Critique:
The letter contends that the article, under concern here, is incorrect in saying that the hapless victims of corporate downsizing face serious economic hardships. Quoting a report on the U.S. economy, it says that, in fact, job oppurtunities have been increasing since 1992 and that these jobs come with above-wages plus, are full-time.
The author fails to account for the increase in population at a more dramatic rate than that of job creation. With increasing population, competition increases as a result of which job vacancies are limited. Also, the letter does not manage to prove that those who lose their jobs in this process do not suffer any economic hardship. So that fact cannot be denied on the basis of the arguments presented.
That the newly created jobs are well-paying is a fact, extraneous to the argument as the article only states that the victims of downsizing suffer only till they find sutable employment. So, even if their new-found job pays well, that can't do anything to change the suffering they underwent till they got the job. Even the information about the jobs being full-time is irrelevant to the argument.
The author, in order to put across his point, either must have cited first-person accounts of persons who have really been through the trauma of losing their job or must have quoted other reports that contain relevant information.
ETS.org's Pool of Topics No.2 - 00:55
"Students should bring a certain skepticism to whatever they study. They should question what they are taught instead of accepting it passively."
Assume, there existed conveyances to go back in time and imagine, you are sitting in the intellectual auspices of some celebrated pedagogoue in post-Coppernicus and pre-Galileo times and you hear him showing his pupils a model of the solar system, you know so well to be heliocentric, with the earth at the centre with the sun orbitting it! And still worse, the pupils are all awestruck and listen attentively.
When Galileo came up with his model of the heliocentric solar system he was ridiculed and even condemned. The folly of the reaction to his theory can be clearly discerned today many years after space exploration has become a reality. This incident in the annals of history could put one very serious point through and that is, what is the veracity of all the putative scientific theories in existence currently?
Right from school, students are made to think that what is present in their textbooks is beyond the scope of questioning as to how much of the content is true. This notion being ingrained, they never stop to question, reason or attempt to practically understand what is being taught to them. What we rarely realize is that most theories are primarily assumptions of the error-prone human mind and that these premises many not always turn out to be accurate. One may counter that all inventions and discoveries are derive basis from established facts and observable phenomenon. But again, how much ever one may try to stick to facts, somewhere subjectiveness of the inventor may take priority not to mention trivial assumptions will certainly be made throughout the creative process and some of them may turn out to factitious though they were unintentional.
Take for example, the famous Big Bang Theory that is nowadays, almost invariably quoted when explaining the origin of the universe. According to the theory, the original singularity that eventually exploded is quanitively defined as one which is of infinite mass, infinite temperature and infintesimal size none of which have been simulated in any laboratory.
Does that mean that the this theory is factitious? The answer is exactly what I am trying to get at. Theories are ongoing processes, in that they are the culmination of the research of many people and still many more will continue to add to them by means of skepticism, followed by further research and leading to new findings and herein lies the choice the individual in deciding whether he chooses to be a part of this process or just be a passive observer.
Assume, there existed conveyances to go back in time and imagine, you are sitting in the intellectual auspices of some celebrated pedagogoue in post-Coppernicus and pre-Galileo times and you hear him showing his pupils a model of the solar system, you know so well to be heliocentric, with the earth at the centre with the sun orbitting it! And still worse, the pupils are all awestruck and listen attentively.
When Galileo came up with his model of the heliocentric solar system he was ridiculed and even condemned. The folly of the reaction to his theory can be clearly discerned today many years after space exploration has become a reality. This incident in the annals of history could put one very serious point through and that is, what is the veracity of all the putative scientific theories in existence currently?
Right from school, students are made to think that what is present in their textbooks is beyond the scope of questioning as to how much of the content is true. This notion being ingrained, they never stop to question, reason or attempt to practically understand what is being taught to them. What we rarely realize is that most theories are primarily assumptions of the error-prone human mind and that these premises many not always turn out to be accurate. One may counter that all inventions and discoveries are derive basis from established facts and observable phenomenon. But again, how much ever one may try to stick to facts, somewhere subjectiveness of the inventor may take priority not to mention trivial assumptions will certainly be made throughout the creative process and some of them may turn out to factitious though they were unintentional.
Take for example, the famous Big Bang Theory that is nowadays, almost invariably quoted when explaining the origin of the universe. According to the theory, the original singularity that eventually exploded is quanitively defined as one which is of infinite mass, infinite temperature and infintesimal size none of which have been simulated in any laboratory.
Does that mean that the this theory is factitious? The answer is exactly what I am trying to get at. Theories are ongoing processes, in that they are the culmination of the research of many people and still many more will continue to add to them by means of skepticism, followed by further research and leading to new findings and herein lies the choice the individual in deciding whether he chooses to be a part of this process or just be a passive observer.
ETS.org's Pool of Topics No.1 - 01:41
"The only responsibility of corporate executives, provided they stay within the law, is to make as much money as possible for their companies."
When I was old enough to decide about converting any of my multitudes of vocations into a serious career, a knowledgeable someone told me I wouldn't make a good manager as I didn't have the "eye for money". Dumbed down, I thought that the business of managing an organisation required you to have the Midas' touch. Now, at the threshold of entering the the big business of money-making, I begin to realise what he said isn't entirely true.
That the ability to mint money at a mind-numbing pace would take a person places, though true, doesn't imply that he wouldn't need any other qualities. Though certainly not in a position to write a "What it takes to be a good corporate executive" manual, I can atleast theorize that it takes loads of other attributes such as leadership, felicity, the ability to instil fear, respect and warmth all in tandem, charisma, flexibility, humility and less importantly, the ability to match your tie and suit. If it doesn't take all this, then why do CEO's of major organisations indulge in other seemingly disparate pursuits such as improving the quality of school-level and college-level education by funding development projects and by alloting large parts of the company revenue for sponsorship programs. Wouldn't all these ventures merely drain company profits?
Take for example, India, where quizzing has become a rage among the Indian youth, starting from the school going kids and extending upto the employees of different organisations, particularly those in the software industry. There are a plethora of quizzing events held across the country which are permanent fixtures on major holidays of the year. All these events carry with them a huge prize money, being sposored by corporates. Added to this, several talent-hunt competitions for schools are held at an All-India level. To cite an example, the yearly talent-hunt organized by Intel identifies students talented in Natural Sciences.
Why I quote this example is because the motive behind corporates organizing such events is two-pronged:
1) To create a talent pool that would in turn benefit the organisation.
2) To play a role in edifying and honing the future minds that will play a vital role in nation- building.
The point about nation-building brings us to another phenomenon that has caught the savvy of corporate executives, namely, the Corporate Social Responsibility(CSR), a term that management gurus allude, will become the management mantra of tomorrow. Though it its nascent stages, the idea has spread across the corporate world like wild fire. Now, corporate executives are asked to be more "socially responsible" and have a heart and a purse for the less-priveleged in society. Rural-development and help for orphans, mentally-challenged and physically-disabled are mandatory entries in the work-scheduler of every corporate executive Now where did all that talk about money-making go?
When I was old enough to decide about converting any of my multitudes of vocations into a serious career, a knowledgeable someone told me I wouldn't make a good manager as I didn't have the "eye for money". Dumbed down, I thought that the business of managing an organisation required you to have the Midas' touch. Now, at the threshold of entering the the big business of money-making, I begin to realise what he said isn't entirely true.
That the ability to mint money at a mind-numbing pace would take a person places, though true, doesn't imply that he wouldn't need any other qualities. Though certainly not in a position to write a "What it takes to be a good corporate executive" manual, I can atleast theorize that it takes loads of other attributes such as leadership, felicity, the ability to instil fear, respect and warmth all in tandem, charisma, flexibility, humility and less importantly, the ability to match your tie and suit. If it doesn't take all this, then why do CEO's of major organisations indulge in other seemingly disparate pursuits such as improving the quality of school-level and college-level education by funding development projects and by alloting large parts of the company revenue for sponsorship programs. Wouldn't all these ventures merely drain company profits?
Take for example, India, where quizzing has become a rage among the Indian youth, starting from the school going kids and extending upto the employees of different organisations, particularly those in the software industry. There are a plethora of quizzing events held across the country which are permanent fixtures on major holidays of the year. All these events carry with them a huge prize money, being sposored by corporates. Added to this, several talent-hunt competitions for schools are held at an All-India level. To cite an example, the yearly talent-hunt organized by Intel identifies students talented in Natural Sciences.
Why I quote this example is because the motive behind corporates organizing such events is two-pronged:
1) To create a talent pool that would in turn benefit the organisation.
2) To play a role in edifying and honing the future minds that will play a vital role in nation- building.
The point about nation-building brings us to another phenomenon that has caught the savvy of corporate executives, namely, the Corporate Social Responsibility(CSR), a term that management gurus allude, will become the management mantra of tomorrow. Though it its nascent stages, the idea has spread across the corporate world like wild fire. Now, corporate executives are asked to be more "socially responsible" and have a heart and a purse for the less-priveleged in society. Rural-development and help for orphans, mentally-challenged and physically-disabled are mandatory entries in the work-scheduler of every corporate executive Now where did all that talk about money-making go?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)