I just finished “Snapshots From Hell”. There when Mr. Peter Robinson finished his graduation from Stanford, he also landed in a bit likely situation of Depression. Discussing this topic with Hareesh I contrasted this situation with us. He commented, “There is one difference. Companies will always come to Stanford but they may reconsider their decision to come to other B-Schools.”
Well! That was the funnier part. I sometimes think on the skills I'd develop so that I land with a GOOD job in spite and despite this crisis. I've to improve my presentations skills and definitely, while speaking I've to be more confident and have to make my thinking process a bit slow. Sometimes what happens is I have much stuff to speak, and one more thing preoccupies my mind that I might be wasting other people time. So I want to finish speaking at the earliest. And there arises the problem of people not being able to decipher whatever I vomit.
Now, how do I define good job? Initially I used to think that CTC is the only deciding factor of so-called good job. But perception starts differing with the experience and passage of time and the beauty is that though I experienced this thing before, I learnt this in Organizational Behavior. I've always been interested in research work (I don’t have any idea right now, but m sure as I get along the course, I’ll definitely find an appropriate theme to research upon).
Whenever we discuss about some problem (lets say child labor, corruption, terrorism) in our class, very often we end up with very general solutions which every body knows but nobody implements because of the vague nature of the solution. My numb question has always been to myself as to WHAT I AM DOING TO SOLVE THIS PROBLEM. Will discussing the nuances of the problem and later forgetting will in any way help solving the problem?
To be contd…
