Salocin

Google is going to IPO in what is probably the most highly anticipated share issue since Netscape fired the starting gun on the tech roller-coaster ride of doom. This IPO is quite cool because the Google boys and girls don't trust the banks to deal with things, and so want to take control away from these institutions and put it in the hands of the little guy.

Investment banks are still recovering from the taint and stench they daubed themselves with when it was discovered that certain clients received significant proportions of cut-price IPO shares in return for being "good customers". The justification for this gravy-train was that these customers would not seek to flip the stock for a quick profit at the earliest possible moment. Unfortunately, it was basically a mispricing that transferred value from the company performing the IPO to the institutional shareholders that ended up with the majority of the shares.

Google is considering ways of avoiding this problem by getting the price set at least partially through an auction process, which would make sure that the shares were sold at the right price. Of course there are flaws with such an approach - a huge number of inexperienced amateur investors could push the stock price to levels that are simply unrealistic, only to watch it collapse in the immediate aftermath.

Either way, the fun bit is Google's "intense and immense disdain" for the banks (quoted from the Financial Times). Anything that reminds the banks that their reputations can be affected by their actions is a good thing as far as I am concerned. I expect that the bankers working on the deal are having to put up with some not insignificant blows to their not insignificant egos!

The Wharton International Cultural Show is a huge annual performance incorporating 26 acts from different regions of the world, presented to a packed Annenberg Theatre by a cast of approximately 300 Wharton students, who have rehearsed for 2-3 months. The show manages to fill the theatre two nights in a row, and is one of the most colorful and energetic events of the academic year. This year's show had a hard act to follow given the success of last year's event, but proved to be a huge success nevertheless.

It's easy to say that a school is very "international", but what does that really mean? Sure there's people from loads of different cultures in class, but we all conform to an educational model, turning up in class with the same expectations and the same preparation, and interacting according to norms set more by the Wharton school's local environment than by any overriding culture.

Internationalism seems therefore to be quite constrained at times - potentially present, given the wide breadth of nationalities and backgrounds, but never quite manifesting itself or creating the proverbial "cultural melting pot" so often described (more often than not by people who would have no idea what this melting pot looked like if it were staring them in the face).

Then you see the Wharton International Cultural Show, and can only stare in wonder as the many rich cultures parade their arts, dances, song and customs in front of the school at the close of the academic year. It's almost as if to say, "Look what we might have experienced if only we had let ourselves". From African and Chinese dances to martial arts, salsa, acrobatic rock and roll, southern music or Russian folk dances, the stage was a non-stop 3-hour parade of aspects of cultures we have been surrounded by - more often than not, unknowingly - for the past two years.

Look again at your neighbour in class. In less than 4 hours, they're going to be on stage doing a backflip, or breaking through a wooden plank, or dancing Flamenco, or singing in Arabic.

I hate unions. Don't get me wrong, I perfectly understand their genesis - the need for unions as a counterweight to a capitalist competitive imperative that faced no resistance when choosing to cut costs in worker compensation and benefits, but their modern incarnation; well, that just gets me feeling righteously capitalist all over again.

Why the rant? Well Coca Cola's delivery lorries went on strike yesterday. This means that every Coca Cola dispenser in the school is standing empty. You'd think a company that had the strategic knowhow to get this far might actually have a contingency plan for this particular set of circumstances, but they seem to have deliberately left themselves vulnerable to exactly this action.

So why does this affect me so much? Well it's not just me. It's the whole damned school! What do you think happens when you deprive 1600 students of one of the three vectors they use for their daily caffeine intake? It's a catastrophe, exam grades will fluctuate, parties will be poorly attended, homeworks will not be handed in due to the lack of compensating caffeinated substances after the party the previous evening. That, coupled with the sunshine and the temptation to just sit out on Koo Plaza and sleep on the grass will result in a general disintegration of the status quo!

Well, almost.

The nightmare scenario was averted thanks to the flexibility and ingenuity of the Wharton student population. Not to be outdone by a union of truck drivers, the student populace gritted their teeth, prepared to make the ultimate sacrifice, took a deep collective breath..... and switched to Pepsi.

Disaster averted, taste buds sacrificed (except for those poor misguided and genetically challenged individuals who prefered Pepsi in the first place), and the school triumphant again.

What are you looking at? Since we soon will no longer have the rankings to brag about, we take our kudos where we can find them.

Ditched at the altar? grab nearby ex-boyfriend, change invitations and order a different sized kilt.

Gambling £2 and winning £879,000, bad day for the bookies.

Over the past few years, I have had to steadily lower my expectations in terms of the level of service I receive from almost everyone I do business with. It seems that if there's any way of writhing or wriggling their way out of helping you, companies these days will avoid helping at any cost.

Imagine therefore my surprise when IBM agreed to replace my keyboard within 10 minutes of my calling them. My Thinkpad T30 mouse button has stopped working, and the touchpad is threatening to go on strike, and so I call them up, exercise my warranty, and they talk me through how to detatch the keyboard and send me a new one, all without any fuss or worry. Wow.

Admittedly, the T30 is still under warranty, so it's their contractual duty to help out, but in an environment where the general response is a "no" and you need to argue and make enemies to get anything done, the slickness and general helpfulness of the service from IBM stands out as an example for others to follow. Let's hope the keyboard arrives soon eh? They promised it within the week.

Update 20th April 2004 : Less than 24 hours and I've got the keyboard. Way to go IBM! Now all I need is a tiny tiny screwdriver.... blast.

I recently finished reading Redemption Ark by Alastair Reynolds. I read it in a record 2 days, but then I was very sick at the time. I've also read Revelation Space and Chasm City, and this book is set in the same universe, with many of the same characters.

In keeping with the Reynolds style - the story is epic in scope and scale. He pushes a little further in terms of scientific believability, but nevertheless weaves a majestic tale of political manoeuverings on a cosmic scale, driven by a very few but powerful actors.

I have cooled off a great deal on science fiction writing in the last few years, but there are a few writers left - Alastair Reynolds and Iain M Banks are the two that consistently retain my loyalty and attention, both for their clever use of science to motivate a story, and for their attention to plot and character rather than an obsessive focus on the sci-fi to the exclusion of all else.

There is a paradox in the universe. Given the huge number of life-sustaining planets in existence, how is it that so few are populated by sentient life-forms. Moreover, how is it that there are no interplanetary cultures when there are so many worlds where relics point to the past existence of space-faring organic intelligence?

The answer to this question is the Inhibitors. Machines that, when triggered by the detection of space-faring intelligence, set out to destroy that intelligence all the way to the source, with technological abilities that allow them to provoke massive solar flares, or to sanitize entire worlds. Their job done, these machines set further traps to detect future space-faring cultures, and disappear back into dormancy, their ultimate purpose a mystery.

As these ancient and powerful machines turn their attention to the human race, the Conjoiners - a faction of the now space-faring human race - go in search of weapons developed long ago, and hidden far away because of the awsomeness of their power. These 'hell class' weapons were stolen from their hiding place, however, by members of another faction, aboard a mutated, plague-ridden ship, with an agenda all their own, and Nevil Clavain must be convinced to recover them.

Meanwhile, the Inhibitors are drawing closer, and as they set about destroying the human race, their awesome technology is revealed as something that even the hell-class weapons may have trouble denting.

Covering light-years of distance and decades of time, this follow-on from Chasm City shows the human race facing off against an awesome force that seeks to destroy it for reasons even larger and more mysterious than the political machinations and manoeuvering within and between the different factions.

Although I preferred the previous books because some of the science fiction in this crosses the line into non-believable territory for me (and does so, I think, for reasons of internal consistency within the storyline), Alastair Reynolds remains one of the few modern masters of the space opera.

American Express, Jerry Seinfeld and Superman team up in a web-based effort that is being billed as the future of advertising.

Today was the Wharton 2004 Regatta. Organized by the small but dedicated Wharton Crew Club, this little event drew a number of distinguished participants from Cornell, Darden, Yale, the UPenn Medical School and our distinguished selves, the Wharton School. Luckily, UBS decided to foot the bill for the event, all in the name of corporate sponsorship and benevolent use of their billions, for which we are very grateful.

We couldn't have asked for a better day. Except for the wind (which made the water very choppy upriver), the sun shone, there were no clouds, it was warm but not too warm, and a good time was had by all.

Our boat (the second of three Wharton boats) rowed a valiant race against the Darden, Yale and the Wharton 3rds. While at the outset we believe Darden to be the great threat, Yale surprised us by matching us stroke for stroke, and then passing us as we approached the finish line to win by half a length. Of course we would have preferred to win, but it was so much fun to be out on the water, and we rowed very well given our average level, and so we felt no real sadness or shame at losing to such a great group of competitors.

At the end of the day, we had a bar-b-cue, beers and a nice social at the boathouse. The feel of the entire event was like a fun day at the school races, with informality being the norm and everyone getting along really well, people bringing their kids and the few spectators from the school cheering from the riverbank (along with some randoms). It was everything we had hoped it would be and more.

Now I have sunburn on my scalp, I'm sore from the tip of my toes to the last follicle on my head, and there's a big party tonight (as there was last night) in honour of the admitted candidates for class of 2006, so it's time to rally, eat, and go party.

New paper DVD can hold 5 times content of normal DVD. Developed by Sony and Toppan.

In an interesting move that's caused mixed feelings both on and off campus, The Wharton School (and simultaneously Harvard) recently decided to cease giving out email address lists to publications requesting them for the purpose of building rankings of MBA schools. The publications needed these addresses in order to perform the student surveys that are a major input into the ranking process. There are a lot of reasons for such a move, and a few risks involved also, but all in all I think it was a good move, as the rankings had taking on almost mythical status, and the schools were almost beholden to them given the effect they can have on applications and the brand value of the school name.

Of course this is in no way a killing blow to the publication of MBA rankings. The rankings will be published all the same, but without the benefit of a deep and high-response survey of current students and alumni. It is entirely possible that even without the school's help, the publications will be able to solicit sufficient student responses to claim a statistically significant sample (lots of problems with this dealt with below). It's fair to say that many of the statistics that go into the rankings are publically available from the school websites, and the rankings merely transform these into elements in a scoring system.

Why might it be a good thing to stop assisting in the creation of such a ranking system, and why would the Wharton school, which sits at the top of most of these rankings, be one of the schools leading the divorce?

• What does it mean to be the #1 school? Rankings always rank ordinally, and while you can dissect the rankings to see who is best at this or that, generally the overall ranking is what draws all the attention. But schools differ qualitatively in terms of the experience to the student and the qualities of various departments. They also differ in terms of teaching styles, academic vs professional activity tradeoffs, and other dimensions that result in differences in specific scores, reflecting strategic choices by the schools and the differences in their offerings rather than any real differential between the value of studying in one versus the other.
  
• There's been a fear of late that rankings are defined just as much by editorial considerations than they are by an objective ranking process. Since the ranking/scoring system changes year-on-year, it's clear that comparisons are dubious at best, and manipulative at worst. Quite possibly, Harvard and Wharton will be penalised by their decision to quit aiding the process. A school does not become worse because it chooses to withhold information, and should they drop in the rankings as a consequence of this decision, it will vindicate the decision itself.
  
• The rankings are not helpful. They seem to be because they are the only information available, but this is misleading. Comparing Wharton to Harvard, for example, is a futile exercise without visiting the schools or speaking to the students. No series of data points, no matter how well analysed (and they are not well analysed in the rankings) is going to give a prospective student the insights they need to come even remotely close to making an informed decision.
  
• The schools are so hugely affected by their position in the rankings that they end up doing things to improve their position. Since the well-being of the school, the students, the quality of the education, the school brand and the strength of the alumni network are not perfectly correlated with the measurements taken by the rankings, this can result in the schools expending resources in ways that are less than perfect in terms of their alignment with the school's stakeholder's best interests.
  
• Schools at this level shouldn't need an external validation by a publication. If measures must be taken, let them be audited, properly designed and controlled, and administered by a completely neutral entity with no potential of a conflict of interest. We're talking about the 30-50 best business schools in the world, and having their reputations and relative worths bandied about by external, non-accountable publications is too much of a degree of randomness for comfort. Let a central authority perform the ranking work, and let the publications comment on that rankings. They won't like it because the rankings present a great opportunity to sell lots of copies, but it's better this way.
  

I have a number of fears regarding the decision, however.

The rankings, as I said above, will be published regardless. This will now be done with incomplete information. A number of scenarios are possible. For example, the publications in question could quite easily decide to hammer reticent schools in their rankings as a form of punishment in return for their disintermediation. They may believe that the corresponding loss of revenue and the drop in the applicant pool for the schools in question would cause them to reconsider their decision and bring them back into the fold. This would be extremely unpleasant, and would vindicate the decision to quit the rankings, but may increase the cost of doing so considerably.

One of the ways the publications in question are trying to get around this is by soliciting feedback from the students without the help of the school administration - through advertising and so on. By doing this they may well get a sample that looks statistically significant, but this would be terribly misleading. This approach would only obtain the feedback of the students that feld they had something to say - the critics always have the most willingness to speak up, and you may get a sample of the least satisfied and most gung-ho of the graduating class. You don't accurately measure a distribution by examining it's tails (as our marketing research professor might say).

All things considered, I think this is both the right thing to do, and a courageous thing to do - it takes someone who's gone through the application process or who's been to one of these schools to understand the unbelievable power wielded by the rankings - we gave them that power by playing their game for so long. It may hurt, but we're taking it back. We'd rather be the masters of our own destinies.

Julia Roberts, Kirsten Dunst, Julia Stiles and Maggie Gyllenhaal star in this deeper-than-average story of the changes of mind and heart that can occur when exposed to an inspired teacher. In the spirit of Dead Poet's Society and Mr. Holland's Opus, but sufficiently original to be free of cheap comparisons, Mona Lisa Smile brings a subtle depth and some unageing wisdom through an illustration of a very traditional girl's school in the 50s.

In the hallowed halls of the Wellesley school for girls, a new teacher makes her awestruck entrance. Katherine Ann Watson (Julia Roberts) is not from this world of sacred values and rituals, but as one of the students puts it in the school paper's editorial, "it was whispered that Katherine Watson, a first year teacher from Oakland state, made up in brains what she lacked in pedigree". She might have added tenacity and independence to her list of character traits.

As she discovers in her first lesson, the students have memorized the syllabus, and if her task is to teach them this, then her time is wasted. The girls are clearly extremely intelligent and knowledgeable. But what Katherine Watson finds they lack is something she is uniquely positioned - thanks to her status as an outsider - to provide: independence from the constraints of the expectations their environment places upon them. So, using art as a metaphor, she begins to teach them that the books aren't always right, what you think will make you happy sometimes won't, and their knowledge, expectations and ambitions, such as they are, constrain them to the world they're already a part of, rather than allowing them to use the amazing academic level and skills they have acquired.

What ensues is a transformational journey in which few people are left untouched. While she is not the only catalyst to the transformations that take place, her status as an independent free thinker causes many of the events to focus upon her, and her honesty and forthrightness are what carry her through the hard times and eventually earn her the respect of both the staff and her students.

This is no blockbuster, but it is a well written, cleanly executed emotional story in which characters develop, events have real consequences and we the audience, if we allow it, may be a little changed also by the events we witness. Is that not what good storytelling is all about?

Mini caught speeding at mach 3 in a Brussels suburb. Ticket takes 4 months to catch up.

Nicholas Easter has been called for jury duty, and as he prepares for the selection process, Rankin Fitch, a famous and ruthless jury consultant, is retained to ensure that the jurors that are selected deliver the verdict his high-paying gun lobby clients desire. At first sight, Nick Easter does not want to be a juror, he has better things to do, but as the stakes get higher, and Fitch's methods to guarantee his verdict become more and more ruthless, Nick Easter's own presence on the jury appears less and less like a coincidence.

John Cusack is one of my favourite actors, and he delivers a solid performance as the juror with a hidden agenda. But to be fair, he is not the heavyweight in this piece.

In recent movies, we've seen scripts for kids (Spy Kids II, Charlie's Angels II) where a young group of actors are the key, and an older actor appears to be making a desperate bid to revive their career. Here we have a much more intelligent approach: a young-looking John Cusack and a gorgeous Rachel Weisz are ideal for their roles, but the heavyweight actors on the screen are given characters that allow them to flex the huge skill and experience they have at their disposal. Gene Hackman and Dustin Hoffman rock, and as the antagonist and protagonist of the piece, they manage to present a true clash of ideals versus a ruthless desire to win.

This movie combines well-crafted twists and turns with solid performances, and characters with agendas that are not always clear. It provides a moral lesson only insofar as it is against the gun lobby and it pitcures it as a cheating, manipulative, at-any-cost entity that smacks of organized crime. While it doesn't quite keep you guessing until the end, the movie certainly engages sufficiently to make good viewing, and now that it's out on DVD, you have no excuse.

I'm currently revising for my Fixed Income Securities course, and this Vasicek guy is definitely not in my good books - it's one of those theories you really wish someone had never invented.