I actually called up the Intellectual Property Office once and they told me that there is no 20 percent rule. It's a myth. The IP people consider a multitude of factors -- although it *is* possible to change an image enough to have it qualify as a new image. Part of the test involves determining whether the image appears to be based on the original.
The poster is right. To assign copyright, "due consideration" would need to be exchanged. That means money. Otherwise, the courts could say that the person had no real incentive to assign their copyright to the company/organization. The due consideration should also be at market rates, although the courts would consider the market value of work produced by entry-level student artists.
There are plenty of people willing to pay $11 for a burder at Planet Hollywood or Hard Rock Cafe. I have seen Battlestar Galactica items at a Planet Hollywood.
Many museums ban photography. In some cases, intellectual property may be at stake. However, many museums have banned photography because flash lights damage artefacts.
In this MP3 clip on flash photography's effect on art, CBC Radio's Quirks & Quarks interviews Dr. Tito Scaiano, professor of chemistry at the University of Ottawa.
Artefacts absorb light, and thus molecules. The molecules convert the energy to heat, but sometimes a molecule changes chemical structure, resulting in a visible change. When a photo is absorbed, it pushes the molecule to a higher energy state that breaks the bond. In other cases, it promotes oxidization. Organic pigments are more sensitive than inorganic pigments (which are already fairly oxidized). In other words, flash photography can lead to deterioration of an artefact, not to mention changes to the pigment.
Although aircraft may not be as sensitive as the Mona Lisa, it's still possible that flash photography could damage the artefact. An art student told me that his professor confided that one flash was equivalent to three days of natural light. I don't know if that's entirely true, but I've heard the warning repeated.
Although some people might not use flashes, even a small percentage of wrong-doers could eventually ruin an artefact. For example, when I saw the Mona Lisa, about 30% of the crowd was taking flash photos. The Mona Lisa is behind 3 inches of plexiglass, but the flashes do take their toll.
It's certainly important to relate to other people. Anyone who overlooks the receptionist is making a serious mistake, IMHO. I thought perhaps you meant there were other ways to be perceived as an ally -- e.g. by agreeing with people for political gain.
Okay, so how would a person with such attributes counter the "ally" concerns of others? People are often wary of anyone who's smart. But how do you address that?
I think that good conversationalists could improve the tone of a coffee house. Unfortunately, Starbucks uses a factory-style production system that affords little time for conversation.:)
Exactly. Employers tend to misunderstand other things, too. For example, I recently completed my MBA. Last week, I interviewed for a marketing job at a software company. The VP told me he didn't hire MBAs because they weren't detail-oriented. Right, because a higher degree means you couldn't possible look at details. You couldn't possible have stayed up till 4 am while trying to build a random walk or research the number of stethoscopes sold in Georgia each year.
I decided not to point out the financial errors in their annual report. And, after some more thought, it's occurred to me that maybe "detail-oriented" was just a reflection of the VP's fear. He didn't seem very secure.
In my area of Vancouver (where we take coffee very seriously), most of the Starbucks shops unofficially require you to have a university degree. They say it creates a coffee house atmosphere. I'm not sure how true this is, as the barista is usually so busy with orders that our most complex conversations include, "You're out of stir sticks" and "A non-employee is soliciting money from your customers."
Microsoft has figured out that its next version is doomed. To prevent competitors from gaining market share, they're extending support on previous versions.;)
When I was in college, people used to do a textbook scam. They'd buy a textbook one day, then go back to the store the next day. They'd pick up a duplicate copy from the shelf, then use the receipt from the day before to return that book. Result: cash return plus they could still sell the original on the side OR keep it for class.
This topic has twigged my academic spider senses...So I've popped off emails to profs I know at two Canadian universities. The PR prof is circulating the topic for discussion. However, the journalism prof said she despises any massaged or manufactured "information". (emphasis mine) She didn't seem to know of any legal / moral attribution standards, though.
If I find out anything conclusive, I'll post the results here.
The same thing happened at a company where I used to work (in British Columbia, Canada). After 3 months or so, I got sick of having to change vendors for every marketing job -- the owner wasn't paying them. I quit. Anyway, my co-workers one day arrived to find the door locked. When they went to apply for employment insurance, they found out that none of their deductions had been made. The owner was bankrolling the firm using Canada Pension Plan, Employment Insurance, non-existent benefits, and other typical deductions. He ended up owing the government around $250k. His house was in his wife's name, so he declared bankruptcy. Now he makes $130k a year as a contracted programmer. Makes me sick.
How is it different from George Bush reading out a speech that was written by a copywriter? Few people in positions of power come up with the words they say.
Hi Justin,
>> All marketing information is clearly as close to lies as necessary
Good marketers don't lie. It's unethical and it could sour the entire relationship. If people find out you've lied, they won't trust you when you're telling the truth.
> and any competent geek would cut off their net > connection rather than make a decision based
> on it.
But it's not the geeks who make the purchasing decision or pay for them.
> All marketing is aimed at CI/EOs because
> they're the only ones dumb enough to think it
> might be relevent.
The marketing pieces you're talking about are not designed for decision-making during the "hard" buying cycle. Most marketing pieces (direct mail, news releases, brochures, websites, case studies, etc) are designed to build awareness, gain mindshare from buyers, stimulate frustrations/pains from existing products/companies, and present the company/product as an option. These pieces are designed to gain the attention of the person who might (on their own or through others) start the process of investigating solutions.
When that process has started and the person or their designate is in search mode, good marketers start talking to them. They try to help diagnose "big picture" frustrations and issues. To help people visualize the company/product as a solution, the next step involves case studies, testimonials, and other materials.
The next round of materials (whitepapers, tech specs, benchmarking results, etc) are much, much more technical or they may include a *lot* more financial or process analysis. This is where technical people are brought in to talk to the client (preferably the client's own technical people). 99% of these materials (and, in some cases, even the responses to the conversations themselves!) have passed through marketing.
Not all marketing is aimed at C-level execs. But, when it is, it's a response to the people who have the authority or economic power to start the search process. When the best fit is at a more technical or junior level, marketers pitch to those people. But, regardless of how brilliant the technical people may be, they usually lack the economic power (corporate budget) or authority (level in organization) to make the decision. Technical people are usually key influencers. And while the people who actually use the solutions may be the ones experiencing the greatest frustration, they rarely have the power to convince the economic and power buyers. So marketers create tools that those user buyers can show to their C-level bosses, so that the execs can make the connection between trickle-down and bubble-up issues.
Hope this helps.
Actually, when I was in journalism school, we were taught that what matters is whether the source (person quoted) has accepted attribution.
It would only be fraud if the quoted source had not authorized the news release.
I'm a marketer. This is how news releases are written:
Once I know I need to write a news release, I work out a plan. This includes goals, target audiences, media tools, means of measurement, key messages and key sources. If I need to involve external sources (the people I quote), I ask those companies for their consent to write a release. Depending on the relationship, they may send me the quotes *or* I might write quotes for them and have them approve them later.
It's often the last minute before the other company's senior execs, marketing staff, PR agency, lawyers, clients, or other stakeholders decide who they'll let me quote. They may have long debates over whether they want their quote attributed to the CEO, VP, client, Martian Sales Director, General Manager for Neptune, etc. It all depends on how they want to position their own quotes. And that's assuming they even wrote them. Whenenver I've had to deal with Microsoft, they've taken a week or more to approve a news release.
Virtually the same scenario takes place at my end. Various stakeholders provide input, and both the quotes and the sources (e.g. CIO) can change.
In my experience, anyone who ends up being quoted has to sign off on the quote. There are review processes. It's not like those people weren't involved.
When a CEO or other exec has a "real" interview with the press, the CEO reads from notes and statements that a marketer wrote. Before the interview starts, a marketer goes over all the notes and helps suggest possible questions and answers. The marketer sits in on the interview and (if cameras aren't present or it's over the phone) may help the exec piece together answers. Everything is heavily scripted. Eventually, the execs know the words by heart, or pretty close.
You can compare this process to the one used for professional speech writing, memos, letters, ghostwritten articles, and briefing notes. In fact, when I was just a co-op student, I was writing briefing notes, "question period responses", and other materials for the Canadian Minister of Immigration. Whether in a corporate or goverment environment, spokespersons rarely speak off the cuff. Except for Dan Quayle.
And, while I'm sure some people are horrified by the process, it has many advantages. Messages are consistent. Speakers/sources are handpicked for credibility, ability to talk, and relevance. All the messages have been pre-screened by legal teams, reducing risk. It's less likely that the exec will over-commit us, say something incorrect about a feature/benefit, or go off-topic. And the investment in marketing is maximized. And that's good for the company.
I just finished my MBA. When I was half-way through, I asked my professor what I should focus on, in order to benefit my country and also earn a living. He told me to go into bionformatics. And I said, "Um. I just did an MBA. Now you want me to pursue a field that requires graduate-level studies in computers and biology?" He didn't know what to say...it was all so theoretical to him.
Intelligent marketers don't believe in focusing only on making sales. A poor product, poor customer service experience, or lack of innovation (ie. incentive to upgrade) will erode the value of a one-time sale. Real marketers know that "marketing" means everything you need to wrap around your widget to meet the whole needs of the customer. That means seeing everything you do as part of marketing -- from the way you answer the phone to the way you write your tech manuals. It may mean created a "trusted brand" so that you can help calm people's nerves. But a trusted brand means more than just a splashy ad campaign. It means finetuning all interactions with customers, so that you never erode your brand. That means putting a customer on hold for 45 seconds can erode your brand, if being put on hold irritates the customer.
And, real marketers realize that they have to connect with their market in a way that's profitable for the company. Ongoing, sustainable profit is important. So real marketers have to make a mix of good short- and long-term decisions. They need to make trade-offs. But the smart ones know that it's more than just putting a customer's cheque in the bank. If you can't follow through on the promises you made to the customer, that customer will cost you a fortune in lost referrals (and may evangelically tell key people that your company sucks), will call your tech support lines incessantly, and will never upgrade. Smart marketers know that it's cheaper and easier to sell to existing customers than to find new ones. So a satisfied customer is the best thing a marketer can have.
Microsoft does have twice as many marketers as programmers. But they do a pretty good job of making their SOHO installations pain-free, embedding their help systems, and creating a trusted brand that mitigates buyer remorse. Most customers are not risk takers who embrace new technologies. They know "nobody ever got fired for buying IBM" (or Microsoft or whatever). And Microsoft knows that, too.
I agree with your reasons for why people should study engineering -- and why they shouldn't.
We live during a time when technology and innovation in the US have been stifled by corporate bureaucracy, where economic growth means driving the competition into bankruptcy/merger rather than offering something new or revolutionary, and where financial resources are directed towards marketing, sales, advertising, and hyperbole rather than research, education, new ideas, improved ways of doing things or an expansion of knowledge.
I have to take issue with your comments about marketing, sales, and advertising, though. I imagine you're mostly fed up with half-truths and hype. But I do think that marketing, sales and advertising are key to the success of the tech industry. Many wonderful technologies are overlooked because of problems with diffusion of innovation -- a.k.a. technology adoption. No matter how great a technology, you need to get people using it. And that means you need to develop an affinity with more than just techies. You need to get influential people to use your product and become evangelical about it. You need to understand where your product is in the technology adoption lifecycle, then develop messaging, marketing and sales systems that recognize that. You also need to understand buyer behaviour and the right place to "call into" an organization. You need to know how to identify users, influencers and buyers and respond to their concerns, unique agendae, and power structures. You need to be able to explain things in simple terms that speak to the needs of these people. And you need to manage relationships, right from the first time someone hears about your product to when they're struggling with it and considering a call to tech support. It's important to be able to build trust and connect on a human level, and also to manage buyer remorse (which can happen even if the buyer made a good decision).
Granted, not many companies (or even sales/marketing/advertising professionals) understand all these things. But that doesn't mean they're unimportant. These disciplines can drive economic growth and contribute to a better society.
For example, the first major studies of technology adoption looked at the use of solar ovens in least developed nations, then worked with influential members of the community to spur adoption. Other studies introduced health management initiatives to disease-ridden areas. Still others introduced new ways of crop farming to struggling farmers. These all represent new ways of doing things -- but the key was changing the way people think. That had to happen before anyone would consider the benefits of these technologies. And even more work had to take place to make sure people didn't stop using the products once they'd tried them or dabbled with them.
Your post suggests you see not all opportunities lie in engineering or comp sci. But I did think it was important to point out some of the positive roles played by marketing, sales and advertising people.
This is great. In 100 years, I can position myself as a specialist in domain renewals. With so many companies having their domains expire in 2104, I'm sure there will be a Year 2000-style bonanza. Today's domains will probably be the equivalent of FORTRAN, so few 22nd Century IT punks will know what to do with them. And the Canada Pension Plan will likely be bankrupt, so I'll be able use the extra money. Accounting for inflation, I bet I could charge $600 an hour.
Oh, cool. Outlook lets me set an appointment for 2104. Strangely, I seem not to be available, though. Now why would that be?
I interviewed with this company a few years ago. (I backed out, but that's another story.) I also used to work with a guy who worked there in the early 90s -- the software has been around for at least 10 years. I seem to recall that their early software relied on someone eventually connecting to the Internet via dial-up -- an event that was iffy for most people, but likely for business travellers in 1993
I double-checked their website -- they were incorporated in 1993. .
In my case, I derive a lot of stress from working with people who I'm *sure* must have completed university using these sorts of surveys. I can't imagine they go through any other way!
Slashdot Mirror
I actually called up the Intellectual Property Office once and they told me that there is no 20 percent rule. It's a myth. The IP people consider a multitude of factors -- although it *is* possible to change an image enough to have it qualify as a new image. Part of the test involves determining whether the image appears to be based on the original.
The poster is right. To assign copyright, "due consideration" would need to be exchanged. That means money. Otherwise, the courts could say that the person had no real incentive to assign their copyright to the company/organization. The due consideration should also be at market rates, although the courts would consider the market value of work produced by entry-level student artists.
There are plenty of people willing to pay $11 for a burder at Planet Hollywood or Hard Rock Cafe. I have seen Battlestar Galactica items at a Planet Hollywood.
In this MP3 clip on flash photography's effect on art, CBC Radio's Quirks & Quarks interviews Dr. Tito Scaiano, professor of chemistry at the University of Ottawa.
Artefacts absorb light, and thus molecules. The molecules convert the energy to heat, but sometimes a molecule changes chemical structure, resulting in a visible change. When a photo is absorbed, it pushes the molecule to a higher energy state that breaks the bond. In other cases, it promotes oxidization. Organic pigments are more sensitive than inorganic pigments (which are already fairly oxidized). In other words, flash photography can lead to deterioration of an artefact, not to mention changes to the pigment.
Although aircraft may not be as sensitive as the Mona Lisa, it's still possible that flash photography could damage the artefact. An art student told me that his professor confided that one flash was equivalent to three days of natural light. I don't know if that's entirely true, but I've heard the warning repeated.
Although some people might not use flashes, even a small percentage of wrong-doers could eventually ruin an artefact. For example, when I saw the Mona Lisa, about 30% of the crowd was taking flash photos. The Mona Lisa is behind 3 inches of plexiglass, but the flashes do take their toll.
The Straight Dope also answers a question about flash photography's damage to art.
It's certainly important to relate to other people. Anyone who overlooks the receptionist is making a serious mistake, IMHO. I thought perhaps you meant there were other ways to be perceived as an ally -- e.g. by agreeing with people for political gain.
Okay, so how would a person with such attributes counter the "ally" concerns of others? People are often wary of anyone who's smart. But how do you address that?
If 70% 70 percent of spam is sent from China by American spam outfits, wouldn't that make the US the biggest spammer?
I think that good conversationalists could improve the tone of a coffee house. Unfortunately, Starbucks uses a factory-style production system that affords little time for conversation.:)
I decided not to point out the financial errors in their annual report. And, after some more thought, it's occurred to me that maybe "detail-oriented" was just a reflection of the VP's fear. He didn't seem very secure.
In my area of Vancouver (where we take coffee very seriously), most of the Starbucks shops unofficially require you to have a university degree. They say it creates a coffee house atmosphere. I'm not sure how true this is, as the barista is usually so busy with orders that our most complex conversations include, "You're out of stir sticks" and "A non-employee is soliciting money from your customers."
Microsoft has figured out that its next version is doomed. To prevent competitors from gaining market share, they're extending support on previous versions. ;)
When I was in college, people used to do a textbook scam. They'd buy a textbook one day, then go back to the store the next day. They'd pick up a duplicate copy from the shelf, then use the receipt from the day before to return that book. Result: cash return plus they could still sell the original on the side OR keep it for class.
If I find out anything conclusive, I'll post the results here.
The same thing happened at a company where I used to work (in British Columbia, Canada). After 3 months or so, I got sick of having to change vendors for every marketing job -- the owner wasn't paying them. I quit. Anyway, my co-workers one day arrived to find the door locked. When they went to apply for employment insurance, they found out that none of their deductions had been made. The owner was bankrolling the firm using Canada Pension Plan, Employment Insurance, non-existent benefits, and other typical deductions. He ended up owing the government around $250k. His house was in his wife's name, so he declared bankruptcy. Now he makes $130k a year as a contracted programmer. Makes me sick.
How is it different from George Bush reading out a speech that was written by a copywriter? Few people in positions of power come up with the words they say.
Hi Justin, >> All marketing information is clearly as close to lies as necessary Good marketers don't lie. It's unethical and it could sour the entire relationship. If people find out you've lied, they won't trust you when you're telling the truth. > and any competent geek would cut off their net > connection rather than make a decision based > on it. But it's not the geeks who make the purchasing decision or pay for them. > All marketing is aimed at CI/EOs because > they're the only ones dumb enough to think it > might be relevent. The marketing pieces you're talking about are not designed for decision-making during the "hard" buying cycle. Most marketing pieces (direct mail, news releases, brochures, websites, case studies, etc) are designed to build awareness, gain mindshare from buyers, stimulate frustrations/pains from existing products/companies, and present the company/product as an option. These pieces are designed to gain the attention of the person who might (on their own or through others) start the process of investigating solutions. When that process has started and the person or their designate is in search mode, good marketers start talking to them. They try to help diagnose "big picture" frustrations and issues. To help people visualize the company/product as a solution, the next step involves case studies, testimonials, and other materials. The next round of materials (whitepapers, tech specs, benchmarking results, etc) are much, much more technical or they may include a *lot* more financial or process analysis. This is where technical people are brought in to talk to the client (preferably the client's own technical people). 99% of these materials (and, in some cases, even the responses to the conversations themselves!) have passed through marketing. Not all marketing is aimed at C-level execs. But, when it is, it's a response to the people who have the authority or economic power to start the search process. When the best fit is at a more technical or junior level, marketers pitch to those people. But, regardless of how brilliant the technical people may be, they usually lack the economic power (corporate budget) or authority (level in organization) to make the decision. Technical people are usually key influencers. And while the people who actually use the solutions may be the ones experiencing the greatest frustration, they rarely have the power to convince the economic and power buyers. So marketers create tools that those user buyers can show to their C-level bosses, so that the execs can make the connection between trickle-down and bubble-up issues. Hope this helps.
Actually, when I was in journalism school, we were taught that what matters is whether the source (person quoted) has accepted attribution. It would only be fraud if the quoted source had not authorized the news release.
Once I know I need to write a news release, I work out a plan. This includes goals, target audiences, media tools, means of measurement, key messages and key sources. If I need to involve external sources (the people I quote), I ask those companies for their consent to write a release. Depending on the relationship, they may send me the quotes *or* I might write quotes for them and have them approve them later.
It's often the last minute before the other company's senior execs, marketing staff, PR agency, lawyers, clients, or other stakeholders decide who they'll let me quote. They may have long debates over whether they want their quote attributed to the CEO, VP, client, Martian Sales Director, General Manager for Neptune, etc. It all depends on how they want to position their own quotes. And that's assuming they even wrote them. Whenenver I've had to deal with Microsoft, they've taken a week or more to approve a news release.
Virtually the same scenario takes place at my end. Various stakeholders provide input, and both the quotes and the sources (e.g. CIO) can change.
In my experience, anyone who ends up being quoted has to sign off on the quote. There are review processes. It's not like those people weren't involved.
When a CEO or other exec has a "real" interview with the press, the CEO reads from notes and statements that a marketer wrote. Before the interview starts, a marketer goes over all the notes and helps suggest possible questions and answers. The marketer sits in on the interview and (if cameras aren't present or it's over the phone) may help the exec piece together answers. Everything is heavily scripted. Eventually, the execs know the words by heart, or pretty close.
You can compare this process to the one used for professional speech writing, memos, letters, ghostwritten articles, and briefing notes. In fact, when I was just a co-op student, I was writing briefing notes, "question period responses", and other materials for the Canadian Minister of Immigration. Whether in a corporate or goverment environment, spokespersons rarely speak off the cuff. Except for Dan Quayle.
And, while I'm sure some people are horrified by the process, it has many advantages. Messages are consistent. Speakers/sources are handpicked for credibility, ability to talk, and relevance. All the messages have been pre-screened by legal teams, reducing risk. It's less likely that the exec will over-commit us, say something incorrect about a feature/benefit, or go off-topic. And the investment in marketing is maximized. And that's good for the company.
I just finished my MBA. When I was half-way through, I asked my professor what I should focus on, in order to benefit my country and also earn a living. He told me to go into bionformatics. And I said, "Um. I just did an MBA. Now you want me to pursue a field that requires graduate-level studies in computers and biology?" He didn't know what to say...it was all so theoretical to him.
And, real marketers realize that they have to connect with their market in a way that's profitable for the company. Ongoing, sustainable profit is important. So real marketers have to make a mix of good short- and long-term decisions. They need to make trade-offs. But the smart ones know that it's more than just putting a customer's cheque in the bank. If you can't follow through on the promises you made to the customer, that customer will cost you a fortune in lost referrals (and may evangelically tell key people that your company sucks), will call your tech support lines incessantly, and will never upgrade. Smart marketers know that it's cheaper and easier to sell to existing customers than to find new ones. So a satisfied customer is the best thing a marketer can have.
Microsoft does have twice as many marketers as programmers. But they do a pretty good job of making their SOHO installations pain-free, embedding their help systems, and creating a trusted brand that mitigates buyer remorse. Most customers are not risk takers who embrace new technologies. They know "nobody ever got fired for buying IBM" (or Microsoft or whatever). And Microsoft knows that, too.
And, yes, I am a marketer. But I read /.
We live during a time when technology and innovation in the US have been stifled by corporate bureaucracy, where economic growth means driving the competition into bankruptcy/merger rather than offering something new or revolutionary, and where financial resources are directed towards marketing, sales, advertising, and hyperbole rather than research, education, new ideas, improved ways of doing things or an expansion of knowledge.
I have to take issue with your comments about marketing, sales, and advertising, though. I imagine you're mostly fed up with half-truths and hype. But I do think that marketing, sales and advertising are key to the success of the tech industry. Many wonderful technologies are overlooked because of problems with diffusion of innovation -- a.k.a. technology adoption. No matter how great a technology, you need to get people using it. And that means you need to develop an affinity with more than just techies. You need to get influential people to use your product and become evangelical about it. You need to understand where your product is in the technology adoption lifecycle, then develop messaging, marketing and sales systems that recognize that. You also need to understand buyer behaviour and the right place to "call into" an organization. You need to know how to identify users, influencers and buyers and respond to their concerns, unique agendae, and power structures. You need to be able to explain things in simple terms that speak to the needs of these people. And you need to manage relationships, right from the first time someone hears about your product to when they're struggling with it and considering a call to tech support. It's important to be able to build trust and connect on a human level, and also to manage buyer remorse (which can happen even if the buyer made a good decision).
Granted, not many companies (or even sales/marketing/advertising professionals) understand all these things. But that doesn't mean they're unimportant. These disciplines can drive economic growth and contribute to a better society.
For example, the first major studies of technology adoption looked at the use of solar ovens in least developed nations, then worked with influential members of the community to spur adoption. Other studies introduced health management initiatives to disease-ridden areas. Still others introduced new ways of crop farming to struggling farmers. These all represent new ways of doing things -- but the key was changing the way people think. That had to happen before anyone would consider the benefits of these technologies. And even more work had to take place to make sure people didn't stop using the products once they'd tried them or dabbled with them.
Your post suggests you see not all opportunities lie in engineering or comp sci. But I did think it was important to point out some of the positive roles played by marketing, sales and advertising people.
Oh, cool. Outlook lets me set an appointment for 2104. Strangely, I seem not to be available, though. Now why would that be?
I interviewed with this company a few years ago. (I backed out, but that's another story.) I also used to work with a guy who worked there in the early 90s -- the software has been around for at least 10 years. I seem to recall that their early software relied on someone eventually connecting to the Internet via dial-up -- an event that was iffy for most people, but likely for business travellers in 1993 I double-checked their website -- they were incorporated in 1993. .
We were talking about you, not me.
In my case, I derive a lot of stress from working with people who I'm *sure* must have completed university using these sorts of surveys. I can't imagine they go through any other way!