Coding for All

 

After reading this week’s articles I believe that coding is in fact the new literacy and that all students should be exposed to it in some way during their k-12 schooling. Like Obama said when he introduced his “Computer Science for All (CS4A)” initiative, “in the new economy, computer science isn’t an optional skill – it’s a basic skill, right along with the three “Rs.” Jobs today are no longer single-faceted, as one of the articles explained, mechanics today work on cars that function off of thousands of lines of code. In order to succeed at least some level of computer knowledge is necessary. Not only that, but the though process that goes along with coding is one that can be applied to more than just computing. What has been termed computational thinking is a skill that is crucial in any type of programming because, as many programmers have attested, “the building part is often not the hardest part: It’s figuring out what to build.” Another article concerning computer programming said this, “the greatest contribution the young programmers bring isn’t the software they write. It’s the way they think. It’s a principle called “computational thinking,” and knowing all of the Java syntax in the world won’t help if you can’t think of good ways to apply it.”

Thus, I think it’s hard to come up with an argument why computer programming should not be taught in schools. Where the k-12 system in the US has run into problems is that there are very few teachers qualified to teach any type of intro to computing class. Plus, even those that are qualified can make a lot more money working in industry than they would teaching a computing class to high schoolers. I think some hesitation for making computing classes required for K-12 students is that if an underqualified teacher is in charge of teaching the class and leaves kids with a negative impression of computer programming, they might develop a hate for computing before ever really learning it.

I can speak from experience that having a bad first experience with computing can ruin it forever. Sophomore Mechanical Engineers at ND have to take an intro to computing course but we code in Fortran for 95% of the course, only learning about C/C++ in one class. In my opinion the class could be taught better since the format was we would sit and watch the professor code, hoping we were absorbing enough of what he was doing that we could figure out the homework assignment. Ever since that class I have had an aversion to any type of coding, which has only recently begun to subside as I’ve gotten to use Arduinos and have been exposed to actually relevant coding languages.

Overall I would say that CS4A is a great initiative, not only for teaching kids what computer programming is but also to teach them how to think like a computer programmer. There are definitely details that need to be considered, like ensuring that the teacher is qualified and that avenues exist for teachers to become certified to teach computing courses. Plus, the fact that computer programming doesn’t count towards a degree in 20 states in the US needs to change, we need to increase the motivation for kids and college students to want to take computing courses to set themselves up for success post-grad.

 

Piracy

The DMCA criminalizes illegal copying and/or distribution of copyrighted materials as well as circumventing access control; it also increases penalties for copyright infringement. Online content that infringes on copyrighted material can be removed by the content provider or the owner of the copyrighted material can submit a Copyright Infringement Notice to request that content be taken off of the website. The safe-harbor provisions fall under the DMCA Title II: Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act and according to wikipedia “creates a safe harbor for online service providers against copyright infringement liability”. These provisions are conditional and the online service providers have to meet certain requirements as well as follow specific guidelines when infringing content is identified on their systems.

I think that it’s definitely unethical to download copyrighted material but because it is so commonplace now people forget that it’s basically stealing. I often download music off of YouTube using a converting website, or watch movies for free online on some sketchy website. I know that this is cheating the musicians, record labels, movie companies, etc. out of money but it’s hard to justify paying 15 dollars to go to the movies when you can just watch one for free. Recently I’ve been using Spotify instead of downloading music which is significantly easier and is really cheap for students. For the most part though it doesn’t phase me too much to download illegal content as long as it’s trivial in nature, i.e. a movie, tv show, or music; the companies who own the movies/tv shows/music, already make billions so it doesn’t keep me up at night to deprive them of a couple dollars. The problem with my mindset is that if everyone have it, and a lot of people do, the combined effect of illegal streaming or downloading of copyrighted content is much greater than just me downloading copyrighted content.

Like I said before, I now use Spotify or SoundCloud pretty much exclusively for music and can find most movies or tv shows on Amazon Prime, Netflix or Xfinity so don’t have to download things illegally as much. While these services can definitely help lessen piracy online there are many people who don’t have accounts with these services and are unwilling to pay, even a small amount, when they could get the same content for free. In my case I’m still on my parents’ Xfinity and Amazon accounts so it doesn’t phase me but I’m sure my mindset will change once I’m on my own and have to decide what I’m willing to pay for and what I’m not.Ultimately though I don’t know how effective the DMCA is, I had never heard of it until doing these readings and even now don’t necessarily know what it covers. Plus I know so many people that download things illegally that never run into legal issues and reading about the websites that share copyrighted content, it seems like even when websites are shut down, they pop back up relatively quickly under a different name.

Self-Driving Cars

According to Tesla, the development of self-driving cars will increase the level of safety of driving to one that’s “substantially greater than that of a human driver.” Right now the self-driving car market is aimed at ride sharing companies that are trying to cut costs by replacing human drivers with robots. A one time investment in a self-driving car is more cost-effective in the long run than paying a yearly salary. There are already self-steering trucks being tested on San Francisco highways, designed to allow drivers the opportunity to nap while on long delivery trips. Plus, autonomous farming equipment like tractors have been used for years to improve the accuracy and efficiency of planting and watering crops.

Those in support of self-driving cars argue that they will take the human error out of driving, ultimately leading to fewer accidents and fewer car-crash related deaths. Plus, they are more economical for ride-sharing companies. I’m convinced autonomous cars will never be able to 100% mimic a human driver. People who rode around in the self-driving Ubers in Pittsburgh said that the experience was like driving with your “vision-impaired grandmother,” with cars going only one or two miles an hour over the speed limit and not making any right turns on red. Plus, numerous passengers in the self-driving Ubers said that the safety driver had to take over in some instances because the car couldn’t compute what to do in a situation. There are so many variables involved in driving and so many unknowns regarding road conditions, the actions of other drivers, geographical terrain, and potential computer malfunctions, that programming a car to deal with every possible situation is not realistic and making it necessary to always have a safety driver.

Several accidents have been reported concerning self-driving cars. One accident with a Tesla in autopilot, occurred when a truck turned left in front of it and the Tesla did not stop, traveling under the truck before veering off the road and hitting a fence; the driver was killed. Tesla maintains that the system is not meant to be autonomous and drivers still need to be actively paying attention to the road, however any type of autopilot feature encourages negligence while driving and adds a new element of danger to driving. Another accident occurred in Arizona when a self-driving Uber was hit, though there were minimal injuries. Police reported that the self-driving Uber was not at fault, though Uber then suspended use of the self-driving cars.

I had previously read about these accidents which were tragic in the case of the Tesla driver, though no one really found the autonomy of the vehicles to be the cause of the crashes. What is unsettling, however, is that self-driving vehicles are programmed to minimize casualties in a crash. This means that the car you are driving might be programmed to kill you in a crash if the fewest number of people will be injured. It’s nice to think that the safety of everyone in a car crash is paramount, but I also would find it very difficult to get in a car knowing it is programmed this way. I agree with the individuals programming self-driving vehicles that minimizing fatalities in a crash should be most important, I just don’t know how many consumers would buy a car that isn’t necessarily prioritizing their safety. For this reason alone I would not buy a self-driving car; that, and I really enjoy driving so why would I want a robot to do it for me?

 

Trolling

 

According to Lindy West, “trolling is recreational abuse – usually anonymous – intended to waste the subject’s time or get a rise out of them or frustrate or frighten them into silence”. Usually trolling comes about as a response to something posted on the internet or social media over a controversial topic. The “trolls” find fault with it or fundamentally disagree and, to voice their displeasure with the post, go after the individual who posted it through online comments, threatening emails or phone calls, and overall derogatory, inappropriate behavior. Recently trolling has effected women more than men, especially in the gaming world, and has gotten so violent and threatening that several women have had to cancel speaking engagements due to threats of terrorism.

A recent movement called Gamergate is a rise of “gamers” speaking out against political correctness and targeting women in gaming, such as Anita Sarkeesian, Zoe Quinn, and Brianna Wu, for speaking out against the way women are portrayed in video games. According to Laura Hudson, the participants in “‘Gamergate’ claim it is based in a concern about ‘ethics’ or ‘objectivity’ it is impossible to ignore how little of either the movement has demonstrated, either in the ‘controversy’ that initially inspired it—an unfounded smear campaign involving the sex life of a female game developer—or the overwhelmingly abusive tactics of its supporters.” Others have noted there is irony in the fact that a woman who pointed out misogyny in video games was trolled with so many misogynistic comments about how she was wrong that she went into hiding.

I think trolling has arisen from the power people feel when they are in cyber space rather than face-to-face with someone. It’s much easier to be a bully and hurt other people when you’re not physically interacting with them. Plus, under anonymous usernames and profiles individuals can troll to their hearts’ content without the heinous comments being tied to them. Though trolling can sometimes be harmless, it can also be very serious and have equally serious consequences. Some trolls make rape threats, death threats, calls for suicide, or terrorism threats that lead those being trolled to flee their homes, go into hiding, and avoid social engagements to protect those they care about.

The rise of trolling has brought with it a rise in monitoring of cyber bullying and enforcing new policies to prevent it. However, I think that even these new standards are inadequate for dealing with the increasing seriousness of trolling threats and comments. One individual described reporting trolling on Facebook as equivalent to putting a slip of paper in a bottle and throwing it into the ocean, you don’t know if there’s anyone on the other end to take action on the report and work to fix the problem. I think to effectively stop trolling technology companies need to more aggressively monitor harassment online, enacting stricter consequences for individuals caught trolling. Also (and maybe I just don’t understand the negative consequences of eliminating anonymity) I think everyone should be required to use their real name when using social media. This way individuals can’t hide behind a made up username to spout out lewd, hateful, and derogatory comments without it being tied to their name. If you’re going to say something, at least own up to it.

Based on the stories about Zoe Quinn and Anita Sarkeesian, along with countless others, it’s safe to say that trolling is a major problem. Leslie Jones of SNL was aggressively trolled on Twitter not long ago and deleted her account in 2016 with parting message, “I leave Twitter tonight with tears and a very sad heart. All this cause I did a movie. You can hate the movie but the shit I got today…wrong.” The internet can no longer be a place to cultivate hate and disregard people’s feelings; trolling needs to be checked before it gets even more out of hand.

Wikileaks

While the Vault 7 leak was shocking for some, I’m not sure that I was necessarily taken by surprise. After watching the Snowden documentary I figured the government was monitoring most communication and the documentary mentioned that phones could be turned into microphones even when powered off. Because I don’t have anything to hide it didn’t really bother me that the government has the ability to use phones and tv’s in people’s homes as microphones, especially if this type of monitoring can ultimately help stop terrorism in the US. What bothered me about the information in Vault 7 is that the government was hoarding vulnerabilities in technology like iPhones, Androids, Samsung TV’s, and Mac software to capitalize on the weaknesses for surveillance purposes. By not alerting the companies to these vulnerabilities they are leaving all individuals open to attacks from other hackers, not just the CIA. The cyber safety of anyone with these electronics is perpetuated with the CIA keeping vulnerabilities close to their chest. There have to be other ways to monitor terrorists without endangering the cyber safety of millions.

I also took issue with the fact that the CIA hacked massive companies rather than coming to some type of agreement with them. I feel like some companies would be willing to work with the government in the name of fighting terrorism if asked. But the CIA didn’t ask. They simply did whatever they wanted, not alerting the companies to what they were doing. It screwed them over in the end because now not only do the companies know, but the entire world does, seriously endangering their ability to effectively monitor potential terrorists. It’s because of the unethical way the CIA went about this monitoring that I agree with Wikileaks’ release of the info. I think it’s a slippery slope to say that Wikileaks should continue releasing any type of information like this because it could endanger people’s safety as well as national security. I think it takes discretion and careful evaluation to determine what should be published on Wikileaks and what shouldn’t and, as we mentioned in our podcast, Julian Assange doesn’t seem to filter any of what he publishes. This leads to personal information becoming public and other information needing to be redacted.

In the case of Wikileaks, I would say the message is of ultimate importance if it is something that the public deserves to know, regardless of who the “messenger” is. However, in my opinion there’s a gray area when it comes to Wikileaks dumps like the DNC scandal which was probably submitted by someone with less than good intentions. No doubt the “messenger” wanted to target the DNC in the face of the impending election, which the people at Wikileaks should have realized and then not published it or at least waited to publish it until after the election. Regardless though, in my current state ignorance is bliss and, though I’m curious about the many secret goings-on in the US government I realize that I probably don’t want to know about them and would be inclined to trust the US government. That being said, Wikileaks has revealed probably only a fraction of secrets the government has to hide and as they publish more it’s harder to trust an institution built on secrecy and lies.

When innocent people are being taken advantage of without their knowledge or the government is acting unethically in a way that endangers the American people I think whistleblowing is okay. However I don’t think honesty is always the best policy and I think major data leaks can often have very negative consequences and make matters worse rather than better. It’s naive to try and push for transparency and at this point I think we can only hope that the threat of data leaks from people like Julian Assange and Edward Snowden keep the US government and other governments honest.

Fake News

“Fake News” is any type of article or news platform that distributes news stories that are founded on false information. There are different types of fake news. Some is perpetuated in a satirical fashion to be ironic or humorous; other fake news is spread just to see how many people will believe it or pass it along to family and friends. According to Jestin Coler, the founder of Disinfomedia and publisher of fake news, “The whole idea from the start was to build a site that could kind of infiltrate the echo chambers of the alt-right, publish blatantly or fictional stories and then be able to publicly denounce those stories and point out the fact that they were fiction.” I guess from this point of view fake news could be used to embarrass politicians, for example the leaders of Trump’s campaign, when they re-post fake articles as true, spreading false information. This game plan is ineffective, however, when the people reading the articles don’t fact-check or just don’t care and blindly believe whatever they read. For this reason fake news is both annoying and dangerous. It serves no benefit to the public if people take the fake news stories as fact, and it helps no one when those individuals publishing fake news continue to do so because of the huge payout stemming from ads on their websites.

Whatever noble or ironic intentions individuals who publish fake news have, the payout they get cannot be discounted. Jestin Coler admitted that fake-news proprietors make anywhere from $10,000 to $30,000 per month perpetuating fake news stories. Anyone claiming that the money has nothing to do with the motivation to public fake news can’t be taken seriously. I think technology companies, or any companies that have an affiliation with fake news should monitor and suppress “Fake News.” Besides an established company like The Onion which is very publicly known as a satirical news platform, fake-news proprietors and publishers help no one. While free speech is a right protected by the Constitution this protection doesn’t apply to libel or slander, which is exactly what “Fake News” is, just look at the Presidential election.

Social media platforms where news is more widely being posted and spread have a responsibility to the public to promote only authentic news. Especially because 44% of adults in the US say they get their daily news from Facebook. If this is truly the case, the least that social media platforms can do is provide accurate information if almost half of the population is unwilling to take the time to look at reputable news sites. Paul Horner, a “Fake News” publisher has said that the population is “definitely dumber” just passing information on to family and friends without verifying or double-checking anything. However, even with this opinion he has not ceased publishing “Fake News” and refuses to take any responsibility for influencing the Presidential election, saying that people should have seen this coming. The fact that he has made up multiple articles regarding Trump and his policies just to see how much press they would get and how many people would believe them is exactly what’s wrong with “Fake News”.

For the most part my Facebook news feed is devoid of fake news but that’s because it’s all memes because most of my Facebook friends are under the age of 25 but any middle-aged or older Facebook users probably have mostly news stories on their feeds.  “Fake News” proliferates when these Facebook users re-post these articles or blindly believe them without validating the facts. Whatever Mark Zuckerberg tries to claim regarding Facebook’s responsibility to monitor news stories, it is the responsibility of social media sites to ensure that “Fake News” is presented with the full disclosure that it’s fake. If Facebook censoring public posts means that there will be less “Fake News” circulating then I am all for it. While I do sometimes get news from Facebook or Twitter, I usually check the New York Times or CNN to see if the stories pop up there as well. There are plenty of ways to get accurate information and news stories like the NY Times Daily Briefing email or The Skimm daily email that provide a summary of the previous days events, that relying on Facebook or Twitter just isn’t necessary. I do think it’s accurate to say that we live in a “post-fact” world and that every piece of information publicized needs to be taken with a grain of salt and fact-checked rather than blindly taken as the truth.

 

 

Corporate Personhood and IBM

Corporate Personhood is the idea that corporations can be considered persons in some regards and not others in the context of the Constitution; in other words it’s “the idea that the corporation has a legal identity separate from its shareholders”. For example, corporation free speech is protected under the First Amendment yet corporations are not protected from self-incrimination as stated in the Fifth Amendment. This is based on the idea that corporations are groups of individuals joined together for a common purpose or goal, i.e. businesses like Hobby Lobby. This way if a partner dies, the corporation can continue to function without them, additionally shareholders and investors are not on the hook for any money they invest, instead the corporation faces any profits or losses as a whole.

There are many who feel that Corporate Personhood is a flawed concept because corporations are not human beings, only human beings are human beings, thus rights for human beings cannot apply to corporations. Others argue that because corporations are completely separate entities they are entitled to at least some constitutional rights. I think the best way to sum it up is that because corporations do not have a conscience, any rights that involve protections or freedom of conscience cannot be applied to corporations. Where the idea of Corporate Personhood becomes problematic, in my opinion, is the funding of local, state, and federal campaigns. While individuals should absolutely be able to fund whichever campaigns they want, allowing corporations the same right has negatively influenced electoral campaigns. For the most part corporations have a much larger pool of funds to draw on, meaning any donation they provide for electoral campaigns will have a much more significant impact than any individual person’s donations to the same campaign.

IBM was absolutely unethical in doing business with Nazi Germany. The fact that their Hollerith machines were used in each of the six stages of the Holocaust is disgusting. Being a part of one stage would have been bad enough, but would have been more forgivable if they had stopped immediately when they realized what Nazi Germany and Hitler were trying to do. This was not the case. Hollerith machines tracked the Jewish population, tracked their transportation to concentration camps, and monitored their numbers within the camps. I had no idea that the numbers Jewish prisoners were given in concentration camps were not just used to dehumanize them, but were specifically IBM identification numbers for tracking purposes. Even if this information only became more widespread 15 years ago with Edwin Black’s book I’m surprised IBM hasn’t been held more accountable for their actions as a corporation. IBM’s response to the book and the subsequent lawsuit seems to miss the point, they point out that IBM condemns the actions of Nazi Germany and recognizes the unspeakable atrocities carried out by the Germans, yet they don’t take any responsibility for the significant role IBM played in the Holocaust.

I think corporations should one hundred percent be responsible for the unethical use of their products if they are actively enabling this unethical use. For example IBM continued to perform maintenance on their Hollerith machines used by Nazi Germany throughout the Holocaust, thus they can’t even feign ignorance to what was happening because they were directly responsible for the continual use of Hollerith machines by the Germans. Additionally, corporations should absolutely refrain from doing business with unethical or immoral organizations. The value of human life always outweighs the value of a dollar, always. Increased profit margin cannot justify unethical acts, period.

 

 

Online Advertising

Online advertising is a double-edged sword it seems. On the one hand, it’s a pain to be on a website and have to scroll past intrusive ads that know way too much about me. On the other hand, a lot of websites need advertisements in order to stay in business. In my opinion there’s nothing unethical about online advertisements, most of the time they’re just annoying. I think the larger ethical issue is the way companies data mine any and all personal information in order to target online ads to people based on that information. Before doing the readings for this week I hadn’t heard of various blunders large corporations had made because of data mining. The fact that Target knew a teenage girl was pregnant and informed her family before she did is pretty absurd. It’s scary that through data collection and then analysis companies can put together a profile on a person that’s accurate, containing information that in some cases is not public knowledge.

There needs to be a hard-line drawn that companies aren’t allowed to cross in terms of personal information. If, through data collection, Google sees that I bought a motor for my senior design robot and proceeds to gear ads towards robotics and electronics who cares, right? But when ads start dealing with sexual orientation, pregnancy, or other extremely personal issues, data mining has gone too far. The fact that Target has a list of tens of thousands of women who might get pregnant so they can send them coupons for baby clothes and toys is insane. Plus I don’t want Target to develop a shopper profile for me so they can gear promotions and coupons towards what they have analyzed my interests to be. If I want to shop at Target I will, them creepily sending me information of sales they think I’d be interested in gives me more of a reason not to shop there. As far as online ads go, I’m not complaining that my Facebook ads consistently tell me when J. Crew, Ann Taylor, or Madewell are having sales, but I could do without the “Make your own T-shirt” sites that feature my last name on the shirt in the ad. Advertise all you want, just don’t use my personal information to do it.

I don’t think that ad blocking software solves the problem of nothing on the internet being private, it merely alleviates the annoyance of intrusive ads. Ultimately it costs websites a lot of money when ad blockers are used but doesn’t stop companies from gathering personal information based on Facebook tendencies, Google searches, or emails sent. The ads are just annoying, the data collecting, mining, and selling is concerning. Privacy on the internet is rapidly deteriorating and expecting that to stop or even reverse is naive. Unfortunately now it’s necessary for individuals to take internet privacy and security into their own hands by encrypting emails and using certain browsers that don’t track and collect data. Based on the readings it seems like Apple, Google, and Facebook are doing everything in their power to stop each other from successfully gather personal information while at the same time maximizing their data collection methods. Reading about all of the new Google electronics and the new Google home is scary and I think Natasha Lomas was right when she said that “the actual price for building a ‘personal Google for everyone, everywhere’ would in fact be zero privacy for everyone, everywhere.”

Snowden

I’m finding it hard to form an opinion on Snowden that I am confident in defending. There are so many articles and opinions online with conflicting and contradictory information that I’m not even sure what’s accurate. Obviously Snowden broke the law by leaking classified documents and then fleeing the country. What I can’t form an opinion on is whether his motives were as noble as he makes them out to be.

Based on the articles it seems like the most significant of Snowden’s leaks was Section 215 of the US Patriot Act which allowed the NSA to monitor telephone metadata of US citizens. This leak also uncovered the government’s agreement with Verizon to obtain any and all telecommunication information of its customers. Under this section, the NSA could access not only the phone information of suspected terrorists but also anyone they had ever communication with and each of their individual phone records. Snowden allegedly handed over thousands of other documents regarding NSA surveillance to reports to be leaked periodically.

 

It’s unsettling that the federal government had a backdoor agreement with Verizon to get phone records and that they have pretty much complete access to all telecommunication information of US citizens. Also knowing that the NSA can turn a cellphone that is powered off into a microphone, or hack into any computer camera and watch American citizens is equally eerie. However, I also think that the initial intention of this unrestricted access was to ensure national security against terrorists, something that I can’t really dispute the necessity of. If the government could ensure the American people that they were using this information strictly when necessary to prevent terrorist attacks I could get on board with it, but I think most people would agree that the moral compass of the government officials is far from true north. This unlimited access, based on Snowden’s leaks, has been abused and misused by the government, proving that officials are too corrupt or power-hungry to use the access for its intended purpose. For this reason I think that Snowden’s leak was important to hold the NSA accountable for its corrupt actions against American citizens and allies throughout the world.

I don’t think, however, that Snowden is the hero that some people make him out to be. While some interviews with Snowden and the dramatic Snowden film by Oliver Stone paint him as a patriot who merely wanted to inform the American people, other articles portray him as an egotistical liar too cowardly to face the consequences for something he maintains he is passionate about. I get that he’s afraid any trial he would face in the US might be unfair, that the intelligence agencies would find a way to deny him his rights and paint him as a terrorist, yet he is an internationally known figure now and I think any attempt at the US government to deny him his rights would be immediately picked up on by the world media. Additionally it seems to me like Snowden is enjoying the spotlight and being known as the guy who outsmarted the NSA and CIA. Googling “Edward Snowden” comes up with thousands of images, many of which are clearly professionally taken and staged to portray him as an unwavering patriot (see below). However for someone who paints himself as a low-key and fairly introverted individual he seems to really enjoy the spotlight, and for a self-proclaimed patriot, he fled the country rather quickly.

It seems that Snowden leaked the information because he felt that what the NSA was doing was both immoral and illegal, thus he was driven by his conscience. While this may be a noble reason to expose government secrets and may be justified based on the information he released, what makes Snowden’s moral compass the ultimate authority on ethics. Does that mean that any government intelligence employee is justified in leaking documents if they are compelled by their conscience to do so? It’s a dangerous mindset, regardless of how noble it might seem. I think that Snowden’s approach to the leaks was flawed, I also think there’s a good chance that government intelligence is corrupt or at least has far too much access to personal information. Where does that leave me? Confused and skeptical.

 

A Guide to the Job Interview Process for Notre Dame Students

In our Guide to the Job Interview Process for Notre Dame Students as well as in my experience, the most important part of the job process is getting started early. I didn’t learn until late in my college career that companies recruit early. Typically I would wait until the Fall career fair to start researching companies and looking into possible internships for the following summer. Inevitably I would wait until a day or two before the fair to research, leaving me overwhelmed and underprepared. Starting a few weeks before allows time for sufficient research and the ability to prepare an “elevator pitch” for the career fair and other networking events.

Also, utilizing the career center at Notre Dame is an invaluable resource for resume review, interview prep, and help finding an internship or full-time position that’s the right fit. The career center offers both appointments and walk-in hours for students to bring in resumes for review or questions on interview preparation. They also offer mock interviews and various presentations regarding formatting a resume, writing a cover letter, and effectively networking as an undergraduate.

Some of the best advice I have received in terms of interviews is utilizing online resources like Glassdoor for information on the company I’m interviewing with and for example interview questions. Also, knowing your resume is key. I went through numerous interviews where I stumbled through questions drawn right from my resume, having a short summary prepared for each of the bullets and experiences listed helped smooth out these situations. Finally, having background knowledge on the company, a list of questions about the position, and having the right mindset going in are three of the most important preparation tips I have learned. Keeping in mind that in any interview it’s a two-way process is important. While the interviewer is determining whether you would be a good fit for the company, you are simultaneously evaluating whether this company is a good fit for you and whether it offers the type of work environment you are looking for.

Notre Dame fosters a community of high-achieving individuals with a focus on learning as well as involvement in campus activities. While more and more time is being spent preparing for career fairs and interviews, I think an element of the college experience would be lost if the curriculum was changed to embrace this. Counselors at the career center host numerous events geared towards interview preparation and finding an internship or job and frequently advertise opportunities for mock interviews. Additionally, on top of the fall and winter career fairs, professors usually send out emails to students regarding work opportunities. Thus, there are many resources for finding internship or full-time positions and getting help with the preparation process. For this reason I think it’s unnecessary to change the college curriculum and, frankly, to do so would take away from the measly four years of undergraduate education we each get. While a full-time job is the goal of many Notre Dame students at the end of four years, most of the collegiate experience is about living away from home, learning to manage time, and becoming involved in things you’ve never been able to do before. To change the focus of the curriculum to focus on interview preparation would be, in my opinion, a mistake. Students have the rest of their lives to work but only four years to learn and enjoy college.