In the long-term, I see Research in Motion’s stock price lagging significantly. Which is sad to me – sad for me to see it go. When I was interning in Hong Kong, I used one of their phones, and it served me extraordinarily well for texting, calling, etc. The interface and exterior design were picture-perfect, and it’s not every day a company gets the user interface right. Granted Apple’s technology is good, but who wants to use the same IOS interface every single time?

Just from the news on its debilitated market share, one can infer that a >90% drop in share price is not likely to rebound any time soon. Yet I can’t help feel some nostalgia again at this number, because when I first got into the stock market, RIMM was THE ticker to check for the daily surge. Pre-2008 was a wonderful era, and this is one of those companies that hangs as a memoir. And every time I am reminded of its history, it throws into sharp relief the sobriety of reality, and impartial fairness of the business world we live in.

Maybe like Research in Motion, it’s time for North Americans to step down from leading, and research.

At the beginning of the year, I chose courses based on interest. Staring at the long wall of options, I really didn’t know what to spend my time taking, and I’m proud to say that this term, I tried something new. In fact, a couple things; notably Sustainability by Design 221, and Introduction to Moral Theory 230A.

At the time, I didn’t think that any of these would apply to my degree – at least not directly, but perhaps there is “more than meets the eye” with certain things.

In large part, I don’t see myself broaching faculties. I don’t see myself switching planes to see these various subjects, because in my mind, they are one and the same. Business, like arts, and sustainable design, is often a question of how we live our lives; how we apply the concepts of our conception into subjective enhancement. When there is a dispute, reconciling the different perspectives of each faculty is in fact among the most rewarding experiences I’ve had at Sauder, and I’m easily proud to say that that is what business is meant to do; that is, business reaches out and bridges gaps for me, no matter where I go.

It may be the grassroots of something now, but just think of where I can go!

I never liked SMART goals much. Organizational behavioural research indicates that goal-setting, while useful for ensuring accountable completion of simple tasks, is a hindrance for completing complex tasks – especially as a team. Call me high-achieving, but rigorous goal-setting is not my thing; I believe in doing what needs to get done when the time comes, and employing a general sensibility about it.

At least this formula works for me. All the same, I understand the usefulness for some people of getting specific, measurable, attainable, relevant, and timely things done – it’s just not my cup of tea. Besides, I think it’s impossible to accurately conceive of the future at an implementation level.

But it seems strange to me so many Sauder students have either a) their path very clearly planned out, or b) have no idea what is in their future to the extreme extent of not knowing what is held in the future of the school structure they have ascribed to at all. Baffling as this may be, I think a greater emphasis needs to be placed on students’ futures at school, rather than their present. I think the career support network we have needs more focus, rather than, say, blind academia; even in first year.

Be specific as to how, for example, I will be doing, rather than have.

At Sauder, this week is election week for first-year rep. It’s nice to see so many candidates vying for the position and ultimately bearing ultimate responsibility for leadership in enhancing our first-year experience – but politics, as always, (and this is purely that) remains contentious.

I like to think about how the campaigns at our school would be run differently if the candidates had first learned about making business plans, and about marketing strategy; you know, making sense of marketing data, and preparing a general plan as to how they will approach this daunting challenge of selling themselves. I like to think of these elections as business interaction stripped of all its numerical aspects, leaving nothing but human interaction; I like to think that what’s left is marketing, as a naked, unifying concept of business.

In political trade, the product is what a person chooses to represent, and the consumer offers to “buy” into said product by agreeing to vote for the candidate. An intangible product is being sold for intangible values, and the only chemistry left between the parties is purely association by marketing.

For example, some of the problems faced by campaigns, like candidates being equidistant from constituents, are universal plagues, regardless of it being a national or in-school campaign.

Qualitatively speaking, this is also the most interesting, relevant case-analysis I can imagine to demonstrate the ropes of critical thinking to first-years – a concept so rarely approached in Sauder, and so close to the heart of and intertwined with business (in the same way marketing is, of course).

If you take a look in front of the Sauder building you’ll see some pretty well-kept rows of plants and grass fields. If you stayed and watched, you’d see how much work is actually required not just to make but to upkeep these plots of greenery. That is to say, if you think about where your tuition goes walking around campus, you’ll see that you pay a premium for sitting in a lecture hall listening to Profs drone on and on about irrelevant topics – for an education.

But I’m not being fair, am I? I mean, is that what you really come to university for? Comm 101 is a survey business course; for example, in finance, we talked about the price value of money. If you think about it, the money you spend now on your education could be worth countless dollars down the road, but then what is useful to you? Can you quantify the usefulness of knowledge, speaking fairly? What, to you, is useful knowledge? I think students are too focused on the “useful content” of their textbooks, and not making learning matter; students who come to university to learn should learn to make that learning useful; not hoard grades/degrees. Maybe then, they’ll learn to make the most out of every dollar, and for the rest of our lives, that might be a useful education.

A recent trip to China enlightened me on the ramifications of the so-called housing crisis . A $1 trillion American stimulus package, and Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac’s possible $360 billion cost sounds fine and dandy in the news; even a global food shock can be mitigated by attenuated spending habits, and the only immediately comprehensible difference is visited when we go to the pump. But, driving down the newly built, raised highways in China that are regularly decorated by well-watered plants, you ask yourself why the houses below can be abandoned, taunting you, a North American, as they rot in the sun.

So I spent some time learning history: how can a country recover from foreign suppression, hyperinflation, external invasion, civil war, and years of communist starvation, and still win out over a global superpower that, in the meantime, experienced its golden age? I believe that in down-times, the facing of problems, such as economic disparity, favours underdogs, precisely because they are willing to fight harder, last longer, and stoop lower. But the game isn’t over; America has moves to play; as long as they stop allowing the game to be controlled by the ingenious inventors of the credit-default swaps, to which the notorious George Soros himself jokingly said “I don’t understand,” they can stop being the playthings of invisible forces, and the dinner-time jokes of their well-fed, government-regulated neighbours.

Can what? I’m not suggesting we adopt a communist system, but SOME bipartisanship never hurt.