Jean Moirez | The Bull & Bear

An extra twist was added to the fourth and final case crack in this pilot project: one team of finalists from each of the two presentation rooms was given the chance to present again at the end, in a back-to-back round for the title of “Best Team.” Other members who had just finished the same case were present to watch and witness their peers’ winning recommendation, something that was not done in previous case cracks leading up to this finale.

Along with the final round’s winning team, individual students were recognized based on their participation over the four monthly sessions. This year’s awards included Best Male Speaker (Christopher Conery), Best Female Speaker (Naomi Desai), Most Improved Male (Daniel Sorek), and Most Improved Female (Jenny Kletinich).

The concluding cocktail was not only a chance to announce and award winners, but also to bring together the extended Case League family – the many staff, organizers, judges, coaches and participants involved. All were either selected or invited to help grow this program over the short three months since its inception.

The Case League experience includes selected mini business cases for participants to tackle on a monthly basis, as well as monthly workshops. These workshops are run by students and alumni who have developed notable expertise in these domains throughout their degrees, and are targeted at particular aspects of cases, such as presentation skills, finance strategies, and Powerpoint slide creations, to name a few.

The case method taught and practiced by Case League members aims to give a sharper edge to academic teams participating in competitions with other universities, as well as those who will be recruited with a case-based interviewing process. Current Case League member and incoming Co-chair for next year’s team, Jeremy Singer is a strong advocate of casework, which he describes as a “Unique opportunity for students to apply the skills learnt in class. Too often are students disillusioned by theories and models, unfortunately writing off the key concepts that are truly central.”

Case League members also had the chance to get to know each other throughout the winter semester by working in different teams every month. They became familiar with MUS President Dave Fortin, the Board of Directors’ Accounting Representative Eric Aboutboul, and the Board of Directors’ Marketing Representative Alyson Murphy, the three students who championed the initiative based off of an idea from the end of the Fall 2011 semester.

This triumvirate generously pulled together some of Desautels’ most prominent people, including successful alumni, international case competition veterans, staff members with various functional backgrounds, and BUSA 499 (Case Class) TA Sumira Jayabalan and Professor Richard Donovan. Though Case League is not a substitute for Case Class, nor will participants be given class credits for taking part, it is an attractive option for younger students to segue into the competitive realm of business cases. Given the limited spots in Professor Donovan’s popular Case Class, students who have chosen to get a head start through case league are in a favorable position to apply for the class in following years.

Case Class TA Sumira Jayabalan recalls her international case competition experiences as highlights of her university career, and feels they are an opportunity to “See the variety of problems that plague international businesses, and how other teams tackle these problems; which is an incredible learning experience.” She also emphasizes that cases have “First and foremost [been] a bonding experience” with global perks and friends to stay with across three different continents.

Bringing it back to a business perspective, Marketing Representative Alyson Murphy further explains to the Bull and Bear that this pilot project “Hoped to improve upon the external competitiveness of our students by starting to prepare them for case competitions earlier on in their Desautels career.” Along these same lines, members were also encouraged to take part in other complementary, case-related initiatives such as DMLS and MMICC to inspire and enhance their learning experience through other channels.

The current organizers’ vision for Case League’s legacy is to ensure that “Case continues to be an integral part of Bronfman life,” and that “The incoming executive team finds new ways to further competitiveness through new workshops, guest speakers and increasingly difficult cases,” says Alyson Murphy. The two-fold objective of Case League – to provide students with a realistic simulation of case competitions to apply time-sensitive critical thinking and presentation skills, and to improve Desautels’ representation at case competitions through progressive training and preparation – will be maintained for the upcoming years.

Moving forward, Case League expects to continue for the years to come, formally slotted under the MUS’s VP External portfolio.  Participants are expected to double from 30 to 60 members, given the interest generated within the student body so far.  Though plans have yet to be finalized, the organizers are considering adapting the upcoming structure to include two brackets in order to cater to students’ varying experience and skill levels.

1) Question on online voting for SSMU GA: No: 722 (16.1%), Yes: 3298 (73.5%), No opinion: 467 (10.4%)

2) Question on QPIRG Existence and Fee: No: 1778 (39.6%), Yes: 2560 (57.1%), No opinion: 149 (3.3%)

Voter Turnout: 21.7%

Thus, all resolutions passed at the General Assembly must be then submitted to an online vote for ratification with a quorum of 10% of the student body. If the online voting question had not passed, the GA would have remained the highest governing body of SSMU.

The question on QPIRG Existence and Fee divided the student electorate. The Yes Committee argued that “without this affirmation of student support, QPIRG will lose its funding and its lease, and the incredible work QPIRG does will not be able to continue. The No Committee cited many reasons for their opposition to QPIRG. Amongst them included QPIRG’s support of Tadamon!, an anti-Israel organization, and their support for the 6th floor occupation of the James Administration building. They urged students to “demand that student money not be wasted on political causes which students do not support.”

This latest QPIRG referendum comes on the heels of the administration refusing to recognize the results of the fall QPIRG referendum, which passed by 65%. Students occupied the 6th floor of the James Administration building for a week in February to demand that the administration uphold the results of the fall QPIRG referendum.

In February, the SSMU Judicial Board ruled the fall question to be unconstitutional, citing a lack of clarity and the fact that it included two questions. The revised question instead involved a single issue: whether QPIRG should continue to be supported by a $3.75 per term opt-outable student fee. Unlike the invalidated fall QPIRG referendum, its passing will allow students to still opt-out from the organization.

QPIRG Board of Director Amber Gross spoke to The Bull & Bear regarding the passing of the QPIRG Existence and Fee question. “We are thrilled to see that students turned out in overwhelming numbers to support QPIRG. It will make it much easier for us to exist and function next year and provide services to students.”

Courtesy of the Montréal Exchange

The University Partnership program will work to educate Quebec university students about derivatives. From left to right, Jacques Tanguay (Vice-President, Regulatory Division - Montréal Exchange), Dorra Gamaoun (Young Ambassador - HEC Montréal), Eve Verschelden (Young Ambassador - JMSB Concordia), Dawina Li, Alain Miquelon (President and Chief Executive Officer - Montréal Exchange).

With this program, the Montréal Exchange will be reaching out to seven universities in Quebec, namely McGill, Concorida, HEC, UQAM , UQRT, Université de Sherbrooke, and Université Laval.

A Unique Initiative

The TMX will evaluate in the long term on the feasibility of reaching business schools outside of Quebec, and potentially even outside of Canada.

According to Stephanie Berthiaume, Marketing Manager of the TMX Group, “relationships the Montréal Exchange has had with students has been very informal in the past. The goal was to get closer to the educational community in an effort to spread the word about options….particularly the opportunities within the options market here in Canada.”

Josiane Lanoue, Business Development Manager of the Montréal Exchange explains that there are over 2000 jobs in Montreal related to derivatives, so “making students aware of the Canadian derivatives markets helps the Montréal Exchange reach [its] goal of positioning [itself] as the derivatives platform in Canada. ”

The Montréal Exchange’s contribution to education extends beyond the options simulations and bursaries; under the University Partnership umbrella, the Exchange will also be supplying member schools with a derivatives learning package, originally created for retail investors, aimed to be a supplement to classroom materials.

Scholars Program

The program is offering two bursaries at the graduate and postgraduate levels for $15,000 and $20,000, respectively. The bursaries would be granted to graduates pursuing degrees in finance, law, mathematics, financial engineering, economics, or any other related discipline. Eligible candidates would be registered in a full-time graduate program at a university in Quebec. The purpose of this bursary is to aid recipients in their research project. The duration of the bursary will last one academic year, after which candidates are welcome to re-apply.

The selection jury will include two vice-presidents of the Montréal Exchange, as well as a lawyer, a guest teacher, and an industry professional. Candidates will only be considered on the basis of their academic excellence.

Candidates will be required to submit a summary of their research project, along with a CV, transcript, two letters of recommendation, and a letter of motivation. The research project should be pertinent to the areas of derivatives and risk management.

Required documents should be submitted to lesboursedelabourse@m-x.ca by May 16,2012. There will be an information session on Thursday, May at 5:00pm in the Auditorium of the Montréal Exchange.

Options Trading Simulation

The Montréal Exchange will be hosting their first trading simulation open to any undergraduate student in Quebec who specializes in finance. This innovative simulation tests students on their abilities to trade derivatives to maximize returns over a ten-week time horizon. Simulations will be hosted every semester (except summer) for the next five years.

The first trade will begin on October 1st, 2012, and end on November 30th, during which time teams will be trading with a virtual portfolio of $100,000. Trades will be done in real time through an options simulator that will be made available on the Montréal Exchange website.

The teams are to consist of at least two students, with no restrictions on the maximum size of the team.

Each team will be given five options strategies that they will have to execute throughout the ten-week trading period. The options portfolio will be constructed from choosing eight classes from a list of the most actively traded options classes in Canada.

Lanoue says, “There are many trading simulations offered by schools out there, and for us, it was important to [host] a simulation with an educational side to it. So not only will the winner be determined by the return of the portfolio, they will also be evaluated based on the completion of the [trading] strategies that were requested of them.”

The winning team will be awarded a $10,000 cash prize.

Arts Undergraduate Society

The results of the Arts Undergraduate Society were announced on Friday, April 13. At stake were several questions regarding reforms of AUS General Assemblies. The most contentious of them was a question seeking to implement the online ratification of any motion that passed at an AUS GA. The question passed, with 980 voting for to 286 voting against (with 101 “No opinions”).

In light of recent events on campus such as the February week-long occupation of the James Administrative Building (known as “#6party”) and the March AUS GA where over 1100 students voted not to go on strike to protest the provincial government’s planned $1625 tuition increase, campus political discussion has increasingly been dominated by concerns over how to make student institutions such as the AUS and SSMU more democratic and more attuned to student concerns. The AUS GA in March was marked by record attendance and extra rooms had to be booked last minute to accommodate all students.

On its Facebook page, the “Yes” committee argued that “online ratification will restore the spirit of direct democracy to the GAs – allowing more people to register their individual opinions on important issues.” It took issue with the current system, saying that obligations such as schoolwork, exams, and jobs could prevent a student from voicing his/her opinion at a GA, adding that “online ratification is an important step towards a more representative GA”.  Student Beni Fisch, who took part in the “Yes” campaign, added, “The great thing about this motion is that it maintains all that is good about the GA – namely the fact that it provides for a forum of open discussion – while enhancing the participatory aspect of it.

The “No” side emphasized that, were this question to be passed, it would essentially “kill the General Assembly”. Their concerns lay with the fact that with online voting, it “is extremely difficult to get this many students to vote and requires an extremely long and tiresome campaigning process” and that “the GA is actually much better in terms of accountability.”

Questions that were also approved included one seeking to increase the quorum required for a strike motion at a GA to be considered valid to 500 students, as well as one seeking to raise the majority needed to amend the AUS constitution to two-thirds of AUS students.

While altogether tragic, this event simply highlights the stark intolerance that Clementi faced during his transition from high school to university life. Sadly, this problem is being experienced by thousands of youth across the world and, while not always ending in suicide, it stunts the social development of gay teens, and leeches their quality of life. In colleges around the world, homophobia is on the way out, but as Clementi’s suicide shows, the path to universal tolerance is beset with pitfalls and impediments. As such, the current standards are simply incapable to meet the needs of those who require aid and further strategies must be implemented.

Core to this change must start with the residences, where the bulk of student relationships are formulated and where Tyler Clementi was driven to take his own life. While McGill residences have done a superb job of fighting intolerance through the implementation of ‘safe spaces’, it is important to keep improving. And although treading on sensitive waters, there should be some effort to identify potential conflicts between roommates early during the year and take appropriate steps such as relocating those who would have a problem with a queer roommate. While education about these issues is important, it is equally crucial to avoid creating potentially volatile situations, as shown by Clementi’s suicide. Granted, some might consider these issues private, frank discussion either between roommates or with the residence administration creates a safer living space and reduces levels of awkwardness between roommates. In effect, all students benefit from this arrangement.

After Clementi realized his actions were being recorded by Ravi, he filed a report to his resident assistant and requested a different dorm room. His comment, “Roommate with webcam spying on me/want a single room,” was included with the request. However, administration did not respond to this request until it was too late. For this reason, university administrators must acknowledge complaints such as these much more promptly. While it is very difficult and time consuming to move residents into different rooms, solid lines of communication must be open for harassed students to know that their voices are being heard and work is being done to investigate and resolve their situation. Had Tyler Clementi received a faster and more sympathetic response to his request, he might still be alive today. To this end, McGill has been largely successful in handling such matters, but sadly such a state cannot be said for other institutions where clear responses are just as important.

Ultimately, the dilemma of social norms and comfort levels is undoubtedly a tough situation, more so for the transition between secondary and post-secondary education. As shown by Clementi’s untimely death, education cannot be the only answer to these problems and concrete changes to how the university is run must be made. Most importantly, while the university is free to hold workshops and discussions that reduce homophobia, it must also take steps to deal with a situation where roommates are uncomfortable with each other. Changes need to be made on campus not only to prevent suicides like Clementi’s, but to improve the lives of students struggling with alienation, social acceptance and discrimination.

And they do a pretty good job it! QPIRG McGill started Rad Frosh, the alternative frosh that orients students in real and tangible ways to McGill and Montreal. Along with SSMU, they run Culture Shock and Social Justice Days, two incredible event series on campus. They support over 20 working groups that each address different social and environmental problems, run the Community University Research Exchange  (CURE) program, which allows students to get credit by doing research for community organizations, and organize a yearly conference for undergraduate student research. They host an alternative library, and they provide a space and resources for students who care deeply about these problems.

In this letter, we also wanted to address a couple of questions we often get about QPIRG’s work. Most importantly, we want to emphasize that QPIRG never has, and does not, support Hezbullah. Secondly, QPIRG was not at all involved in the #6party occupation of the 6^th floor of James Admin, before, during, or after the occupation. For more information on both of these topics, see the FAQ section of qpirgyes.ca.

This week, we want students to vote YES in the ongoing referendum, which asks whether students will continue paying a $3.75/semester opt-outable fee to keep QPIRG going. Without this affirmation of student support, QPIRG will lose its funding and its lease, and the incredible work QPIRG does will not be able to continue. Whether or not you are an active member of the organization, we hope students will continue to understand the importance of a lively, diverse, and vibrant campus, and vote YES for QPIRG. Voting will occur between April 10-16, at ovs.ssmu.mcgill.ca.

Sincerely,

The QPIRG Yes Committee
 
 
 

EDITOR’S NOTE: READ THE “NO” LETTER HERE: | “No” Campaign” |

QPIRG, the Quebec Public Interest Research Group, receives an automatic fee from each student at McGill of $3.75 per semester –over $220,000.00 per year if every student pays. QPIRG claims to be committed to “social and environmental justice” but it consistently betrays this stated aim, disregarding the wishes of the very students from whom its funding comes.

You may have heard of Tadamon!, a group funded by QPIRG to the tune of $2000.00 this year (source: QPIRG McGill Annual Report 2011-2012, p. 27). Tadamon! has supported the de-listing of the terrorist group Hezbollah from Canada’s list of terrorist entities, and supports the boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) campaign against Israel. Is this a cause important to students?

QPIRG has also supported causes closer to campus that students simply do not agree with. QPIRG stated that it “[stood] in solidarity” with the “#6Party” occupiers of the James administration building in February, and several of QPIRG’s own Directors took part in the occupation. (source: QPIRG Blog, 8 February 2012) QPIRG has also supported the “week of disruptive actions” being taken by Quebec student strikers across Montreal – even after faculty after faculty at McGill voted against strike action. (QPIRG Blog, 26 March, 2012) Readers of The Bull and Bear may remember the “disruptive actions” undertaken by strikers shouting and marching through the Bronfman building on April 3^rd.

We, and in our opinion McGill students in general, have no desire to denigrate those inoffensive and constructive activities and groups which are funded by QPIRG. We do however, take offense that these groups are often used as a shield behind which the repugnant, politically-motivated activities which QPIRG funds and supports may hide. By using these groups, like Campus Crops, as a defense for the organization as a whole, QPIRG is misleading students as to the necessity of funding it with its own special levy. We believe that the McGill community is more than willing to accommodate these other, positive groups independently, be it as SSMU clubs or by another arrangement. McGill students do not need the QPIRG middle-man to allocate their funds, allocating much of them to unnecessary administrative expenditures and political causes which McGill students do not support.

So McGill students, you have a choice – you can say No to funding an organization that disregards the wishes and wellbeing of students. You can say No to wasting money on a costly middle man who decides where your money goes. You can say No to QPIRG.

Vote No to QPIRG April 10-16 at ovs.ssmu.mcgill.ca.

Sincerely,

The QPIRG No Committee
 
 
 

EDITOR’S NOTE: READ THE “YES” LETTER HERE: | “Yes” Campaign” |

Wally Gobetz

The Goldman Sachs Tower looms over the New Jersey skyline

Immediately, the story caught fire within the media. Article after article emerged, questioning whether investors should drop Goldman, why Smith publicly announced his departure and how this will affect the future of Goldman. The truth is, however, that his letter doesn’t mean anything.

The fact that Goldman has prioritized its interests over those of its clients is not news. In fact, it was only two years ago that the heads of Goldman Sachs were accused on public television of betting against securities they recommended to their clients and selling assets on their books they knew had no value. However, clients continue to use Goldman because, as Bethany McLean wrote in Vanity Fair, “Goldman is better.” As one hedge-fund manager with whom she spoke explained, “I can’t tell you why it’s better. It’s just better. It’s six p.m. in New York City, and Goldman will figure out how to get the right person in Hong Kong – a guy we’ve never spoken to – on the phone to walk us through exactly what we want to know…Try the same thing with Citi.” Within the industry, Goldman simply has the reputation for getting things done.

Goldman is so effective because it has a monopoly on talent. While there are grandiose – and arguably excessive – bonuses, there are also intelligent, hard-working graduates. In a 2011 survey by Universum, “Goldman Sachs ranked fourth…behind Google, McKinsey & Co., and Apple” when American MBA students from 72 schools were asked where they want to most wanted to work. And when clients need answers, they consult the smartest people in the industry – most of the time, they belong to Goldman.

Even before the financial crash of 2008, investors recognized that Goldman was a firm dedicated to being the best in financial services, and consequently, maximizing profits. While suspect advice on the part of Goldman is certainly to blame for the pervasive “investor gullibility,” equally important were investors’ beliefs that the market would rebound. No one expected that the government would let Lehman Brothers declare bankruptcy, so investors filled their portfolios with complex products they believed would perform after the bail out. Goldman’s reputation for self-dealing has long been recognized in the industry, but clients continue to use Goldman for its ability to close deals and provide sophisticated advice. After all, the company led all financial firms in mergers and acquisitions activity for 2011.

So while Smith’s article rekindled public outcry against Goldman Sachs, it did not change the perceptions investors held about the firm. The public wants to believe that after the financial crisis of 2008, Goldman has reformed – that financial firms still value loyalty to clients and accountability – but to its surprise, Goldman is still Goldman. Investors, however, know better. Smith’s letter will not cause clients to drop Goldman because everything he wrote, they already knew.

The bygone days of white-shoed financial firms has been replaced by fierce competitiveness in an uncertain economic environment. Well-intentioned letters lamenting a declining standard of fiduciary responsibility make for a catchy story, but don’t change reality: clients need Goldman. As Peter Cohan in Forbes recently put it: “until a wave of talented people leave Goldman and go work for some other bank, many clients will stick with Goldman and hope for the best.”

TeamBuy

TeamBuy's CEO - Ghassan Halazon

TeamBuy’s CEO, Ghassan Halazon, graduated from the Desautels Faculty of Management in 2006 with a double concentration in Finance and Entrepreneurship. Immediately after completing his Bachelor of Commerce degree, Halazon went on to complete his MBA at Georgetown University in Washington D.C. He was then hired as an Investment Banking Associate at Citigroup, but soon found it was not for him, and instead chose to follow his entrepreneurial spirit and pursue TeamBuy.

“Contrary to popular belief, group buying in general, has been around for many years and in fact has been quite popular in Asia. People meet up on services like Craigslist and physically go to stores to basically demand these discounts based on volume.” While working at Citigroup, Halazon became excited by the huge online market potential afforded by the concept of team buying and so he flew to Toronto to meet two strangers with a shared interest in ‘social-buying.’ The sparks flew, as the three men found they “had a very similar way of looking at things, and [their] visions were aligned.”

Halazon felt that “the timing was right, [as] Canada was a country that is very similar to the U.S.—where this idea was taking off—with regards to consumers’ comfort levels with social media and e-commerce.” After thorough market analysis, the team worked hard to develop the website and the infrastructure of the company; however, it was vital that they come up with a brilliant marketing plan for launching the site.

They eventually decided to centre their entire launch around an appearance on CBC’s Dragon’s Den in front of over 2 million viewers across the country. They “view[ed] Dragon’s Den as a serious opportunity to raise capital, but more importantly, we viewed it as a great PR start to get the word out” about TeamBuy. On the show, they accepted an offer from Jim Treliving of $150,000 for 35% of the company. In the end, TeamBuy “outgrew” the offer and did not accept Treliving’s capital.

TeamBuy speculated that their Dragon’s Den appearance had the potential to bring thousands of unique users to the site in a very short timeframe. They were warned to ensure that their website could withstand the heavy traffic that would follow immediately after the show. Halazon and his partners sat down with the tech team to decide “What’s a cool way to make sure that we still capture enough members in terms of them subscribing to TeamBuy if the site has problems or if it actually crashes?” Their solution was developing a new concept they coined “punishment as reward.” If the website were to crash on the day of the launch, the tech team would be at fault; TeamBuy decided to share this information with consumers. “If you came to the site and it was having trouble, you were re-routed to another page that had jail mug shots of our tech team.” At the top of the page it said “our tech team has failed on our big day, sign up here to get the punishment video in your e-mail.” Their punishment as reward policy lives on, and in fact, one employee had their legs waxed for messing up a graphic and insulting a client. Halazon says that now “when [they] do mess up, [their] users love [them] for it, because they know that something fun is coming in their e-mail.”

From weekly bring-your-pet-to-work days to office-wide pie-eating contests, TeamBuy has leveraged its unique corporate culture to attract the talent that has helped them develop into one of Canada’s fastest growing start-ups. TeamBuy has adopted “Friday hug days,” where employees hug each other before leaving for the weekend. Halazon refers to their strategy as “winning the culture war,” as they will never be the best at technology or the most experienced. Where they do win is in “making people feel something.” The leg waxing and the “Friday hug days” may not be quantifiable in terms of revenue, but a lot of extraordinary talent is “coming through the door, because they want to work at TeamBuy.”

Today, TeamBuy has over 1 million users and has worked with thousands of reputable merchants across the country in 20 different cities. The company has raised over $10million in venture capital and currently has a $30million gross revenue run rate. They are now 120 employees strong and have generated over $100,000,000 in savings for its members.

When asked if he had any advice for hopeful entrepreneurs, Halazon stated “Taking on that risk is half the battle.” Although these risks need to be carefully planned and calculated, “if enough time is spent identifying an opportunity . . . from that point on, it’s a function of execution and general hard work.” Halazon poses the question “What’s the worst that could happen?” and his answer to that is “the worst thing that could happen is that you learn a ton, you meet a lot of people in an area that you’re interested in, and effectively you’re still your same self.”

All their offers can be found at their website: http://www.teambuy.ca/.

But somewhere down the path, a line was crossed. It’s not a very blatant or obvious line, but a line nonetheless. And while campus writers and pundits may choose to endlessly debate where it happened, the point remains that diversity has no longer become celebrated, but instead become a point of contention. Starting with the small details, there grew a mutual disgust between those who supported MUNACA strikes and those who did not, spreading likewise to supporting or against the November 10th riots and finally dividing the campus between those against tuition hikes and those who either don’t care or support them. Over the past year, it is diversity that has splintered the campus. Ultimately, McGill now feels less like a shared association, but rather segmented by false generalizations of Management “capitalists,” Arts “hipsters,” Engineering “nerds,” and so on.

For many of us, McGill was our choice due to its simultaneous diversity as well as acceptance, an institution where one was free to express views without judgment or criticism. More importantly, however, is the basic fact that we are all here to get an education, something that is clearly not being accomplished through grand occupations or over-egoistic politics. Even Desautels is not immune to such fallacies, proudly displaying a multitude of over-inflated, Hugo Boss-clad Management personalities. Granted, McGill is a place full of passionate, energetic people and there are very real issues that need to be dealt with, but it is also important to recognize the fervour of one’s actions should not divide the valued sense of community that makes McGill so strong. While strong opinions from every angle are encouraged both here at The Bull & Bear and on campus, they are meant to be respectful and not used to bludgeon one’s neighbour in Leacock 132. At the very least, the egos and politics must subside to give diversity and collaboration a chance.

Ultimately, one editorial won’t change the campus overnight. Instead, it is our hope that people simply remember that we are here for two goals: to get an education and grow as individuals. Once accomplished, the freedom is yours to rule Wall Street, change the world or simply conquer the parents’ basement. But as long as you’re here, really take advantage of what we have at McGill rather than becoming the next Gordon Gekko around campus.