In search of an answer
We have to let the Business School know which electives we would like to do in Hilary (i.e. next term) by this Friday. How can I choose when I would like to do them all? Here are my choices:
Finance II
Yes I am seriously interested in doing an advanced Finance course! According to the lecturer, it is focused on the poets (i.e. non-experts like me) in the class and it covers interesting topics such as risk management, capital structure (debt vs equity), some corporate governance and such like. There are individual rather than group assignments and according to the lecturer, ALL self respecting MBA students should of course take it.
Organisational Analysis
A strong contender I hear you say, considering my background in change management and process re-engineering however perhaps it is my background that is making me hesitate a bit about taking this course. Looking back, it wasn't exactly rocket science so maybe this is a course that I could coast along but won't learn that much. Reason to take it? or not?
Technology Innovation Systems
Not much thought, I think that I should do this course. It is geared towards people with entrepreneural leanings in the technology area. It will give some vocabulary for venture capitalists, go through the (facinating) Google case, and discusses the interplay between technology, the market and architecture. Now, I'm not saying that I am going to go off and start my own company, but perhaps it will be useful to get a feel for what it might be like as well as give me a greater insight into the technology industry.
Macroeconomics
Now this one I'm really not sure about. I can't deny my interest in Economics and economics at an international level is far more interesting that supply and demand graphs! But have I done the reading and do I have the global awareness to take on such a far reaching course? Of course, this is Oxford and here you have opportunities that don't normally abound, so tonight I went to listen to John Ralston Saul talk (at New College) about his recently published book "
The Collapse of Globalism". He argued that the concept of globalism as defined in the early eighties which countries around the world have been basing their policies on is now dead. The years following the end of the cold war have seen countries, led by one particular world power, return to nationalism and often the more unpleasant aspects of it. Post-9/11, many countries have seen their leaders begin to wake up and realise that they do in fact have some power and can make a difference. He argues that there is a danger of countries closing their borders and becomming more internal in their outlook. China is increasingly becoming a major player on the world stage and if they decide to get into bed wuth India then they won't need the West to grow!
Interesting stuff. I can't say that I agreed with all, most of what he said, especially in light of greater awareness we now have of people in other nations, cultures and the ease of communication we have with these people. It would take something extreem to make people (though mostly in the west) give up the advantages brought about by the shrinking of the world.
On another note, he did suggest that the great thinkers of the world are long overdue a debate on the "way things are done". Much of the current ideas surrounding when you go to university, the age you start work, when you retire were developed in the early 1900's when the average age that you would expect to live to was 50. Today, we are still adhering to the same rules, yet someone born today can expect to live until they are in their 80's or 90's. Why can't a woman take 10 years out of her life to have kids when she is between 18 - 24 when her body is best suited for it instead of putting herself at risk and wearing herself and her middle aged partner out having kids in her late 30's? Think about it.
Finance II
Yes I am seriously interested in doing an advanced Finance course! According to the lecturer, it is focused on the poets (i.e. non-experts like me) in the class and it covers interesting topics such as risk management, capital structure (debt vs equity), some corporate governance and such like. There are individual rather than group assignments and according to the lecturer, ALL self respecting MBA students should of course take it.
Organisational Analysis
A strong contender I hear you say, considering my background in change management and process re-engineering however perhaps it is my background that is making me hesitate a bit about taking this course. Looking back, it wasn't exactly rocket science so maybe this is a course that I could coast along but won't learn that much. Reason to take it? or not?
Technology Innovation Systems
Not much thought, I think that I should do this course. It is geared towards people with entrepreneural leanings in the technology area. It will give some vocabulary for venture capitalists, go through the (facinating) Google case, and discusses the interplay between technology, the market and architecture. Now, I'm not saying that I am going to go off and start my own company, but perhaps it will be useful to get a feel for what it might be like as well as give me a greater insight into the technology industry.
Macroeconomics
Now this one I'm really not sure about. I can't deny my interest in Economics and economics at an international level is far more interesting that supply and demand graphs! But have I done the reading and do I have the global awareness to take on such a far reaching course? Of course, this is Oxford and here you have opportunities that don't normally abound, so tonight I went to listen to John Ralston Saul talk (at New College) about his recently published book "
The Collapse of Globalism". He argued that the concept of globalism as defined in the early eighties which countries around the world have been basing their policies on is now dead. The years following the end of the cold war have seen countries, led by one particular world power, return to nationalism and often the more unpleasant aspects of it. Post-9/11, many countries have seen their leaders begin to wake up and realise that they do in fact have some power and can make a difference. He argues that there is a danger of countries closing their borders and becomming more internal in their outlook. China is increasingly becoming a major player on the world stage and if they decide to get into bed wuth India then they won't need the West to grow!Interesting stuff. I can't say that I agreed with all, most of what he said, especially in light of greater awareness we now have of people in other nations, cultures and the ease of communication we have with these people. It would take something extreem to make people (though mostly in the west) give up the advantages brought about by the shrinking of the world.
On another note, he did suggest that the great thinkers of the world are long overdue a debate on the "way things are done". Much of the current ideas surrounding when you go to university, the age you start work, when you retire were developed in the early 1900's when the average age that you would expect to live to was 50. Today, we are still adhering to the same rules, yet someone born today can expect to live until they are in their 80's or 90's. Why can't a woman take 10 years out of her life to have kids when she is between 18 - 24 when her body is best suited for it instead of putting herself at risk and wearing herself and her middle aged partner out having kids in her late 30's? Think about it.
posted by Vaniah | 8:24 pm
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home