COLUMN: Spending wisely

From Shiraz Allidina's. "Asian Hil Lizard," Fall '96 From Shiraz Allidina's. "Asian Hil Lizard," Fall '96If Wharton students knowFrom Shiraz Allidina's. "Asian Hil Lizard," Fall '96If Wharton students knowanything, it's how PennFrom Shiraz Allidina's. "Asian Hil Lizard," Fall '96If Wharton students knowanything, it's how Pennshould spend our money. From Shiraz Allidina's. "Asian Hil Lizard," Fall '96If Wharton students knowanything, it's how Pennshould spend our money. "My name is Shiraz, and I am a Wharton student." I fear I may one day be repeating these words to a collection of misfits in a group-therapy session. But they'd know who to sue. Fortunately, nobody has yet assaulted me with any large volumes of 19th-century Russian literature. Still, there is a dangerous undercurrent of students at this University who aren't into the spirit of learning for learning's sake. (Actually, it's probably more of a deluge of Biblical proportions.) However, I prefer to overlook such small failings, and fairness leads me to stress that Wharton students do not lack endearing qualities. We have keen aptitudes for incisive analysis. And we are, for the most part, reasonably bright. (I am, of course, excluding MBA students here. These miscreants are some of the most obtuse people I've ever had the misfortune of meeting at Penn, constantly bitching about how much work they have and how they can't go out and party like undergrads. They are just mentally deficient. I mean, anyone who contemplates getting an MBA at Wharton was probably rejected from the undergraduate program in the first place. But I digress.) Wharton courses, when taught badly, can be survived through simple rote memorization and a cursory knowledge of algebra. When taught well, however, they foster an elegant and rigorous approach to solving problems and structuring arguments. Professor Jamshed Gandhi, for example, uses the Socratic method in an incredible Finance 101 course that not only teaches the intimacies of monetary economics, but also gives students an excellent grounding in critical thinking and analysis. Wharton needs to preserve and encourage those professors who actually teach students something they can't get by simply reading a textbook. While the quality of teaching at Wharton is improving, the variance remains extraordinary. I've had some of the worst teachers of my life at Wharton, although the majority of these were visiting professors. But on the whole, the intellectual rigor present in Wharton classes is quite impressive. So, how can Wharton apply these wonderful analytical skills for the betterment of the University? I propose that a roving band of Wharton professors be assembled, a sort of SWAT team that remains vigilant against un-Whartonesque behavior by the administration. The one thing my professors do well, after all, is analyze organizations. What is un-Whartonesque behavior? Take, for example, the fact that the administration is considering building a new hotel to replace the Sheraton, which is to be converted into a temporary dormitory. Perhaps I'm missing something, but I wasn't aware that the University's responsibilities included folding down bedsheets and tenderly leaving mints on pillows. The fact that a hotel is needed on campus does not necessarily imply that the University should provide one. As many of you are aware, the Wharton school is enamored with a religion known as "NPV." I can't remember exactly what the initials stand for, but it's something like Not Pissing Vaingloriously. (In my own Whartonish way, I was once conned into working in equity research at an investment bank in London. I saw many companies undertake ill-conceived "strategic" diversifications prompted by hubris on the part of management. A colleague of mine used to refer to this vainglorious behavior as "pissing the money away.") Anyway, one of the implications of NPV is that you should only undertake a project if you can somehow find a way to create value with it. This generally involves having a unique capability, such as Hooters' ability to serve up big, juicy burgers. Or, it might involve a case where the marriage of two operations results in lower costs or better service, such as combining gas stations and grocery stores. But when one examines the University's diversification into, for example, the hotel business, one begins to wonder where the value is being added. Is it really possible that the administration knows something about renting out rooms that nobody else does? Can it possibly be more efficient than a private firm? Anyone who has lived in the high rises or stayed at the Penn Tower Hotel knows the University tends to deliver mediocre service at a very high cost. The fact remains that a University is by its very nature less efficient than a corporation, since it has greater difficulty in creating the proper incentives for its bureaucrats. The University has disparate goals, whereas a corporation may have only one. That's why our fearless leader Judith Rodin gets paid so well; her job is damn hard. Broadening the University's goals to include hotel management is not sensible. There are far better uses for this money -- improving campus safety, perhaps. I would have a real problem contributing to this place as an alumnus if I knew that an administration intent on empire-building might go and build a hotel with my money, instead of using it for educational or related purposes. The argument that the University should own as much property as possible is ridiculous; there's no rational reason why we should pay increased tuition so that the University can play landlord. My professors are always drumming these types of ideas into my head, and I think they should look at some of the crazy things their employer is being cajoled into doing by some 23-year-old corporate financier who wants to earn a fee. Arise Wharton profs! Don't let them piss the money away.