem-and indeed, the authors argue that giving parents more choice over where to send their kids is the ultimate solution to motivating public schools to improve while also reconnecting the middle class to institutions on which they are giving up hope. That may give too much credit to market forces, especially when it was misguided supply-side economic policy that created a wildly increasing Federal deficit that has starved state and city governments, forcing them to renege on their obligation to provide quality services in exchange for tax dollars. Tellingly, the middle class New Yorkers polled by DMI saw relatively little value in tax cuts, while more than 50% identified education as an area that must be protected from budget cuts. This jibes with the Two Income Trap contention that the bank balances of families with children are more dependent on the quality of public education than on minimal tax refunds. The DMI polling also factors in another huge expense-sometimes fixed, always necessary: health care. With shrinking employer contributions, an increasing number outside of the traditional workforce that links jobs to insurance, and a growing number of unemployed, millions of middle class Americans are shelling out more for basic health services. A health care system that doesn't force those on the lower end of the middle income spectrum to make terrifying choices between housing costs and insurance remains far from the top of the agenda of the current administration. Of course, they may be more motivated to tackle it when health care affordability becomes an issue not just for the poor and working class, but for the middle class and their treasured votes. In fact, during this election year, as President Bush and a bevy of Democrats vie for this coveted middle class vote - especially courting the massive electoral prize of middle class women -- they'd do well to read the sweet line at the beginning of The Two Income Trap, which dedicates the book to "all those who wake up with hearts thudding over the possibility that buying school shoes and Girl Scout uniforms will mean that there won't be enough left over to pay the mortgage."
Rating:
Summary: Student
Review: I recommend buying this book and reading it if you are a teenager and older, to help prepare you for your future or to help fix your present situation. This book gives you a lot of facts about financial distress and ways to solve your problems. It was interesting to read about peoples real life experiences and how they dealt with their situations. I agree with Elizabeth and Amelia that a lot of credit lenders are monsters, but you have to learn to be smart otherwise you are going to resolve in debt. I learned that you should only buy what you can afford and save for what you really want. Also don't give up on this book, it was a little hard for me to stay focused because of my age, but now I can plan for my future.
Rating:
Summary: Trap? More like a bit of Illusion
Review: Although the authors can bring out a few good points (like what to watch for when buying a mortgage), I think they focus too much on "victimization" of the consumer/worker and not enough on personal responsibility. There is no trap here. It's people buying into some idea that they HAVE TO live near a good school district, or have all that entertainment, or buy name brands - yes, I said it. People get buffaloed into thinking if it costs more, it must be better. Frankly, if something costs too much, I'm afraid if could break (and they all do folks), it can't be replaced so easily so I won't use it or enjoy it. Everything is made cheaply so nothing lasts like it used to. I still own things from the 80's that work better than the new ones. As for school vouchers....from my experience, all public schooling stinks, so what's the rush to buy into a mortgage you can't live with in a neighborhood for the schools? Vouchers? Let's watch more government regulation with that one. Hey, there's always homeschooling. And the best part is that you don't have to buy name brand clothes for your kids, no lunches at a higher cost, no rushing in traffic, less gas and wear and tear on your car, and free help with the chores, AND they kids get a private education. What we need are tax breaks for those people. Do we have to go to preschool and end up at an Ivy league school to become educated? What happened to FREE library access? Or clepping out of college courses, or going to the local Junior college for the first 2 years. Why are the authors blaming the problem on credit companies, interest rates, and regulations? Know your income and what you can afford, say NO and hang up the phone. Do the numbers for yourself. Watch how the market goes up and down. Grab that mortgage when the rates are down and don't get in over your head....simply common sense.
I had a real problem with some of the numbers these authors came up with. For instance she said that the middle class wasn't getting name brand items, yet the sales are up, malls are crowded and thriving, and I see kids walking around in name brand items - a lot! Friends I know are buying new furniture on credit when waiting for the savings will do them better, or when buying at 0% interest for one year and plan it out will do better? Or how the people I know who took out a 3rd mortgage on their home for the equity to "consolidate" credit cards? They would have been better off not shopping for clothes they can't fit in any closets anymore, or buying the 4 TVs, 5 VCR's, 2 PS2's, gameboys and a host of other "high quality" high dollar items, and plunking that money into their debts above the minimum payments. They knew the strategy, but wanted the stuff. I also see too many people in the 2 income bracket buying new cars, when a year old lease for sale could serve just as well for $10K less. People DO spend much more on entertainment today than we used to. Why not? There IS more. The sad part is people feel they won't be happy, or are "deprived" unless they have the toys, when taking walks, playing games, inviting over friends, etc. would do just as well. The authors' stance on how 2 income families aren't spending much on groceries compared to the 70's is weak. Of course not! They aren't cooking and opting to spend it at fast food or restaurants. Why would they NEED to buy more at the grocery store? The food cost alone could be cut in half with less "treats" and more quick home cooking (and less incident of food poisoning or doctor visits). The authors also make a statement to the effect that home entertainment for the average family with cable is a mere $170 a year. Have they looked into cable for entertainment lately? Most people I know who get cable buy the minimum package at $50-$70 a month! (not including taxes) That's at least $600/yr. Don't forget the DVD's they have to buy. I doubt that most people are using just basic cable to get channels and forgoing all entertainment to keep their costs under $200 a year. (Get me the name of that cable company. I want to see this for myself!) Of course people are filing for bankruptcy. They don't have the money. It's called a wake-up call to reality and basic math. But I do agree not everyone falls into this category, SOME have had truly unfortunate experiences. Likewise, I would think people would go to a consumer credit counseling service before hitting the costly bankruptcy courts, which offers similar benefits as bankruptcy and yet keeps your credit intact (at a fraction of the cost). Additionally, we all know that divorce causes financial disaster for most of us, not just the mom, but many times the dad as well. If people could get past the "no fault" divorce of "he said/she said" and work it out, they could fare better financially. But everyone's a victim and it's someone else's fault. They want a government to change the rules so they can play better because they don't know how to dive inside and make the best of it, or come up with a different idea...for anything. The authors do point out the thinking of 2 income families. 2 incomes means more money, a house, more stuff, etc. (and less time building relationships to avert the stress factor - my input). No one made them do it. It was a free choice. Creditors are simply opportunists for those that don't want to think for themselves. I agree with the authors on this: The cost of things has certainly gone up, and income hasn't kept up with inflation. If creditors can find a loop-hole for keeping up rates and prices, they will. But likewise, I can move around them and find my own loopholes to keep them out of my pocketbook. It's not a privalege to qualify for a loan. It's a privaledge to have my freedom and my responsibility from someone else's regulations and obligations. This book looked more like propaganda for more government regulations and less responsibility for those who make the choices. I think I'll go read "Affluenza".
Rating: 
Summary: No Responsibilty to Spenders
Review: In typical liberal fashion (backed up by Ted Kennedy's support on the back cover) the authors blame every one but the spenders themselves for the growing rate of bankruptcy. They then suggest massive federal programs - vouchers, price controls, reregulation of banking - as the cure all instead of expecting people to live within their means. Instead of suggesting solutions that require the responsible majority of this country to bail out the weak willed through their taxes, why not suggest a program that would actually allow people to maintain a budget. This book is full of blame for large companies, evil banks, and even the housing market itself - but constantly asserts that the financial problems of two-earner families are not their fault.
Rating:
Summary: Slipshod tunnelvision
Review: Everything looks like nails to a man with a hammer. To this mother/daughter duo, everything's about getting your kids into good schools. They hilariously interpret the entire US housing bubble through the lens of suburban flight in search of better schooling. Their basic thesis runs like this: 1. The middle class is in financial trouble.
2. The biggest rise in middle class spending is housing.
3. Middle class people care about good education for their kids.
4. Therefore, they have started a "bidding war" for good-school neighborhoods, and have inadvertently priced housing into the stratosphere. Their solution to this problem is to implement a voucher system which would surely cause a housing crash, and ironically bankrupt even more of the poor middle class homeowners they pretend to be championing. But education is not very convincing as the dominant factor leading to our housing bubble. This bubble is more easily understood in terms of a combination of historically low interest rates, combined with a relaxation of lending standards that has increased homeownership to an all-time high. Despite this, homeowners' equity as a percentage of market value stands at an all time low. If you back out the 39% of homeowners who own their houses outright, the remaining 61% have average equity of just 25%. Thus a decline in housing just to the price levels of 2000 would put the majority of homeowners at an average of zero to negative equity. How did this happen? Thanks to loose standards which permit zero downpayments, interest-only loans, ability to withold proof of income, an all-time high percentage of ARM borrowers, and so on. Things like 20% downpayments and a proof-of-income requirement narrow the competition for housing and keep prices lower. The opposite, historically unprecendented trend seen in recent years naturally increases the pool of potential buyers and pushes up prices. Now there are people buying their first 500K "starter home" with zero-down interest-only ARMs. This is called "affordability", but the debt grows. The inevitable results are HIGH "homeownership", LOW equity, and HIGH prices. Moreoever, as prices have risen year after year in many areas, the cycle becomes self-feeding as desperate buyers increasingly "stretch" (just as they did in the stock market in 1999 and 2000) just to get a house. They think prices can only go up or they will never be able to buy a house. It's quite sad, really, and like all bubbles I expect it will end in a crash which will bankrupt many. So this is the easiest explanation for the precarious financial state of the middle class. The authors' incessant focus on the "heroic" efforts of mom and (that lesser animal) pop to provide a good educational environment for their kids is just another apology for the housing bubble when you get down to it. I think a better book for most middle class people wanting to avoid bankruptcy is "The Coming Crash in the Housing Market: 10 Things You Can Do Now to Protect Your Most Valuable Investment".
Rating:
Summary: a pitch for "vouchers" so the rich can keep their money
Review: The first 50 pages is laden with footnotes to support their reasoning why the middle class is going bankrupt. Suddenly, with several pages devoted to how quite simply a "good voucher" system would solve every financially struggling "middle class" American family's problems, there is not a foot note to be found in support of their proposal. It's a weak argument to "save" middle-class (educated, well-off) families from having to go into debt to "buy" their kids a better education, and completely dismisses all the segregational ramifications, the issues of the chosen schools' task of making staff modifications to the influx of students, and the most important issue of all with vouchers: where the money will come from to pay for all this "free and great" education, which, by the way, is not free and will now not be great because of the new student to teacher ratio.
| 
