HBS graduates ~900 people per year from the MBA program. The fact that many end up in positions of power is only partly related to the HBS experience. Given that there are more graduates from this school than any other top business school (as it's older than the others, too), it's not surprising that you find some bad eggs. The fact that you have a list representing 0.01% of the graduates as evil (and I don't even concede all your names as true criminals/wrongdoers) shouldn't be enough to indict all HBS grads.
Perhaps you've traveled overseas and felt the injustice of being scorned as an American for actions you took no part in, or perhaps even opposed.
Let's talk about missing the point. I never mentioned anything about the interplay of interests, just that there is often a naive view presented in these parts that any company ever laying off an employee is inherently evil. I am a student at HBS and we frequently discuss the issu of what happens when you layoff employees to other employees and what the human and fiscal costs are of getting new employees and locations up to speed. My only point here is that you cannot let employee interests be absolute in decision making.
I'll presume you haven't been here to HBS as a student. That's surely not what is taught here, nor is it the type of people you find on campus.
You imply that employees' interests should trump shareholders' interests, a notion that would quickly destroy our economy. Employees interests are important, and were you to meet the students here, you would have a very different view of HBS-trained executives.
I had a similar feeling at first, that this was misdirected anger at applicants, that should have been pointed at the 3rd party site (ApplyYourself).
In reality, I think it is more trying to make an example regarding ethics. It's sad that the 119 people who happened to see this and try it in the short time it was posted bear the brunt of punishment for a crime the majority of applicants would have committed.
As a current Harvard MBA student and long-time/. reader, it's worth pointing out that these applicants didn't "hack" anything. They got instructions (now deleted from the BW forums) that if you took your login hash, appended it to a URL at the ApplyYourself, you could see the decision letter on your file, if it had already been posted. My guess is that someone asked a first round applicant (who had already heard) for the URL to the decision and tried it as an in-process second round applicant.
This isn't hacking. Nobody logged in as the Admissions Director or socially engineered their way into info by calling admissions and pretending to be a staffer out on the road. The only people at fault here are the coders at ApplyYourself (the 3rd party application site). Having used it last year, I can tell you that it is technically inferior to most products that other schools build themselves.
There's already some ideas above that with the Enron and Worldcom scandals, business schools need to have ethics at the highest standards, but this misses the point. The 119 people that just got rejected weren't the 119 least ethical applicants. They were the 119 of the (probably) 130 applicants who saw the instructions before they were deleted. The top tier b-school application process is very stressful and the idea of seeing your results early is hardly scandalous.
Furthermore, our new post-scandal "Leadership and Corporate Accountability" course spends a great deal of time discussing the ethical trade-offs inherent in business, such as weighing employee concerns vs. shareholder concerns vs. customer concerns. These decisions are rarely black and white and we spend a lot of time discussing relative merits of each stakeholder. The notion that we would portray ourselves as knowing an absolute ethical standard goes against much of what we teach and learn here.
Despite the small number of true criminals to have walked these halls, Harvard Business School is a great institution and most/.'ers would be surprised to meet all the ethical people here that will be future leaders (if past performance is predictive of future performance).
It's worse than that -- you can't apply percentage growth to percentages. This math assumes the number of internet users hasn't changed. It's probably ballpark correct given that internet users isn't changing that fast, but it's like saying that 10% of households have 2 kids in 1900 and then 15% of households in 2000 have 2 kids, so the number of households with 2 kids grew by 50%, when in fact, there are twice as many households, so there were 100K 2 kid households in 1900 and 300K in 2000, actually 200% growth.
While I love sushi as much as everyone else, the $21/month for internet access is only cheap when you ignore the fact that a medium sized house in Tokyo is $10,000 per month and a jar of peanut butter is $15.
Then again, they basically pay you to borrow money at current interest rates, so it's not a totally bad deal.
That's not what it says. Their policy is if a DVD is ever lost / not returned, you owe $18. Very different from NetFlix. The cancelled part has to do with getting everything back in 7 days from when you cancel, not the charges, which always apply.
It looks like the first innovation Wal-Mart made was shifting the liability for lost/stolen DVDs to the consumer. With NetFlix, as long as it doesn't happen often, you don't get penalized for having one lost in the mail, with Wal-Mart, it costs you $17.88 (see here).
There are already methods of randomizing responses for sensitive topics that work much better than this by instilling real trust. The way it works is quite simple. You ask one thousand people whether they have used drugs in the last 30 days. For each person, during the interview you ask them to flip a coin, and if it is heads, answer truthfully, if it is tails say "yes". Through some very simple formulas, you can translate this to the true result.
All surveys have a confidence interval, and 1000 flips of a coin has a very high confidence of being very close to 50-50 heads/tails.
There are of course more sophisticated versions of this with dice or a more complex random number generator, but with the interviewer not knowing if a person is telling the truth, it usually makes people much more confident in being honest as nothing can ever be proven about what they say.
Now I understand why AOL might not want to integrate with MSN, Yahoo, and the like. But they control both the software development and infrastructure for both AIM and ICQ. Is it simply due to lack of effort that they won't integrate the two? (A little off-topic yes, but since NS7 is/will be just Mozilla 1.0, the parent not really all that interesting news-wise.)
They have integrated AIM and ICQ, there was a time a year or two ago where you could sign into ICQ using an AIM client in one beta version. They don't publicly integrate them, because then they would be closer to admitting that interoperability is possible. They'd rather continue claiming that otherclients are a security threat to their network.
The list makes a lot more sense with this math, though Titanic still gets ranked too highly. Unfortunately, this is only adjusted with the Consumer Price Index. I think someone should adjust for population growth as well.
The problem here is that these guys didn't do it well enough. My freshman year, me and a junior decided to steal the cable TV that only ran to the first floor lounges. We got up at 6am every morning, and spent about an hour a day for 2 weeks wiring coaxial cable down 3 stories through the walls. Then we ran wire under carpets and through bathrooms. The splice happened in a place where you would need to knock down a wall to find it. Of course, for extra safety, we only ran the cable to the suite tv, so that they could never pin it on us.
It is not hard to steal from a university, you just have to put some thought into it.
Working Philips Flat Screen Link
on
Cool PC Cases
·
· Score: 1
That's the way it is always referred to. 10 Mbit/sec network connections are frequently referred to as "ten megabit" connections. Sure, it's not a wise abbreviation, but pretty much every network speed is rated per second.
Slashdot Mirror
It has everything to do with the subject at hand.
HBS graduates ~900 people per year from the MBA program. The fact that many end up in positions of power is only partly related to the HBS experience. Given that there are more graduates from this school than any other top business school (as it's older than the others, too), it's not surprising that you find some bad eggs. The fact that you have a list representing 0.01% of the graduates as evil (and I don't even concede all your names as true criminals/wrongdoers) shouldn't be enough to indict all HBS grads.
Perhaps you've traveled overseas and felt the injustice of being scorned as an American for actions you took no part in, or perhaps even opposed.
Let's talk about missing the point. I never mentioned anything about the interplay of interests, just that there is often a naive view presented in these parts that any company ever laying off an employee is inherently evil. I am a student at HBS and we frequently discuss the issu of what happens when you layoff employees to other employees and what the human and fiscal costs are of getting new employees and locations up to speed. My only point here is that you cannot let employee interests be absolute in decision making.
I'll presume you haven't been here to HBS as a student. That's surely not what is taught here, nor is it the type of people you find on campus.
You imply that employees' interests should trump shareholders' interests, a notion that would quickly destroy our economy. Employees interests are important, and were you to meet the students here, you would have a very different view of HBS-trained executives.
I had a similar feeling at first, that this was misdirected anger at applicants, that should have been pointed at the 3rd party site (ApplyYourself).
In reality, I think it is more trying to make an example regarding ethics. It's sad that the 119 people who happened to see this and try it in the short time it was posted bear the brunt of punishment for a crime the majority of applicants would have committed.
As a current Harvard MBA student and long-time /. reader, it's worth pointing out that these applicants didn't "hack" anything. They got instructions (now deleted from the BW forums) that if you took your login hash, appended it to a URL at the ApplyYourself, you could see the decision letter on your file, if it had already been posted. My guess is that someone asked a first round applicant (who had already heard) for the URL to the decision and tried it as an in-process second round applicant.
This isn't hacking. Nobody logged in as the Admissions Director or socially engineered their way into info by calling admissions and pretending to be a staffer out on the road. The only people at fault here are the coders at ApplyYourself (the 3rd party application site). Having used it last year, I can tell you that it is technically inferior to most products that other schools build themselves.
There's already some ideas above that with the Enron and Worldcom scandals, business schools need to have ethics at the highest standards, but this misses the point. The 119 people that just got rejected weren't the 119 least ethical applicants. They were the 119 of the (probably) 130 applicants who saw the instructions before they were deleted. The top tier b-school application process is very stressful and the idea of seeing your results early is hardly scandalous.
Furthermore, our new post-scandal "Leadership and Corporate Accountability" course spends a great deal of time discussing the ethical trade-offs inherent in business, such as weighing employee concerns vs. shareholder concerns vs. customer concerns. These decisions are rarely black and white and we spend a lot of time discussing relative merits of each stakeholder. The notion that we would portray ourselves as knowing an absolute ethical standard goes against much of what we teach and learn here.
Despite the small number of true criminals to have walked these halls, Harvard Business School is a great institution and most /.'ers would be surprised to meet all the ethical people here that will be future leaders (if past performance is predictive of future performance).
It's worse than that -- you can't apply percentage growth to percentages. This math assumes the number of internet users hasn't changed. It's probably ballpark correct given that internet users isn't changing that fast, but it's like saying that 10% of households have 2 kids in 1900 and then 15% of households in 2000 have 2 kids, so the number of households with 2 kids grew by 50%, when in fact, there are twice as many households, so there were 100K 2 kid households in 1900 and 300K in 2000, actually 200% growth.
While I love sushi as much as everyone else, the $21/month for internet access is only cheap when you ignore the fact that a medium sized house in Tokyo is $10,000 per month and a jar of peanut butter is $15.
Then again, they basically pay you to borrow money at current interest rates, so it's not a totally bad deal.
FYI, the Pentium M processors have 512KB of trash in 1.4GHz-2.6GHz varieties: link
That's not what it says. Their policy is if a DVD is ever lost / not returned, you owe $18. Very different from NetFlix. The cancelled part has to do with getting everything back in 7 days from when you cancel, not the charges, which always apply.
It looks like the first innovation Wal-Mart made was shifting the liability for lost/stolen DVDs to the consumer. With NetFlix, as long as it doesn't happen often, you don't get penalized for having one lost in the mail, with Wal-Mart, it costs you $17.88 (see here).
All surveys have a confidence interval, and 1000 flips of a coin has a very high confidence of being very close to 50-50 heads/tails.
There are of course more sophisticated versions of this with dice or a more complex random number generator, but with the interviewer not knowing if a person is telling the truth, it usually makes people much more confident in being honest as nothing can ever be proven about what they say.
They have integrated AIM and ICQ, there was a time a year or two ago where you could sign into ICQ using an AIM client in one beta version. They don't publicly integrate them, because then they would be closer to admitting that interoperability is possible. They'd rather continue claiming that other clients are a security threat to their network.
It's a load of hooey if you ask me
Top 100 Ever Adjusted
The list makes a lot more sense with this math, though Titanic still gets ranked too highly. Unfortunately, this is only adjusted with the Consumer Price Index. I think someone should adjust for population growth as well.
The problem here is that these guys didn't do it well enough. My freshman year, me and a junior decided to steal the cable TV that only ran to the first floor lounges. We got up at 6am every morning, and spent about an hour a day for 2 weeks wiring coaxial cable down 3 stories through the walls. Then we ran wire under carpets and through bathrooms. The splice happened in a place where you would need to knock down a wall to find it. Of course, for extra safety, we only ran the cable to the suite tv, so that they could never pin it on us.
It is not hard to steal from a university, you just have to put some thought into it.
http://www.flat-tv.com/index2.html
That's the way it is always referred to. 10 Mbit/sec network connections are frequently referred to as "ten megabit" connections. Sure, it's not a wise abbreviation, but pretty much every network speed is rated per second.