Grad School for Existential/Humanistic Psychology?

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Here is what her Psychology Today ad has and she made 1.5 million last year as she is now an actress:

Eris Huemer
Marriage & Family Therapist, PsyD, MFT

I hold a Doctorate Degree in Marriage and Family Therapy and a Master's Degree in counseling Psychology.

What? Did she really make 1.5 million last year? Where does it say that?
 
How much is Eris Huemer Worth?
Eris Huemer net worth: Eris Huemer is an American therapist and reality television personality who has a net worth of $1.5 million dollars. Based in Los Angeles, Eris Huemer runs a therapy practice focused on marriage and family therapy. She is also a public speaker and published author. She is one of three therapists featured on the new Bravo Channel documentary series, "LA Shrinks". The show follows three therapists as they work with various clients in Los Angeles, and deal with their own interpersonal issues. Ms. Huemer is widely recognized for her success with "love makeovers" for couples that are struggling. Some of Ms. Huemer's clients include a former Playmate who keeps attracting the wrong type of men, and an interracial couple with intimacy issues. After many rocky relationships of her own, she is now happily married, and she and her husband are beginning to plan for a family together.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
Assets minus Liabilities equals Net Worth (all Balance Sheet concepts). Net income is revenues minus expenses (all Income Statement concepts).

She may be the next Duck Dynasty!!!
 
Net worth is not equivalent to your AGI for the previous year.

Okay so it was like on some celebrity net worth site? I highly doubt those are even accurate at all. I have no idea how they would even acquire someone's personal income data as well as spending habits lol.
 
Her degrees are from online programs:

Eris Huemer
Eris Huemer has degrees from the online Pacifica Graduate Institute and the online Ryokan College, and is licensed as a marriage and family therapist in California and works as a "life coach".[6][7] She is married to Clayton Winans and wants to have children.[1][8][9][10]

Venus Nicolino
Venus Nicolino has a Doctor of Philosophy in clinical psychology from the California School of Professional Psychology but is not licensed as a therapist or psychologist. She works as a "life consultant" and lives in Bel Air, Los Angeles with her husband Matthew Johnson, their two sons, ages 3 and 5, and her two nephews, ages 5 and 7.[1][11]

Gregory Cason
Greg Cason has a Doctor of Philosophy in counseling psychology from the University of Houston.[12] and is a licensed psychologist[13] located in Beverly Hills who specializes in cognitive therapy with individuals and couples. Kevin Beer is his partner of 23 years and the couple is in the process of planning their wedding. They reside in West Hollywood.[1][14]
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Ugh, I just had to go find proof for myself of a "PsyD in MFT." I was sorta in denial... It doesn't make sense to me either, other than as marketing spin.

http://www.thechicagoschool.edu/Los...yD_in_Marital_and_Family_Therapy_Post-Masters

That's not even the PsyD in MFT that she did. There's more of those as well: http://www.alliant.edu/cspp/programs-degrees/couple-family-therapy/mft-psyd-program.php I believe she only attended Ryokan and Pacifica though, but I could be wrong.
 
Her degrees are from online programs:

Eris Huemer
Eris Huemer has degrees from the online Pacifica Graduate Institute and the online Ryokan College, and is licensed as a marriage and family therapist in California and works as a "life coach".[6][7] She is married to Clayton Winans and wants to have children.[1][8][9][10]

Venus Nicolino
Venus Nicolino has a Doctor of Philosophy in clinical psychology from the California School of Professional Psychology but is not licensed as a therapist or psychologist. She works as a "life consultant" and lives in Bel Air, Los Angeles with her husband Matthew Johnson, their two sons, ages 3 and 5, and her two nephews, ages 5 and 7.[1][11]

Gregory Cason
Greg Cason has a Doctor of Philosophy in counseling psychology from the University of Houston.[12] and is a licensed psychologist[13] located in Beverly Hills who specializes in cognitive therapy with individuals and couples. Kevin Beer is his partner of 23 years and the couple is in the process of planning their wedding. They reside in West Hollywood.[1][14]

I mean, I think that alone proves that it doesn't matter where you attend school, and its what you make of it (and how you market) that makes all the difference. We're talking about private practice here. Obviously this is only 3 people, but these are 3 average ones in California and all 3 had thriving successful private practices before the show.

#1 did solely online coursework, a MFT program that isn't even COAMFTE approved, and a PsyD that isn't APA approved.
#2 isn't even licensed at all despite having attended NYU for her masters as well as an APA-approved PhD.
#3 seems pretty vanilla in his education path, but is also heavily niched practicing in and marketing toward the LGBTQ population.
 
I bet it matters a lot to the people that hacks like this damage in "treatment"

Not everyone is looking for the same things in treatment. Obviously all 3 of them had clients coming to them before the show. Even Eres, she is more of a life coach meets matchmaker, yet she still had clients. And Venus isn't even licensed, yet still had clients, so lol.
 
By your logic, we should let surgeons do residency online and operate on anyone who may be looking for something different in their surgery. As long as the surgeon makes a killing, it's all good, right?

That isn't the same logic at all. But I'm not going to sit around and argue with you about this lol.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
It's also an embarrassment to the profession and this type of charlatan "treatments" makes the public doubt us.

The pre-edit statement added weight to the above; there are lives at stake here, not just careers.
 
Here we go again. Me, me, me.. It's all about me. Me, me. And money.

We can talk about standards of training, health and reputation of the profession, and evidence based practice all we want but if neutralpalette only cares about her personal "success" I suppose our preaching matters little to her. I do think it's valuable, and likely helpful, that she is being exposed to more mature and robust way of thinking about "success" however.
 
Last edited:
I would also add that licensing exists for a reason, right? If one truly believes that they are there to serve patients rather just them themselves, they would respect their patients enough to get licensed.

Even the guy who shampooed our carpet yesterday had enough respect for me and his profession to be licensed and insured. And the worst that he might have done is break a vase!
 
Seriously, just become a bank robber. Its about as respectable and will pay way better per hour than even the most successful quackery.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
The plural of anecdote is not data. We should not hold up one person, obviously a pretty extreme outlier and claim that everyone can do this! This is why an understanding of statistics is important folks, so you don't make such glaring logical fallacies.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
The pre-edit statement added weight to the above; there are lives at stake here, not just careers.
Yes. We are on the frontlines of serious and often fatal illnesses. I can't understand why any professional in mental health treatment would argue for "anybody can do therapy". This issue is very personal to me and I get quite emotional about it. It makes it hard for me to maintain my own professional composure when confronting it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Not everyone is looking for the same things in treatment. Obviously all 3 of them had clients coming to them before the show. Even Eres, she is more of a life coach meets matchmaker, yet she still had clients. And Venus isn't even licensed, yet still had clients, so lol.
You are really going to come on the Student Doctors Network where people are learning and aspiring to be the best healthcare practitioners that they can be and advocate that it doesn't really matter as long as someone is willing to pay for it? That was rhetorical, but this is a real question, what is the purpose of having a license in certain professions?
 
Not everyone is looking for the same things in treatment.

This also seems to be an underlying theme in your posts that I think needs to be corrected.

Healthcare professionals are ethically obligated to provide treatments that have some type of empirical backing of their efficacy. Thats what being a health care "professional" means. Individuals who are not health care "professionals" (life coaches, energy healthers, etc.) have no such obligations. So, the question I have is, if you truly belief the above, then why are even bothering to pursue formal education and licensure as a mental health professional? You dont seem to actually want to be a mental health care professional?
 
Last edited:
A while ago, the New York Times (or similar) published an article by a very unhappy psychiatrist who is financially cornered into providing very limited care, both in the time he could devote to a med management appointment, and his ability to do the "softer" parts of his job well. His patients were quite fond of him all the same. This issue isn't only important because of the public, and so it doesn't matter if someone who is poorly trained is popular with clients. I do think that poorly trained "professionals" are more likely to do damage, but if they don't, it doesn't let the poor training off the hook. It is bad for the field, which is covered extensively on this forum. But I also feel for the naive would-be students who are suckered into poor programs that they have no conceivable hope of being employable at the end of, if they should finish at all. The disparity in EPPP pass rates is a BIG PROBLEM for those students who should not have been accepted to a doctoral program in the first place. Does it make sense that the great equalizer comes after many years and 100+K in loans? Thank goodness for the field as a whole that there's some standard left that the offending professional programs (NOT the PsyD in general) can't game, but it really sucks for the unprepared student.

The Atlantic published an article recently about bottom of the barrel law schools that is applicable to this issue in every way.
 
A while ago, the New York Times (or similar) published an article by a very unhappy psychiatrist who is financially cornered into providing very limited care.

Finacially cornered? What does that mean? Do you mean he chooses to provide limited care in his private practice because he prefers to make more money?
 
It's been a while since I read the article, and I was trying to communicate his perspective. He was limiting himself almost entirely to brief (like 15 minutes) med checks because it was so much more lucrative than longer sessions or any kind of therapy. He was obviously miserable but yes, he was choosing money.
 
You are really going to come on the Student Doctors Network where people are learning and aspiring to be the best healthcare practitioners that they can be and advocate that it doesn't really matter as long as someone is willing to pay for it? That was rhetorical, but this is a real question, what is the purpose of having a license in certain professions?

Its called coaching when its not licensed. Some people are looking for that. And Eris IS licensed. So end of story.
 
A while ago, the New York Times (or similar) published an article by a very unhappy psychiatrist who is financially cornered into providing very limited care, both in the time he could devote to a med management appointment, and his ability to do the "softer" parts of his job well. His patients were quite fond of him all the same. This issue isn't only important because of the public, and so it doesn't matter if someone who is poorly trained is popular with clients. I do think that poorly trained "professionals" are more likely to do damage, but if they don't, it doesn't let the poor training off the hook. It is bad for the field, which is covered extensively on this forum. But I also feel for the naive would-be students who are suckered into poor programs that they have no conceivable hope of being employable at the end of, if they should finish at all. The disparity in EPPP pass rates is a BIG PROBLEM for those students who should not have been accepted to a doctoral program in the first place. Does it make sense that the great equalizer comes after many years and 100+K in loans? Thank goodness for the field as a whole that there's some standard left that the offending professional programs (NOT the PsyD in general) can't game, but it really sucks for the unprepared student.

The Atlantic published an article recently about bottom of the barrel law schools that is applicable to this issue in every way.

I saw that article. I doubt he was ~*so unhappy*~ lol. He chose to do 15m appointments (and noted his patients were still just as satisfied) and was making almost 2 MILLION PER YEAR, and his wife, an MFT, became his booker. They were trying to save for retirement so they could retire.
 
Her degrees are from online programs:
Gregory Cason
Greg Cason has a Doctor of Philosophy in counseling psychology from the University of Houston.[12] and is a licensed psychologist[13] located in Beverly Hills who specializes in cognitive therapy with individuals and couples. Kevin Beer is his partner of 23 years and the couple is in the process of planning their wedding. They reside in West Hollywood.[1][14]
I have never heard/seen about this show before but its nice to know there is at least one person that received accredited training and licensure. On top of that his partner's name is Beer, which is awesome. He should change his name to Dr. Beer and treat alcohol/substance misuse, now that's a great show idea.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Its called coaching when its not licensed. Some people are looking for that. And Eris IS licensed. So end of story.

I thought "life coaching" is really what you want to do? You don't seen too interested in using any psychological science in your treatment, so what you want all the fancy schoolin for?
 
Its called coaching when its not licensed.

It's called many things…..often unethical, predatory, and harmful. Not all "coaches" are those things, but there sure is a lot of overlap. "Coaches" are the psychics of the mental health world…ZERO training or understanding of the science…but plenty of mumbo-jumbo and snake oil sales.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Seems that licensing boards need to re-write legislation or life coaches need to have licensing regulations. I believe Dr. Phil did not renew his psychology license and he does entertainment now.
 
Last edited:
addressing some of this but slightly more on topic, I think there are some valid concerns about mainstream psychology theory and practice raised by some of the existential-phenomenological and humanistic folks.

I do think training and education is really important, regardless. If anything I'd just go further and say an understanding of psychological science is good but not enough, that there should be a more philosophical and phenomenological understanding as well. The problem there as far as I can see is that psychologists aren't philosophers (arguably they ARE phenomenologists), but still, there are implicit philosophical positions in psychology that should be understood.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
addressing some of this but slightly more on topic, I think there are some valid concerns about mainstream psychology theory and practice raised by some of the existential-phenomenological and humanistic folks.

I do think training and education is really important, regardless. If anything I'd just go further and say an understanding of psychological science is good but not enough, that there should be a more philosophical and phenomenological understanding as well. The problem there as far as I can see is that psychologists aren't philosophers (arguably they ARE phenomenologists), but still, there are implicit philosophical positions in psychology that should be understood.

I actually generally agree with this - philosophy of science in particular is fascinating and largely ignored. Perhaps as an example even within the science realm, there are debates within statistics that fall far more under the umbrella of philosophy than stats courses typically present (e.g. the bayesian vs. frequentism controversy). The issue of course always becomes one of time...it already seems like one could spend a decade studying 80 hours/week on just the science and still barely scratch the surface of what we probably "should" know. I think broader exposure to ideas with resources for people to follow up on is probably the way to go for most aspects of training (that's how it generally ends up playing out anyways).
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
My recollection is that neutralpallete is interested in the philosophy of money, archetypes, and reality TV "therapists." Debates about Karl popper and the null hypothesis problem seem not be on her mind. :)

We talked philo of science a bit during my phd but it never really caught fire with my cohort. I agree it makes for a better scientist, but I do have doubts how those particular topics inform any clinical work or skill.
 
Last edited:
My recollection is that neutralpallete is interested in the philosophy of money, archetypes, and reality TV "therapists." Debates about Karl popper and the null hypothesis problem seem not be on her mind. :)

We talked philo of science a bit during my phd but it never really caught fire with my cohort. I agree it makes for a better scientist, but I do have doubts how those particular topics inform any clinical work or skill.

Well, looking at George Atwood's clinical work with psychosis is probably a good start for seeing what a phenomenological viewpoint does differently.

or R.D. Laing but I suspect he's a bit more heretical to talk about ;)

people like Husserl and Merleau-Ponty make some pretty strong claims about the implicit biases of a natural science approach to psychology and the ways it can color perception toward human beings. Even if people don't agree with their claim that phenomenology is a more rigorous and humane approach to the science of psychology, it's such an important discussion that I can't imagine leaving it out.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Seems that licensing boards need to re-write legislation or life coaches need to have licensing regulations. I believe Dr. Phil did not renew his psychology license and he does entertainment now.

Dr. Phil got his license revoked years ago after he sexually harassed one (or many) of his clients, actually.

While I definitely do not want a "psychology" career in entertainment, its almost necessary to get at least SOME P.R. are a self-employed psychotherapist or psychologist in private practice. Especially when you want to release books regarding your own theories, concepts, and/or experiences. That is called marketing, and its perfect acceptable. Not everyone wants to be Dr. Phil, or wants that much media attention to the point where you can't even live a normal life.
 
Especially when you want to release books regarding your own theories, concepts, and/or experiences.

This is part of your plan too?

79e89c0f4d34b4d08a4e8feda552be78.jpg
 
I'd like for those folks who were commenting a few weeks ago that some posters on the board are too harsh to read this poster's contributions to the board. This is the consequence of not kiboshing stupid early on.
 
That is called marketing, and its perfect acceptable.

There is an ethics code, in this profession, that dictates marketing that is appopriate and marketing that is inappopriate. Most of what you are referencing regarding "marketing" (eg., LA Shrinks) is grossly inappopriateand falls outside of ethical aspirations and specific guidelines.
 
There is an ethics code, in this profession, that dictates marketing that is appopriate and marketing that is inappopriate. Most of what you are referencing regarding "marketing" (eg., LA Shrinks) is grossly inappopriateand falls outside of ethical aspirations and specific guidelines.

Like I have said a million times before, I would never personally want fame like that. And that is NOT the marketing I was referring to. I have a background in business obviously given my experiences. And marketing is a large part of business.

And for the record, I think the psychotherapists on that show are doing just fine, and are still in practice.
 
Like I have said a million times before, I would never personally want fame like that. And that is NOT the marketing I was referring to. I have a background in business obviously given my experiences. And marketing is a large part of business.

And for the record, I think the psychotherapists on that show are doing just fine, and are still in practice.

They are "doing fine" from a monetary perspective. How they sleep at night is a different story...

There are not licensed psychologists on that show because there behavior and professional comportment is incongruent with about a half a dozen of our ethical guidelines.
 
Last edited:
They are "doing fine" from a monetary perspective. How they sleep at night is a different story...

There are not licensed psychologists on that show because there behavior and professional comportment is incongruent with about a half a dozen of our ethical guidelines.

LOL what??? Nope! Gregory Cason IS a licensed psychologist, and DID appear on LA Shrinks. I think he actually got more air time than Eris did. Licence # PSY15781 according to wikipedia citations. He is still an active psychologist.

Eris Huemer IS a licensed marriage and family therapist, but not a psychologist because her doctorate is in marriage & family therapy. So that's obviously why she is not a licensed psychologist lol. She was never trying to be a psychologist, and never even went to graduate school for that. Her specialty is marriage and family therapy and she IS licensed as an MFT, focusing on relationship issues. She went on to pursue a doctorate with the same focus. There is no need to be a psychologist for that kind of specialty and her masters and doctoral training are directly in her specialty. She is still an active psychotherapist.

Venus is not a psychologist, but she did graduate from NYU. She has not pursued getting licensed as a psychologist yet.
 
Last edited:

Read your post. It proves my point. One licensed psychologist. Why do you think that is....on a show called "LA Shrinks?" I would say that its becaus the ethical and scientific practice of clinical psychological science is not amenable to the modern culture of reality show voyeurism, sans one or two isolated examples I can think of. I would suggest you base your impressions of the field on more statistically modal outcomes.

From a more personal perspective, I would also suggest less idolizations of showbiz and or financial "success" and more idolization of substantive contributions from accomplished scientist-practitioners a la Rogers, Meehl, Strupp, Hathaway, etc.
 
Last edited:
LOL what??? Nope! Gregory Cason IS a licensed psychologist, and DID appear on LA Shrinks. I think he actually got more air time than Eris did. Licence # PSY15781 according to wikipedia citations. He is still an active psychologist.

Eris Huemer IS a licensed marriage and family therapist, but not a psychologist because her doctorate is in marriage & family therapy. So that's obviously why she is not a licensed psychologist lol. She was never trying to be a psychologist, and never even went to graduate school for that. Her specialty is marriage and family therapy and she IS licensed as an MFT, focusing on relationship issues. She went on to pursue a doctorate with the same focus. There is no need to be a psychologist for that kind of specialty and her masters and doctoral training are directly in her specialty. She is still an active psychotherapist.

Venus is not a psychologist, but she did graduate from NYU. She has not pursued getting licensed as a psychologist yet.

When someone uses the term "Shrink" they average person doesn't think…"Oh! They mean a marriage and family counselor!" or "Of course…a life coach!" They are very clearly using the allusion to psychiatrist or psychologist to lend credibility to the show….I think that is the issue. The fact that they have a psychologist on at some point actually confuses the point MORE, as everyone else on it clearly are not licensed psychologists or psychiatrists.

I find most of the things on that type of show offensive because it is very voyeuristic for all of the wrong reasons. If a show wants to bring true awareness and activism to a cause they can, but that usually doesn't support acceptable ratings to a network.
 
Read your post. It proves my point. One licensed psychologist. Why do you think that is....on a show called "LA Shrinks?" I would say that its becaus the ethical and scientific practice of clinical psychological science is not amenable to the modern culture of reality show voyeurism, sans one or two isolated examples I can think of. I would suggest you base your impressions of the field on more statistically modal outcomes.

From a more personal perspective, I would also suggest less idolizations of showbiz and or financial "success" and more idolization of substantive contributions from accomplished scientist-practitioners a la Rogers, Meehl, Strupp, Hathaway, etc.

Theres only 3 "shrinks" on the entire show... That proves nothing lol.

The program purposely chose 3 people with 3 difference viewpoints:
1.) a licensed psychologist,
2.) a licensed psychotherapist, and
3.) an NYU grad school graduate that works as a life coach.

But all 3 are doctors.



When someone uses the term "Shrink" they average person doesn't think…"Oh! They mean a marriage and family counselor!" or "Of course…a life coach!" They are very clearly using the allusion to psychiatrist or psychologist to lend credibility to the show….I think that is the issue. The fact that they have a psychologist on at some point actually confuses the point MORE, as everyone else on it clearly are not licensed psychologists or psychiatrists.

I find most of the things on that type of show offensive because it is very voyeuristic for all of the wrong reasons. If a show wants to bring true awareness and activism to a cause they can, but that usually doesn't support acceptable ratings to a network.


"Shrink" can just as easily mean psychotherapist. It means psychologist, psychiatrist, or psychotherapist. And the licensed psychotherapist on the show IS a doctor. The licensed psychologist is also a doctor obviously or be wouldn't be licensed. And even the NYU graduate is a doctor. How is that not... credible? That makes no sense.

You guys obviously didn't watch the show at all so your comments make no sense. The program purposely chose THREE "shrinks" from THREE different backgrounds (licensed psychologist, licensed psychotherapist, and NYU grad school graduate who acts as a life coach) in order to show the behind-the-scenes personal struggles all 3 go through. Its conveyed pretty clearly throughout the show. So your comments make no sense. You should really think about watching the show if you want to give commentary on something you've never actually seen before.
 
Theres only 3 "shrinks" on the entire show... That proves nothing lol.

"Shrink" can just as easily mean psychotherapist. It means psychologist, psychiatrist, or psychotherapist. And the licensed psychotherapist on the show IS a doctor. The licensed psychologist is also a doctor obviously or be wouldn't be licensed. And even the NYU graduate is a doctor. How is that not... credible? That makes no sense.

You guys obviously didn't watch the show at all so your comments make no sense. The program purposely chose THREE "shrinks" from THREE different backgrounds (licensed psychologist, licensed psychotherapist, and NYU grad school graduate who acts as a life coach) in order to show the behind-the-scenes struggles. Its conveyed pretty clearly throughout the show. So your comments make no sense. You should really think about watching the show if you want to give commentary on something you've never actually seen before.

No one is trying to "proove" anything, and our discussion of these details has little to do with the particular show. Its more of a gestalt argument/concern. We are, however, trying to get you (and others who may stubble upon the thread) to understand the ethical slippery slope of this type of representation, or rather, misrepresentation of clinical psychological science. Please see the linked document below.

http://www.apa.org/ethics/code/index.aspx

I would personally highlight how these principles are often incongruent with some of the goals of the reality entertainment industry (which also brings up dual relationship issue, right?). From a more clincial perspective, I have concens about violation of frame and boundaries when the patient is exposed to the rather dysfunctioanl personal lives of the therapists.
 
Last edited:
but erg923…
1. The pts volunteer to do it, and they are adults, so where is the problem?
2. I want to get PAID!!
3. It isn't exploitation if they agreed to do it, I didn't make them do it.
4 People understand that this is for entertainment purposes only.
5. Did I mention about the money thing yet?
6. Participating in reality tv is totally okay because I'm not treating the person on tv. It's not like I'm in a hospital or something.
7. I'm up here with a life coach and therapist…what is the big deal if I call myself a psychologist?!
8. Can you say…Book deal! I totally have pts I can ask/tell to give a testimonial. If they give a good enough testimonial I may bring them on my book tour.
9. People can't get hurt from watching television. No one would go and try something just because some people on television said that it works.
10. *Johnny Manziel Money Gesture*

Just to be clear..the above are all tongue in cheek and directly relate to one or more of the ethical problems that some of us have brought up. Anyone studying for the EPPP should be able to cite the exact codes. ;)
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
but erg923…
1. The pts volunteer to do it, and they are adults, so where is the problem?
2. I want to get PAID!!
3. It isn't exploitation if they agreed to do it, I didn't make them do it.
4 People understand that this is for entertainment purposes only.
5. Did I mention about the money thing yet?
6. Participating in reality tv is totally okay because I'm not treating the person on tv. It's not like I'm in a hospital or something.
7. I'm up here with a life coach and therapist…what is the big deal if I call myself a psychologist?!
8. Can you say…Book deal! I totally have pts I can ask/tell to give a testimonial. If they give a good enough testimonial I may bring them on my book tour.
9. People can't get hurt from watching television. No one would go and try something just because some people on television said that it works.
10. *Johnny Manziel Money Gesture*

Just to be clear..the above are all tongue in cheek and directly relate to one or more of the ethical problems that some of us have brought up. Anyone studying for the EPPP should be able to cite the exact codes. ;)

Dont be such a "square," bro! Ethical standards are for "vanilla" Midwesterners. Plus, you don't the "market" out here in Cali-forn-i-a....

PS: I do love the movie Clueless though.
 
Last edited:
Top