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

