I think I screwed my paper.

You go into the examination hall, having read all your readings, feeling at least 75% prepared. Then you see the examination paper. You stare at it, a lot of points are going through your mind, but somehow, they can't be tailored to the question. After staring for a while, you decide, whatever, heck it, just whack, got no time already. You try desperate measures to link your points to the question and crap crap crap. By the time you're done with the paper, you read through it and it seems like one of the worst essays you've ever written for any paper. It just feels like rojak.

I hate that feeling, but I'm feeling that now. What's more, it's one of the subjects I'm banging on. Gee...

Whee hee hee... I have an examination in 9hours and 32mins, and I'm still blogging. Ok, I got really bored of studying. Well, sorry for my apparent silence, the week before last was one mad cap week of 4 tests (2 major ones), 2 reports and 1 journal review. Tough tough tough...

Have 3 more examinations, which are not easy going. Looking at my pile of readings and I wonder whether I can even finish all in one week!! Gee... Think: Having to read close to 10 full issues of Economist, plus do extra research and read that oh-so-boring-and-longwinded text book. Well, textbook writers really should learn to provide summaries.

Into week 3 of PDL. All you BMC people, hope you have been doing PDL regularly. Well, I started out strong in the 1st week, even writing things down in my journal. But, with the stress of the exams, totally slacked off... Gee.. I should get it back on the ball again...

Oooo... And, there's a new blogging kid! (hmm... though he doesn't qualify has kid, but well, as the expression goes.)Go figure who that is. Haha...

9 more days to freedom!!!

I just did the online feedback form. And, as I was reflecting, I realised that my modules this sem, though crazy, have been one of the most practical of them all throughout my studies in Bizad. Or maybe, because the lecturers, tutors and Profs are very hand-on and application based people and this sem I was blessed with many good tutors and Profs. But, seriously, majority of the money section you see in The Straits Times has to something to do with CF, the rest of the Asian Business reports all are in relation to APB plus it was very close to my job scope in IE S'pore, all those advertisements you see in Straits Times are closely related to GM, EM was most practical, especially with my internship working experience. And finally, Thai.. haha.. Well, needless to say, I am going to Thailand in July. So, that basic Thai would hopefully help me to get through Thailand shopping at ease.

Thank you God for such good lecturers, tutors and Profs this sem. In my view, all of them are so good (cos they are mostly locals with US training or US trained Profs who can speak ENGLISH!!) and for once you actually don't have to decipher their language.

Okok.. Back to the reports and notes now...

Was just writing a report on Korea's economic crisis and the IMF bailout and read 2 very opposing views. One was by renowned Japanese guru, Kenichi Ohmae, and the other by Rudi Dornbusch from MIT. This controversy was brought up when IMF's reforms pushed the Korean government to the corner, forcing the huge Chaebol dismantling. IMF, of course denied this, and said that they had "no intention of dismantling the Chaebol system".

Ohmae slammed the IMF for some of its reforms that it imposed on Korea while trying to bail her out of the financial crisis. In particular, (since my focus on this report is the Korean chaebol, or the Korean family conglomerates) he implied that the IMF in working with the US, was trying to let IB's in US gain large profits by forcing the government to force the Chaebol to spin off their nonperforming subsidiaries to foreign investors. At the same time, the IMF pushed strongly for the opening of the Korean market, particularly the financial market. Also, he strongly suggested that Japan should be allowed to make headway into the Korean markets, instead of IMF "giving this opportunity" to the US. Basically, in short, nationalistic Japanese views. (Hey! He called Korea a mini version of Japan, but never being able to reach Japanese standards. If that's not nationalistic, what's that?)

Dornbusch strongly opposed Ohmae's views by suggesting that Ohmae was ignorant and he scoffed the Japanese model, calling it "pretty pathetic". In wrapping up, he finally brought up the point of fostering a US-style capital market (or americanization), which was the main theme of his paper, that he cleverly weaved into his paper as he reinforced that he had "great problems" Ohmae's views. In short, another nationalistic paper, aimed at slamming Ohmae's views, and of course hi-lighting the good influence of the americanization in the markets.

Yes, by now, you probably would have guessed whose side I'm on. Ohmae's, but not fully. I don't agree with the nationalistic part. Dornbusch, I feel, had those views, simply because he was a product of Americanization, would he go against his own beliefs? So, obviously, he would scron the Japanese' views.

I strongly feel that IMF's reforms that it imposed on Korea during the financial crisis were not at all the wisest of them. Somehow, I have the nagging feeling that they were but a partial puppet, which was working in the interests of the big weights who are pulling the strings for them. Yes, I maybe bias, but that's the truth. Think about it, US is the one which provides the most funds for the IMF!! So, what do u think IMF would do?

Business: Art or Science?

I'm supposed to be reading those journal articles. But, yar, I got bored. Gee... It's more interesting to read the cases in HBR than this.

Anyway, after all that reading, I realised that Business is so much of a science rather than an art. Many people used to say that Business is an ART and not a SCIENCE. BUt after all that reading, I'm caught in the middle. Like all other ARTs subjects, Business is piled with readings after readings. So many that sometimes it just bores you. Yet, at the same time, all the different policies and theories are analysed very scientifically. Yes! They have a formula for almost everything. Somehow the hypothesis that they form will always come with some cheem mathematical statement, in which they would try to prove. And after proving, they bring this into real life, try to put the model into real life. Not that it always works, but, oh well. And then, there is the arty factor, whereby business can be so essay based. And at the same time, you can just pluck numbers from the air and give your arguement, and poof! without any scientific explanation, it's accepted as the right thing. Now, that's an art, where you are given free reign to just express your thoughts by showing your arguements...
Like the philosopher: Think about the business state and dream up new controversial issues. Oppose everyone's view.
Like the PA and PS students: State your views and thoughts publicly.
Like the lawyer and psychologist: Argue your way through by understanding people's mindsets and try to turn their minds around to believe you.
Like the historian: Dig out past articles which have some relation to this issue. Try not to make their mistakes. Refine your stand.
Like the scientists: Make a hypothesis and experiment on your hypothesis.
Like the financial consultant (or should I say magician?): Make up your own numbers. Yes, pluck them from the air.
Like the mathematician: Prove your fictional numbers towards your hypothesis. (Hmmm... How do prove fiction?)
Like the statistician: Run lots of regressions to confuse everyone.
Finally, like the business man: TCS

Business, artistic science or scientific art? You decide.