I agree with Bryan in regards to the fact that competitive advantages within the company's industry allow them to continue to operate the company is similiar manners in a variety of countries. But there are always going to be differences to some extent because of culture variances, public instituitions, etc., that we have discussed earlier. These highly engaged model depend significantly on the fact that the cultures, instituional roles, etc. all are quite similiar and would provide the same success as in the home country. Without these similarities the company would most likely face very difficult times trying to enforce its way of managing and operating business.

I agree that PSU's policy is very understandable and really does not beat around the bush about what will not be tolerated. I think that using this "pro-active" approach of teaching and critically discussing plagiarism definitely helps PSU's code become even more easily understood. During my undergraduate education, academic honesty was very briefly mentioned during "syllabus day" but there was really no explanation or reasoning as to what it is and why it is necessary in the academic realm. Without this critical link, I believe that many students overlook this aspect and are often ignorant of what plagiarism truely is.

I think that although standarizing the punishment for plagiarism would be quite helpful in enforcing the rules against plagiarsm, it is quite unrealistic. Instead, I think that Brian's idea would be useful. Having guidelines to help disciplinarians decide the specific punishment would be much more useful and realistic (in terms of enforcing the punishment/guidelines across the board). This will allow the punishment to fit the exact situations and conditions within which the plagiarism occurs.

I agree with Kelly. I don't think that the two cultures need to be fully blended, and that the degree of blending these cultures will heavily depend upon the type of business, venture, agreement that the companies plan on operating. Especially with foreign investment, I think that the culture of the host country will be more prevelant than that of the foreign partner. Using more of the host culture will help keep the operational employees engaged and motivated. I'm not saying that the partner's culture can't be infused to some degree, but this would be minimal compared to that of the host and also this integration will need to happen slowly and be managed carefully be managers.

I agree with how Greg was able to describe LE's competitive advantage. Because of the mutual respect that the employees have for one another it encourages active participation in the company's success. This is not very common in other major companies and obviously gives LE a major advantage over its competitors. Competition internally can sometimes lead to angry employees, but the way LE approaches competition gives everyone an equal opportunity to further their career and also help the company. As Greg menitoned, this is a very rare trait.

I also agree. LE is a huge company that many people want to work for. Because there are so many qualified people, LE is able to choose those that have the spirit and determination that fit with the LE corporate culture. Pay and benefits of course would help lure people to LE but I think that simple fact that LE is such a well known company helps attract such qualified candidates in the first place. Once LE has hired such people, they must have internal growth opportunities so that people are interested in staying with the company.

I agree that the CLEAR model would be the most useful if I were the manager deciding whether or not to globalize. I believe this model present clear, understandable data that is easily translated into terms that affect the company. Also, from the results of this model, the manager would be able to dig deeper if they were not sure of something or didn't fully understand the country that they were looking to expand within. I just feel as if the CLEAR model is able to give results that are easily translatable into situations that the company may experience while doing business within those countries. Lastly, I think that this model is useful to companies that have already decide to invest/expand into certain countries. It is able to identify specific areas that the company should be aware of while in that country. With these risk areas in mind, I believe that the managers of these companies will be better informed and better able to make decisions.

I think that using the CLEAR model of assessing risk is a valid approach. I think that many of the points that Kurtzman (et al) were very substantial and make sense when you look at them. Countries that have more opaque legal systems, more government corruption, underperforming accounting systems, etc will be much more unattractive to foreign direct investment for many reasons. If a country does not have a substantial accounting system, how can a consumer/investor rely upon the company's financial history. Then, companies look for invest within this country will also stand among those less credible. This same philosophy fits in the other four categories as well. Therefore, I think that this model is very valid but should not be used as the sole method for deciding whether to participate in the FDI or not. This model along with other factors (ex: culture) need to be considered before plunging into new markets.

Malesic believes that quite often students plagiarize in an open fashion, leaving clues behind... much like fingerprints being left at a crime scene. It is easy to be traced back to the original document. But those who take the time and effort to plagiarize 'correctly' really should not need to plagiarize because they understand the thought, writing, and reading skills needed to properly form an argument. Just because someone takes the time and effort to hide the evidence of their plagiarism does not mean that it is acceptable. Plagiarism is not acceptable even if effort is made to conceal everything. Quite frankly, I see this as being worse than a student ignorant enough to just copy and paste. I see hidden plagiarism as a methodical practice that has been worked on throughout the student's career and this most definitely should not be allowed in the academic world.

I think initially Malesic took the plagiarism very personally, as a reflection of his teaching abilities. But as he realized how common plagiarism it began to become less personal and simply more maddening. Malesic refers to students being ignorant to the fact that professors (usually PhDs in their respective fields) have the knowledge to realize when a student is plagiarizing. I think that Malesic's frustration and anger is quite valid, but he should not only be mad at the students who commit the plagiarism but also for the educators the preceded him. These educators need to enforce plagiarism standards. I came from a very competitive high school, yet plagiarism attempts were disciplined with a punishment that was way to lenient for the crime committed. I also think it would drive me completely insane seeing students, with the understanding of writing techniques and talent in other classroom activities, commit plagiarism. As a professor at the collegiate level, this would be the most frustrating piece of the plagiarism puzzle. I think that Malesic's assessment of student motivation is quite accurate except for the part where he accuses students of being scared. I think that they are often overly brave in order to plagiarize. It's as if they don't think they will be caught, rather than being scared of how their own work will perform.