Latest news with #WhartonSchool
Mint
2 days ago
- Business
- Mint
San Francisco in Talks With Vanderbilt for Downtown Campus
(Bloomberg) -- San Francisco Mayor Daniel Lurie and Vanderbilt University said they're in talks to bring a new campus to the city's struggling downtown. The negotiations, which were reported earlier on Monday by the San Francisco Chronicle, are part of a longtime plan by the city to fill downtown vacancies with university campuses. For Vanderbilt, San Francisco would provide another outpost as it continues to expand beyond its home campus in Nashville. 'We recognize the long-term global leadership of San Francisco and its ever-growing potential, defined by a vibrant culture, dynamic innovation ecosystem and the talent drawn to its leading technology companies and top-caliber arts and cultural institutions,' John O'Brien, a spokesperson for the university, said in a statement. Lurie and Vanderbilt declined to comment on the progress of the negotiations or provide details about the potential school. A new satellite campus could draw more economic activity to San Francisco's urban core, which has been slower to recover from pandemic closures than other cities. London Breed, Lurie's predecessor, proposed establishing a branch of a historically Black university downtown as part of an initiative to reinvigorate the area and draw more residents. Bringing a Vanderbilt campus to San Francisco 'would bring new energy and foot traffic downtown, and we will continue working to make that happen,' Lurie said in a statement. Vanderbilt has been on an expansion streak, announcing plans last year to build hubs in New York City and Florida. In September, the university said it would enter a lease with a seminary to establish a 13-building campus in Manhattan's Chelsea neighborhood. A month earlier, the school proposed a $520 million expansion into West Palm Beach, Florida. Vanderbilt wouldn't be the first elite school to branch out to San Francisco. The Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania established a presence there in 2001, hosting its first cohort of MBA students. --With assistance from Janet Lorin. (Adds Wharton School in final paragraph) More stories like this are available on
Economic Times
3 days ago
- Business
- Economic Times
You can still outpace AI: Wharton professor reveals a ‘skill bundling' strategy to safeguard your future from automation
iStock Artificial Intelligence is rapidly changing workplaces. Wharton professor Ethan Mollick suggests professionals focus on roles requiring diverse human skills. These include emotional intelligence and creativity. (Image: iStock) As artificial intelligence reshapes the modern workplace with stunning speed, one Wharton professor has a sobering message for today's professionals: the safest jobs of tomorrow aren't necessarily the most technical—they're the most complex. Ethan Mollick, associate professor at the Wharton School and author of Co-Intelligence: Living and Working with AI, says job security in the AI era will increasingly depend on choosing roles that bundle multiple human skills together. That means emotional intelligence, judgment, creativity, and domain expertise—all woven into one. 'AI may outperform you in one or two things,' Mollick tells CNBC Make It, 'but if your job requires five or six of them, it's a lot harder to replace.' It's the kind of insight that redefines how we think about employability in an increasingly automated world. And with AI usage surging—40% of U.S. workers now use it at least a few times a year, per a Gallup poll—these career choices have never mattered more. Mollick doesn't sugarcoat the AI wave ahead. Tech labs aren't just chasing progress—they're chasing a paradigm shift. 'Labs are aiming for machines smarter than humans within the next three years,' Mollick warns. 'They're betting on mass unemployment. Whether they succeed or not is still unclear, but we have to take it as a real possibility.' Even Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang, whose company powers some of the most advanced AI systems, echoes that sentiment—albeit from a different vantage point. In a recent All-In podcast, Huang predicted AI will create more millionaires in five years than the internet did in 20, while also cautioning: 'Anybody who is not using AI will lose their job to someone who is.' What's the solution? According to Mollick, job seekers must rethink their strategy. 'Don't go for roles that do one thing,' he says. 'Pick a job like being a doctor—where you're expected to be good at empathy, diagnosis, hand skills, and research. If AI helps with some of it, you still have the rest.' This idea of "bundled roles"—where a single job draws on varied skills and responsibilities—could be the firewall against replacement. These complex, human-centered positions are harder for AI to replicate wholesale and leave more room for humans to collaborate with AI, not compete against it. AI's evolution could make entry-level roles scarce—or at least, radically different. 'Companies will need to rethink entry-level hiring,' Mollick notes. 'Not just for productivity, but for training future leaders.' Without the chance to learn through repetition—what Mollick calls 'apprenticeship'—younger workers may miss out on foundational skills. The result could be a workforce with knowledge gaps AI can't fill, even as those same gaps are used to justify greater automation. Nvidia's Huang calls AI the 'greatest equalizer of our time' because it gives creative power to anyone who can express an idea. 'Everybody is a programmer now,' he says. But critics caution that this accessibility may also deepen divides between the AI-literate and those left behind. Eric Schmidt, former Google CEO, has a different concern: infrastructure. On the Moonshots podcast, Schmidt warned that AI's growth could be throttled not by chips, but by electricity. The U.S., he says, may need 92 more gigawatts of power to meet AI demands—equivalent to 92 new nuclear plants. As AI spreads into every corner of work, from payroll review (yes, Huang uses machine learning for that too) to high-stakes decision-making, the one thing that's clear is this: the rules are changing faster than most organizations can adapt. 'The tools are evolving fast,' Mollick says, 'but organizations aren't. And we can't ask employees to figure it all out on their own.' He believes the real danger isn't AI itself—but the lack of vision from leadership. Without a clear roadmap, workers are left adrift, trying to 'magic' their way into the future. In the race to stay relevant in the AI era, the best defense isn't to out-code or out-process a machine. It's to out-human it—by doubling down on the kind of nuanced, multi-layered work AI can't yet replicate. And by choosing jobs that ask you to wear many hats, not just one. Or as Mollick puts it: 'Bundled tasks are your best bet for surviving the AI takeover.'
Time of India
5 days ago
- Business
- Time of India
Sundar Pichai or Elon Musk: Which tech billionaire's education journey is more inspiring?
In the world of tech billionaires, few names hold as much weight as Sundar Pichai and Elon Musk . One leads Alphabet Inc., having just entered the billionaire club. The other, founder of Tesla, SpaceX, and xAI, continues to top global wealth rankings. But beyond wealth and business milestones, their academic paths tell very different stories. At a time when students are questioning the value of traditional degrees and exploring alternative routes, the academic journeys of Sundar Pichai and Elon Musk offer two sharply contrasting models. Each path reflects a distinct philosophy of learning and leadership for students. Sundar Pichai: The structured climb from IIT to Silicon Valley Born in Chennai, India, Pichai Sundararajan, known globally as Sundar Pichai, was raised by a father who worked as an electrical engineer at the British conglomerate GEC. His early interest in technology reportedly began with a fascination for landline telephones. What followed was a disciplined and merit-driven academic journey. Pichai earned his undergraduate degree in Metallurgical Engineering from IIT Kharagpur, one of India's most prestigious engineering institutions. His academic brilliance won him a scholarship to the United States, where he pursued a Master's in Material Sciences and Engineering at Stanford University. He later went on to complete an MBA from the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania, where he was named a Siebel Scholar and a Palmer Scholar, distinctions awarded to students in the top of their class. The structure of his education mirrors a traditional path: academic excellence, global exposure, and business acumen, layered step by step. It's the kind of trajectory that many students, particularly international aspirants, still find relatable and aspirational. Elon Musk: The unconventional leap fueled by risk and range Elon Musk's early years reflect a different energy altogether. Born in Pretoria, South Africa, Musk developed an interest in computing at an early age, teaching himself programming by the time he was 10. Unlike Pichai, Musk's academic route was shaped more by movement and multiplicity than by institutional loyalty. He first moved to Canada to attend Queen's University, partially to avoid mandatory military service in South Africa. After two years, he transferred to the University of Pennsylvania, earning two bachelor's degrees — one in Physics and another in Economics from the Wharton School. His interest in applied science and systems thinking runs through both disciplines. Musk briefly enrolled for a PhD in Applied Physics and Materials Science at Stanford University, but dropped out within days. Instead, he chose to launch his first startup, Zip2, marking the beginning of a career shaped by risk-taking and entrepreneurship. Musk's academic path was never about the degrees themselves. It was about how he could translate knowledge into action quickly. For students interested in interdisciplinary learning or those building toward entrepreneurial ambitions, his story resonates with the idea that traditional paths can be questioned and sometimes, skipped altogether. Two billionaires, two distinct models of learning By 2025, both men occupy vastly different roles in the tech ecosystem. Pichai is known for stewarding AI innovation within Google , including products like Gemini and DeepMind's advancements. Musk, on the other hand, is pushing boundaries through SpaceX's Mars missions, Tesla's autonomous driving goals, and xAI's foray into AGI (Artificial General Intelligence). Their education journeys reflect their leadership styles. Pichai's education path prioritised structure, deep domain knowledge, and a strong understanding of institutional frameworks. Whereas, Musk's education served as a springboard for systems-level thinking, marked by rapid transitions and a preference for self-direction. For students, this contrast is particularly instructive. It reveals that both structure and spontaneity can lead to transformative leadership, but they demand different kinds of risk appetite and personal clarity. What students can take away from both In a time when online credentials, bootcamps, and AI-driven learning paths are disrupting traditional models, the education journeys of Sundar Pichai and Elon Musk offer relevant, grounded insights. Pichai's path affirms the value of deep specialisation, long-term learning, and gradual leadership ascent and Musk's route underscores the power of interdisciplinary curiosity, fast execution, and the ability to pivot without fear. Neither story is more inspiring in absolute terms. The answer depends on the student asking the question. If you're someone who finds strength in structure, benchmarks, and institutional credibility, Pichai's journey offers a map. If you're driven by experimentation, unconventional moves, and a thirst for building early, Musk's path lights a different road. In 2025, as students face growing pressure to 'stand out' early, both stories serve as reminders that there is no single formula for success. What matters more is whether your education, formal or not, is aligned with your sense of purpose and how well you're prepared to learn beyond the classroom. TOI Education is on WhatsApp now. Follow us here . Ready to navigate global policies? Secure your overseas future. Get expert guidance now!
Fast Company
6 days ago
- Business
- Fast Company
How prominent brands manage different customer segments as they grow
Annie Wilson is a senior lecturer of marketing at the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania. Ryan Hamilton is an associate professor of marketing at Emory University's Goizueta Business School. They have both served as consultants to top brands across all manner of industries. What's the big idea? The Growth Dilemma is about how to manage relationships between customer segments. As brands grow and attract new customers, they serve a wider variety of groups who tend to want different things from the brand. Almost inevitably, as brands get bigger and bigger, this leads to conflict or disagreement between groups of customers who don't necessarily agree on who the brand is supposed to serve, what it stands for, or how it should be used. Below, coauthors Annie Wilson and Ryan Hamilton share five key insights from their new book, The Growth Dilemma: Managing Your Brand When Different Customers Want Different Things. Listen to the audio version—read by Annie and Ryan—in the Next Big Idea App. 1. Segments of people relate to each other in predictable ways We've identified four different relationship types when it comes to customer segments. The first type of relationship is separate communities. Some brands serve different segments of customers in such a way that they don't step on each other's toes much. Customer segments may want different things from the brand, but it doesn't tend to cause problems. For example, Lego still serves its traditional customer segment of children who are looking for an interactive toy, but it also has a large and growing segment of what it refers to as 'adult friends' of Lego. These are adults who purchase Lego as collectibles or models to display in their homes. Lego serves both customer segments without much problem. The second type of relationship is connected communities. These are offerings that become more valuable when more people use them. This includes offerings like social media platforms or shared platforms like Venmo. Software platforms like Microsoft Office are another example because the more popular Microsoft Office becomes, the easier it is to transfer files between people. The third relationship type is leader follower segments. This occurs when one segment is cooler, aspirational, or expert in some way, and because they use the brand, there is another segment of followers who like the brand because of those leaders. One example of this is Crocs. Crocs became cool a few years ago, in large part, because a group of trendsetters decided they were cool. Once they started using the brand, that gave everyone else social permission to also start wearing them without being embarrassed. The fourth relationship type is incompatible segments. This is when brands try forcing segments together that want dramatically different things. They have different values or different preferences, and trying to serve them simultaneously causes a lot of heat and friction between these groups of customers. This can blow up in the face of the brand. 2. Growth itself can cause problems Growth tends to be seen as just a good thing: We're going to get more customers in, get more revenue, and that's going to mean more profit. The big argument that we make is that some of the relationship types can lead to sustainable, profitable growth. However, other types of growth can be dangerous for a brand and cost the brand money in pursuit of that growth. 3. There are four main sources of conflict between customer segments The first source of conflict is functional. This is when one segment of customers can't use the brand's offerings the way they want to because another segment is using it in an incompatible way. Think of Starbucks. Somebody who wants to go to Starbucks to hang out and read the newspaper with a cup of coffee comes into conflict with the mobile order segment who wants to quickly get their coffee and leave. The piling up of mobile orders and the masses of people rushing in to grab their drinks in a hurry ruins the experience of a lot of third-placers. Starbucks has managed this functional conflict in various ways throughout much of its corporate history and continues to grapple with it today. 'Some types of growth can be dangerous for a brand and cost the brand money in pursuit of that growth.' The second source of conflict is brand image. This is the idea that because one group of customers is using the brand, the image of the brand comes into question for another group of customers. In the 1990s, Tiffany & Co. began selling a large number of more affordable silver products to less affluent customers, mostly teenagers trying to profess their love to high school sweethearts. This created a brand image conflict for wealthier customers who thought, Is this really Audrey Hepburn's Tiffany if I have teenagers buying cheap silver jewelry from them? Tiffany had to figure out how to manage that brand image conflict before the brand became too diluted or eroded. The next source of conflict is user identity. This is the idea that because one group of customers uses the brand, another group can no longer use it as a signal of their identity. For a lot of its history, wearing Vans signaled that you are a skateboarder. As Vans has become more fashionable and people who don't know how to skateboard wear Vans, it has created user identity conflict for the skaters who feel like wearing Vans no longer strongly or clearly signals their skater identity. Vans has to figure out how to protect that skater identity for the skater audience while still inviting in these more fashionable audiences. Lastly, we have ideological conflict. If a brand aligns itself with a certain group of customers, it can create ideological conflict with another group of customers. Target has gone back and forth on whether it will support LGBTQ+ customers through its products and messaging. It has created and recreated ideological conflict between groups of customers who either want Target to support LGBTQ+ rights or those who don't want Target to take that stance. These different sources of conflict can either be managed or avoided by building fences, ladders, or planks. 4. You can manage segment relationships using fences, ladders, and planks Fences is the idea that you want to create separation between segments that might otherwise come into conflict. Carhartt, famous for its workwear, has a segment of customers who are blue-collar workers who wear Carhartt because it is durable and good for working in. Carhartt also has a segment of customers who like Carhartt because their clothes have become fashionable—even on the red carpet. To prevent conflict between these groups, Carhartt keeps them separate. They market different products to them and use different messaging. Carhartt even has different stores for them, and that keeps both segments happy because they can get what they want without interacting with each other. Another way you can manage these relationships is by creating ladders. This is when you make one group of customers clearly higher status or more important than another group of customers. You're making it explicit or implicit that one group of customers are leaders and the others are followers. Tiffany & Co. offers various lines of jewelry, each with a distinct price tag that clearly signals the leaders (who pay millions of dollars for Tiffany jewelry) and the followers (who pay hundreds or thousands). It creates a hierarchy that keeps segments happy because it allows them to give customers what they want without eroding the brand image. The last thing you can do is create planks. You're essentially showing some group of customers the door. Another way of saying this is firing customer segments. There are times when two customer segments are in conflict, and the smartest thing to do is let one of them go or force one of them away from the brand. There was a time when Six Flags offered various pricing discounts and incentives. Many teenagers would buy tickets to Six Flags because they were cheap or discounted, and then they would visit the parks, enjoy the all-you-can-eat benefits, and act like teenagers. It ruined the experience for many other customers who wanted to enjoy Six Flags or potentially bring their families. Six Flags essentially showed those teenagers the door by changing the pricing incentives so that those customers didn't get as much access to the park. They implicitly fired those customer segments. Ridership overall did drop, but the park made more money from other customer segments that wanted to return because they had restored the park's experience for them. 5. You are never done managing customer segment relationships. Managing customer segments isn't something that can be applied once to permanently solve problems. A different set of conflicts is bound to come up later. This is just the evolving nature of markets: new segments emerge, old segments fade, and brands change their positioning over time. We are proposing a discipline for managing growth and customers over time, which is that you constantly have to manage these relationships to avoid conflict. 'You need to constantly think of different ways to prevent or mitigate that conflict.' Any time you bring different groups of people together, they can come into conflict. You need to constantly think of different ways to prevent or mitigate that conflict. For example, at a country club that I went to growing up, new members wanted different things from the club than what old members wanted. Club managers had to figure out how to build fences, ladders, or planks between those customer segments. But these instances are everywhere, beyond brands, like that one friend who went on a family vacation and discovered that their in-laws had different expectations of the vacation than their own family. We see this in politics when a candidate tries to expand their base and increase their popularity. They try to appeal to a broader audience with diverse values. They have to figure out how to keep people who want different things happy simultaneously. We even see this within organizations. As organizations hire more employees, you sometimes get factions that have different interests. Whether it's in marketing and brand management or any other domain, this fundamental idea of managing the different things that different groups of people want from an entity requires constant monitoring and supervision.
Yahoo
23-07-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
How Much Will 4 Years of Tariffs Cost the Middle Class?
For middle-class families, the impact of President Donald Trump's tariffs is more than a policy debate. Read Next: Discover More: According to researchers at the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School of Business, middle-class households face an average of $22,000 in lifetime losses due to tariffs. That's a significant blow to households already struggling with rising costs for food, housing, and essentials. In addition, experts also say that the real impact could affect everyday expenses, often in ways families don't immediately see. So, how much will four years of tariffs really cost the middle class? What Four Years of Tariffs Could Cost You The middle-class price tag for tariffs ranges from $3,800 to nearly $5,000 per household per year. Over four years, that could mean up to $20,000 in lost purchasing power, a steep cost for families already squeezed by inflation. Here are the receipts: A Yale Budget Lab model found that tariffs could bump grocery bills by up to $4,900 annually. That same model estimates a broader $3,800 annual loss per household from consumer price increases tied to all 2025 tariffs. A separate study from the Becker Friedman Institute at the University of Chicago found that tariffs imposed in 2018 resulted in a 12% price increase for washers and dryers, with ripple effects extending to other major appliances. 'I've seen grocery bills for clients increase by 10% due to tariffs on imported food,' said Seann Malloy, founder and managing partner at Malloy Law Offices, LLC. Where Price Increases Add Up Fast Tariffs don't just touch one product or category. They compound across the things families rely on most. The steepest price hikes are being seen in cars, clothes, electronics and even shipping, as import costs are quietly passed on to consumers. Malloy said items like clothes, cars and electronics tend to see the steepest price hikes since 80-95% of tariff costs are typically passed on to consumers. Based on his estimates, clothing prices have risen by 17%, cars by 8.4%, and electronics by 10-5%. 'For example, a $30,000 car could become $2,520 more expensive, and a $500 smartphone could gain $75,' Malloy said. 'Services like shipping, which is linked to imported fuel, would also rise by 5-7%.' How to Cushion the Financial Blow If tariffs persist at 2025 levels, the Yale Budget Lab estimates the average household will lose about $3,800 per year in purchasing power due to higher prices. Over four years that adds up to more than $15,000 in additional costs. 'That could require families to tap savings or take on debt, especially for those on fixed incomes,' Malloy said. 'Clients of mine have sliced out $2,000 a year of retirement contributions to pay for them. My suggestion for the average household is to build a $5,000 emergency fund now to buffer long-term tariff impacts and avoid high-interest credit card debt.' How to Defend Your Budget Against Tariffs While individuals can't control trade policy, they can take steps to minimize the impact of prolonged price increases. Financial experts said smart shopping, strategic borrowing and prioritizing savings over extras could help households stay afloat if tariffs remain in place. 'To preserve funds, buy groceries and electronics at discount warehouses such as Costco, where a $200 annual membership yields $1,000 savings annually,' Malloy said. 'Purchase produce at farmers' markets, if you can, though prices might go up with demand.' He added, 'My suggestion is to explore credit unions for low-interest loans to cover unexpected costs and consult a financial advisor to prioritize savings over discretionary spending.' More From GOBankingRates Mark Cuban Tells Americans To Stock Up on Consumables as Trump's Tariffs Hit -- Here's What To Buy This article originally appeared on How Much Will 4 Years of Tariffs Cost the Middle Class? Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
