Rich Text

Finding myself with a free moment, I decided to crank out another GMAT practice essay. The topic asked me to agree or disagree with a statement that argued against international regulations limiting children’s access to adult material on the Internet. Personally, I do think something should be done to address this issue; however, as often happens when I have to brainstorm with limited time, I ended up arguing against myself. It turned out to be an interesting exercise, although I should point out that the opinions expressed by the author are not necessarily those held by the author!

Many have advocated for the implementation of international regulations designed to limit children’s access to adult material on the internet. At first blush (no pun intended), this seems reasonable. Conventional wisdom holds that pornographic/adult material is a corruptive influence on children, and that children all over the world would benefit from protection from such protection. There are also human rights implications to consider: to wit, child pornography, sex slavery, and other forms of exploitation. One could postulate that by making adult materials more difficult to access, these other blemishes would be reduced.

Although this reasoning has its appeal, deeper issues must be considered. Firstly, not all countries define “adult material” the same way. Consider the Netherlands and Saudi Arabia. The former is famous for legalized marijuana and prostitution; Amersterdam’s “Red Light District” is well known. Such a society would probably be much more accepting of risqué material than Saudi Arabia, a highly restrictive Islamic nation. How would these two countries, with completely different moral borometers, reach a consensus on which content to label as “adult”?

Also important to consider is the vast scale of the Internet, and its rapid continual growth. A very robust (and expensive) mechanism would be required regulate something so huge. Does this issue warrant such a large allocation of resources, when simple parental oversight could accomplish the job might more cheaply.

One should also consider how receptive internet pornographers would be to such regulation. Many of them reside in developing nations whose governments pay little heed to international compacts regarding human rights and copyright protection. Do we expect them to submit to our regulations?

Other points could be made referencing freedom of expression, and questioning exactly how corrosive adult material is on our young people (most of whom do come into contact with this material at some point during childhood, with no apparent adverse consequences). In the final analysis, it seems foolhardy to think that we can regulate something as expansive and complicated as the internet. And given the international nature of the issue, how do we structure our regulations without alienating anyone? It seems like simple, cheap parental oversight is the most judicious, effective and economical solution. If you object to this kind of material, make sure your kids don’t access it! Of course, this is easier said than done; getting parents to exercise this kind of authority is a topic best reserved for its own essay.

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Gentle reader, I ask for your indulgence.  I’m preparing to take the GMAT some time this summer.  As part of my loin-girding process, I’m drilling vocab, memorizing theorems, and covering the walls of my bathroom with Algebra equations (reminiscent of the shed from A Beautiful Mind).  I’ve resolved to beef up my writing skills for the Analytical Writing Assessment portion of the exam by spending 30 minutes every day responding to a sample topic from my GMAT book.  If the resultant essay isn’t complete dribble, I’ll post it here for your enjoyment.  Without further ado:

“In any business or other organization, it is better to have managers with strong leadership skills than managers with expertise and work experience in a particular field.”

Discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the opinion stated above.  Support your views with reasons and/or examples from your own experience, observations, or reading.

Some contend that it is more valuable for a business’ managers to have strong leadership and managerial skills than it is for them to have a thorough understanding of their field.  I’m in an interesting position to evaluate this contention, since I’ve spent the last four years working in a technical consulting firm owned and operated by a gentleman fitting the latter description, serving clients who fit the former.

There is certainly something to be said for possessing an encyclopedic knowledge of your field.  No one with a lick of sense will dispute that a firm’s frontline workers and supervisors must understand the technical aspects of whatever it is that they are supposed to be doing.  My current employer is considered by many to be the preeminent expert in his field.  He has spent the last 30 years actively engaged in his specialty, executing work that is arguably in the upper 10th percentile of quality for his industry.  Added to this wealth of practical experience is his academic background: he has completed doctoral coursework in his field.  This is truly a distinction, and it has enabled him to provide expert services on matters of great complexity and technical sophistication.  But does this level of technical mastery a guarantee of business success?

Unfortunately, it isn’t.  Businesses succeed or fail based on factors unrelated to the depth of their field-specific knowledge.  This is because businesses are little more than loose groups of people, individuals with their own interests, aims, and desires.  These interests, if unmanaged, may very well conflict with the interests of their employer.  The fact is that groups of people are unpredictable at best, and unruly or uncooperative at worst.  Managing them requires a very specific set of skills, and amorphous toolbox filled with impossible-to-quantify things like empathy, EQ, and leadership.

This is not to say that leadership trumps knowledge in every instance.  Most of my employer’s clients are very shrewd leaders and businessmen.  They have inadvertently neglected some fundamental technical principal, and now find themselves dealing with a problem that is beyond their ability to correct.  They require the services of an expert to mitigate this loss and correct the issue.

One should not think that these managers are irresponsible or negligent; quite the contrary, most of their project are executed well, owing to their abilities to effectively manage their employees and contractors.  Most people cannot be universal experts, equally facile in project management, website development, and the translation of ancient biblical texts written in archaic languages.  Limitations on time and energy require us to specialize.  These managers have judged that the likelihood of a major technical problem is so slight that, when it does occur, it is more cost effective to hire an expert than it is to invest the energy to become experts themselves.

My experience indicates that managers would do better to master the art of dealing with people.  The rudiments of a field can be learned, and will help avert the most common disasters.

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!