With six finals periods already under my belt, I thought I would take the time to share some secrets of studying that I’ve learned along the way. The following is a list of the most important (and legal) tips and tricks, which I call - in an ode to Arrested Development - The Finals Countdown.

1. Pretending to study is not actually an effective technique. Talking to your friends in a Huntsman study room will not help you and neither will facebooking in Fine Arts. Take real breaks and do real work. After all, the motto is “Work hard, Play hard” not “Pretend to Work hard, Play in the library.”
2. Make use of free stuff. RAs and others with semester-long budgets are unloading the remainder of their money during Finals, and every one is going out of their way to prevent long falls from the top of a highrise (this isn’t Cornell). In the past I’ve seen free breakfasts, free massages, dessert study breaks and more. ABP always has free coffee at night and Houston Hall often has amazing buffet set-ups. Finals and binge eating are synonymous for many, so if you’re going to do it, do it for free.
3. Leave your books with pride. You know that pre-med who occupies a desk in your favorite study area for weeks at a time, leaving just enough behind to prevent desperate studiers from obtaining a seat? We all agree that guy’s a tool. But if you can’t beat ‘em, you’ve got to join ‘em.
4. Be prepared, but not too prepared. A few key comforts can make studying away from home much easier. Library-appropriate clothes, lots of layers (for the Tundra that is Van Pelt you might want to bring a parka), and an endless supply of Red Bull are all in order. Pillows and blankets are a little excessive but admissible. Lamps, coffeemakers, or any other appliances, however, should always be left at home.
5. Remember to breathe. It may sound cheesy, but no test is important enough to sacrifice your sanity. Besides, no one wants to be the girl gripping her cheat sheet and hyperventilating as she walks into the exam room. It really will be okay, I promise - especially if you’ve taken my above advice.

(Chicago Maroon)

“Who wants to go to UPenn anyway?”

That was the question posed by a recent editorial in the University of Chicago Maroon. Protesting the school’s plans to begin accepting the Common Application, the editorial expressed students’ fears that it would turn Chicago into another “generic, elite private university”–like Penn, for example.

The editorial’s implications caused concern among Penn students who came across it. Were our Midwestern friends right? Is Penn a “generic, elite private university?”

Let me first answer the Maroon’s question. Who does want to go to Penn anyway? Well, me for one. I wanted to as a senior in high school (enough to apply Early Decision) and I still want to be here. With almost 50 percent of recent classes choosing Penn as their first choice by also applying early, we deserve the Newsweek label of “Hottest for Happy-To-Be-There.”

A student body that wants to be at Penn is one of the principal factors separating us from our peers. Choosing not to follow Harvard’s lead and do away with Early Decision earlier this year was critical in keeping us from falling into the generic trap.

While I disagree with the Maroon’s insinuations about Penn, I do believe that all colleges have recently seen increased pressure to conform to national standards. We must be aware of these forces and fight them when necessary, just as we did with the Early Decision issue.

Financial aid, co-ed housing, endowment size and other criteria have all become benchmarks for success that universities often take on without considering whether they are really right for their particular schools. This was the problem when Penn attempted to mimic aid programs at Harvard and Yale that left zero parental contribution for families making under $40,000 and $45,000 a year, respectively. Because our endowment can hardly compare to those schools though ($4.4 billion compared to $25.9 billion at Harvard), Penn’s plan actually did not change much in our financial aid system. We should have realized that our solution to the aid question had to be tailored to our unique circumstances rather than blindly trying to keep pace with our peers.

Though Penn was once at the progressive forefront, we now seem far too content just treading water, staying in line with the pack rather than separating ourselves from them.

For now, Penn does remain unique–that’s why so many students, including me, considered it our first choice. Yet the Maroon editorial board has a point that goes far beyond the Common Application. A tendency to conform to precedents at peer schools rather than create our own has been apparent in many of the major decisions that the university has recently made. If we don’t turn back to our innovative roots, we really will become the generic elite university that some already consider us.

Lee Jin-Man/AP

Apparently, the Wharton tools were right all along: money does buy happiness.

At least That’s what a growing body of scholarship on the relationship between money and happiness might suggest.

A recent AP article focused on the trend and presented a few of the area’s seminal works. The research that has recently garnered the most attention comes from Andrew Oswald of the University of Warwick in England. Oswald studied a group of Britons who won between $20,000 and $250,000 in the lottery and determined that their happiness levels on a 36-point scale rose a full point from two years before the win until two years after.

Daniel Kaheneman, a Princeton economist and Nobel Prize winner, has also completed similar work with more mixed results. People in the high-income bracket were found to be almost twice as likely to call themselves “very happy” as people from the lowest. However, the difference between people who made $90,000 and those who made between $50,000 and $89,000 was only 1 percentage point.

Rush Limbaugh, who apparently subscribes to the same RSS-feed as I and reported on the same article on his radio show, remains a Big, Fat Idiot. He takes this evidence as proof that money does buy happiness, a conclusion he has come to on his own based on two damning pieces of evidence: that people want money and that people who have money would not be willing to forfeit it.

Aspiring toward a Cribs lifestyle does not mean that people would be any happier if they had money, but only that they think they would. Perhaps if they were watching VH1’s Behind the Music instead of Cribs they would realize that many of the celebrities on the screen are struggling with drug problems, mental illnesses or unhealthy relationships.

As the stories of MC Hammer, Vanilla Ice and other classic Behind the Music subjects show, many of the people whose fortunes we covet often squander it all and be worse of than before. Maybe if Oswald checks in with his lottery winners another two years from now, they will be telling a different story.

As for rich-but-miserable people who still wouldn’t be willing to let go of their money, this proves nothing except that many rich people are stubborn and afraid of giving up what they thought they wanted.

The one valid point on the money-buys-happiness side of the debate comes from Kaheneman’s comparison between the highest and lowest income brackets. As one of the callers to Limbaugh’s show stated, “Money itself doesn’t bring happiness, but the lack of money brings misery.”

The intense difficulty of living paycheck to paycheck causes a host of problems that make people less satisfied with their lives. To conclude from this that the more money one has the happier he will be is completely false.

Money does not buy happiness. And if Rush Limbaugh is any indication, it also can’t buy you a clue.

Check back later for more from The Spin

(gophilla.com)

As I visit different cities before accepting a job offer, one location remains glaringly out of contention: Philadelphia.

It’s not that I don’t like Philadelphia. I routinely sing the city’s praises to friends and family at home (admittedly, this is easy to do when home is in Ohio). And it’s not that I refuse to consider any opportunity outside New York. I am equally willing to relocate to Boston, Chicago or almost any other major city. Unfortunately, when I think of Philly, I can’t help thinking of it as a great place to go to college, but one that I’m more than ready to move on from.

According to a 2004 study by the Knowledge Industry Partnership, 71 percent of non-native college students will also leave Philadelphia after graduation (compared to 42 percent in Boston). While a solid 86 percent of Philly locals do remain in the city, public perception of an area depends on its ability to attract outsiders.

A recent New York Times article chronicled the efforts of various cities to please twenty-somethings, a group now coveted as a replacement for retiring Baby Boomers. While Philadelphia has taken similar measures–from internships and free concert tickets to the heralded program, “Stay Invent the Future”–the city has not made much progress.

As far as Penn students are concerned, Career Services’ survey for the College class of 2005 revealed that only 71 out of 620 of respondents, or about 11 percent, stayed in Philly after graduation.

Chrissy Royer, who graduated from the College in 2003, is one of those who stayed. She speculates that many of her peers never got to know the city’s best parts. “If I could only live in University City, I wouldn’t live in Philly,” she said. “When we graduated we liked it but we didn’t love it like we do know.”

Since graduation, Chrissy has found Philadelphia so wonderful that she has at times commuted to Baltimore and DC to keep an apartment here. She suggests that other students might discover a similar affinity if they took time from their admittedly busy schedules to engage with the city.

While a lack of appropriate jobs might be one reason that students leave, it is not the main reason. Anecdotally, Chrissy could not think of a single friend who tried to look for a job in Philly and couldn’t find one. And Philadelphia jobs are probably not as scarce as some believe.

The city’s efforts to get its students to stick around should therefore be focused not on employment but on culture and lifestyle. Perhaps Philadelphia isn’t for everyone, but students who are truly integrated into the city have a much better idea of whether it might be.

I can’t say whether I’d be weighing different options if I had taken this advice. For those still unsure of where they will be after graduation though, it certainly can’t hurt to be better informed. Whether you ultimately decide to stay or not, at least give Philly a chance.

Two heads are better than one and thousands of intelligent, educated heads are better still.

This was the foundation for Wikipedia’s 2001 launch. Now publishing goliath Pearson PLC is joining forces with Wharton Vice Dean Jon Spector, Wharton Professor Yoram Wind and professors at Mit’s Sloan School to produce a new Wikibook.

The book will be called “We Are Smarter Than Me” and in a truly meta fashion will, according to the Wall Street Journal, “explore how businesses can use online communities, consumer-generated media such as blogs, and other Web content to help in their marketing, pricing, research and service.” While the founding authors will create a skeleton for the book, interested users can contribute content through the website www.wearesmarter.org.

User-generated business texts carry both great opportunities and potential flaws.

(wearesmarter.org)

On one hand, shared experiences are already hallmarks of business learning. From case studies to best practices, the idea that people should learn from each other already exists in the business world. We Are Smarter Than Me may thus fare better than the original Wikibooks textbook project, which sought to address the problem of expensive textbooks by building open-content texts online. That initiative has seen limited success and has not yet gained the authority to be assigned by teachers or professors.

Having already recruited some big-name academics and businesspeople as contributors, the We Are Smarter project will certainly provide interesting anecdotes and analysis. The oversight role of Pearson and the ghostwriters who will compile the text will also allow for more coherence and legitimacy than the original Wikibooks. As the Journal correctly identifies, the problem in this case will be managing competing egos.

If the project successfully jumps this hurdle, We Are Smarter Than Me will open new doors in academia. Somewhere between peer-reviewed journals, traditional textbooks, and case studies, open-content books can quickly collect information from different sources and offer competing perspectives on any given topic.

So long as they don’t bump into each other, many business heads really will be better than one.

At first glance, Jian Li’s story sounds like the self-entitled griping of another Ivy brat.

In reality, the complaint he has filed with the Office of Civil Rights goes far beyond any individual concerns. Li alleges that the aggregate effect of race preferences, legacy preferences and athlete preferences at Princeton is systematic discrimination against Asian-Americans. By disadvantaging a minority group, Li believes that the university is not adhering to the statutes of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

Though legacy, athlete and other similar preferences are certainly worthy of discussion, the policy of affirmative action has become the most controversial. With the passage last week of the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative, affirmative action is also perhaps the most relevant.

At a fundamental level, both opponents and proponents of affirmative action are arguing for equality. Opponents call for equality in the admissions process while supporters strive for equality on a larger societal level. Li’s case suggests that the two goals may be mutually exclusive.

In a recent interview with Li, he insisted that “the body of evidence clearly shows that Asian Americans are being discriminated against.” He specifically noted the work of two outspoken critics of affirmative action, Pulitzer Prize winning reporter

Opponents and suppporters of the Michigan affirmative action ballot initiative listen to a speech by U. Michigan President Mary Sue Coleman last week (AP/Carlos Osorio)

Dan Golden (who has recently published a book called The Price of Admission) and African-American Berkeley professor John McWhorter.

The work of both men, as well as other research into the effects of affirmative action, does indicate that different races are held to different standards and that Asians face the greatest admissions burden.

A study at the Center for Equal Opportunity, for example, found that Asian students accepted to the University of Michigan in 2005 had an average SAT score of 1400, compared to 1350 for white students, 1260 for Hispanic students and 1160 for black students. After California passed proposition 209 in 1996, the percentage of Asian applicants admitted to UC Berkeley rose from 34.6 percent to 42 percent. The admit rate of white applicants actually fell slightly, suggesting that Asians (not whites) are most harmed by current policies.

These statistics are also reflected anecdotally.

In an interview with Boston public radio station WBUR earlier this month, Dan Golden spoke of an Asian student he interviewed who had received over 1500 points on her SATs. When Golden congratulated her, the girl corrected him, calling the score an “Asian Fail,” and insisting that she needed a much higher score to be competitive as an Asian applicant. The Asian stereotyping that Golden reveals as common in admissions offices is reminiscent of attitudes during the days of Jewish quotas.

Simply showing that the playing field is not level, however, does not prove that we should level it. The benefits of the current system to racial diversity are real, as are the benefits of racial diversity to a university community.

Lee Stetson, Director of Admissions at Penn, echoed this belief. In response to an e-mail, he noted that, “Penn continues to seek diversity of all backgrounds. All Asian and Asian-American students are of the highest priority for us. Of course, an extra effort is made to reach out to students from under epresented groups such as African American/Black and Hispanics.”

After the abolishment of racial preferences in California, the number of minorities at state universities plummeted. Of the 7,350 students that made up Berkeley and UCLA’s combined classes in 2004, 218 were black. There was one black female in a UCLA law class of over 300 students. Such under-representation of minorities will lead to a perpetuation of racial stereotypes and tension, both of which UC Chancellor Robert J. Birgeneau already sees happening in California.

Jian Li does not see racial diversity as a value worth pursuing. He argued yesterday that most minority spots are filled with prep school students rather than the truly disadvantaged. He also asserts that, “It puts a negative burden on minorities to say, ‘you’re here to enrich the experiences of white people.’”

While both of these points are valid–and the racial preference system should be altered to better allow for socioeconomic considerations–he is wrong in insisting that racial diversity is unimportant.

Li’s complaint is, however, a positive step toward what should be our ultimate goal: greater transparency.

Golden mentions the opacity of admissions as one of its flaws. This is not only a flaw but the primary problem. Racial diversity is an ideal worth preserving, but in the zero-sum game of college admissions, there will be winners and losers. Admissions offices should be required to release all data and make very clear both who the losers are and, if one group of students disproportionately fills this category, exactly what is being done to make the process more equitable.

If Li’s complaint can achieve this result, it will go beyond self-entitled griping. It will be truly revolutionary.

In his latest column in The New York Times, Frank Rich calls 2006 “the Year of the Macaca.”

From Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) deploying racist ads against his opponent (and Penn alum) Harold Ford to Rush Limbaugh mocking Michael J. Fox, Rich calls Republican campaign tactics “callous conservatism” and argues that the Democrats won not only on Iraq but on the outdated politics of the Bush-Rove establishment.

Rich correctly identifies George Allen’s “macaca” mishap as critical. Beyond speaking to the ineffectiveness of dirty politics, the comment and ensuing controversy encapsulate the changing face of our country. Jim Webb’s victory last week shows that Virginians were not in on Allen’s joke and that Americans are ready to accept a national transformation.

Yesterday’s Washington Post contained an op-ed by UVA senior Shekar Ramanuja Sidarth, the Macaca himself. Rather than bashing Allen or reveling in Webb’s success, Sidarth chose to write about the hospitality he enjoyed while traveling across the state of Virginia. He hopes that Webb’s victory might mean “a vote to deal the race card out of American politics once and for all.”

Clearly, race will not disappear from politics any time soon. Politics is about identity and race will continue to be an important identity for many people. Open racism, however, will no longer be tolerated from politicians, a fact that was suggested back in 2002 by Trent Lott’s resignation and has now been confirmed by Allen’s defeat.

Sen. George Allen conceding last week (AP/Steve Helber)

For Penn students looking toward the future - especially those from minority backgrounds - this means a great deal. In our diverse community, people are often surprised to learn that Indians make up less than one percent of the total U.S. population, Asians less than five percent and Jews less than three percent.

African-American, Asian-American and Hispanic-American students are often elected to positions of power on campus and race rarely becomes an issue. But it is unclear whether the tolerance will continue after we graduate.

While visiting various corporations and preparing to make my decision about a job for next year, I noticed a pattern in race. The entry-level classes were very diverse but the level of diversity dropped in relation to seniority, with the highest echelons populated largely by white males.

This pattern could mean one of two things: either times really are changing and the diversity of newly-hired employees will be represented in executive ranks twenty years from now, or the changes are largely superficial and minority hires will later face an insurmountable glass ceiling. Though it’s a lot to take from one political race, Allen’s defeat gives me faith that the former pattern is correct.

In his op-ed, Sidarth points out that the U.S. is projected to be a minority-majority country by 2050. Last week’s election, and especially the aftermath of George Allen’s comments, suggests that by then “macacas” and other minorities will actually be represented at the highest political and professional levels.

Penn Democrats watch election results Tuesday night in Huntsman Hall (Amruta Godbole)

Young people these days just don’t care. They’re the apathetic opposite of their Baby Boomer parents. They’re Generation Why.

Penn students yesterday tore apart the conventional wisdom on our generation’s civic engagement. They voted in full force–a huge 196% increase from the last Midterm Election in 2002. They volunteered, canvassed and Led the Vote.

While many students were motivated by partisanship, the interest in politics that they displayed transcends the concerns of any one party. Rather, they care about the future of the community and the country and realize that there is a world beyond our insular campus. So, many students have fulfilled our responsibility as citizens. These are important habits that we must develop now and continue indefinitely.

Senior Meredith Uhl, Vice President of the Penn Democrats and a Judge of Elections today, noticed a palpable difference from past elections. “I saw a lot of people talking about the issues more,” she said. “There were a lot of first time voters who didn’t even know the process but were adamant that their vote be counted.’

Judging from the various election-news locations (in Van Pelt library, McLelland Hall in the Quad and many private parties), the election also allowed Penn students to unite over a common interest that actually matters. Even the Republicans who gathered nervously in their apartments were able to lean on each other as they saw the results stream in.

Uhl pointed out the energy apparent in the Democrats’ Huntsman Hall victory party. “Sharing the energy drives political engagement,” she said.

No matter what side of the political aisle, Penn students have proven themselves energized. Who says that we don’t care?

Despite not running for office this year, Senator John Kerry has become the target of heavy Republican fire. In a major political gaffe, Kerry appeared to question the intelligence of US troops during a speech last Monday.

Whether Kerry intended to criticize the President’s intellect or that of the troops is uncertain. Though he insists that the comment was merely a “botched joke,” it does sound awfully suspicious. Kerry (smart and well-educated as he is) should have realized the probability of misinterpretation.

There are a few obvious take-aways from this (non)scandal. First, the implication that U.S. troops are not intelligent or not qualified for other work is extremely disrespectful. Regardless of his intentions, Kerry did need to apologize.

Second, the fact that one questionable comment was seized upon shows the Republicans’ desperation. The administration clearly refocused the pre-election discourse because they have little ground to stand on when it comes to execution of the Iraq war.

Kerry with veterans at a recent Joe Sestak event (George Widman/AP)

Somewhere between the Republicans’ fury and Kerry’s total denial, however, lies another question. Rather than Kerry insisting that our troops are lazy and stupid as most conservative commentators have suggested, it is far more likely that the Senator was referring to an idea brought up in Michael Moore’s “Fahrenheit 9/11“: US soldiers are disproportionately under-privileged and forced to bear the burden of war in place of the rich and well-educated.

This has become a common liberal refrain and I believe that it comes from concern, not condescension. After all, when the Iraq War began the New York Times reported that exactly one Senator of all 535 members of Congress (Tim Johnson, a Democrat from South Dakota) had a son or daughter enlisted in the military. Surely, the policy-making elite might behave differently if the lives of their own children were at stake.

As it turns out, Michael Moore and any one who bought his assumption about demographics in the armed forces is wrong. Though far from an impartial organization, the Heritage Foundation has found that US soldiers are actually from marginally wealthier areas and better educated than their civilian peers.

The study also concludes that these characteristics have been improving since the beginning of the Iraq war. As the study’s authors state in a follow-up article in USA Today, “for every two recruits coming from the poorest areas, there are three recruits coming from the richest areas.”

The New York Times, though less optimistic in its assessment, corroborates the general idea. They report that 97 percent of Americans serving in the military have graduated high school, compared to 85 percent of the general population. Although 25 percent of all adults have a Bachelor’s and only 17 percent of enlisted soldiers can say the same, these statistics disregard the many veterans who capitalize on the GI Bill and other tools to earn a college degree.

While most US soldiers are not senators’ sons or Ivy grads, neither are most Americans. Assuming that the troops are less well-off than the average civilian effectively demeans their service. Despite Democrats’ genuine concern, demographics suggest that military men and women are not so different from other citizens. They are volunteers, not victims. The sooner the left realizes this, the sooner they can legitimately address service peoples’ needs.

The latest issue of Business Week describes an apparent change in the guiding principles of American corporations. Gordon Gecko-style mantras from the Art of War have been replaced by the peaceful tenets of ancient Indian philosophy. The result has been a fusion perfect for the new generation of business leaders: Karma Capitalism.

In general, the new philosophies take a more holistic approach to business. They urge executives to find a broader purpose beyond profits and seek to replace a focus on shareholders with consideration of all stakeholders (employees, the community, the environment, etc.). As influential University of Michigan professor C.K. Prahalad states, “It’s the idea that corporations can simultaneously create value and social justice.”

Many business schools have attempted to infuse their curricula with these new ideals. Indian professors, who make up 10% of the faculty at top B-schools, are leading the way. From “Creativity and Personal Mastery” to courses that reference the Bhagavad Gita, many have used Karma Capitalism to provide alternative frameworks in a post-Enron world. At Wharton, Swami Parthasarathy, an authority on the ancient school of philosophy known as Vedanta, recently lectured on managing stress.

The school has also seen the launch of an Indian version of the online business analysis journal Knowledge@Wharton, the inaugural Wharton India Business Plan competition and the 11th annual Wharton India Economic Forum. In keeping with both Karma Capitalism and Wharton’s apparent love of all things Indian, I have the perfect suggestion for the Death Star to take baby steps on its way to social responsibility.

In a popular new Bollywood movie, Lage Raho Munnabhai , the main character sees images of Gandhi and learns to replace his usual dadagiri (or bullying) with Gandhigiri (fighting with moral force and kindness). This idea has swept across the subcontinent, with formerly violent protestors handing out flowers instead and elderly people stripping off clothing to shame government officials. The re-emergence of an appreciation for Gandhi has had a genuinely positive effect on the country.

For Wharton–and Penn in general–there is a lot to gain both from ancient Indian philosophy and Gandhi’s modern values. While Wharton has successfully taken advantage of India’s vast market and deep pool of talent, the country also provides a different outlook on business that could supplant the recent rash of corporate scandals. Whether Karma Capitalism, Gandhigiri or something else, the Death Star could certainly use a new approach.