The Undoing - Grace murdered Elena (and yes, we watched Season 1 Finale)

The Undoing Season 1 Finale was neatly wrapped up with Jonathan confession to killing Elena.  But we still think it was Grace who murdered Elena!  And we are hoping the next season will shed light to this.  Why?  Here we go:

1) Temperament: Jonathan has been angry many times but he never appears to get out of control.  He had an affair with Elena, lost his job and career and then lost his marriage and he seemed to deal with all of this in a remarkably sane manner throughout the series.  Guess who doesn’t seem to handle loss well - Grace.  Grace goes on long walks and clearly has a dark past where her father cheated on her mother repeatedly.  Grace is the little girl we see with blood spilling on her face in the introduction to every episode. 

2) Opportunity: Grace was recorded on the cameras as being near Elena’s apartment.  The weapon that killed Elena was spotted by Grace’s son near the beach mansion that Elena escaped to.  Why would Jonathan go on the run with the weapon and then bring it right back to where Elena was hiding when he could have disposed it anywhere and no one would have known?

3) Cover-Up: Jonathan was happy to see that his son picked up the weapon that killed Elena because he knew it would exonerate him.  Guess who seemed scared and thrown off to find the weapon in her apartment?  Grace, who had taken it to the beach mansion to throw it in the ocean and then probably not found it afterwards until she saw it in the apartment in her son’s music case.  Jonathan’s message to the jury and his family and his lawyer have all been consistent - he had an affair and didn’t murder.  Guess who switched sides in front of the jury?  Grace, after she decided she didn’t want to continue living with Jonathan and knowing that Jonathan was likely to win the case (leading the police to investigate her). 

4) Confession: So why would Jonathan confess?  His message about the murder changed after he moved back in with Grace.  Grace is an expert psychologist.  She could have implanted false memories into Jonathan when they began living together at night.  

Jonathan is going to prison but hopefully Season 2 will show that Grace is the murderer who lost it when she came to know Jonathan had cheated on her just as her father had on her mother.  It probably triggered something about her childhood and set her off.  We are excited to find out more in the next season. 

Flaws in SHL Test

As someone who has scored 97th to 99th percentile on exams such as the SAT, the LSAT and the GMAT, I found the Verbal Reasoning Exam prepared by SHL incredibly frustrating.  The exam is used by many hiring companies to screen candidates.  However, the exam is not only illogical at times; more dangerously, it sees the world as binary and does not account for non-binary events.  

Today's politically divided world is a result of people thinking through binary lens - should they vote for Trump or for Clinton?  Should the Britain remain in the EU or exit immediately?  Options like voting for third parties or written-in candidates, abstaining from voting due to choices one sees as unethical, running for office yourself and finding non-political solutions to economic problems do not enter the minds of people who think only through binary lens.  And such candidates may continue to think through binary lens after selection into the organization - for example, they may push for go or no-go on deals instead of trying to improve deal terms, influence their clients or change the nature of their own organizations.

Some examples of flaws with SHL Test are below.

• If the evidence states that a majority of shareholders voted for a proposal, the exam assumes that at least some shareholders voted against the proposal.  In fact, the remainder of shareholders could have abstained from voting.
• If the evidence states that a majority of scientific studies concluded X, the exam assumes that the remainder minority of scientific studies concluded NOT X.  In fact, the remainder minority may have been inconclusive studies, which is quite common in science.
• Even the example question below for SHL Verbal Reasoning Exam has, in my belief, the incorrect answer.  No where in the Description does it state that miners ever used the Hastings Line (only that they used the line for "freight traffic", which are goods).  As such, the answer should be "Cannot Say", not "False".  An even bigger issue with the answer's explanation is that it sees time as binary; so, if something is true in the present, it could not have also been true in the past.

It's no doubt all standardized tests (the SAT, LSAT, GMAT, etc.) all have similar flaws but SHL is more illogical than the rest.  In any case, we should as a society try to move away from standardized testing intended for drones to tests that truly reward creative problem-solvers.

Veronica Mars - Why the Season 4 Ending was Necessary

SPOILERS AHEAD!

Veronica Mars Season 4 ends with Logan showing up late to his wedding and then dying (off-screen) hours later by a bomb in Veronica's car.  Many fans are upset by this ending since Logan was a complex beloved "bad guy" character who had finally become a "good guy".  But, as the creators say, his death was necessary for the show to move forward - but not in the sense one would generally think.  My prediction is that the next season of the show will be very similar to Veronica Mars Season 1 and will all about Logan (who will replace Lilly as the nostalgic "we used to be friends a long time ago")!

This show is one that is best with nostalgia of the past and loneliness in the present.  It can show Veronica happy in flashbacks but the interest of the show is documenting her tough moments with a fond look at the "happy" past.  Her teenage tough moments were dealing with the death of her best friend, the abandonment by her mother, boyfriend and other friends and being labelled as an outcast at school.  As she turns into an adult, we see some anxiety about marriage, the potential loss of her only parent, a career slump/disconnectedness and the sadness that comes from seeing the cycle repeating as you see another child go through your past.  And yet, we don't see Veronica breaking down - Logan's unexpected death is what will connect Veronica with adults who have felt a sudden unexpected loss for which no one can prepare.

The show's creators deliberately skipped the 7 or so years that Logan and Veronica were happily living together - those will be part of the nostalgic past that the show will likely cover in the next season.  It is also deliberate that Veronica, despite being the best PI we all know, knows almost nothing about Logan's career and missions.  I predict that in the next season:

1. There will be many nostalgic flashbacks to Logan's and Veronica's "good times" while they were living together - much like how Veronica would think of Lilly, Duncan or Meg in the earlier seasons.
2. Veronica will come to meet colleagues of Logan's and finally learn more about his missions/work - just as Veronica came to know about Lilly's and Meg's secrets after their death.
3. Veronica will come to know that Logan already knew that another bomb was to blow off and meetings with his seniors was why this otherwise disciplined military man was late to their wedding. 
4. Veronica will learn that Logan had to fake his death anyway due to some other mission that was torturing him - which mission will reveal the villain for that season.  For some time, Veronica will doubt whether Logan is truly dead - mirroring the journey Logan himself took when he wondering whether his mother had faked her death.
5. Logan will still be dead.  In fighting the villain that made Logan's life miserable, Veronica will finally come to terms with Logan's death.
6. Side-arcs will include Penn Epner being acquitted - similar to Aaron Echoll's acquittal in earlier seasons.
7. Throughout this season, I imagine Veronica will rely less on her father (because of Matty's job) and finally become an adult and build her own network of supporters.  Leo D'Amato may be the main love interest though I think this season will be more about friendships and support while the past romance with Logan will take center.

Regardless of what happens, I can't wait for the next season!

Gilmore Girls - The Death of a Show

[spoilers ahead]

Gilmore Girls revival begins with the death of Richard Gilmore, and yet it felt like the death of not just the paternal figurehead in the show but rather the death of all old-fashioned family values, respect for others and personal worth.

1. The original show began with Rory wanting to go to Fez one day while her grandpa encouraged her to be brave and pursue her adventurous dreams.  The girl who always wanted to be a foreign correspondent and cover war overseas instead writes frivolous consumerism-obsessed stories about why people stand in lines.  She ultimately writes a book about her mother's life story, in a way selling her mother's most personal experiences for money and fame - something that she knows makes her mother uncomfortable. Why does she do this?  It was an easy story to write.  I kept hoping Rory would write a story about her grandfather and herself to deal with her grief but no - the easier story gets written.
2. She does fulfill her lifelong dreams of traveling but for the wrong reasons.  She goes abroad to have an affair with someone who is engaged with absolutely no regards for his fiance.  While she cares about not becoming a geisha or an other woman for herself, a role she took on much younger in life with Dean, gone is the concern Rory had felt for Dean's wife, the guilt she had felt for helping someone deceive their partner or even Lorelei's well-placed anger - replaced by a snide comment for Rory being "sluttier."  Being slutty may not be wrong depending on the circumstances, but helping someone cheat is definitely wrong!
3. At the same time, Rory dangles a guy she has no feelings for for 3 years! She has this person meet her grandmother, her mom, and many of her friends while she can't seem to remember that he is a part of her life.  That is a terrible thing to do to another person!  Wasting 3 years of his life - the revival's creators go over this like it's one big joke - like the jokes they had about Kirk's or Paris's personalities. 
4. Furthermore, the show originally talked about what being a good father means - it's knowing that you have a kid, trying to get access to that kid and trying to be there for your kid no matter what.  Luke tries that despite not getting an opportunity to be there (Anna pushes back on his efforts) and that makes Luke a good father.  Lorelei gives Chris the chance to be there and he doesn't take it again and again - it made him a terrible father.  And yet the revival screwed all of this by having this little chat between Rory and Chris where Chris said that him being away was basically the arrangement that Lorelei wanted - the complete opposite of the original series! And it seemed like Rory was deciding to raise her kid alone on purpose - which was exactly what Anna had done and was completely unfair to both Luke and April.

Ultimately I felt like the whole revival was a big slap on Richard Gilmore's face. Rory was a kid born in privilege with understanding parents - she was supposed to have a different life. She could have anything that she wanted and yet what she chose was to pine for the wrong guy - Logan - and live a life in misery to have an unplanned kid. It's actually very tragic. We understood where Lorelei came from - parents who did not get her, young age, charming boy - we understand why she had an unplanned kid at 16.  At 32, Rory's unplanned kid simply because she was having a career slump - it makes no sense and just feels irresponsible while harming so many lives in the process - the father who may not know, the fiance of the father who will ultimately be hurt knowing about the cheating, the kid who will have as terrible a relationship with his/her father as Rory did with Chris for most of her childhood.

Law School and B-School Debates

At Penn Law, I have really enjoyed the Socratic method of learning. With this method, Professors encourage students to question their beliefs about the facts of a case, as well as what the law ought to be. This method facilitates debate amongst students. It doesn’t come as a surprise that law school students enjoy debating ideas. But these debates are not only enjoyable – there are also valuable in helping people of diverse backgrounds feel like they have a place at the school.

Continue reading at external Wharton Diaries site. Reblogged at this JD/MBA site.

Why J.K. Rowling was wrong to pair Hermione and Ron

I recently read a defense of Ron's and Hermione's relationship that troubled me, mostly because of the way it characterized Hermione's and Ron's characters. The article described Hermione as "high-strung and domineering," as someone who "takes things too seriously,"and a "type-A woman." This is clearly an appropriate first impression of Hermione, but an incredibly inaccurate characterization for those fans who have read the entire series.

Hermione begins the series by taking her academics, Hogwarts' rules, and her relationships seriously. But that does not mean she takes them "too seriously." Hermione was the first in her family to be magical, and the first to be admitted to Hogwarts. She is not unlike many students who are the first in their family to go to college or graduate school. This inspires her to seek to make her parents proud and do well in school.

Yet, calling Hermione "high-strung," "domineering," or "type-A" is incredibly inaccurate. While she works hard and catches on to doing spells quickly, she is an incredibly giving person who is happy to share her notes with Ron and Harry even in her first-year at Hogwarts. She wants to succeed academically - calling her ambitious would be accurate - but she is not willing to step over others to get ahead. She reminds Ron and Harry about upcoming exams because she genuinely cares about their success, and what comes off as her being "domineering" initially is just her love for her classmates and her desire to see them all happy and successful.

As the series progresses, Hermione's giving nature becomes increasingly apparent. From helping to save Buckbeak in book 3 to championing for the rights of house-elves in book 5 to changing her parents' memory in book 7 so that they can survive, Hermione repeatedly goes to great lengths to use her talents to help others. For Ron and Harry, she is willing to fight Voldemort's army although she could have gone underground with her parents instead.

The article also mischaracterizes Ron as "easy-going and relaxed" and "kind, charismatic, and supportive." If only Ron was all of these... Sadly, although Ron projects a facade of being easy-going, on the inside he is more ambitious that Harry and Hermione, and his constant insecurities cause him to treat others poorly and threaten to disband the trio. Dumbledore was so aware of Ron's instability that he left Ron a Deluminator.

Ron's ambitions to become Quidditch Captain and Head Boy in the very first year of Hogwarts become apparent when he stands in front of the Mirror of Erised. Even as a first-year, Ron was the ambitious one in the series who wished to outshine his classmates, while Harry only saw his dead parents in the mirror and desired love. Throughout the series, Harry and Hermione have to constantly soothe Ron's ego as they succeed and Ron feels left behind, like when Harry gets chosen as a seeker or his name comes up in the Goblet of Fire... and Ron throws childish fits. Ron's ambitions also become clear when he favors the powerful Elder Wand of the three deathly hallows, while Hermione prefers the practical and defensive protection of the Cloak of Invisibility, and Harry favors lost love provided by the Resurrection Stone.

As the series progresses, Ron's threat to the trio becomes increasingly clear. While Hermione helps Ron on several occasions, Ron's insecurities about himself cause him to disparage her. Ron asks Hermione out to the Yule Ball by reminding her of her lack of attractiveness and that she probably has no other alternatives than Ron. Ron's lack of respect for Hermione reaches its climax in the seventh book, when all of his insecurities surface while he tries to destroy the locket. Ron sees Harry and Hermione together in the locket, because he is unable to see the good he can offer to the world, and his inability to see how he can be attractive to a girl like Hermione causes him to disrespect her.

While Ron is ultimately a hero who is able to rise from his insecurities (and saves the trio on several occasions), I have often wondered if an incredibly giving person like Hermione might not deserve a person who is able to return her unconditional love without all the drama and insecurities that Ron brings to the relationship. I understand why J.K. Rowling may think Harry might return to Hermione the genuine affection she feels for people and have an honest and open relationship with her. While I personally see Harry and Hermione more as siblings, I just cannot fault J.K. Rowling for feeling a little guilty about not giving Hermione the type of unconditional love she deserved.

Personally, I really liked Krum with Hermione. Krum was confident of his athletic abilities without being insecure about his lack of... intelligence. Krum was also the first character in the series to see beauty in Hermione even before she got her make-over for the Yule Ball. And not only did he find Hermione attractive, unlike Ron, he conveyed such feelings to her. He let Hermione know that she was beautiful in her own right, that her talents made her attractive, and that her love for everyone was being noticed. Krum boosted Hermione's confidence, while Ron made her feel like an isolated unattractive loser during the Yule Ball. And I enjoyed the Austinian romance of Krum and Hermione's long letters to each other. Ultimately, Hermione felt good about herself with Krum, and could trust Krum to be there for her in a responsible adult manner.

How Twilight sheds light on The Hunger Games

[Spoiler ahead!] 

My favorite modern book series has been The Hunger Games by Suzanne Collins. The series is an interesting twist on the romantic and fantasy genre. In particular, the series’ effectiveness comes from its contrast with another recent and popular series in the romantic and fantasy genre – Twilight. 

In Twilight, the protagonist Bella falls in love with Edward in the first book, and struggles throughout the series to find domestic bliss with him. During her journey, Bella ponders over whether to fight for her true love Edward, or to give up and settle down with a friend - Jacob. Both Edward and Jacob are good, idealistic characters, which makes her choice difficult. She takes her time over four books to assess her emotions, and finally chooses to fight for her true love Edward. 

At the end of the series, she succeeds in having a healthy baby with Edward and they live as a happy family. The readers’ faith in romance and a just world is affirmed. 

In contrast, The Hunger Games is filled with chaos. The series’ protagonist Katniss is very similar to Bella in that she finds her true love in Gale in the first book. However, Katniss’ society separates her from Gale. To save her sister, Katniss volunteers to fight to survive on a reality TV show. In her fight for survival, she finds that she gets medicines and other critical supplies when she pretends to have a romantic relationship with a friend on the show - Peta. As such, Katniss pursues a romantic relationship with Peta solely for survival. 
This series also gives Katniss no time to ponder over her feelings or her decisions. Constant war stresses force her to focus on survival rather than love. Although Peta is shown to be an idealistic character, during the series he is tortured and eventually forced into madness. Gale, who began as an idealistic character, quickly puts his ideals aside when it comes to treating his enemies. Gale in fact designs a battle strategy that gets implemented and kills several children including Katniss’ sister (an ironic tragedy because the reluctant hero Katniss was forced to begin her journey just to save her sister in the first place). 

At the end of the series, Katniss is unable to love Gale because he caused her sister’s death, and instead settles down with her recovering friend Peta. Although she finds domestic “bliss” in that she has a husband in Peta at the end of the series, Katniss’ unhappiness is evident in her prominent battle scars and dried-up eyes. The same young adult readers, who had recently read Twilight, find their faith in romance and a just world cruelly destroyed by The Hunger Games.

Travels

Recently, I've been hoping to travel and visit various exotic destinations. It's probably all the talk in MBA school about leadership retreats to diverse locations in the United States and abroad. But those travels are not feasible for me right now given my limited budget, expensive education loans, and general lack of time!

But then I realized - I could have mini-trips from home, thanks to Google Maps. The beauty of the Internet is that it really allows people to have experiences they may have otherwise not been able to access given various constraints.

Here is my trip to the Grand Canyon:

Rationalization - irrational or purposeful?

We are reading all sorts of interesting articles in class, but some seem to assume certain human behaviors. In particular, "The Rationalizing Animal" by Elliot Aronson lays out the "human" tendency to rationalize "dissonance" - times when a person simultaneously holds 2 inconsistent beliefs. For instance, the article cites an example of a group of people forecasting the end of the world on a certain date, and when such date passes without incident, the people need to rationalize their expectation of the world ending with it in fact not ending. This particular group did so by believing that their own efforts prevented the world's end. Another example the article cited was a group of people being paid to shock (electrically) other people. These shockers, unable to harmonize their views of themselves as "nice" people with their actions of causing others physical pain, came to the rationalization that the victims must have deserved the pain, and the victims were awful people.

Rationalization is not a novel theory. It seems like every TV show nowadays seems to refer to people rationalizing or justifying their actions, good or bad, to themselves. I think that it can sometimes accurately predict our behavior - at least at the intermediate stages when we are unsure of why we emotionally react a particular way to an event. For instance, I tend to react emotionally when a person interrupts me while I am publicly speaking, even if the interruption is completely justified or the interrupter is actually trying to help me out. I used to wonder why I was reacting so strongly, and finally figured out that the interruption reminded me of my middle school (and maybe later) days when I was less assertive, and allowed people to mistreat me without speaking up.

However, rationalization, even if it explains certain human reactions, only explains them for the (usually) short period of time that a person is trying to understand her reactions. This time can obviously vary, and more complex emotional reactions can take longer to unpack. But still, mature people generally try not to mistreat others or "rationalize" their misguided views of their victims being horrible people. If they are uncertain of their emotional reactions, mature people generally try to reduce their interactions or try to be objective during such interactions, at least until they can figure out their feelings. And once they do understand why they are reacting the way the are, if they are wrong about such reactions, they try to better control themselves for the next time they are in the same situation.

Further, in the long run people may "rationalize" not necessarily in a misguided, ignorant manner but rather as a conscious choice. For instance, one of my relatives has diabetes, and instead of focusing on the fact that his condition forces him to intake less sugar - a taste he really likes - he chooses to focus on how his condition forces him to try out other flavors. The glass is half empty and half full - a person is not ignorantly and misguidedly rationalizing that it is half full because she has to reduce the dissonance in her life. She may be doing so simply because she realizes that she cannot change the facts, but viewing the glass as half full will enable her to have a positive outlook and enjoy her life more.

Ultimately, I feel that some of our articles' writers simply give the ordinary human being too little credit.  People can be more self-aware than these authors realize, and can choose to explore their feelings or reflect on events without treating themselves or others with any less dignity.

A Woman's Domain and Range

During my years at Columbia, Sunita Williams has space-walked, Meg Whitman has served as the chief executive officer of eBay Inc., and Francoise Barré-Sinoussi has won the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine. The fact that women have made such great achievements in science-and- technology-related fields can deceive one into thinking that the gender disparity in these fields is diminishing. Yet, while more women are going into engineering, they still make up only 11% of engineering professionals nationally. The gap between males and females is lower on college campuses where women make up 19.4% of engineering undergraduates nationally. At Columbia’s School of Engineering and Applied Science, males still heavily outnumber the females. So why is the proportion of female engineers still so low?

Keep reading...