500 Million Friends, One Self-Alienated Generation

        
          Alexander Graham Bell, Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg. What do all of these men have in common? They all had a profound impact on how citizens of the world interact with one another. But while there are numerous benefits arising from the invention of the telephone as well as the technological advances made by Microsoft software, I’m starting to believe that the social costs associated with the creation of Facebook will outweigh the benefits of increased electronic communication. This isn’t a realization that I’ve always had— I too am an avid Facebook user. In 2007 I became one of the 500 million members that currently use the site, and I’ve spent countless hours on it since then. It wasn’t until I saw the movie The Social Network that I began to think about some of the negative effects that can happen from overusing Facebook.

            Zuckerberg is portrayed in the film as a typical “revenge of the nerds” character. With one friend to his name (who he eventually betrays), Zuckerberg creates a virtual world where friendships are available at your fingertips. However, even with the title as the youngest billionaire on the planet, Zuckerberg is as isolated today as he was during his years as a Harvard student. Sure, this could be his personality type—some people are programmed to be loners. But I think it is a direct result of substituting true friendships with virtual ones. I am not arguing that technology or social media sites will lead to the downfall of our society; however, I do believe that the use of social media sites like Facebook will redefine what friendship means, and will change how people communicate effectively.

            As cheesy as it sounds, deep friendships affect our happiness and well-being. Not only do they nurture the soul, but they provide positive health benefits. According to research published in the Journal of Health & Social Behavior:

“A sense of being loved, cared for and listened to fosters a sense of meaning and purpose and reduces stress-induced wear and tear on the body, lowering the heart rate, blood pressure and stress hormones. Supportive friendships also are linked in research to increased longevity and may actually change the way you experience stressful events, buffering the negative mental effects.”

However, these benefits do not come from posting a comment on a friend’s Facebook page; they arise only with face-to-face contact with other individuals. While Facebook can serve as a powerful tool to stay connected with friends who live afar, members have allowed the site to replace good, old-fashioned companionship with distant, fleeting gratification. According to Roger Scruton, “It is arguable that the more people satisfy their need for companionship through relationships carried out on the screen, the less will they develop friendships of that other kind, the kind that offers help and comfort in the real trials of human life.”

Even ancient Greek philosophers, who defined the laws and principles of science and government, understood the importance of friendships. Aristotle studied the formation of relationships, and broke down friendships into three types: friendship based on utility, pleasure, and virtue. Friendships based on utility can be equated to Facebook friendships because “this type of friendship is broken when, no matter how small, some part of the relationship changes and it is no longer beneficial to one or both of the individuals in the friendship.” While these types of relationships are not necessarily detrimental, the highest form of friendship is based on virtue. A relationship founded on virtue enhances character and “is only felt among the good, between few amounts of people [sic], is resistant to slander and is long lasting.” These friendships cannot be forged on social networking websites—they are nurtured through time and attention, and have the power to influence the health and happiness of the individuals involved.

Not only does Aristotle categorize companionship into 3 categories, but he also makes powerful assertions about the importance of virtuous friendships in society. In his book Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle states that these make up the bond that holds cities together and should therefore supersede justice. Unfortunately, Facebook wasn’t around during the time of Aristotle so he wasn’t able to provide insight on its effects. But based on his teachings, friendships based on utility are replacing friendships fueled by virtue, and this trend will only increase as our dependency on social networking sites like Facebook continues to grow.

I fear Facebook will impact our generation far greater than any spectators predict. I think Generation Y and future generations will find themselves in a world where friendships are nothing more than a distraction—and other bloggers share this fear. William Deresiewicz, one of the frequent bloggers on The Chronicle, summarizes this setiment in one statement: “It seems inevitable that once we decided to become friends with everyone, we would forget how to be friends with anyone.”

However, advocates for Facebook claim that the social media site helps build friendships, instead of tearing them down. Rather than substituting Facebook for human contact, it serves as a powerful tool to supplement relationships that ultimately makes all friendships stronger, according to one blogger. A strong network is crucial in order to be successful in the world today, so Facebook is a cheap and effective tool to establish and maintain connections. While there are advantages and disadvantages in using Facebook as a means to upkeep friendships, there are other implications that must be considered when looking at how Facebook will affect our generation.

Facebook will drastically impact the workplace as well as education. A study conducted by The National Association of Colleges and Employers ranked communication skills as the most important type of skill that employers look for in potential candidates, beating out analytical skills and technical skills. However, if people continue to substitute Facebook for personal contact, the communication gap that exists in the workplace will only continue to widen. The future of business may be one that exists only online—businesses have already begun using sites like Facebook and Twitter to promote themselves. It may only be a matter of time before deals are created and signed in the virtual world.

A New York Times article also discussed how education will be impacted by our reliance on everything digital. Teachers have found it difficult to sustain students’ attention in the classroom because of the instant gratification that Facebook provides. In response to this article, blogger Andrew Sullivan extracted a quotation by a student that sums up the difficulty facing education: “I know I can read a book, but then I’m up and checking Facebook. Facebook is amazing because it feels like you’re doing something and you’re not doing anything. It’s the absence of doing something, but you feel gratified anyway”.

            Friendships may be the least of our worries when looking at how Facebook will change the world. Will students become so wrapped up in this virtual reality that they tune out educators in the classroom because they aren’t as interesting? Are the days of reading books and engaging in activities that stimulate the mind a thing of the past? This hype surrounding Facebook is the same reaction that people had with the invention of the television—many believed it would destroy communities and create a generation of children unable to communicate (when in reality, it did not). But can we say the same for Facebook? Only time will reveal the effects of social networks on people; but I don’t think the benefits of using Facebook as a means to maintain relationships will outweigh the social costs. 

USC: On-board for College Admission Changes

Follow-up article to my post about college admissions.

Calling All Interns

     I commend USC faculty for encouraging students to take advantage of internships throughout their time at USC. According to an article at CNN, internships may be the new entry-level job. Since the economy is still slowly recovering, it is important for students to utilize internships to keep themselves active in the job market. When hiring picks up in 2011, students with internship experience will be hot commodities.
     I know from personal experience that unpaid internships aren't fun. There is nothing more demoralizing than working a nine hour day and realizing that you actually SPENT money working because you had to eat and pay for gas to commute to the job. But I also believe that my unpaid internship experience landed me the full-time offer that I now get to enjoy.
     So moral of the story is: Work hard now so you can hardly work later!

The Ethics of Bribery

           During my freshmen year of college, I took a trip with the Marshall School of Business to Dublin to learn about the Irish economy. During the early 2000s, Ireland was categorized as a tiger economy, which is an economy that experiences brief but rapid growth. Since Ireland offers low corporate tax rates, companies like Google and IBM placed European headquarters in the country, and made Ireland a hub for big business. For a time, Ireland enjoyed this prosperity—but it soon came to a halt when the collapse of the U.S. economy triggered a worldwide domino effect. Now, Ireland is unable to pay off debt, and may need to be bailed out by other affluent countries like Germany.

While the Irish government is trying to find ways to decrease the deficit, one startling proposal made by a blogger recommends that Irish officials bribe credit-rating agencies to inflate credit scores in order to keep interest costs on debt payments low. There are deficiencies in this proposal, however; it assumes that a higher credit score will solve all of Ireland’s financial problems. There is no guarantee that bribing a credit agency will bring about the change necessary to get Ireland out of debt. This argument also may not be feasible since bribery is an illegal act, but let’s assume that such a proposal is a viable option for Ireland. In terms of ethics, there are pros and cons.

When doing ethical analysis, there are four models that serve as a framework to structure an argument: utilitarianism in terms of actions, utilitarianism in terms of rules, rights & duties, and virtue. Utilitarianism is the process of weighing benefits and harms, and choosing the option that offers the most benefits for the greatest number of people. Rule-utilitarian thought focuses on benefits and harms created by rules, while act-utilitarian thought calculates the consequences of actions themselves. The rights & duties model chooses the course that respects what others are entitled to (rights) and obligations a stakeholders has to fulfill them (duties). The last model, virtue, chooses the option that enforces good habits of character for yourself and others. Each model can be applied when evaluating whether bribery is ethical or not.

            In terms of benefits and harms to the Irish economy, the benefits of bribing credit-rating agencies would have a significant impact. Government would be able to get a handle on its interest payments and pay off debt quicker, without the financial support of other countries. Such benefits would likely reduce unemployment and drastically increase the quality of life for Irish citizens.  For this argument, harms are minimal—there is no harm that comes to the credit-rating agencies if no one finds out of such bribery. If discovered, the reputation of the agency may be diminished, but that certainly does not outweigh the benefits associated with helping the 4.5 million citizens of Ireland.

            Another argument in favor of bribery has to do with duties. The Irish government has an obligation to do what it takes to ensure the health and happiness of its citizens. While Ireland enjoyed prosperity for a short time in the early 2000s, the government may have made poor choices that led to Ireland’s current financial position. One blogger claims the reason for the crisis stems from government’s decision to guarantee all bank liabilities, a promise that Ireland could not keep. Doesn’t the government then, have a duty to citizens to use whatever means are available to restore the economy to a normal state? If the government has the power to bribe credit-rating agencies to help stimulate the economy, it should fulfill its promise of serving in the best interests of citizens.

            While there are ethical arguments in favor of bribery, there are also arguments not in favor. Although the action of the bribery may bring more benefits than harms to the people of Ireland in this particular situation, the rule that forbids bribery brings more benefits than harms in all situations. There are countless historical examples of individuals using bribery as a means to gain power or money that is used for evil; in fact, I argue that there are more examples of bribery used for immorality rather than for good. Because of the benefits that arise from outlawing bribery, it would be unethical for the Irish government to use such tactics, even if it greatly benefited its citizens.

            Although the blogger notes that credit-rating agencies are already involved with bribery, it would not be ethical to allow it in this case because it undermines the functional purpose of a credit-rating system. These agencies are created so that investors have a resource to be able to assess the risk with investing in bond markets. By using bribes to enhance credit scores, these scores become biased and are no longer a useful tool for potential investors. There is no way to ethically justify bribery in a credit-rating system because it goes against the very purpose of why such a system exists in an economy.

            The most powerful argument against bribery is related to the virtue model. Bribery is a form of corruption that alters a behavior or outcome based on a reward. Rather than encouraging good habits of character, such as hard work and judiciousness, the action teaches individuals to cheat in order to get ahead. By using such a tactic to pay off debt, the Irish government is justifying to citizens that the ends justify the means. Such examples will likely lead to corrupt behavior within the Irish economy, because the government did not fulfill its duty of being a moral representation of the country it administers. If the government engages in bribery, what would stop business owners, politicians, lobbyists, and other stakeholders from doing the same? This would open Pandora’s Box.

            Based on my ethical analysis, I believe Daria’s proposal is unethical based on the principles of rule-utilitarian thought and virtue. While there are benefits for Ireland that arise from stimulating the economy, that harms that occur from distorting the credit-rating system as well as encouraging citizens to engage in immoral behavior outweigh such benefits. It may have to rely on neighboring countries to pay off debt, but bribing credit-rating agencies is certainly not the ethical means to solve Ireland’s problems.

            

Here Comes The Sun

      After what seems like a decade of economic destitution, it appears there is a light at the end of the tunnel. There are several reasons why 2011 will be a good year for the US:

1. Companies are hiring

Google isn't the only large corporation that is hiring thousands of new employees in 2011. According to an article in the Wall Street Journal, productivity growth is slowing down--which means companies will have to hire more employees in the future.

2. Small companies are ready to invest

With credit conditions improving, banks will be more willing to lend to smaller companies in 2011.

3. Consumers have renewed their love of....consuming.

If Black Friday this year was any indication, consumers are doing what they do best.

4. Economic indicators are looking good (except for housing).

So cheers to a prosperous 2011!

Pedagogy

     Last month I blogged about the emerging trend of higher education institutions measuring value as a means to attract students. Now, states are being held accountable as well.
    By using a balanced scorecard approach, states are scored in a number of areas related to higher education--economic and community development, funding, and transparency & markets to name a few. A state can receive one of three scores in each category: needs improvement, in progress, or best practice. The states who received great scorecards were California, Texas, Georgia, Florida, and a few others. The states with the poorest scores were Michigan, South Carolina, Illinois, and many other mid-western states.
    This is a great step in the right direction for higher education. Now that institutions and state governments are being held accountable for their role in educating society, I think the quality and value of education will only get better from this point.

2012: Team Romney

     For the first time since Ronald Reagan was elected President in 1980, there is not a clear Republican front-runner for the upcoming Presidential elections in 2012. While Sarah Palin's name continues to be thrown around, I think most level-headed conservatives would abandon their political ties if she is picked to represent  the GOP in 2012.
     Personally, I am team Mitt Romney all the way (and I was in 2008 too!). The problem is, most people have no CLUE who Mitt Romney is. Romney was the former Governor of Massachusetts, which in case you aren't aware, is a very BLUE state. The fact that a conservative could be elected as Governor in one of the most liberal states in the country is a true testament to his ability to cross party lines to attract voters. He is extremely business-savvy, which is important considering the US has been unable to recover from our current financial crisis. However, his name-recognition problem paired with his religious beliefs that detract some voters (he is Mormon) may keep him from getting the support from the GOP.
     I am Team Romney all the way and I want to get his name out there!

Good Enough for Google

      Although many talented individuals are choosing to work for Facebook over Google, there are still a plethora of people who would love to work for the Bay Area-based company. And now is the time to do so! Google executives announced that they plan to hire 2,000 individuals throughout the duration of the year, and they will have no trouble attracting top talent from across the world for these coveted positions.
      Think you have what it takes? Check out some of these sample interview questions that are taken directly from previous Google interviews. They clearly want individuals who can think "outside the box", so if you know how many golf balls can fit in a school bus--sample interview question #6--then consider applying for a spot!

House Rich, Cash Poor

      I remember asking my mom what she meant by the statement "house rich, cash poor". She explained that many people in California had all of their wealth tied up in the value of their homes--but when it came to paying the bills, they didn't have the cash to do so.

      There is a going trend amongst homeowners to up-size their homes, while sacrificing other expenditures like education and health in order to afford bigger living spaces. According to the LA Times, "the typical American home has grown about 40% larger over the last 30 years." The ironic part about this statistic is that the number of children per household has declined over the past 30 years. Therefore, the change in home size cannot be explained by an increase in children; rather, it appears people are associating socio-economic status with home size. The problem with this trend is that families are devoting "34% of household expenditures to their homes". These expenditures do not benefit society like an investment in education would, which has caused the U.S. to be behind in "both the quality and quantity of the labor force [because they] are not keeping pace with the demands of the skill-based economy". If we want to grow as a country, we need to learn from our Chinese neighbors and devote more of our household expenditures to education.

College Admissions: Have Things Gone Too Far?

        It comes as no surprise that colleges are experiencing record application numbers this year--with the most qualified, talented applicant pool they've had thus far. But have they gone too far? Colleges now compete on how many students they can turn away, not how many they accept. An article in The Chronicle of Higher Education looked at several schools like Brown and Stanford who bragged about accepting less than 10% of applicants. Rather than marketing other aspects of a college, admissions believe that "The more apps a college receives, and rejects, the more impressive it seems".  

         This focus has caused students to feel like they have to apply to more schools than is necessary. One student remarked "I should apply to a million schools...if I shoot lots of arrows, maybe I'll hit something". However, this push is not only harmful to potential applicants, but also to the colleges themselves. A larger applicant pool does not mean that the quality of incoming students will be better. By striving for larger applicant pools, colleges are unable to predict the number of students that will actually attend, leading to longer waiting lists and other problems. 

        The solution: copy University of Chicago. Rather than trying to attract every type of student, Chicago admissions focus on attracting a student that would be successful at their university. The Dean of College Admissions at Univ. of Chicago sums up their recruiting tactics in one idea: "If understood properly, no given college will appeal to everyone—that wouldn't be possible...It's important to signal something true and meaningful about yourself. The more signals, the more honest you're being, and doing that does limit the applications". Chicago still attracts top-quality students--but it doesn't try to compete with other schools in attracting 50,000 applicants.

       I think schools should try to be more like the admissions team at Chicago. There is too much emphasis on attracting the greatest number of applicants possible, rather than focusing on attracting students that would be happy and successful at a particular school. This will yield positive benefits for students as well, because it will force them to sit down and prioritize which schools they want to attend, rather than applying to as many schools as possible just to get in.

National Unfriend Day!

Jimmy Kimmel announced on his show that today, November 17, shall be National Unfriend Day! In honor of the holiday, Brad Paisley and Darius Rucker wrote a song called "The National Unfriend Day Soundtrack" (see lyrics below). Kimmel created the day so that "all Facebook users shall protect the sacred nature of friendship by cutting out any 'friend fat' on their pages occupied by people who are not truly their friends". I couldn't agree with you more Jimmy Kimmel. 

To all the friends I've un'ed before 

Who sent me quizzes about Jersey Shore 

You made my life a hell 

With your stupid LOL 

To all the friends I've un'ed before

To all the guys from grammar school 

Posting shirtless pictures by their pool 

Your fat and sweaty back

Really makes me want to yak 

To all the friends I've un'ed before

Our time on earth goes by so quickly 

We have to make each moment great 

So I cannot waste one more minute 

Reading your dumb status update

The Day Has Finally Arrived!

     In case you couldn't tell by my post entitled "Taxman", I am a HUGE Beatles fan. I am currently taking a 4-unit course entitled "Beatles: Their Music and Their Times", where I get to access my inner nerd and learn all about the Beatles every Monday and Wednesday. While I could talk for hours about Paul McCartney, there is a reason why I bring up my obsession now.
     Apple is set to make a big announcement tomorrow, and there are various rumors as to what the surprise could be. According to Yahoo, the big surprise has to do with my favorite band: The Beatles. All iTunes users know that Beatles music is not available for sale due to the lack of agreement that could be reached between EMI (The Beatles's record label) and Apple. However, Apple has finally made an offer that EMI can't refuse, and Beatles fans will finally get to purchase their music on iTunes.
     Although I own all of the Beatles albums already, I am giddy with excitement that more people will have access to, in my opinion, the best music available.

I'm Sorry That I'm Not Sorry

Dear Kanye West,

Why are you such a horrible human being?

Love,
CMG

For those of you who missed the Kanye West and Matt Lauer interview on The Today Show, please watch it. Matt Lauer had Kanye on the show to be able to publicly apologize to George Bush, but once again, West let his true colors show and left viewers disgusted with his arrogance and lack of remorse. He made a complete fool of himself (yet again) on TV and I am embarrassed to own 2 of his albums.

Watch it here.

How to Nail the Interview

     College students often underestimate the importance of interviews in the job process. While grades & extra-curricular activities are important, if you lack the ability to sell yourself in an interview, your job prospects may be grim. This doesn't mean that you have to be outgoing and the "life of the party"-you just need to convey to the interviewer that you will add value to their firm.
     Check out these helpful interview tips before you start the interview process for internships or full-time job offers. Jobs may be few and far between, but all it takes is one great interview to enter the world of employment!

TV Shows: Red & Blue Too!

     I previously blogged about how the art of comedy is being polarized by political party preferences, and now TV is too! I must admit that the results of the study shown below are accurate with my political affiliation and TV watching preferences.

Hooray for Modern Family!

Google to Facebook: Lay Off My Talent!

    While many people would donate their left (or right) kidney to work for Google, it appears that the company is losing some of its talent to rival Facebook. I had a chance to tour Google's European headquarters in Dublin, Ireland, and I must admit that they know how to treat their employees well. All Google offices have break rooms that feature video game consoles, ping pong tables, and flat screen TVs where workers can get their "creative juices flowing". There are kitchens on every floor stocked with anything a Google employee's heart could desire. Offices feature massage parlors and dry cleaning services, so employees can get their chores done at work. But apparently, that isn't enough.
     Facebook and other social media companies like Twitter have a powerful tool that Google does not: pre-IPO stock. Facebook has been able to lure engineers away from Google with hefty stock option packages, but Google rebutted with a promise to give all 23,000 employees a 10% raise this year. While Google used to be the "it" place to work, people are starting to say it is the "safe" place to work. Facebook has now replaced Google as the leader in attracting world-class talent. However, with how fast technology changes I'm sure there will be a new leader by the time I am done with this blog post. Nonetheless, Facebook-1, Google-0.

Marriage Problems? Simple Solution.

     Ever since buying the iPhone 4 in August, my new favorite phrase is: "I'm sure there's an app for that". The creativity of applications available on mobile phones never ceases to amaze me, and I certainly was not shocked when I came across an article in Time Magazine that talks about iPhone apps aimed at saving failed marriages. It certainly sparked my curiosity.
      There were two apps that I found absolutely hysterical: The "Mind Over Marriage" app and the "Marriage Fight Tracker" app. The former serves as a personal service where app users can send an email about relationship problems or issues to an anonymous marriage counselor, who will then respond with advice regarding the dispute. The second app, "Marriage Fight Tracker", records a fight that a couple engages in (I know, it's a little ridiculous) and stores it in an electronic file so couples can return to the recording and see if any progress has been made in the relationship.
      It is scary to think that this is the direction in which society is heading, but with all the advancements in technology, I can't say that I'm surprised. With how much time I spend on my iPhone every day, I might as well be married to it. So what's next? An app that can buy clothes online for me based on my preferences and style? Pick up my dry cleaning?

      One can only dream.

Sorry Shakespeare, Your Academic Background Doesn't Cut It

      With unemployment rates at an all time high, students are having to pick majors that are more marketable to on-campus recruiters. The number of students majoring in the humanities has declined to a single-digit percentage across the country, weighing in at 8% in 2007 (I'm sure it is much lower now).
      While I personally despise taking general education courses, I do realize their fundamental value. Courses in the arts and humanities make students well-rounded. If I had only taken accounting classes throughout my entire academic career at USC, I would not graduate with the broad perspective that one attains by taking classes across all fields of study.
       I find it discouraging that students feel they no longer have the freedom to pursue majors that interest them based on whether or not it is easy to find a job with such credentials. I was lucky to stumble into a field of study that I loved, but also had great employment prospects (accounting)--but others are not as lucky.
       I hope this decline is cyclical, and that once the economy bounces back, students are no longer fearful to pursue a background in humanities. Although I begrudgingly attended my East Asian Languages & Cultures humanities class, I'd like to think I gained perspective and insight from broadening my academic horizons. Long live a liberal arts education!

Need for Ethics in Education

            While it may be nerdy to admit, the Enron documentary entitled “The Smartest Guys in the Room” is one of my favorite movies. While the downfall of Enron was indeed a direct result of greedy executives, a woman interviewed in the documentary states that it is “a portrait of human nature”. Even when being questioned by members of Congress after the collapse of the company, Jeff Skilling swore under oath that he “always did what was best for the company and its shareholders” (I still get chills when I watch that part). I could talk for hours about the ins and outs of the Enron scandal, but I want to focus on the lack of integrity that seems to be an increasing presence in business executives who lead the financial services industry.

            Some individuals blame capitalism as the cause of the recent economic downturn, which is a valid argument. The strength of capitalism is also its inherent weakness; while it grants freedom and flexibility to the users of financial markets, it also falls prey to the downfalls of human nature, allowing manipulation and fraud to run rampant. While increasing regulation of the economy may fix some of the problems, there is still the issue of ethics and integrity in business (or lack thereof). Since I am a huge advocate for education as a means of bringing about change, I believe the problem lies in the lack of education about ethics in schools.

            I would not feel so strongly about this if I hadn’t experienced ethics education firsthand my sophomore year of college. The class was a required business class entitled “Business Communication for Accounting Majors”, and focused on teaching nerdy accountants how to be good communicators with things other than numbers. The class incorporated labs on Fridays (who doesn’t like class on Fridays?) featuring simulations and guest speakers, which students enjoyed more than they liked to admit. On one Friday morning, my fellow classmate (who had attended lab earlier that day) called me and said “You have to go to lab today. It will absolutely blow your mind.” Without prying further, I walked to class and couldn’t wait to figure out what my friend was referring to. The lab started out with a case in which a business analyst had gotten wrapped up in a Ponzi scheme while working at UBS. The interesting twist of the case was that it wasn’t blatantly immoral. This wasn’t a Bernie Madoff-type Ponzi scheme—the analyst was unaware of the fraud until late in the case, and then tried to fix the damage that had already been done by his colleagues before the client found out.

When the case had been fully presented, my professor asked the class, “Now tell me: what would YOU have done in this situation?” Of course some of the typical answers were thrown out-“I would have called the fraud hotline!” (yeah right) or “Gone straight to the Board of Directors of UBS” (also highly unlikely). It became very clear that there was no obvious, moral answer. Our class became lost in the “gray area” that comprises ethics, and couldn’t all agree on an answer that seemed appropriate.

            Without missing a beat, my Professor said “I have someone in the classroom that I would like you to meet.” A fashionably dressed, 35-year-old looking man steps in front of the class and states to a group of naïve undergrads, “Hi. My name is Justin Paperny. I graduated from USC about ten years ago, and I’m the analyst in the case who was sent to jail for fraud.”

            I’m certain everyone in the class gasped at that very moment. This man did not look like a man who had been to jail-- he even graduated from USC! For the next hour of the lab, we all listened intently to the story of his ethical downfall. He had been on the USC baseball team, a stellar business student, and had an impressive career as a financial analyst up until the scandal in 2008. The harsh reality that we all learned that day is that this man was not a bad person. He had grown up in a very good home with great parents, and attended the best universities that money could buy. But education failed to teach him how to make ethical decisions when business temptations arise.

            Not one student walked out of the accounting building unaffected by what had transpired during the lab. It wasn’t the facts of the case that had the profound impact-it was the harsh reality that what happened to Justin could happen to any of us. Most students are aware of what is considered right and wrong, but in ethical dilemmas like the one presented in Justin’s case, the moral answer is not obvious. This lack of knowledge about the principles of ethics highlights an area of weakness in education. Schools need to incorporate courses that simulate ethical dilemmas and teach strategies to find ethical solutions when the answer is not clearly evident. While undergraduate and graduate business schools emphasize leadership in their curriculum, they fail to integrate ethics as a component of leadership. This fatal flaw causes students entering the working world to disassociate being a good leader and acting ethically, when in reality the two go hand in hand.

            While incorporating ethics into education is a viable option, there are obstacles that will make integration slow. When asked why ethics are not already incorporated into curriculum, business school professors commonly reply “[Business] students are grown people -- we can't teach them ethics”(Business Week). This argument is the most prevalent response amongst opponents of incorporating ethics in schools, who claim that teaching ethics in college is useless because moral character has already been formed by that point in a person’s life. However, if educators believe that courses cannot teach students how to change behavior, what is the point of sending kids to colleges and graduate schools? According to an article that highlights the weaknesses in arguments against teaching business ethics, the author states “ The opponent of ethics education presumably concedes that finance, marketing, and operations courses change behavior, but insists that an ethics course does not. Why is ethics class, the one class that deals directly with how one should behave, incapable of changing behavior, when all the other classes in the building have practical effect?”.  

Which brings me to a solution I propose: if some professors don’t see the value in teaching ethics, provide incentives for those that do. Business schools need to reward educators who bring in guest speakers to lecture on ethics--like my professor did-- or discuss ethics cases with their students. With a multitude of examples to pick from (Enron, Arthur Andersen, WorldCom, Lehman Bros, etc…), there is definitely not a lack of examples of poor ethics in the business world to be discussed openly with students. Whether through monetary incentives or recognition amongst colleagues, schools should create reward systems that honor professors that incorporate ethical components into required curriculum.

            One student replied to a Businessweek article on the need for ethics education and said, “I obtained knowledge and tools that have helped me avoid, resist, and discourage unethical behavior in all business dealings, something that has greatly helped my career in corporate finance. It's clear to me (and to many Notre Dame MBAs) that ethical decision-making isn't just the right thing to do but also adds great value to shareholders.” I’m not saying that ethics education will be the cure-all for the Jeff Skillings and Bernie Madoffs of the world—However, I do trust that preparing students for complex ethical dilemmas in school can only positively impact the business world.

California

California: The "Lindsay Lohan" of the States.

Privacy: A Thing of the Past

     While Facebook creator Mark Zuckerberg faces complaints that the sites' open-graph technology--which links users to information across the Web--breaches the privacy of users, it appears Facebook is not the only company using such software. The Wall Street Journal began a series called "What They Know", which features articles and documents that focus on educating readers about Internet-tracking technology.
      I stumbled upon an interactive article that lists the top visited internet sites and gives each site an "exposure index". This index is based on the degree of monitoring that each site exposes visitors to, based on tracking technology that each site employs. Sites featured in the article include: wikipedia.org, amazon.com, youtube.com, & craigslist.org, to name a few. While some sites respected the privacy of users (like wikipedia.org), others like dictionary.com had extremely high exposure index scores based on the type of information they expunged from site visitors.
      In a world where the line between public and private information continues to be blurred, internet users need to be aware of what information they are giving up when they visit popular internet sites. Check out the interactive article and see how much dictionary.com already knows about you!

Taxman: One for You, Nineteen for Me

     While taxation is a hot topic to discuss around political elections, I find it baffling that citizens don't demand to know where their hard-earned tax dollars go once elections are over. While Republicans fight to reduce taxes, why isn't there more focus on how tax dollars are allocated?
     My knowledge about taxes drastically increased when I took a tax course for my degree, and I had to become comfortable with filling out tax returns based on fictitious criteria. I had always weeped internally when I saw how much money was taken out of my work paychecks in high school, but now I actually saw where it all was going! I'm not here to discuss whether government should reduce taxes, but I do believe that tax-paying citizens deserve to know where their contributions to government are being allocated.
      Apparently, Third Way agrees with me. The non-profit Washington group produced an itemized taxpayer receipt in hopes of educating individuals on which programs government spends the most money. According to a study conducted beforehand, most surveyors thought the biggest government expenditure was foreign aid. They were stunned to find out that the two largest government expenditures were for Social Security and Medicare. While the itemized receipt only features a breakdown for a working couple and a retired couple, it still provides a wealth of knowledge that all types of taxpayers can learn from.

More Money, Less Votes

      Although it comes as no surprise that California voters re-elected incumbent Barbara Boxer for the Senate and Jerry Brown for governor, it is shocking to point out the money that was thrown around in this election. I freely admit that I am one of 5 Republicans who live in California, but despite this, I was not a fan of Meg Whitman. I do believe that this state needs a savvy, business-minded individual to run state government, but alas, Meg was not the answer to California's prayers. However, she did highlight an important trend in politics: more money does not mean more votes. 
      Meg, ex-CEO of Ebay, spent more than $142 million of her OWN money for this campaign, while Brown laughed all the way to Sacramento. Although this may be due to the fact that California is a liberal state, many political critics say this will be a trend that we see for years to come. Voters are not apt to elect politicians with loads of money because "large wealth and the perception of being “out of touch” with the plight of the average American is a liability". In times of economic instability, voters are not impressed with politicians who can afford to spend $140 million on an election; they want their elected representatives to understand what it means to have financial woes. 
       While California may never elect the types of individuals that I would like, I was very pleased to see the Republicans gain control of the House . There is nothing better than sending a message loud and clear to the White House. That, after all, is the beauty of a democracy.

Humor Comes In Two Hues: Red or Blue

     In a world where comedy used to be nonpartisan and enjoyed by all members of the political spectrum, it appears those days are over. In the past, political satirists prided themselves on hiding their political preferences from their audience; however, in recent times, they are no longer hiding their true colors. According to the Washington Wire, Jon Stewart & David Letterman sport blue jumpsuits under their normal suit-and-tie garb while Jay Leno and Jimmy Fallon look better in red. What gave them away?

     The Center of Media and Public Affairs found that 3 out of every 5 jokes coming from Stewart & Letterman were aimed at making fun of the Republican party, while the opposite was true for Leno & Fallon. While this may not be "news" for avid television watchers, the true impact will be on the polarizing effect it will have on network TV. Since news is already polarized (Republicans=Fox News, Democrats=CNN/MSNBC), it is safe to say that comedy will be too. Stewart's show is featured on Comedy Central, while Leno & Fallon both have shows on NBC. I find this unfortunate....comedy is something that should be free of partisanship. We certainly get enough politics in our day to day life, can't humor be left out of it!?
      While the comedians may differ on political ideologies, they agree on who should receive the brunt of their jokes: President Obama. According to the study, Obama received the majority of jokes from both sets of commentators, with Sarah Palin (totally deserving), George W. Bush (also not a shocker), and Joe Biden finishing the list. So while our country remains divided on various political issues, it appears we can all unite when it comes to making fun of our country's leadership. God Bless America.

     

iPhone>All Other Smartphones

           After seeing the movie “The Social Network” this past weekend—which chronicles the events leading up to the creation of Facebook—I began thinking more and more about the concept of intellectual property. At what point in the idea process does something belong to you? In the movie, Zuckerberg (the creator of Facebook) is accused of stealing the idea of Facebook from his Harvard peers. While most critics agree that Zuckerberg indeed “stole” the idea, I find myself surprised at how strongly I disagree. In a world where individuals have ample resources available at their fingertips via the Internet, how does one idea ever truly belong to one person? While ideas are hard to compartmentalize, the emergence of patents aim to protect a company that relies on technology and innovation to maintain competitive advantage.

            According to Apple, Motorola has stolen their idea of multi-touch technology. However, unlike the case of Facebook, Apple has patents to protect their competitive edge in the smartphone market. Apple is suing Motorola for violating 3 patents that deal specifically with multi-touch surfaces, claiming that their smartphone products like the Droid are a direct copy of the technology featured in Apple’s leading product, the iPhone.

            Since I am an iPhone user, I don’t think Apple has anything to worry about. The iPhone is clearly superior to all Motorola products, even if they DO feature multi-touch technology. It will be interesting to see how the courts interpret the case, and the outcome will largely shape intellectual property cases in the future. 

Shout Out To Mommy!

     Since my mom works for the domestic airline Virgin America, I have to give her a shout out on my blog. If you haven't flown with Virgin yet, you HAVE to--I promise you won't be disappointed. The fleet of aircrafts are all brand new, and the employees actually want to provide great customer service. Which is why I was not surprised to see the long list of carriers who made the "America's Meanest Airlines": US Airways, American Airlines, and United to name a few.
    
     There's no reason not to travel comfortably, so next time you need to fly, fly Virgin!

It's Settled: Blondes DO Have More Fun

           While I have been a blonde my entire life (all 21 years of it), I’ve always toyed with the idea of dying my hair darker. I always assumed that brunettes were taken more seriously than blondes in terms of intelligence and wit, which is something that appealed to me. According to the Lithuanian company Olialia, this is not the case.

            The company, who is planning to open a resort on one of the lovely islands in the Maldives, has one requirement for all potential employees: you MUST have blonde hair.

I’m not kidding.

            Not only must all of the employees of the resort have blonde hair, but Olialia mandates that the crew operating the aircraft that brings visitors to the island (including pilots) be blonde too. According to the managing director of the company (who is also blonde…SHOCKER), the company does not discriminate. She states, “But we find that when women with dark hair work here, they are surrounded by all these beautiful blonds, so eventually they end up going blond too.” The managing director goes on to further say that the company is looking to change the stereotype associated with blondes and intelligence, stating "Our girls are very smart and they have degrees."

           While I appreciate Olialia's plight to free blondes from a stereotype that is vastly self-inflicted, the task of serving margaritas in scantily-clad bikinis to over-aged men on a remote island may not do the trick.

            

It's All About ME!

          I have a confession to make: my first word as a child was not “mommy”, or “dada”, but “MINE". And apparently I am part of a larger movement in my generation that encourages self-centeredness and shuns empathy. According to a study conducted by researchers at the University of Michigan, college students are 40% less empathetic than they were 30 years ago. The article highlights a harsh reality of people growing up in today’s cutthroat world—“today’s students are generally less likely to describe themselves as ‘soft-hearted’ or to have ‘tender, concerned feelings’ for others. They are more likely, meanwhile, to admit that ‘other people’s misfortunes’ usually don’t disturb them”.

            In another article published by the University of Michigan, the author coins the term “Generation Me” for students my age, and further claims that we are the “most self-centered, narcissistic, competitive, confident and individualistic [generation] in recent history”. So what do we attribute to this? Bad parenting?

            Not quite. I believe this is a direct result of the world we grew up in; we are a byproduct of the competitive, individualistic environment that surrounds us at all times. In a world where students need to find the cure to cancer to get into college, we learn to put “blinders” on that allows us to focus solely on ourselves, and achieving personal goals at any cost. Does this mean we are inherently bad people?

            No. But these traits of our generation will drastically affect the workplace; it will be harder for individuals to work in teams, listen to one another, and collaborate. It also means that professionals will do whatever it takes to get what they want, no matter if it is at another’s expense (because we don’t care, remember?).

            So for all of you college students, watch out. It’s a tough world out there.

Not All Universities Are Created Equal

              With the cost of tuition steadily increasing year to year, universities are looking for ways to differentiate themselves from competitors (except Harvard). In a world where adding value is a critical success factor, schools are adapting performance measures that do just that: numerically show how the institution “adds value” to students. This movement started in 2006 when the Secretary of Education under the Bush administration chastised schools for “relying on their reputations…and not measuring whether their students are actually learning”. Since then, schools have made drastic changes to increase their academic efficiency.

                For example, one school utilizes a metric that analyzes a professor’s salary on a per student basis. The results were astonishing—some untenured professors made less than $100 per student while other professors who only taught a few small classes made upward of $20,000 per student. Metrics like this one illustrate the operating inefficiencies of academia.

                While critics say that the increase in productivity will be at the expense of what makes a university truly unique, I do believe that universities should be run more efficiently than they currently are. With public colleges being faced with budget cuts, operating effectiveness will be the key to survival.  A student deserves to know what kind of value a university will provide—I would hope it is included in tuition.

New York Politics

     While I admit I have lost faith in the political party system in the U.S, I couldn't help but chuckle after reading an article in the Wall Street Journal about one of the gubernatorial candidates in New York. Jimmy McMillan has created a new political party surrounded by an issue that he is very passionate about-- the "Rent is Too Damn High" party (I wish I was clever enough to make this one up). McMillan promises, if elected, to lower rent for all U.S. citizens who are currently paying way too much in rent. McMillan even interviewed people on the streets of New York, and when one man replied he didn't pay a lot in rent, McMillan rebuttled "You know why? He still lives with his mama.”
     The ironic part about McMillan's platform is that he thinks paying $800/month in rent for an apartment in Brooklyn is expensive. I would love to pay $800/month for my own apartment in New York (and I know of others who would too).
      Nonetheless, no matter how ridiculous this man's platform is, I can't help but like the guy. He isn't trying to fit the "politician mold"-he feels passionately about an issue and hopes that others do too. While I don't plan on switching my affiliation to the "Rent is Too Damn High" party, I will call myself a Jimmy McMillan fan.

Student Loans: What You Should Know (that they don't tell you)

       With the cost of tuition increasing exponentially, many students have to assume debt in the form of student loans to pay for schooling. Since the majority of students who apply for loans have little to no background in finance (myself included), it is important to fully understand what is expected of them as debt holders.
       I found a great article on my favorite education blog that included an interview with an attorney on the truth behind student loans. While many school administrators say that education debt is "good" debt (as if there is such a thing), the article highlights scary truths that I myself didn't know at the time I applied for a student loan.
       As I said before, I am a firm believer in educating oneself to make good life decisions. So read this article and I'm sure you will learn something about debt that you didn't know before!

If You’re Looking for a Glass Ceiling, Work for Citi

            Back in September, working women across the country were up in arms about a pamphlet distributed by Citi (although HR representatives deny the company distributed the material) that called corporate females to act more like men in the workplace. It comes as no surprise that Citi is now engulfed in a discrimination lawsuit. Six women have come forward stating that Citigroup is an “outdated boys club”, and that firm executives discriminate against females in decisions regarding compensation, promotions, and termination.

            This is a trend that appears to be common in the financial services industry, with women making 58.8 cents of every dollar men earn according to Government Accountability Office statistics. Rival bank Goldman Sachs is also facing a gender discrimination lawsuit.

            I am anxious to see how these lawsuits will impact women in the corporate world, depending on whether the courts view these claims as truly discriminatory in nature. 

Prosperous Economies Do Not Ensure Happy Citizens

           While money may serve as the leading incentive for people to succeed, individuals also strive to work towards the betterment of society. With the U.S. economy in shambles, politicians and citizens alike believe that money is the solution to our nation’s problems.

            In a previous post, I discussed the idea that after a certain given salary ($75,000), the happiness of an individual does not increase. Adair Turner, chairman of the Financial Services Authority, takes this concept a step further and claims that economic prosperity does not lead to an increase in citizens’ happiness either. According to an economic theory concocted by Roger Bootle, there are two types of activities that careers fall under that individuals engage in: creative and distributive activities. A creative activity is one where your job benefits another individual, i.e. a doctor. A distributive activity is one in which your purpose is to create gains for your company/client at the expense of another. Turner goes on to say that the more prosperous a nation grows, the more people engage in distributive activities which are “activities that cannot increase human happiness.”

            While it is important for a nation to flourish, it is important to keep in mind that economic growth is not linked to an improvement amongst citizens when the activities are purely distributive. On a microeconomic level, Turner mentions that distributive careers in the legal profession as well as financial services industry are highly distributive, and while they may be high-paying jobs, they are “socially useless” in terms of their contributions to society.

            While I do not fully agree with these points made in Turner’s lecture at the London School of Economics, I do agree with the idea that economic growth does not always make the individuals that comprise an economy happier. I also find it interesting that Turner believes the financial services industry to be “socially useless”, considering he serves as Chairman of Britian’s leading financial regulatory body.

The Halo Effect: Alive and Well in Corporate America

         During my freshmen year, I enrolled in a business course called “Leading Organizations”, which focused on studying the structure of corporate hierarchies and the psychology behind business. While I do not remember everything I learned in that class, I do recall learning about a psychological phenomenon called “the halo effect”. According to the scientist who coined the term, the halo effect refers to the underlying assumptions that individuals make about others based solely on appearance. In the class, we watched a video about two females who were being interviewed for a specific job position. One woman was very well put-together, while the other was made to look disheveled and unattractive. While the uglier candidate had more suitable work experience and leadership qualities, the attractive female got the job. Why?

            When an individual meets someone that is attractive, they assume that other personal qualities of the individual are also attractive. For example, if I met an attractive individual, I would assume they lead a very active lifestyle and have desirable personal qualities (great sense of humor, strong morals, etc…) The reverse halo affect is the assumption that an unattractive person has many other undesirable traits. If I were to interview an individual who looked like he or she had just rolled out of bed, I would make negative assumptions about their personality. Whether or not you believe it to be fair, this is a theory that has been proven by empirical research for many years.

            Thus, it comes as no surprise that I came across a blog post that confirmed this theory. According to “The Juggle”, thin women who work in the business world earn more than fat women who perform the same work. While the research showed the opposite result for males, it appears that corporate America treats women much like the fashion industry does. The research claims thin women make an average of $15,572 more per year than average-sized women, and that there is a direct relationship between gaining weight and pay penalties.

            While obesity continues to be a growing epidemic in the U.S., I find it interesting that the business world rewards females who appear to be healthy. Love it or hate it, the halo effect is here to stay.

Loss of Faith in Capitalism

          I am a self-proclaimed capitalist. While that sentence may not make me popular in the state of California, I freely admit that I am a follower of the ideals of Adam Smith. Smith is famous for coining the economics term “the invisible hand” that is featured in every high school economics textbook in America. He believed in the self-regulatory nature of markets, and shunned governmental interference in the economy. Up until 2008, many individuals agreed with the notion that markets should be free of government rule and left to operate on their own. With the series of unfortunate events that ensued in 2008 (downfall of Lehman Bros, bailout of AIG, etc…), the theory that has shaped Western civilization for hundreds of years is being called into question. Can the players in free market economies act in their own self-interest while still benefiting stakeholders? Does capitalism pave the way for fraud and unethical behavior? If so, how much government regulation is appropriate? While I do not think my twenty one years of life experience can fully answer these questions, I want to discuss possible solutions to the growing lack of confidence that people have regarding capitalism and big business.

            One solution to this problem is to rid of capitalism altogether and implement an economic system that is completely regulated and monitored by the government. However, that is not a viable option because those types of economies have been historically proven to be unsuccessful (Russia, for example).  Therefore, if the problem is not caused by the principles of the economic theory, it must be created by the users of it--capitalists.

According to a survey administered by McKinsey, there is a trust gap that exists between consumers and corporations that continues to grow over time. The survey, given in 2007, discovered that “68% of executives say that large corporations make a generally or somewhat positive contribution to the public good. Yet only 48% of consumers agree”. It is safe to assume that the societal contributions made by Bernie Madoff and the executives of most investment banks have only widened the gap over the past three years. However, it is wrong to blame the system itself and not the users of the system. Consumers are associating unethical behavior with corporations, rather than the individuals that run them. A blog post entitled “To Understand the Lack of Business Ethics Look to Education” captures this notion when the author states, “When people point the finger at companies such as Enron and Arthur Anderson, the unethical behavior was not caused by the organization, but rather these individuals were already unethical”. I am certain that the credit crisis was not a weakness of capitalism, but a signal about the types of individuals who run big business in America.

            Although executives of corporations have a fiduciary duty to serve in the best interest of their shareholders, the Jeff Skilling-type executives consider themselves exempt from such duties. Since I am a huge advocate for education as a means of bringing about change, I believe the problem lies in the lack of education about ethics in schools. Out of all the high school curriculum and undergraduate work I completed as an accounting major, I was never required to take a course in ethics. The cheating that I witnessed or heard about was commonplace, but was rarely reprimanded. So how can we expect business executives to follow the rules when ethics is not something that is emphasized or valued in education?

            I am in no way making excuses for people like Bernie Madoff—I think all humans agree that he deserves to rot in jail for all of eternity. I am merely highlighting the need for ethics in education to try to extinguish the root of the problem. Statistics prove that it is not only the “slacker-type” students that are cheaters growing up; it is the students who have immense pressure to succeed. A professor at Stanford University conducted research in this area and found that “Nationally, 75 percent of all high school students cheat. But the ones who cheat more are the ones who have the most to lose, which is the honors and AP (advanced placement) students. Eighty percent of honors and AP students cheat on a regular basis… It's the kids with a 4.6 grade-point average who are under so much pressure to keep their grades up and get into the best colleges. They're the ones who are smart enough to figure out how to cheat without getting caught." Once students learn they can get away with unethical behavior in school, we all know it is a slippery slope when one enters the corporate world.

            The only way to mitigate this problem is to teach ethics in schools. Most students are aware of what is considered right and wrong, but there is a large gray area that remains untouched long after schooling is over. This gray area is filled with actions that are not illegal but still not considered morally sound, like when companies use legal practices of earnings management in their financials to mislead investors. It is this particular gray area that the crooks on Wall Street manipulate and abuse, causing citizens to mistakenly blame capitalism as the villain. Schools need to incorporate courses that simulate ethical dilemmas and teach strategies to find ethical solutions when the answer is not clearly evident. While undergraduate and graduate business schools emphasize leadership in their curriculum, they fail to integrate ethics as a component of leadership. This fatal flaw causes students entering the working world to disassociate being a good leader and acting ethically, when in reality the two go hand in hand.

            Therefore, the only way to restore faith in the markets is to change the character of those who control the markets. Rather than personifying greed and exploitation, big business in America should represent what capitalism encourages; an economic system free of governmental control that welcomes entrepreneurial spirit and rewards hard work. And this can only be created by educating the next generation of movers and shakers on the importance of ethical behavior in the workplace. This will not be a change that will occur immediately, but schools need to assume the responsibility of nurturing leaders and start to incorporate values and principles of ethical behavior into academia. 

Accountability in Schools

It used to be a widely accepted fact that public school teachers had to “burn the school down” to be fired from their teaching positions. However, over the last few years there has been a push various public school systems to hold teachers' accountable for the performance of their students. One article highlighted this push in New York City public schools with regards to granting tenure.

The New York City Department of Education has implemented a grading system that ranks a teacher based on their effectiveness as an educator. The four possible scores are: highly effective, effective, developing, and ineffective. If a teacher receives a score of “ineffective”, he or she will not receive tenure and will be recommended to be dismissed. Teachers can only be granted tenure if they show progress with students for two years in a row. This measure aims to send a message to all educators that they are being held accountable for the success of their students, a notion which needs to be emphasized in public school systems across the country.

Since I attended public middle school and private high school, I have a unique perspective on the major differences between publicly-run and privately operated schools. While I do not want to discredit the amazing teachers I learned from in middle school, it is quite apparent that private school teachers are held much more accountable than public school teachers. For example, the teachers at my high school were hired on a year-to-year basis, so the concept of job security was nonexistent. If a teacher received complaints from students or parents regarding his or her teaching practices (or lack thereof), the administrators would sit-in on classes and determine whether they should extend the teacher a contract to come back the following year. Out of the two horrible teachers I had in high school, both did not come back to teach the following year.

So why can’t public schools mimic this practice?

MONEY (the root of all our problems).

According to another article published by The LA Times, firing tenured teachers is so costly and time-consuming that principals rarely make the effort. Joseph Walker, a former principal of a public school in Van Nuys, solidifies this harsh reality when he says “You're not going to fire someone who's not doing their job. And if you have someone who's done something really egregious, there's only a 50-50 chance that you can fire them”.

While President Obama claims he will create a nation that “nourishes good teachers and casts out the bad ones”, it may be a change that will take time and money to fix. I commend the New York City Board of Education for taking a step in the right direction, but other schools cannot follow suit until the benefits of removing a teacher from their position will outweigh the immense costs in finding a proper replacement.