T
his
year,
I
recently
enrolled
in
the
Ross
School of Business from
the College of Literature, Science
and Arts to be on track for
pursuing dual degrees in English
and Business. Now that the first
semester is nearly over, I’ve
noticed some notable differences
between
the
schools.
More
specifically, I’ve found that the
Business School is very different
from what I expected.
One key difference is that the
Business School focuses on the
future while LSA focuses on the
present. As a Business student,
I’ve noticed that I am constantly
pushed to think about the future:
There are recruiters in the Winter
Garden most days and I constantly
overhear people talking about
upcoming interviews and job
offers.
Every
sophomore
is
required to create a résumé and
refine it until we get a certain
score on an online résumé grader
— VMock — as part of one of our
classes.
In contrast, my LSA professors
rarely discuss our future careers,
and instead will only ask about
my major. Sometimes, they’ll
ask whether or not I have any
idea what kind of career I want
to pursue. Granted, most of my
courses were humanities and
social science-related, so I don’t
know if this is the same in other
disciplines. I’ve also found that
my LSA professors are much more
likely to discuss current issues
than my Business professors are
(though instructors in general
usually shy away from such
topics), and that the coursework
more easily ties in with non-
business related current events
than my Ross coursework does.
Other differences include the
ambience: While LSA courses
are so diverse and plentiful that
defining an exact atmosphere is
impossible, Ross is most decidedly
cutthroat and stressful. This is
largely due to the Business School
distribution (or the “Ross curve”)
that assigns a certain percentage of
students to a grade range for each
class. While this system suggests
that receiving good grades in
Ross courses is easy, the exams
are extremely difficult, making it
difficult to receive an A. Moreover,
because
of
the
distribution,
students don’t necessarily have
to do well on the exams to receive
a good grade: They just need to
do better than their peers. This
creates an extremely competitive
atmosphere in which students are
constantly worried about their
peers’ performances just as much
as they are worried about their
own.
Interestingly,
the
Business
School also places a great deal of
importance on teamwork. Most
of our assignments are completed
in groups and often take hours to
finish, requiring students to meet
with their teams on a regular
basis. We’re provided with tutors
who are available multiple times
a week, as well as peer advisors
with whom we can speak should
we have any questions about
academics or recruiting.
This stark contrast between the
nature of the distribution, which
pits students against each other,
and the need to work in teams,
which connects students, baffles
me. How can a school that stresses
the importance of collaboration
in every part of its curriculum
use a grading system that fosters
unhealthy competition among its
students? I do understand that
the grading system does mimic
the business world — people in
business all compete for the same
opportunities. However, having
to work with other students
while knowing that they probably
secretly want me to fail my exams
so that they do better, and at
times feeling the same way about
them, makes me feel as though
our collaboration is marred by
superficiality. This isn’t to say
that Business students don’t care
about each other — students in
the Business School commiserate
about their shared classes (we all
take the same core courses) and
are always much more willing to
help each other than I’ve noticed
students in my LSA courses are.
The part about the Business
School that surprised me the
most, however, is how different
it is from its reputation, which
can be surmised in one word:
Rosshole. There’s a clear image
of who exactly a “Rosshole” is:
He’s a rich white guy from New
York whose parents work on Wall
Street. He wears Patagonia and
Canada Goose, interned or plans
to intern at Goldman Sachs and is
a frat bro. He rides a Bird around
campus in a suit. Do these types
of students exist in the Business
School?
Absolutely.
However,
they don’t make up the entire
student population, and the term
“Rosshole” is based on mostly
false assumptions.
There’s a statement that a
senior at the Business School
I spoke with last year told me
that sums up what it is like as a
student at the business school. She
said that if I do join the Business
School, I’ll meet both the best and
worst people I’ll ever meet. This
is pretty spot on. I’ve met some
really wonderful people at the
Business School whom I hope I
can continue to get to know even
after I graduate. Most people in
the Business School, including
people I don’t even know, have
extended offers to help me with
anything I need, whether that
be with fine-tuning my résumé,
completing my homework or just
venting about school. I’ve only met
a couple of people who I wouldn’t
mind never seeing again.
In addition, the awful people
at the Business School aren’t
exceptionally meaner or more
annoying than the generic asshole
(more
high-strung,
maybe).
But the truth is that there are
annoying and privileged people
everywhere. Business students
aren’t special in that department.
“LSAhole” just doesn’t have the
same ring to it that “Rosshole”
has — and truthfully, because
the
Rosshole
stereotype
has
little merit, I find the term to be
strangely endearing.
Of course, the Business School
is far from perfect. According
to the Office of the Registrar,
about 63 percent of students
enrolled as of fall 2018 are male,
while only about 37 percent are
female. There are also 2,208
white students out of the 4,223
enrolled and only 142 Black
students
and
218
Hispanic
students. These numbers belie
the need for more diversity in
the Business School, and while
they have been becoming more
even in recent years, Ross must
be held responsible for working
towards more diversity.
Therefore, stereotypes such as
the “Rosshole” that are parroted
by students are mostly untrue and
oversimplify the real problem of
diversity in the Business School
and the University as a whole.
As a student enrolled in both
the Business School and LSA,
it’s become clear to me that the
strange tension between the two
schools that is unnecessary and
founded on misguided beliefs.
Being in both schools certainly
requires finesse at times, but
it shouldn’t be because of any
friction between the two schools.
I
n December, world leaders will
gather in Katowice, Poland
for the 24th Conference of
the Parties to the United Nations
Framework Convention on Climate
Change, dubbed COP24, to review
the ongoing implementation of the
2015 Paris agreement and discuss
the next steps in combating climate
change. An air of fresh urgency
surrounds the summit following
the release of a special report from
the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change, which warned of
catastrophic consequences unless
the world cuts its carbon emissions,
substantially and immediately.
The conference comes shortly after
the publication of an ominous U.S.
government report last week. The
report projects climate change will
cost hundreds of billions of dollars
due to extreme weather, decreasing
agricultural yields, fatal heat waves,
the spread of vector-borne diseases
and other adverse health effects,
ultimately shrinking the American
economy and endangering millions
of lives.
Despite withdrawing from the
Paris agreement, President Donald
Trump’s
administration
will
send representatives to Katowice.
However, rather than participate
in
meaningful
discourse,
the
American delegation plans to give
a presentation on the merits of coal.
Yes, at an international summit to
combat climate change, the Trump
administration will be promoting the
dirtiest fossil fuel.
Trump’s refusal to acknowledge
the climatic impacts of coal is
absurd, but frankly unsurprising
given his long history of denying
human-caused climate change and
its grave implications. Trump and
the Republican Party’s stubborn
refusal to believe proven climate
science contributes to the American
public’s ignorance on the matter,
particularly amongst their base. A
majority of Republicans don’t believe
humans cause climate change and
say the seriousness of global warming
is exaggerated. The result is the
extreme politicization of what should
be a nonpartisan, non-controversial
issue. After all, with the exception of
the U.S., every country in the world
— including those ruled by both left-
wing and right-wing governments —
is part of the Paris agreement.
While the rest of the world seems
committed to solving the issue of
climate change, this is not an issue
that can be solved without American
involvement. The U.S. is the world’s
second-highest emitter, accounting
for 15 percent of total emissions in
2015 and has among the highest
emissions per capita. Given the
urgency of action outlined in the latest
IPCC report, the world simply cannot
afford for any major country, much
less the U.S., to not aggressively cut
emissions if the world is to avoid the
severe consequences of warming in
excess of 1.5 degrees Celsius. The U.S.
prides itself on being a global leader,
but when it comes to international
efforts to alleviate climate change,
the U.S. has shown little interest in
participating, much less leading.
The scary thing is that the Paris
agreement was just the first step of
many in truly cutting emissions. The
agreement instructed each country
to devise its own emissions reduction
target and a plan to reach it, but it
stopped short of requiring a certain
level of emissions cuts by any given
time or mandating certain types
of emissions-cutting mechanisms.
The agreement was obviously a
significant first step, but countries
must now reevaluate their targets to
ensure the world collectively reaches
the 1.5 degrees Celcius target (or get
as close as possible), and establish a
concrete plan of action to achieve their
individual targets then.
Emissions reductions will not
happen automatically. Governments
must be prepared to implement
policies to guide the economy to
lower emissions levels. There are
two main ways to do this. First, by
implementing carbon pricing through
either a carbon tax or a cap-and-trade
system, which forces companies and
consumers to consider the external
costs (i.e. climate change costs) of
carbon emissions. This way is the
most efficient and effective but
also the most politically difficult
to accomplish — President Barack
Obama tried to establish a cap-and-
trade system in the early years of
his presidency but failed, despite
Democratic majorities in Congress.
The second way is through a bundle
of individual regulations, such as
fuel efficiency standards in cars and
subsidies for renewable energies.
In this realm, President Trump
is derailing existing regulations,
lowering fuel efficiency standards,
slashing
funding
for
renewable
energy research and development
and proposing subsidies for derelict
coal-fired power plants to keep them
profitable.
These actions defy logic and have
serious implications. The time for
dragging our feet has passed. The
world has an extremely narrow
window to address climate change,
yet the Trump administration is
pulling the U.S. backward. U.S. non-
involvement will sink international
efforts, and that will sink the planet.
The upcoming conference in Katowice
is a reminder that the current U.S.
response to climate change is not just
inadequate, it is pitiful.
Opinion
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
4A — Wednesday, November 28, 2018
Emma Chang
Ben Charlson
Joel Danilewitz
Samantha Goldstein
Emily Huhman
Tara Jayaram
Jeremy Kaplan
Lucas Maiman
Magdalena Mihaylova
Ellery Rosenzweig
Jason Rowland
Anu Roy-Chaudhury
Alex Satola
Ali Safawi
Ashley Zhang
Sam Weinberger
DAYTON HARE
Managing Editor
420 Maynard St.
Ann Arbor, MI 48109
tothedaily@michigandaily.com
Edited and managed by students at the University of Michigan since 1890.
ALEXA ST. JOHN
Editor in Chief
ANU ROY-CHAUDHURY AND
ASHLEY ZHANG
Editorial Page Editors
Unsigned editorials reflect the official position of the Daily’s Editorial Board.
All other signed articles and illustrations represent solely the views of their authors.
EDITORIAL BOARD MEMBERS
KRYSTAL HUR | COLUMN
Between two worlds, Ross and LSA
Trump and climate change
NOAH HARRISON | COLUMN
Krystal Hur can be reached at
kryshur@umich.edu
Noah Harrison can be reached at
noahharr@umich.edu.
There is also a new caveat that
allows both the accuser and the
accused to cross-examine each
other through an adviser or lawyer
in what will essentially become a
full-on trial that colleges are not
necessarily trained to handle. It
also creates a narrower definition
of sexual assault, referring to it
as an act “so severe, pervasive
and objectively offensive that it
effectively denies a person equal
access to the school’s education
program or activity.” This will
make the line between what is and
is not considered sexual assault
blurrier and effectively harder
to prove in this new courtroom-
type setting. In essence, these
new proposals set forth a rhetoric
that aligns with the air of doubt
so often attributed to sexual
assault survivors. The Michigan
Daily Editorial Board opposes
the new proposals and urges the
University to continue to support
survivors in the face of these
changes.
Most at stake with the new
proposals is the fact that the
University not only has a recent
history of sexual assault cases but
the existing investigation process,
though comprehensive, has flaws
in implementation. New proposals
would build upon an already
unstable investigation process.
Just recently, the University has
faced several sexual assault cases.
Samuel Schultz, a New York-
based baritone, accused School of
Music, Theatre & Dance professor
David
Daniels
and
Daniels’s
husband Scott Walters of sexual
assault. Daniels has taken a leave
of absence from the University
but still denies the allegations.
An investigation is active but
no arrests have been made,
according to The Daily. In another
instance, a senior in the School of
Music, Theatre & Dance reported
being sexually assaulted by her
Graduate Student Instructor. As
highlighted by The Daily, the
student’s experience with the
current Title IX reporting process
was tedious and slow. These are
just a handful of the known Title
IX cases that have occurred at the
University. We can only imagine
how many more instances like
this have affected students across
campus.
The new Title IX rules will also
essentially make schools less liable
for sexual assault charges. Under
the new proposal, schools are
only responsible for investigating
if they have “actual knowledge”
of the assault, meaning a formal
complaint would have to be
correctly reported to the right
person or group to take care of
the claim. Not only does this
inhibit the reporting procedure,
but the requirement of “actual
knowledge”
inherently
casts
doubt
on
those
who
come
forward.
In a similar affront to reporting
procedures, schools are no longer
required to deal with off-campus
assaults, where 68 percent of the
student body live and where many
sexual assaults may occur. Victims
must also prove their case through
“clear and convincing evidence,”
making proof of sexual assault
elevated to a higher caliber. This
is in stark contrast to the lower
evidentiary
level
established
by President Barack Obama’s
administration. With the ease of
liability, the new provisions could
make the investigating procedure
more difficult for survivors and
also further deter universities
from
taking
action.
This
is
unsurprising, given the amount
of time and money that goes into
a sexual assault investigation,
and the damage it can do to a
school’s
reputation.
Instead
of
supporting
sexual
assault
survivors, DeVos, responsible for
the true well-being of students,
has proactively inhibited the
reporting process and effectively
introduced proposals espousing a
rhetoric and subsequent actions
that do the opposite of protecting
student’s well-being.
With these new rules close
to being enacted, we implore
the University, and all other
universities
and
colleges,
to
hold itself to higher standards.
The University owes it to its
students, past and future, to
keep survivors and students in
mind when navigating these
cases, and most importantly, safe
from harm. For those who have
been affected by sexual assault
and violence, we encourage you
not to be deterred by these rule
changes. Your experience matters
and your safety is of the utmost
importance.
If you have experienced any
sort of sexual assault, please visit
the Sexual Assault Prevention and
Awareness Center. We have listed
some resources for those in need,
including the SAPAC website:
SAPAC
homepage:
https://
sapac.umich.edu
Resources:
https://sapac.
umich.edu/resources/list/
campus
Options for reporting: https://
sapac.umich.edu/article/options-
reporting
CAPS homepage: https://caps.
FROM THE DAILY
DeVos’s proposal fails survivors
L
ast week, our very own Michigan-born Secretary of Education,
Betsy DeVos, decided to make sexual assault investigations even
harder to prosecute through new Title IX rules. In an overhaul of
campus sexual assault rules, DeVos reduced the liability of colleges and
universities investigating sexual misconduct claims and increased the due
process rights of the defendant. or lawyer in what will essentially become
a full-on trial that colleges are not necessarily trained to handle. It also
New provisions
would build
upon an already
unstable
investigation
process
This is not an issue
that can be solved
without Amerian
involvement
EMILY WOLFE | CONTACT EMILY AT ELWOLFE@UMICH.EDU