Posted by Professor Comisso
on March 10, 2009, 1:02 pm, in reply to "Final exam"
132.239.208.141
So, here is a written version of what I said in class. The final exam will include the material assigned in the business ethics unit. 10 “sample” questions have been posted, two will be on the exam, and you will choose one and write on it. We expect you to be able to go into somewhat greater depth than has been the case in the past, especially with regard to discussing the issues raised by the various theorists, since you have more time (even if you choose to do the optional question as well).
Then, the second question will be optional. You will have a case study that is in addition to the assigned reading. The case study will deal with some aspect of the current near collapse of the financial system. The case study either is or will be posted on the web page. Right now, there are three studies already posted:
(a) How to deal with bonuses awarded on the basis of illusory profits (this topic includes the “Titans in an Age no Longer Golden” piece as well—the takes of the CEOs in Merrill Lynch, B of A, JP Morgan Chase, Countrywide, etc. over the past decade or so).
(b) AIG’s House of Cards
(c) Foreclosures in North County (North County Times article)
The central concern of this “optional” exercise will be for you to examine whether or not unethical actions were important factors leading to the current disaster in the American (and global) financial system. As I mentioned in class, it kind of "feels" like we ought to be able to say that this crises was caused by "bad" actions taken by "greedy" and unethical people, but...were they?
You would have to make the argument that negligent, unethical and irresponsible actions were taken in the case you discuss (and reject the argument that the actions may have been unwise but were not unethical) OR make an argument to the effect that much of what was done was appropriate and reasonable although perhaps an error in hindsight, and then show that a higher standard of corporate ethics would not have affected the outcomes. Remember that no one would deny that there were some unethical and even fraudulent activities going on during the great boom years—for example, no one is going to defend Bernie Madoff’s Ponzi scheme. The real issue, however, is whether or not greater attention by the major, central players (banks, real estate agencies, securities underwritiers, etc.) to ethical norms regarding, say, risk-taking, leverage, etc. might have prevented the catastrophes that followed.
We’ll formulate this question more precisely in the next iteration—right now, I want to get this up on the board so you can raise questions about any ambiguities in it. (It’s better that I rewrite it with real Philo/Poli 27 students in mind!)
Grade consequences: If the optional question is answered well (say, B+ or better), your final grade in the course will go up by a ½ grade (e.g., from B to B+, from B+ to A-, etc.). If it is not answered well, no penalty. (although your TA will presumably be annoyed at having to plow thru a lot of scribbled prose to no effect!)
Please print up the case study you wish to use and bring it with you (together with the blue book/s) to the final exam. These studies are too long for us to have a copy for you there, and they are complicated enough that you may want to have some of the facts in front of you as you write. Basically, we will collect your printed copies at the start of the exam, then, you can come up and take them when you are ready to answer the optional question.
OK, floor is now open for comments, questions, etc.
205
Message Thread:
« Back to thread