E
ach day, as I walk into the
Ross School of Business,
I face a similar scene.
Upperclassmen, running around in
suits like chickens with their heads
cut off, trying to locate any source of
a potential career gain: peers, faculty,
recruiters or a “professional” cup of
Starbucks coffee. For juniors, there
is no better time than the present to
start recruiting. For sophomores,
they’re watching the clock gradually
tick down to their moment.
As a second-year business student,
I constantly feel pressure to figure
out my future path. I feel as though
I have big-picture ideas and options
— business, law school, sports
management — but no real concrete
plan for how to attain them. Thus, I
am embarrassed when I listen to my
friends talk about their upcoming
summer plans or the millionth career
fair they attended. I’ve acquired an
urgency to throw myself into career
preparation.
Except, the truth is that I have
no idea what I’m doing. I created
a LinkedIn and am diligent about
updating my resume, but I know
that isn’t enough. I always apply for
the mentorship programs within the
clubs I am a part of, hoping (albeit
idealistically) that I will be assigned
the right person and network my way
to success. But the more advice I seek,
the more disappointed I become in
learning that there is no one way to
approach the recruiting cycle. Or, as
my peers and mentors have said, “it
just kinda happens.”
There are a few statistics that may
motivate your recruiting process:
since 2013, at least 60% of students in
their graduating class have completed
an internship during their time in
college. Just over 70% of employers
end up offering their interns full-time
positions. Furthermore, students
who completed an internship are
15% less likely to be unemployed
after graduation. Sounds pretty good,
right?
Maybe not as much as we think.
Eighty-three percent of students
reported that “it’s difficult to tell
which companies are actively hiring”
and another 74% said “companies
(they
are)
applying
to
seem
unresponsive” to their applications.
Moreover, 72% said that the “stress
and uncertainty from COVID-19”
has made their job search “even more
difficult to navigate.”
While it’s true that these claims
are just numbers, there is something
to be said about the ambiguity
of recruiting. The theory that
one person’s process is different
from another person’s makes the
unknown feel somewhat ominous.
Worse yet, there is no definitive
way to shake that interpretation
until you receive an offer. Thus, it is
rather easy to become stressed about
something that will eventually define
the majority of your life — especially
when it feels like everyone around
you has their plans figured out. I’m
waiting for the “aha” moment, the
invisible lightbulb to pop up above
my head to tell me what I’m doing and
where I’m going after graduation.
Except what no one tells me is that I
have to generate the power to light it.
In my case, I feel foolish that I
haven’t narrowed my options. Part
of me just wants to spin a wheel and
let it decide my major, internship
and career; it would be a lot less of
a hassle. However, I know that if
I am not careful and deliberate in
my reasoning, I am less likely to
be happy 15 years from now. For
me, an internal conflict has arisen
between immediate and long-term
satisfaction. While I know the latter
is infinitely more beneficial, it’s hard
to ignore the former when you’re
surrounded by the grind of internship
recruitment every day.
In
an
already
competitive
environment,
amplified
by
the
pandemic, I sense I am not the
only one searching for answers.
According to CNBC, the best
practices to alleviate perpetual career
uncertainty are to network, use social
media to your advantage and learn
new skills. Sadly, telling us what is
often considered self-explanatory
doesn’t really make us feel any better.
So, I’m working to embrace
my situation. I’m normalizing not
knowing exactly what I want down
to every minute detail. I’m focusing
on schoolwork, clubs and cherishing
time with people I enjoy — also
sometimes known as savoring the
college experience. I am tired of
everyone looking past the current
moment and accelerating into the
future.
I am not pushing aside recruiting;
it’s important to build the foundation
for your career while pursuing a
degree, and at some point, I am going
to prepare myself in hopes of securing
an internship. For now, though, I’m
not going to force anything, and that’s
okay. I shouldn’t have to.
Opinion
BRITTANY BOWMAN
Managing Editor
Stanford Lipsey Student Publications Building
420 Maynard St.
Ann Arbor, MI 48109
tothedaily@michigandaily.com
Edited and managed by students at the University of Michigan since 1890.
CLAIRE HAO
Editor in Chief
ELIZABETH COOK
AND JOEL WEINER
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
Julian Barnard
Zack Blumberg
Brittany Bowman
Elizabeth Cook
Brandon Cowit
Jess D’Agostino
Andrew Gerace
Shubhum Giroti
Krystal Hur
Jessie Mitchell
Gabrijela Skoko
Evan Stern
Elayna Swift
Jack Tumpowsky
Joel Weiner
W
ith more than 50% of
all COVID-19 vaccines
produced so far being
purchased by a small group of high-
income countries (HICs), many of
the world’s poorest countries with
developing economies will have
less than a fifth of their population
vaccinated by the end of 2021. An
International Chamber of Commerce
study determined that the unequal
distribution of COVID-19 vaccines
will cost between $1.8 trillion and $3.8
trillion globally, while vaccinating the
most vulnerable fifth of the world’s
population, covering health care
workers and the elderly, would cost
less than $40 billion.
Vaccinating everyone on earth
would therefore cost less than $200
billion. Further, over 50% of the cost
of not vaccinating everyone would
be paid for by HICs due to decreases
in trade with developing economies.
While bilateral agreements have
resulted in HICs receiving the
majority of COVID-19 vaccine doses,
it is in the best economic interest of
HICs to support COVID-19 vaccine
distribution in developing nations.
High vaccination rates in only
HICs will not engender a successful
economic recovery, as HICs depend
on developing countries for what
economists call intermediate goods,
goods that are used in the process
of production, and as a market
for exports and cheap imports. If
developing countries face decreases
in production and consumption due
to COVID-19 illness and restrictions,
HICs will also face negative economic
effects. In a world of globalization
and world trade, the vaccine must be
distributed at an affordable price and
in a way that maximizes global public
health if developed countries expect
to make a robust economic recovery.
Economists
often
use
cost-
benefit analyses to determine the
most efficient course of action. The
predicted costs to HICs of unbalanced
distribution are much higher than the
costs of investing in equal vaccine
distribution. Vaccinations benefit
more than just the individual who is
vaccinated because they lower the
rate of transmission for others as well
as protect the individual from the
virus. This cost-benefit analysis of
an investment in COVID-19 vaccine
distribution emphasizes the benefits
of supporting vaccine distribution in
developing countries.
It is reasonable to expect HICs
to prioritize vaccinating their own
citizens first. However, even if
HICs receive the first doses, their
investment in increasing vaccine
production
and
distribution
in
developing countries still results in
a positive outcome for developing
nations because vaccines will be
produced faster and can then be
distributed faster and more fairly.
HICs have made bilateral agreements
with vaccine manufacturers that
prioritizes
wealthy
nations
in
vaccine access, threatening global
herd immunity and a return of
international economic activity.
To maximize total social benefit
globally and minimize costs, HICs
should make bilateral agreements
that
also
benefit
developing
countries.
For
example,
when
investment accelerates the quantity
and speed of production, this
benefits both wealthy nations and
other nations. Similarly, increased
optionality can result from bilateral
deals that identify backup options
which also benefit the entire global
population.
HICs can also invest in efforts such
as The COVID-19 Vaccine Global
Access Facility, which works towards
rapid, fair and equitable access to
COVID-19
vaccines
worldwide.
When HICs invest in COVAX they
make an upfront payment to support
vaccine production in return for
enough vaccines for 10-50% of
their population. The more HICs
that participate, the less risky the
investment is because the more likely
COVAX is to succeed in producing
enough vaccines. HICs can decrease
their total costs and maximize the
total social benefit by promoting
the production and distribution
of
COVID-19
vaccines
through
financially
supporting
COVAX’s
efforts and by making bilateral deals
that will ultimately benefit developed
countries.
High income countries should invest in equal
global COVID-19 vaccine distribution
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
6 — Wednesday, October 20, 2021
LIZZY PEPPERCORN
Opinion Columnist
It’s time to talk about the uncertainty
of the recruitment process
SAM WOITESHEK
Opinion Columnist
PALAK SRIVASTAVA
Opinion Columnist
O
ne of the most interesting
classes that I’m taking this
semester
is
Philosophy
355, which covers the philosophy
of contemporary moral problems.
The topic of discussion for this
past week’s class has been NYU
philosophy professor Peter Singer’s
piece “All Animals are Equal” — the
thesis is self-explanatory. I think my
love for animals is pretty average in
that I will stop to ogle a corgi as it
walks by, but I am not currently in the
practice of chatting with squirrels in
the park. In other words, I’d say that
my sentiments towards animals are
pretty representative of most people,
but Singer’s paper still managed to
change my outlook on the
topic.
When considering why
eating meat is accepted
by the majority of society,
there is one main reason
that emerges: Non-human
animals are not seen as very
valuable to society. Though a
bit harsh of a justification, it
is a rational thought process
— and one that I, too, shared.
But the integral question
that Singer prompts is:
how do we define equality?
For humans, if we defined
equality
by
monetary
value or intelligence, then
it wouldn’t actually be equality. In
order for us to all be completely
equal, there can be no attributes that
increase or decrease worth, since
the second you add those attributes,
we cease to be equal.
If we strip equality of being defined
by monetary value or intelligence,
there is no distinguishing factor
that earns humans the right to be
equal. I’m not saying that we need
to be advocating for animals’ voting
rights,
but
Singer
does
make a compelling case for
their right to the equality
of consideration; i.e, at the
very least, their suffering
is something that deserves
consideration.
Having showcased the
inherent flaws in the natural
human
attitude
towards
non-human animals, it is
time to talk about animal
testing. The fact that animal
testing is not illegal yet is
in itself quite shocking,
but
what’s
even
more
surprising is the University
of Michigan’s involvement.
For some context, the University
offers the Undergraduate Research
Opportunity Program (UROP). One
of the projects that this program
conducted
from
2010-2014
is
titled “Modulation of Pulmonary
Defenses
in
Pathobiology
of
Chronic Infections.” Essentially,
the project entailed injecting mice
with the bacteria cryptococcus to
observe how the mice reacted and
how the bacteria affected the body.
The eventual goal of the research
was
to
test
the
relationship
between bacteria and antibiotics to
ultimately find a healthy balance.
It is important to note that the
bacteria can be lethal and that in
previous experiments, it caused
half of the mice to die within 20
days. Though many may find this
research completely justified in
the name of science, the death toll
of these mice does prompt some
worry when considering its broader
implications.
SO WE CAN STAY TOGETHER
STAY SAFE
MASK UP
STAY WELL
*Social distancing is recommended for individuals who are not fully vaccinated.
Humans, it is time to promote the equality of consideration for animals
Design by Frances Ahrens
DOMINICK SOKOTOFF/Daily