China's coming out party!
I watched the Olympics 2008 opening ceremony with a great couple friends of ours. The whole event was just awe-inspiring. I envy the people who experienced this at the bird's nest stadium. First, the Chinese have waited too long for this coming out party and the preparation and the effort reflected that. One of the commentators said - "When it comes to opening ceremony trophy, after this ceremony, they should just retire the trophy" - Well said! Second, it is so much fun to share a great experience with friendsm- it just makes the whole experience a lot more memorable!
Considering Olympics is the superbowl of all sports, I was expecting a fiesta of great ads (I hate the football analogy especially when Olympics is much bigger for at least the sports that matter to the world!). It was little disappointing on that front. Other than the ton of unimaginative ads from car companies, there was not much to write about. In fact, the car companies never fail to amaze me by the lack of imagination of their ads and I guess the lack of imagination extends to car-designing too. Anyway, I should mention the following ads - at least these made an impression that lasted this far to make it to the blog
- The coke ad - the animated birds building the nest
- The GE dragon ad
The McDonald's ad and the Omega ad were also pretty decent.
Sunday, August 10, 2008
Wednesday, August 06, 2008
Featured on Silicon India homepage!
My blog just got featured on Silicon India homepage so getting a lot of traffic. Check it out here!
My blog just got featured on Silicon India homepage so getting a lot of traffic. Check it out here!
Tata's Nano - The IKEA approach to Small Car!
Recently read a great blog/article on innovations in Nano - the small car from Tata. Read here. The more I think about it the more it looks like that Tata's approach is quite similar to the IKEA approach to home furnishing business:
- Start with the price first
- Design from scratch to meet that price point
- Have a Modular design - the whole car is constructed of components that can be built and shipped separately to be assembled by local entrepreneurs !
Interesting!
Recently read a great blog/article on innovations in Nano - the small car from Tata. Read here. The more I think about it the more it looks like that Tata's approach is quite similar to the IKEA approach to home furnishing business:
- Start with the price first
- Design from scratch to meet that price point
- Have a Modular design - the whole car is constructed of components that can be built and shipped separately to be assembled by local entrepreneurs !
Interesting!
Humor is context driven!
Just finished reading - Plato and a Platypus Walk into a Bar..by Thomas Cathcart and Daniel Klien. It is about understanding Philosophy through jokes - one hilarious book. A good read on a cross country plane ride. An interesting thing I noticed is that almost all the jokes are not that funny on a stand alone basis - like you would not get a great laugh from your friends if you tell the jokes in a bar - however because the authors build up a context and commentary around every joke before they tell the joke, it sounds very funny. Humor is so much context driven!
Just finished reading - Plato and a Platypus Walk into a Bar..by Thomas Cathcart and Daniel Klien. It is about understanding Philosophy through jokes - one hilarious book. A good read on a cross country plane ride. An interesting thing I noticed is that almost all the jokes are not that funny on a stand alone basis - like you would not get a great laugh from your friends if you tell the jokes in a bar - however because the authors build up a context and commentary around every joke before they tell the joke, it sounds very funny. Humor is so much context driven!
Tuesday, August 05, 2008
The decision Between Exec. MBA vs. Full-time MBA - Part 2
Here is continuation of the part 1 of the discussion on Exec. MBA vs. Full time MBA decision
The problem of entry level positions:
Realize that most of the jobs available to full-time MBA are entry level positions especially if you are changing careers. So unless you have an appetite to take orders from somebody who is at least two or three years younger (even more in banking) don't even venture there. This is true for all career changers - whether you are in full-time or Exec MBA does not matter. Having said that I know two Exec MBA guys who directly transitioned to a VP level position into a VC firm post-MBA. This is never going to happen for a full-time MBA program student unless he/she has prior PE/VC experience.
I believe the decision between Exec. MBA and full-time MBA or even an MBA really boils down to what you want to do next in your career. If you are a techie who has stagnated in his/her current engineering position and if your goal is to move to general management position in a different industry/management consulting position roles - earlier your only option was to do a full-time MBA. However there are multiple options available to you that I suggest you consider (each of these options are based on specific examples I have seen and are ordered based on the level of difficulty in implementing each of these options)
Easiest - Try moving into a non-engineering/managerial position such as Product Management/marketing within your own company. This option does not even require an MBA. One or two years in such a role will tremendously increase your marketability for other general management roles across a diverse set of industry - This is from my own personal experience - when I transitioned from an engineering role in Telecom equipment company to Product Management role. Two years later I started getting calls for PM roles in very different verticals within the Tech industry such as internet (Google/Yahoo to be specific) and I didn't even have an MBA till that point. You will have even more opportunities across very diverse industries if you supplement this with an Exec. MBA. Think from the perspective of a prospective employer - would he prefer to hire somebody who has two-three years of general management experience + Exec MBA or simply a fresh full-time MBA with almost no general management experience!
Slightly tougher: Increasingly firms are realizing that there is a vast pool of available talent in engineering roles that is eager to venture and try out other general management roles. For example, McKinsey which already hires 30% of its associates (experienced hires) from non-MBA background is planning to increase it to almost 60% in coming years. Also firms such as Intel, Cisco etc are increasingly hiring non-MBAs for general management rotational positions.
Difficult: If you are not into transitioning into general management roles but into totally different industries such as banking, hedge funds etc, yes a full-time MBA makes sense. Because it is difficult to make that transition from engineering roles to these roles without a full-time MBA. As I stated above, there are few cases of people who have made the same transition from an Exec. MBA but for that you will have to be very committed.
Very difficult: Looking for that elusive VC job: First of all who said that going for a full-time MBA is the only way to get into VC. It may be definitely so for an entry level position but increasingly a lot of VCs (especially the early stage ones) are hiring for mid to senior level positions directly from the industry - the reason being Industry experience and contacts are much more relevant for being a successful VC than that MBA degree from top B-School. Your MBA degree is relevant to the extent your network from that school is useful. But for that you don't need a full-time MBA - Exec. MBA should suffice.
Hope this helps. I might sound too negative here for full-time MBA (after having completed a two year full-time MBA program) but I am taking this position for a reason - so many times I have seen the debate between full-time vs Exec MBA is so one-sided in favor of full-time that I thought somebody needs to bring in some balance here!
Here is continuation of the part 1 of the discussion on Exec. MBA vs. Full time MBA decision
The problem of entry level positions:
Realize that most of the jobs available to full-time MBA are entry level positions especially if you are changing careers. So unless you have an appetite to take orders from somebody who is at least two or three years younger (even more in banking) don't even venture there. This is true for all career changers - whether you are in full-time or Exec MBA does not matter. Having said that I know two Exec MBA guys who directly transitioned to a VP level position into a VC firm post-MBA. This is never going to happen for a full-time MBA program student unless he/she has prior PE/VC experience.
I believe the decision between Exec. MBA and full-time MBA or even an MBA really boils down to what you want to do next in your career. If you are a techie who has stagnated in his/her current engineering position and if your goal is to move to general management position in a different industry/management consulting position roles - earlier your only option was to do a full-time MBA. However there are multiple options available to you that I suggest you consider (each of these options are based on specific examples I have seen and are ordered based on the level of difficulty in implementing each of these options)
Easiest - Try moving into a non-engineering/managerial position such as Product Management/marketing within your own company. This option does not even require an MBA. One or two years in such a role will tremendously increase your marketability for other general management roles across a diverse set of industry - This is from my own personal experience - when I transitioned from an engineering role in Telecom equipment company to Product Management role. Two years later I started getting calls for PM roles in very different verticals within the Tech industry such as internet (Google/Yahoo to be specific) and I didn't even have an MBA till that point. You will have even more opportunities across very diverse industries if you supplement this with an Exec. MBA. Think from the perspective of a prospective employer - would he prefer to hire somebody who has two-three years of general management experience + Exec MBA or simply a fresh full-time MBA with almost no general management experience!
Slightly tougher: Increasingly firms are realizing that there is a vast pool of available talent in engineering roles that is eager to venture and try out other general management roles. For example, McKinsey which already hires 30% of its associates (experienced hires) from non-MBA background is planning to increase it to almost 60% in coming years. Also firms such as Intel, Cisco etc are increasingly hiring non-MBAs for general management rotational positions.
Difficult: If you are not into transitioning into general management roles but into totally different industries such as banking, hedge funds etc, yes a full-time MBA makes sense. Because it is difficult to make that transition from engineering roles to these roles without a full-time MBA. As I stated above, there are few cases of people who have made the same transition from an Exec. MBA but for that you will have to be very committed.
Very difficult: Looking for that elusive VC job: First of all who said that going for a full-time MBA is the only way to get into VC. It may be definitely so for an entry level position but increasingly a lot of VCs (especially the early stage ones) are hiring for mid to senior level positions directly from the industry - the reason being Industry experience and contacts are much more relevant for being a successful VC than that MBA degree from top B-School. Your MBA degree is relevant to the extent your network from that school is useful. But for that you don't need a full-time MBA - Exec. MBA should suffice.
Hope this helps. I might sound too negative here for full-time MBA (after having completed a two year full-time MBA program) but I am taking this position for a reason - so many times I have seen the debate between full-time vs Exec MBA is so one-sided in favor of full-time that I thought somebody needs to bring in some balance here!
Truth is random! (Part 1)
The more I read religious philosophy the more I find it its interpretation fuzzy and self contradictory. But why is it so?
Because any sincere attempt at philosophy has to be comprehensive and has to integrate and interpret all reality and facts of life. The comprehensiveness of such an interpretation has to reflect the nature of reality itself. But reality is self-contradictory or random. We live in a world where a soldier who loves his neighbor to death is ready to kill his country's enemy (who he doesn't even know) without a second thought. The way religious philosophy deals with this randomness is to inject abstraction. For example: God is Great - is as an abstraction. But abstraction needs interpretation to make it useful in practical life. And the interpretation is almost always context driven. So as the context of the reality changes, the interpretation of the abstraction changes to fit the reality. Over time these multiple interpretations bring in the contradictions in religious philosophy.
So in peaceful times say how do you interpret the above abstraction to explain the reality that the soldier really loves your neighbor. It could go something like this: God is Great => so you should love God => Everyone is God's creation => You should love His creation => You should love your neighbor because he is His creation.
But in times of war, how do you explain the fact that soldier is ready to kill people. Here is one attempt: God is Great => Everyone should love Him => So everyone should obey His will => Those who don't obey God's will bring upon themselves the wrath of God => God wants to punish those who disobey His will through His creation => You are God's creation => Your enemy does not obey God's will => You should kill your enemy.
Similar contradictions can be found in Gita (go here).
Go to Part 2 for more...
The more I read religious philosophy the more I find it its interpretation fuzzy and self contradictory. But why is it so?
Because any sincere attempt at philosophy has to be comprehensive and has to integrate and interpret all reality and facts of life. The comprehensiveness of such an interpretation has to reflect the nature of reality itself. But reality is self-contradictory or random. We live in a world where a soldier who loves his neighbor to death is ready to kill his country's enemy (who he doesn't even know) without a second thought. The way religious philosophy deals with this randomness is to inject abstraction. For example: God is Great - is as an abstraction. But abstraction needs interpretation to make it useful in practical life. And the interpretation is almost always context driven. So as the context of the reality changes, the interpretation of the abstraction changes to fit the reality. Over time these multiple interpretations bring in the contradictions in religious philosophy.
So in peaceful times say how do you interpret the above abstraction to explain the reality that the soldier really loves your neighbor. It could go something like this: God is Great => so you should love God => Everyone is God's creation => You should love His creation => You should love your neighbor because he is His creation.
But in times of war, how do you explain the fact that soldier is ready to kill people. Here is one attempt: God is Great => Everyone should love Him => So everyone should obey His will => Those who don't obey God's will bring upon themselves the wrath of God => God wants to punish those who disobey His will through His creation => You are God's creation => Your enemy does not obey God's will => You should kill your enemy.
Similar contradictions can be found in Gita (go here).
Go to Part 2 for more...
Truth is Random! (Part 2)
Having said this, I still prefer religious philosophy over other specific schools of modern philosophy such as socialism, capitalism, secularism etc. These modern schools of philosophy are only a narrow interpretation of the truth or reality. Such narrow focus , makes these schools of thought more palatable and less fuzzy to a rational mind but makes them effectively useless too. Each of these philosophies fail when one tries to extend that school of thought to broader practical situations. Thus the more comprehensive a philosophy is, the more self-contradictory it becomes. I believe that such self-contradiction is important for the survival of a philosophy. The modern school of philosophies are based on rational reasoning and logic and as a result these schools find it hard to accept contradictions. But this also limits their usefulness. However, most of the religious philosophy dates back to pre-rational period in human thought. As a result religious philosophy accepts contradictions without any problems. And this ensures its survival.
This contradiction between religious philosophy and modern school of philosophy in quite well documented. It was Marx who said - Religion is opium of the people. If he was alive today he would find it amusing that his own socialist philosophy has become the new opium of his followers. They have just replaced religion with Marx's philosophy. The results are as bad or worse. Religion survived so many years, Socialism did not - because it was neither as abstract in its core or self-contradictory in its interpretation as religion is! Think about it!
In short, it is said that religious philosophy is the search of Truth. Reality is Truth. But Reality is random, so Truth is random. Which is same as saying - The only rule is that there are no rules - and that is the absolute Truth. So don't take any of this philosophy talk seriously - it is all bullshit, including this one!
Having said this, I still prefer religious philosophy over other specific schools of modern philosophy such as socialism, capitalism, secularism etc. These modern schools of philosophy are only a narrow interpretation of the truth or reality. Such narrow focus , makes these schools of thought more palatable and less fuzzy to a rational mind but makes them effectively useless too. Each of these philosophies fail when one tries to extend that school of thought to broader practical situations. Thus the more comprehensive a philosophy is, the more self-contradictory it becomes. I believe that such self-contradiction is important for the survival of a philosophy. The modern school of philosophies are based on rational reasoning and logic and as a result these schools find it hard to accept contradictions. But this also limits their usefulness. However, most of the religious philosophy dates back to pre-rational period in human thought. As a result religious philosophy accepts contradictions without any problems. And this ensures its survival.
This contradiction between religious philosophy and modern school of philosophy in quite well documented. It was Marx who said - Religion is opium of the people. If he was alive today he would find it amusing that his own socialist philosophy has become the new opium of his followers. They have just replaced religion with Marx's philosophy. The results are as bad or worse. Religion survived so many years, Socialism did not - because it was neither as abstract in its core or self-contradictory in its interpretation as religion is! Think about it!
In short, it is said that religious philosophy is the search of Truth. Reality is Truth. But Reality is random, so Truth is random. Which is same as saying - The only rule is that there are no rules - and that is the absolute Truth. So don't take any of this philosophy talk seriously - it is all bullshit, including this one!
Monday, August 04, 2008
Fooled by Randomness - a must read!
For the last two days I am devouring Fooled by Randomness by Nassim Taleb (link here). It was a recommended book for one of my course work at Wharton. But I never read it during my coursework and only started reading it yesterday. This is a must read for everybody period. It's a shame that I did not read this book eight years back when I started investing - probably would have saved me from losing money in the stock market. Though this book deals with issues and impact of randomness in the stock market, like other great books the lessons can be extended to broader spectrum... More later once I finish reading it.
This book is surely going to be on my all time favorite books list - Below is the complete list. Each of these books have critically shaped my thinking to date. I would definitely recommend these books to everybody but with the following caveat - I cannot guarantee that you will find the following books as impressive as I found them - because as you would notice from the comments below that the impact of a book depends so much on your own personal biases and experiences to that point in your life. Here is the list (in no particular order):
Marriage and Morals - B. Russell - Helped solidify my own rational reasoning on morals and values.
India Unbound - Gurcharan Das - This book is about the struggles of Indian business during the Licence Raj. It opened my eyes to the ingenuity and potential of Indian business and sparked my love affair with it five years back.
The New New Thing - Michael Lewis - Amazing behind the scene look at the hype and company building in Silicon Valley's last boom. Helped put in perspective what I had experienced during the boom/bust cycle in Technology.
Guns, Germs and Steel - Jared Diamond - History as I was taught and read has been focused so much on the "hows" rather than the "Whys" - this books focuses on why human societies evolved the way they did over time.
The Animal Farm - George Orwell - Altered my views on socialism and communism.
For the last two days I am devouring Fooled by Randomness by Nassim Taleb (link here). It was a recommended book for one of my course work at Wharton. But I never read it during my coursework and only started reading it yesterday. This is a must read for everybody period. It's a shame that I did not read this book eight years back when I started investing - probably would have saved me from losing money in the stock market. Though this book deals with issues and impact of randomness in the stock market, like other great books the lessons can be extended to broader spectrum... More later once I finish reading it.
This book is surely going to be on my all time favorite books list - Below is the complete list. Each of these books have critically shaped my thinking to date. I would definitely recommend these books to everybody but with the following caveat - I cannot guarantee that you will find the following books as impressive as I found them - because as you would notice from the comments below that the impact of a book depends so much on your own personal biases and experiences to that point in your life. Here is the list (in no particular order):
Marriage and Morals - B. Russell - Helped solidify my own rational reasoning on morals and values.
India Unbound - Gurcharan Das - This book is about the struggles of Indian business during the Licence Raj. It opened my eyes to the ingenuity and potential of Indian business and sparked my love affair with it five years back.
The New New Thing - Michael Lewis - Amazing behind the scene look at the hype and company building in Silicon Valley's last boom. Helped put in perspective what I had experienced during the boom/bust cycle in Technology.
Guns, Germs and Steel - Jared Diamond - History as I was taught and read has been focused so much on the "hows" rather than the "Whys" - this books focuses on why human societies evolved the way they did over time.
The Animal Farm - George Orwell - Altered my views on socialism and communism.
The decision between Exec. MBA vs. Full-time MBA: Part 1
This is a critical decision point for people with significant work experience. I was in a similar situation when I was applying for an MBA program. Having recently completed a full-time MBA program from Wharton and I thought I should revisit the topic to see if I could help others who are tackling the same issue using the benefit of hindsight. Please note I am not comparing Part-time MBA to full-time MBA. I am refraining from commenting on part-time MBA as I don't have enough reference points to make a good call on that issue (Wharton does not offer part-time MBA program).
Here are the top concerns for somebody who is trying to make such a decision:
Career Change:
If you are looking for a significant career change - into a different industry/role - than full-time MBA has been touted as the best choice for sometime now. However, my experience tells me that quite a few Wharton Exec MBAs successfully transitioned into very different careers - this is especially true if the economy is doing well. I feel that as an Exec. MBA if you are 100% committed to a career change, you will standout from the rest of the Exec MBA crowd (who are usually not that committed) thereby increasing your chances of success in making the transition. Compare that against your full-time MBA peers - almost 100% of who are looking for a career change. Also don't forget that two years of no-work/no-pay will financially constrain you and restrict some of the career options you might want to pursue post Full-time MBA.
Quality of Education:
Well I do not believe there is a material difference between the quality of education between Exec MBA and full-time MBA. Even if there is - you will soon realize that whatever you were taught at B-school was all crap anyway - so how does that matter! Really, tell me how much of your undergraduate education was immediately relevant to your first few jobs. The B-school education teaches you some good frameworks to analyze problems and the rest is just details. And you will learn those framework just as good as in full-time as you will in Exec. MBA. So please don't overestimate this aspect. Also, I believe two years of full-time classes is a little excessive- there is just too much time to party! - that leads me to my next point.
Looking for that someone special!
Well, who said that "enhancing career" is the only reason people go for an MBA. However, if you are happily married - (happily is the keyword here) full-time MBA might not have the same appeal for you as for someone who is "single and ready to mingle". I got married during my MBA and I got to see both sides of the story. I can say for sure that the people you socialize with, friends you make and the type of parties you would go out to definitely changes once you get married - (regardless of the social skills of your spouse)! Since most of the potential candidates for Exec MBA are happily married - full-time MBA might not be that appealing from this perspective - and I am not even talking about distractions due to temptations!!
Please look at part 2 for more details..
This is a critical decision point for people with significant work experience. I was in a similar situation when I was applying for an MBA program. Having recently completed a full-time MBA program from Wharton and I thought I should revisit the topic to see if I could help others who are tackling the same issue using the benefit of hindsight. Please note I am not comparing Part-time MBA to full-time MBA. I am refraining from commenting on part-time MBA as I don't have enough reference points to make a good call on that issue (Wharton does not offer part-time MBA program).
Here are the top concerns for somebody who is trying to make such a decision:
Career Change:
If you are looking for a significant career change - into a different industry/role - than full-time MBA has been touted as the best choice for sometime now. However, my experience tells me that quite a few Wharton Exec MBAs successfully transitioned into very different careers - this is especially true if the economy is doing well. I feel that as an Exec. MBA if you are 100% committed to a career change, you will standout from the rest of the Exec MBA crowd (who are usually not that committed) thereby increasing your chances of success in making the transition. Compare that against your full-time MBA peers - almost 100% of who are looking for a career change. Also don't forget that two years of no-work/no-pay will financially constrain you and restrict some of the career options you might want to pursue post Full-time MBA.
Quality of Education:
Well I do not believe there is a material difference between the quality of education between Exec MBA and full-time MBA. Even if there is - you will soon realize that whatever you were taught at B-school was all crap anyway - so how does that matter! Really, tell me how much of your undergraduate education was immediately relevant to your first few jobs. The B-school education teaches you some good frameworks to analyze problems and the rest is just details. And you will learn those framework just as good as in full-time as you will in Exec. MBA. So please don't overestimate this aspect. Also, I believe two years of full-time classes is a little excessive- there is just too much time to party! - that leads me to my next point.
Looking for that someone special!
Well, who said that "enhancing career" is the only reason people go for an MBA. However, if you are happily married - (happily is the keyword here) full-time MBA might not have the same appeal for you as for someone who is "single and ready to mingle". I got married during my MBA and I got to see both sides of the story. I can say for sure that the people you socialize with, friends you make and the type of parties you would go out to definitely changes once you get married - (regardless of the social skills of your spouse)! Since most of the potential candidates for Exec MBA are happily married - full-time MBA might not be that appealing from this perspective - and I am not even talking about distractions due to temptations!!
Please look at part 2 for more details..
MBA application - Round 1 or Round 2?
Another common query around full-time MBA application time is - when to apply? In round 1 or 2 or even round 3? First, avoid applying to round 3/final round if possible. The reason is pretty obvious - most the admission decisions have been taken by then so you are fighting for the last remaining seats. But what about between round 1 and 2? Well, here the reasoning is a bit fuzzy and you will get different answers from different people biased on which round they themselves applied.
I strongly believe that you should apply/or at least plan to apply to your most preferred schools/dream schools in Round 1 and leave the remaining schools for round 2. My reasoning is based more on practicality rather than some myths that are floating around.
One common myth is that a lot of "strong candidates" apply in Round 1 and so if you are not a strong candidate you should apply in Round 2. Well, first of all what is a strong candidate? Who knows -there is no clear definition of it because I have seen a lot of so called "strong candidate" get rejected. Second, if everyone knows about this myth than people will accordingly adjust their application rounds over time to falsify this myth. Also do you seriously believe the admission committees of top schools will take in sub-par candidates in round 2 over round 1 just to fill the required number of seats.
Here are my real reasons for applying in round 1:
- MBA applications take much longer to put together than you anticipate. So if you plan to apply in round 1 and in case you are not able to finish the application in time, you could in the worst case push the application to round 2. You don't get that luxury in round 2
- If you get rejected from your most preferred school, you get a chance to realign your own expectations and really plan on what schools to apply in round 2 for a successful outcome. You don't get that luxury if you apply to your best schools in round 2.
- If you get accepted in your preferred school, you don't have to apply anywhere else in round 2! Once you know how much time/energy it takes to put together one app, you will realize that this reason itself is a good enough reason to apply in round 1.
- In case you are borderline candidate, schools will put you on a wait-list after round 1 to see how the round 2 applicant pool shapes up. After they have reviewed all the round 2 applicants, they compare the round 1 wait-listed candidates with round 2 candidates to make the final decision. So in a way you are getting two reviews/chances for admits if you apply in round 1. You don't have that luxury in round 2.
Another common query around full-time MBA application time is - when to apply? In round 1 or 2 or even round 3? First, avoid applying to round 3/final round if possible. The reason is pretty obvious - most the admission decisions have been taken by then so you are fighting for the last remaining seats. But what about between round 1 and 2? Well, here the reasoning is a bit fuzzy and you will get different answers from different people biased on which round they themselves applied.
I strongly believe that you should apply/or at least plan to apply to your most preferred schools/dream schools in Round 1 and leave the remaining schools for round 2. My reasoning is based more on practicality rather than some myths that are floating around.
One common myth is that a lot of "strong candidates" apply in Round 1 and so if you are not a strong candidate you should apply in Round 2. Well, first of all what is a strong candidate? Who knows -there is no clear definition of it because I have seen a lot of so called "strong candidate" get rejected. Second, if everyone knows about this myth than people will accordingly adjust their application rounds over time to falsify this myth. Also do you seriously believe the admission committees of top schools will take in sub-par candidates in round 2 over round 1 just to fill the required number of seats.
Here are my real reasons for applying in round 1:
- MBA applications take much longer to put together than you anticipate. So if you plan to apply in round 1 and in case you are not able to finish the application in time, you could in the worst case push the application to round 2. You don't get that luxury in round 2
- If you get rejected from your most preferred school, you get a chance to realign your own expectations and really plan on what schools to apply in round 2 for a successful outcome. You don't get that luxury if you apply to your best schools in round 2.
- If you get accepted in your preferred school, you don't have to apply anywhere else in round 2! Once you know how much time/energy it takes to put together one app, you will realize that this reason itself is a good enough reason to apply in round 1.
- In case you are borderline candidate, schools will put you on a wait-list after round 1 to see how the round 2 applicant pool shapes up. After they have reviewed all the round 2 applicants, they compare the round 1 wait-listed candidates with round 2 candidates to make the final decision. So in a way you are getting two reviews/chances for admits if you apply in round 1. You don't have that luxury in round 2.
Thursday, July 31, 2008
The Largest Customer Financing program in history?
Big technology companies in the US - such as Cisco, Dell, IBM are known for their huge customer financing programs. In fact during the last tech boom, some of these companies were alleged to prop up their revenues by financing "not so healthy" customers (call them the "subprime" customers - sorry couldn't avoid using subprime these days). As some of you might remember, the whole thing backfired during the subsequent recession as these customer defaulted resulting in big write-downs by these tech giants. History surely repeats itself especially if it is cleverly conceived financing trick that adds no value. Anyway getting back to the point that I am trying to make.
Do you know what is the largest customer financing program in place today? No points for guessing if you have been following the US-China trade imbalance issue. Yes, it is the China financing of the US. By investing its more than $1 trillion foreign exchange reserves in US Dollars China is effectively financing the US economy. The Chinese purchase of the US treasury bills is one of the reasons US is able to keep its interest rate so low and provide cheap credit to its population to continue to buy Chinese goods.
Now we all know how disastrously the last customer financing boom ended. Is something similar going to happen? If it does what will it mean - higher interest rates, higher inflation in the US, increasing foreign ownership of US assets etc or all of the above? In any case, doesn't look that rosy to me!!
Big technology companies in the US - such as Cisco, Dell, IBM are known for their huge customer financing programs. In fact during the last tech boom, some of these companies were alleged to prop up their revenues by financing "not so healthy" customers (call them the "subprime" customers - sorry couldn't avoid using subprime these days). As some of you might remember, the whole thing backfired during the subsequent recession as these customer defaulted resulting in big write-downs by these tech giants. History surely repeats itself especially if it is cleverly conceived financing trick that adds no value. Anyway getting back to the point that I am trying to make.
Do you know what is the largest customer financing program in place today? No points for guessing if you have been following the US-China trade imbalance issue. Yes, it is the China financing of the US. By investing its more than $1 trillion foreign exchange reserves in US Dollars China is effectively financing the US economy. The Chinese purchase of the US treasury bills is one of the reasons US is able to keep its interest rate so low and provide cheap credit to its population to continue to buy Chinese goods.
Now we all know how disastrously the last customer financing boom ended. Is something similar going to happen? If it does what will it mean - higher interest rates, higher inflation in the US, increasing foreign ownership of US assets etc or all of the above? In any case, doesn't look that rosy to me!!
Can India compete with China in manufacturing? What's next for India?
Talking about India and China is such a cliche these days that I am really dreading writing this post. But this is my attempt to dig a little deeper that the usual soundbites coming out of WSJ and NYT.
Lately I am hearing a lot of talk about how India with its cheap labor pool and upcoming labor reforms could attempt to successfully compete with China in manufacturing. China's dominance is surely awe-inspiring but can India compete effectively with China in manufacturing?
Note: In the following discussion when I use the word India or China - I usually mean that to refer to Indian and Chinese manufacturers or companies and not as much to the nation itself. It would be foolish of me to postulate on what such highly complex societies and nations should or would do in the future.
China dominance in manufacturing outsourcing:
In trying to understand this issue, let me first discuss where China comes from. So why does China dominate in manufacturing? Is it just because of low-cost labor and favorable govt. policies? But these two specific factors exist in quite a few countries including Thailand, Vietnam and increasingly India. The answer unsuspectingly lies a little deeper. China dominates not because it is cheap but because it is FAST (reference - a must read on this topic). Companies outsource to China not only because it is cost effective but also because Chinese manufacturers are known for fast turnaround on orders and to quickly adapt to design changes. This is an outsourcers dream! And over the years both the companies in the developed world and Chinese have developed tremendous expertise in working together - from understanding the intricacies of the relationship that exists in the ecosystem of small and nibble suppliers in places such as the Pearl River Delta to comprehending the true capabilities of its supplier base. As a result of this expertise, for some companies their Chinese supply chain is their IP. And no company wants to mess around with its IP. As a result, I believe it is almost impossible for someone else to unseat the Chinese dominance in manufacturing in the near future. There might be small victories in specific sub-sectors such as we have already seen in auto parts in India but a large scale unseating seems increasingly remote.
So what should India do?
To better answer this question, let's extrapolate where will China go from here? I believe that just like the Indian outsourcing companies are trying to move up the value chain, Chinese are doing the same in manufacturing. This implies participating in designing products to building brands to selling the product in retail stores. Does that mean we will see the likes of world-dominating Apple to P&G to Wal-mart coming out of China soon? We do see some signs of it through companies such as Lenavo, Haier etc but I believe that future is little further out. There will be an intermediate step - where I believe India can/should play a part.
How does India play a role in this?
For the reasons stated above, I believe, India or for that matter any other country would be ill-advised to focus its energies on unseating China dominance in manufacturing. Rather they should compete with China on its next big move up the value chain. As the China moves up the value chain to areas such as design, product development, branding etc, it will bring the same disruptive cost efficiencies and speed that it bought to manufacturing. In response to these threats, the companies in the developed world will increasingly look to compete effectively by outsourcing low-value added jobs of these functions. With a huge pool of talented, creative, English-speaking workforce India could work with its US counterparts in increasingly outsourcing these functions. Why can't China do the same - yes it would for sure but at least India and China are on the same ground while competing for this new piece of business. China lacks experience as much as India in this new areas. Some might argue that India with its free market economy tradition of competing on design/brand building and English Speaking workforce has an advantage. But that remains to be seen. But I will take this bet any day over the other.
Talking about India and China is such a cliche these days that I am really dreading writing this post. But this is my attempt to dig a little deeper that the usual soundbites coming out of WSJ and NYT.
Lately I am hearing a lot of talk about how India with its cheap labor pool and upcoming labor reforms could attempt to successfully compete with China in manufacturing. China's dominance is surely awe-inspiring but can India compete effectively with China in manufacturing?
Note: In the following discussion when I use the word India or China - I usually mean that to refer to Indian and Chinese manufacturers or companies and not as much to the nation itself. It would be foolish of me to postulate on what such highly complex societies and nations should or would do in the future.
China dominance in manufacturing outsourcing:
In trying to understand this issue, let me first discuss where China comes from. So why does China dominate in manufacturing? Is it just because of low-cost labor and favorable govt. policies? But these two specific factors exist in quite a few countries including Thailand, Vietnam and increasingly India. The answer unsuspectingly lies a little deeper. China dominates not because it is cheap but because it is FAST (reference - a must read on this topic). Companies outsource to China not only because it is cost effective but also because Chinese manufacturers are known for fast turnaround on orders and to quickly adapt to design changes. This is an outsourcers dream! And over the years both the companies in the developed world and Chinese have developed tremendous expertise in working together - from understanding the intricacies of the relationship that exists in the ecosystem of small and nibble suppliers in places such as the Pearl River Delta to comprehending the true capabilities of its supplier base. As a result of this expertise, for some companies their Chinese supply chain is their IP. And no company wants to mess around with its IP. As a result, I believe it is almost impossible for someone else to unseat the Chinese dominance in manufacturing in the near future. There might be small victories in specific sub-sectors such as we have already seen in auto parts in India but a large scale unseating seems increasingly remote.
So what should India do?
To better answer this question, let's extrapolate where will China go from here? I believe that just like the Indian outsourcing companies are trying to move up the value chain, Chinese are doing the same in manufacturing. This implies participating in designing products to building brands to selling the product in retail stores. Does that mean we will see the likes of world-dominating Apple to P&G to Wal-mart coming out of China soon? We do see some signs of it through companies such as Lenavo, Haier etc but I believe that future is little further out. There will be an intermediate step - where I believe India can/should play a part.
How does India play a role in this?
For the reasons stated above, I believe, India or for that matter any other country would be ill-advised to focus its energies on unseating China dominance in manufacturing. Rather they should compete with China on its next big move up the value chain. As the China moves up the value chain to areas such as design, product development, branding etc, it will bring the same disruptive cost efficiencies and speed that it bought to manufacturing. In response to these threats, the companies in the developed world will increasingly look to compete effectively by outsourcing low-value added jobs of these functions. With a huge pool of talented, creative, English-speaking workforce India could work with its US counterparts in increasingly outsourcing these functions. Why can't China do the same - yes it would for sure but at least India and China are on the same ground while competing for this new piece of business. China lacks experience as much as India in this new areas. Some might argue that India with its free market economy tradition of competing on design/brand building and English Speaking workforce has an advantage. But that remains to be seen. But I will take this bet any day over the other.
Startup School
Found some really cool advice meted out to developers/hackers here. Few interesting lessons while building a startup:
We all know that Type A people attract/hire other Type A and Type B attract Type C. Interestingly Marc Andreessen goes a step further about how hiring not so good ("crappy') people impacts organizational performance over the long run - he likes to call this the law of crappy people. This is how it goes. Straight from the man himself - "The Law of Crappy People kicks in because the worst employee at any level becomes the de facto standard for that level. Your executives sit around the table. Some EVP wants to promote one of his or her directors to vice president. Or maybe they want to bring in someone new. Someone at the table says, 'That person isn't good enough,' to which the first person responds, 'Hey, you've got Joe Schmo, who is a bonehead. This guy is better than Joe.' So the guy who hired or promoted Joe Schmo shuts up."
I have to agree as I have myself noticed this in my professional career.
Found some really cool advice meted out to developers/hackers here. Few interesting lessons while building a startup:
We all know that Type A people attract/hire other Type A and Type B attract Type C. Interestingly Marc Andreessen goes a step further about how hiring not so good ("crappy') people impacts organizational performance over the long run - he likes to call this the law of crappy people. This is how it goes. Straight from the man himself - "The Law of Crappy People kicks in because the worst employee at any level becomes the de facto standard for that level. Your executives sit around the table. Some EVP wants to promote one of his or her directors to vice president. Or maybe they want to bring in someone new. Someone at the table says, 'That person isn't good enough,' to which the first person responds, 'Hey, you've got Joe Schmo, who is a bonehead. This guy is better than Joe.' So the guy who hired or promoted Joe Schmo shuts up."
I have to agree as I have myself noticed this in my professional career.
Monday, July 28, 2008
What's driving World's food price increase?
Here is a good report on this issue, published by two Purdue University Economists. The report identifies three key reasons:
- Changes in the production and supply of key commodities
- Depreciating Dollar
- Growth in the production of biofuels
Interestingly, the report does not put direct blame on the rising demand from India and China for the increase in price of food grains. However, the report says that China's demand for oil is driving prices in oil and that indirectly drives prices of other commodities and food grains.
Both India and China are pretty self-sufficient in the production of most food grains. If you are interested in better understanding of this issue, please check out Ajay Shah's blog post. I do not agree with him on all the points but he has some good analysis. The main issue I have with his analysis is that it rests on the price signaling mechanism for balancing supply and demand in the market. However, such price signaling mechanism does not really work in Indian and Chinese context because the govt. controls the price for food grains. And this is what the above reports also implies.
Here is a good report on this issue, published by two Purdue University Economists. The report identifies three key reasons:
- Changes in the production and supply of key commodities
- Depreciating Dollar
- Growth in the production of biofuels
Interestingly, the report does not put direct blame on the rising demand from India and China for the increase in price of food grains. However, the report says that China's demand for oil is driving prices in oil and that indirectly drives prices of other commodities and food grains.
Both India and China are pretty self-sufficient in the production of most food grains. If you are interested in better understanding of this issue, please check out Ajay Shah's blog post. I do not agree with him on all the points but he has some good analysis. The main issue I have with his analysis is that it rests on the price signaling mechanism for balancing supply and demand in the market. However, such price signaling mechanism does not really work in Indian and Chinese context because the govt. controls the price for food grains. And this is what the above reports also implies.
Some tips on making an effective apology
Find yourself in a mess? Here are some tips on effective ways to say - I am sorry. http://conflictzen.com/how-to-say-youre-sorry-really-sorry/
Find yourself in a mess? Here are some tips on effective ways to say - I am sorry. http://conflictzen.com/how-to-say-youre-sorry-really-sorry/
Lessons from the Treasury Secretary's Senate Testimony
One might not like Mr. Paulson's solution to current credit crisis, but one must surely like the way he has rallied people around his proposed solution. Some key lessons in handling media and some heavy senate committee grilling in spite of not having the best communication skills. Check out the Q&A session here (sorry no transcripts are available) and also read more for a good coverage of the whole issue at NYT. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/27/business/economy/27hank.html asd
One might not like Mr. Paulson's solution to current credit crisis, but one must surely like the way he has rallied people around his proposed solution. Some key lessons in handling media and some heavy senate committee grilling in spite of not having the best communication skills. Check out the Q&A session here (sorry no transcripts are available) and also read more for a good coverage of the whole issue at NYT. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/27/business/economy/27hank.html asd
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
