Ahead of the Curve

Giving Credit Where Credit Is Due

There is nothing more painful than watching someone else take credit for work that you've done.

Now, I don't mean in the sense of allowing the "team" to take credit. I don't mean it in the sense of your individual work being buried, or somehow (unmaliciously) overlooked among a series of individual efforts by multiple people. But I mean the deliberate act of someone ignoring, downgrading, or actually taking credit for something that you, by yourself, have done.

It's not only insulting, and rude – but it's demeaning. And when someone does that, you've learned more about them in that moment than you probably would in a lifetime.

Let me give you the context of the situation that I've found myself in.

I'm currently working in a job that's become less of a lateral move from what I was doing, and more of a step backward. The scope of authority and the scope of my responsibility have been significantly decreased, and that's been a bit of a challenge me. Lots of people say it's easier to slow down and do less, but for me, it's been hard to reorient my approach to work – I haven't been in a majority subordinate position in quite some time, and it's grinding.

However, due to my previous job, when asked to step up to the plate – or assume a "level of work" that's above my title grade; it's like sliding my hand into an old, comfy glove. I don't mind doing it, and the job will get done. Well, on-time, and with minimal muss or fuss.

So, naïve me, I was given a task (ordered, essentially) and that's what I did. I also happened to do it surprisingly well that the deliverable I completed was called out for special merit. And that's where things got hairy.

Having been in a similar situation before, having to assign work almost arbitrarily – when a subordinate does something well for me, I'm going to give credit. If it's called out for special attention or merit, I will do my very best to elevate that person because they did it and deserve the rewards for doing that job well. I know, intellectually, that there are people out there who do not do that – who will steal the limelight, who will toss another under the bus, but I've lived a charmed life, and I'd never really encountered it.

Until it happened to me.

And I hated it.

Post-fact, I know that there were enough people, in positions high enough for it to matter, that know I did the work. And when certain opportunities arise, I know that I'll have first pick at the ones that will further me at the organization I'm with and in my long-term career goals. However, for now, I'm still stung by how nakedly careerist some people can be – it may help them win in the short-term, but it will bite like a bloody cobra soon enough.

So, my recommendation for today is that if you're ever in such a position where you can do something for personal gain (but in the process alienate a subordinate who one day may be able to get you back) or you can give credit where credit is due…please, choose the latter.

It will serve you better in the long run.

Corporate Nationalism

I can't remember a time when I wasn't a solid advocate of corporate citizenship, and to some degree, corporate nationalism.  Even though there are no longer things such as "company stores," and you're not paid in "company dollars" which can only be used at the "company store," corporations have become so vast in size, in value (corporate market values that exceed the actual GDP of some nations), and in branding (most people can locate Microsoft on a map but not identify the Kingdom of Bhutan) that they are almost supranational in nature.

I was, and am still, so convinced of this over-arching nature of the corporate monolith that my final paper in my undergraduate Anthropology of Business class was on this.  I more than aced that class, and I more than aced that paper, and it's even more true now than when I wrote it. 

That's why, when thinking on that, and more specifically on Microsoft - which was one of the subjects of my paper, and not at all an accidental reference - I'm always amused when the "world-at-large" denies this reality.  In today's New York Times, there was a quick snippet taken from the Reuters newsfeed: Logitech Shares Surge on Talk of Microsoft Bid.

Overall, I believe that Microsoft is probably bidding for Logitech, and what made me believe it was board member Daniel Borel's statement that "[he's] a co-founder of Logitech.  Would you be willing to sell your child?"  Many have done it, many will do it, and that's not a defense against a bid inquiry.

However, what really caught my attention was his statement that "Microsoft is above all a software company."  Ten years ago, that may have been true.  Even five years ago, that could have still held water.

Today?  No more.

Microsoft is, above all, an IT conglomerate.  Software is it's premium core competency, but it's not the only one.  Its consulting services are sizable.  It's approach to software as a service, and integrated computing (operating system, application, protection, server management and maintenance), and how it has bought-out partners or used iron-clad contracts and agreements to protect it's pricing from and for its partners is indicative of something that is more than "[just] a software company." 

To me, it's indicative of a company that has become supranational in scope and complexity and strategy.  Logitech is not only a financially viable purchase, it's a strategically sound one - if not today, then tomorrow.  And if not tomorrow, then "someday [soon]" is still on the table.

Thanks to the management consultants, so many companies shed "non-core" businesses, or went forth and acquired based only on those needs.  I don't disagree with the strategy, but I would re-define it as a tactic - as part of a greater whole. 

Furthermore, I believe that the larger corporations are re-defining "core" and back to thinking on the large-scale.  I'm not yet ready to present my theory on corporate nationals, but I'm more than ready to say that the next cycle of M&A is not going to be about market consolidation or divestment - it's going to be all about integration, economically, strategically, and globally.

There's something strangely political about that, don't you think?

Generational Impatience

To start from a tangent, I'd like to massacre a common quote, and understanding, about courage.  About bravery.

It is not the absence of fear, but the ability to blithely ignore it.

A few days ago, I came across the article The Falling-Down Professions in The New York Times.  The article itself was about the slow (in some cases), but steady reduction of the "prestige" associated with such traditionally elite careers in law and medicine.  The sense that these are still very prestigious careers is captured, but the eyes through which our current generation (of twentysomethings) is viewing it has made them less... appetitizing, as it were.

It's goes on to talk about that many doctors and laywers feel that they've slipped a notch in "social-status" and that they're no longer the center of the universe, etc., etc., etc.  Perhaps I missed the point of the article, because that's not what caught my attention.

"The professions still largely award income in the traditional sense - a set, orderly progression, over the course of decades.  Careers in more entreprenaurial industries like hedge funds and private equity firms follow the sky-is-the-limit model..."

Then, one of the experts they quote, Bill Coleman, the chief compensation office at Salary.com, he says about the generation today: "Their attention span, everything, is instant feedback...appenticeship, these kids don't want to do it."

I beg to differ. 

Have we shifted away from a model of extended apprenticeship as a requirement for a prestigious, high-paying, or just plain challenging, career?  Yes.  That's a work-in-progress, and while some careers, such as medicine and law require that extended length, not all do.

Furthermore, where the article and I do agree on, the sense of what is "prestigious" has changed.  Twenty years ago, being a doctor, a lawyer, an architect, or a banker (not a trader), were pretty your only choices for white-collar plus higher status in your community - which was much more closer knit than what can be defined as your "community" now.  These days, having a well-read blog, or being a popular artist, or redefining how we live and how we think through pretty much any available, public medium, gives a measure of prestige.

Yet, to go even further, and to topple that whole idea, "prestige" in the traditional sense is a ghost.  It's currency in our very independent, and individualistic society, is limited, at best. 

But, coming back down to earth, and to my original tangent and the associated mangled quote of mine - what is more troubling to the "old guard" (which is firmly represented in the pages of the New York Times, and that's why we get articles as such) is when you have a younger worker who is not unaware of "paying the dues" but is unwilling to conform to the traditional method of doing so. 

Before, the nail that stuck up was hammered down.  These days, you have to wonder who's holding the hammer.

I advocate bravery.  I advocate younger corporate minions, at minimum, saying: "If I can do this, and this, and this, can I be considered for a promotion ahead of the standard scale?"  Fortune, and rewards, and prestige, favor the brave.  They favor the corporate minion who is not afraid of the hammer coming at him.

They favor the corporate minion who is not unaware of the possible consequences of breaking the rank and file, but who is willing to blithely ignore the risk and get "ahead of the curve."

The Art of the Interview

I don't pretend to be an academic, or an industry expert, on interviewing.  I've never taken any classes on the process, I actively scoffed at advice given to me from college career counselors, and the only interview I ever prepped myself for was a technical one - and that was in forcing myself to learn enough SQL to get by a twenty question exam.

For the record, I passed the exam, I got the offer - and I turned down the job.

However, in the many interviews I've been on in the past six years, and thinking about all the offers I got, and the one offer that I did not, I believe I can take that hands-on, practical experience and distill it into a sort-of five things list.  Let's see if I get it right.

1. An interview is a date
No matter what anyone tells you, unless you're having a structured interview (one that is based on standard questions or is technical in nature), an interview is a seduction.  People do not hire people that they do not like.  I, personally, will not hire someone who I cannot get along with.  It's not a question of ability - because, for the most part, in non-entry level jobs, the people applying have the knowledge, skills, and abilities to do the work.  However, with the amount of team-based work that's present in the modern corporate environment, embracing the solo-rower personality, is not on your side. 

Laugh at your interviewer's corny jokes, or at least give an honest (and you can possibly fake) smile if it's that bad.  Make a few jokes of your own.  Talk about the weather, or your commute, or something that interested you before getting into the nitty-gritty of the process.  Make them like you, and please, be honest about if you like your interviewer or not (not necessarily to them, but to yourself).

If you've ever gone on a blind date, or even a regular date, you'll understand the following: If you don't like them for the hour you're interviewing them, then how are you going to manage forty, fifty, sixty, even seventy hours a week with this person?  You wouldn't go on a second date with someone who you don't like, so why ever would you force yourself to take a job (if offered) with someone you don't like?

Trust me, your interviewer is thinking the same thing.

2. Eye contact, speaking clearly, smiling, and breathing do make all the difference
HimynameisJaneandI'mreallyinterestedinthisopportunityandyoushouldhiremedespitethefactthatIcan'tbehumanbecauseIhaven'tstoppedtobreatheinthelasttenseconds.

Imagine this is said in a mumble, head down, and with a flat expression.  Pretty difficult to understand, let alone agree with, don't you think?

One of the key advantages that people who are on the debate team, or do a lot of presentations (and have professors who do not hold back criticism and bad grades for failure to properly take criticism), or are in situations where they are forced to do meeting and greeting (student council, fund raising or philanthropy, etc.) have is that they have learned the how to properly present themselves.

They have learned that these things should all be done, but at the proper time.  Let's take what Jane said and try to ... plot this out:

Make eye contact
- If you're interviewing in the US, more than likely, eye contact is not only a calming activity for you and your interviewer, but it means if done in the right measure, he or she is likely to believe anything that comes out of your mouth

Smile
- It's a shared connection; puts your interviewer at ease

Speak clearly
- "Hi, my name is Jane."
- You have an interviewer who is at ease, who is ready to believe you, and if he can't understand what you've just said, then it is a wasted opportunity for both of you. 

Breathe.
- "I'm really interested in this opportunity." 
- Even though can hear and understand many times more than can be spoken, he still needs time to take it in and think about it.  Forcing too much information in too little time doesn't allow a thought to "sink-in."  You do that (by forgetting to breathe and relax), you'll sink your interview.

3. Don't be late and don't be too early and don't be snippy about either situation
Let's not forget that the reason you have an interview is that your interviewer needs to hire someone.  You are hot property at this point.  At the same time, and more importantly, don't forget that you also need the job, and it is you who has to jump through hoops to get it, not the other way around.

Based on that, don't be late to your interview.  I cannot emphasize this enough; it is your business and your responsibility to show up on-time at the given location to do your very best to pass the interview.  Your interviewer is not at your leisure, it is the exact opposite.

And because of that, don't be too early to your interview.  People are busy - they're working.  They do not have time to babysit you.  If you scheduled time is 9:00 AM, don't be there at 8:30.  8:45 is pretty good, but to be honest, in the situations I've been in, I prefer my interviewees no more than five minutes earlier.  Sometimes I'm walking out of a meeting at five minutes before the scheduled time, and if he or she comes earlier, I've missed the call from security to get them.  Be punctual, not obnoxious.

Furthermore, sometimes, things happen.  If you are going to be late, and you can contact your interviewer, do so.  Trains run late, accidents happen on the expressway, weather can turn on a dime - I've yet to encounter an interviewer who held that against me.  And, honest to goodness truth, if I did run into one, I'd have to invoke part of what I mentioned in Point 1 - that is not an admirable character trait that I'd like to deal with for an excess of forty hours a week.

Likewise, I had to wait on an interviewer for thirty minutes one time - I took the job, and I was very happy for it, but I was seriously pissed off about it.  However, I did not show it during the interview, and after I worked at the organization, I came to understand what had caused the delay.  I still found it rude beyond all measure, but as the interviewer wasn't my direct manager, I was more willing to let it slide. 

However, it also treaded very closely on that "do I want to spend more than forty hours a week with this person" rule.

4. There's nothing wrong with not knowing something
Very seriously, if you were on the other side of the table, and you were forced to choose between two people, which one would you choose:
A) Thinks he knows everything about the business, and is a bit of a smooth talker, so his answers sound good, but lack true substance
B) Admits that he's not fully aware of all the details, and is a bit of a smoother talker, but has a personality that shows he's willing to learn, and will do it quickly

Honestly, I don't think it's very hard a decision, and most interviewers are likely to agree with me.  It's wonderful if you talk "great game," in fact, that's a solid communication skill and is very useful - however, if I'm hiring for someone to work for me, I also want that coupled with an ability to know when you're wrong.  To know when you are wrong or to admit that you don't know, but you are very willing to learn.

At the end of the day, the corporate environment, for many jobs, is one of constant and consistent learning.  I'll take a confident, yet humble, person over an overconfident one any day.

5. Want the job
If you were offered the job on-the-spot, and it fulfilled your salary requirements, and your commuting requirements, and all the other little bells and whistles we want but don't admit to (working from home, expense account, Blackberry, signing bonus, performance bonus, just-because-we-like-you bonus, etc.), and you would still say no, don't even interview for it.

There is a bit of ego-stoking involved when we get a call back for our resume.  Some of us, even while employed, keep our resumes out there, just to see how the waters are, to see how many bites we get.  Yet, if called in for an interview, and we're not looking, then we don't go. 

If you're doing that, and you're not genuinely planning to take the job, then don't waste your time and the interviewer's time.  Yes, it's good to get practice interviewing - all good and wonderful, but find a career counselor for that.  Use a friend.  Even use a mentor; but don't waste people's time.  It's not only rude, but I believe it displays a fundamental lack of integrity - and that's not a quality that anyone wants to hire nor should anyone want to personally cultivate.

---
I don't presume for the above to be the all-encompassing quick-list on interviewing.  I'm sure there are points I've missed, and I'm even more sure that there are points that are disputable or even perhaps a little naive. 

However, I still believe that using just the core arguments in each of those points will make a person a better interviewer.  The intangibles that are used to measure how well a person does on an interview are equally, if not more important, than the tangible evidence of experience and skills.  The more work you do on getting the complete package together, than the better the chance you have of landing the job - and that's the whole point to going on an interview in the first place, right?

On My Bookshelf

Business Knowledge for IT in Investment Banking
Essvale [Bizle Professional Series]

We like to think that once we've been working in a field long enough, there's not much of the "basics" that we can learn. 

I am big enough a person to admit that isn't true at all.

The reason I like this book, and intend to order the other books in the series (about IT in Investment Management, Retail Banking, etc.), is that it was informative, it was to the point, and it was written in a matter that is neither patronizing or snippy, just plain accessible.

For a financial IT professional, I think it's a great refresher.  For a financial IT professional who has specialized, perhaps, in Asset [Investment] Management and is moving over to Investment Banking, it's a excellent primer.  For someone who is new to financial IT, just out of school, it's a good starter guide.  And for someone who is new to financial IT, and not just out of school, it remains a good starter.

In a previous post, Challenges in Financial IT, I advocated cross-training of IT personnel in the functional skills or knowledge of the businesses that they support.  I said: "you can't fix what you don't understand, and you can't understand [sometimes] what you're not made to, or allowed to, or trained to understand."  This book, while not filling that gap between financial IT professionals and financial line professionals, makes a great start.

Recipe: Cinnamon Mango Shrimp

Best words to describe this shrimp is "tangy, flavorful, surprising" or "french toast cinnamon with a dash of the tropics."  It's easy to make, and pairs well with pretty much anything.

Enjoy!

Makes 2 servings, but the recipe is easily doubled [or even tripled!] if you need more.

Ingredients
1/2 pound of jumbo shrimp, de-veined [approximately 10 shrimp]
1 lime
1/2 cup of T. Marzetti Ginger Mango Vinaigrette Dressing
1 ounce of ground cinnamon [or to taste]
2/3 slices of red onion
1 ounce of chopped thyme
2 teaspoons of black pepper [or to taste]
cooking spray
1/4 tbsp of unsalted butter

Note: Generally, if you're not going to use a grill pan, you can substitute the cooking spray for olive oil, but for a lot of home cooks, it's easy just to keep the spray bottle on hand.  Canola oil, olive oil, or butter spray - either will work well.

Directions
1. Place the cleaned shrimp in a bowl.  Then slice the lime in half and squeeze one half over the shrimp.  Mix the shrimp around a bit.
2. Pour the 1/2 cup of the ginger mango vinaigrette dressing over the shrimp.  Make sure to individually cover each shrimp in the mango dressing.   
3. Squeeze the other half of the lime over the shrimp.  Place shrimp in a Ziplock bag.
4. Take the ground cinnamon and put into the bag with the shrimp.  Close the bag and shake it about a bit.  Place the shrimp in the refrigerator for at least 15 minutes.

- At this point, you can use either a grill pan or a skillet, but I recommend a grill pan.

5. Spray the grill pan well and put the stove on high heat.
6. Add the butter to the pan and make sure it's centered over the heat. 
7. After the pan is well heated, add the sliced onions and the chopped thyme.  Lower the heat slightly but keep moving the onions and thyme around to keep them from burning.
8. By this time, the pan, with the onions and thyme, will be well heated.  Take the shrimp from the refrigerator and place directly in the center of the pan.
9. Take the black pepper and sprinkle evenly over the shrimp. 
10. The shrimp will cook quickly, so after about one minute, flip the shrimp to the other side, and make sure that the onions and thyme are well-coated over the shrimp.
11. After another minute, check to the shrimp to make sure both sides are pink and the center is opaque - you can flip the shrimp again and keep on for another minute, or perhaps two, but be careful not to the overcook it.
12. All done!  Serve with rice pilaf and mixed vegetables - or whichever combination you like!


- If you like, and you don't have this Ginger Mango Vinaigrette around, feel free to experiment with other flavors, such as a Raspberry Vinaigrette, or a nice, clean Italian dressing, or even something like a Sweet and Sour.  The idea is to get something that has a bright flavor, and pair it well with the fragrancy of cinnamon; I guarantee it will taste good.

Lighten Up

Having a bit of a slow day at the desk, so I've decided to post some amusements for those of us who need some silver lining to our clouds.

Brought to you by the awesome lads and ladlettes over at Here Is The City.

Trader rage!

JP Morgan + Citi = ?

And you thought I was spoiled rotten...

Sticking it to the man on the way out.

Misogynist of the Year

Do enjoy!

Defeating the Blame Game

Rather short post for today - surprisingly, I've gotten rather busy at work in the past few days, and fewer dry spells for me to do serious thought on anything.

However, my quick blurb for today is about the blame game. 

Corporate environments are petri dishes for passing the buck.  The larger an organization, the more likely that members of it will attempt to:
- not take responsibility for failures
- try to pass things off to managers [who are, not necessarily by any fault of their own, unaware of the intricacies, details, and realities of issues that are causing delayed or failing projects]
- try to pass things off to other team members
- run around like chickens with their heads cut off or ostriches with their heads in the sand

I'm constantly amazed by how people who are in their thirties and forties denigrate into a playground full of children - you have your bullies, and your sissies, and your tattletales, and your popular kids, and your silent killers. 

My best approach to dealing with the blame game is to call them on it.  Ever heard of the game called Bulls**t?  I play that everyday as I deal with constant playground reenactments. 

You have three choices when it comes to this type of work environment:
1 - You can choose not to participate.  I hope you enjoy the pink slip it will get you.
2 - You become a championship blame gamer.  You may not get pinkslipped; in fact, you may even get promoted.  You'll have sold your soul, though.
3 - Call the b.s.  You may get pinkslipped...  But somebody else will hire you, and somebody else will pay you more, and it's nice to have integrity, isn't it?

Anyway, I've got to hop back on the treadmill and pretend to earn my salary.  Nobody ever said that keeping busy was easy.

Anti-Intellectualism

I was having a lovely conversation with my friend while on my way to work this morning, and we got on the topic of youth today.  He was walking to his office and then suddenly said to me:

"Have you had any contact with the kids these days?"

It's an odd statement, probably because we'd been gushing about this semi-stupid teen soap opera that was on television the night before, but also because him and I are not that old, not by far.  We're still "recently" out of college, but for us, there's a marked difference between the people we went to school with [in high school] and the "kids" that are attending high school and junior high school now.

To put it rudely, they seem a little stupid.

However, that's a little too short - and not entirely true.  Anyway, I answered him that I had encountered the little devils, and it spun us around into the actual discussion of what separates "them" from "us."

I don't think that people, most especially, kids, are getting dumber.  In fact, I think that the work that they have to do to be considered by the same exact colleges we attended is harder.  Regents [in New York State] are no longer optional, they're expected and required to be even slightly competitive to get into colleges.  AP degrees are so much the norm that some colleges are pushing back on them, in terms of how legitimately they cover the material - but not because they think the kids are dumb, just that they're doing so much that they're not getting the detailed picture.

If I had to reapply for college, I may not get in.  I haven't gotten dumber, but I've never had the super-competitive drive that's now a prerequisite for even the most basic of consideration.

So, it's not a question of smarts.  Yet, for the "kids" that my friend, and I, were referring to, they're not displaying that type of drive.  They're not displaying that type of intellectualism that is well within their reach.   Why is that?

I blame it on the culture of "anti-intellectualism." 

Socioeconomics is not the answer.  Some kids come from backgrounds of no "culture," of very little means, of neighborhoods where it's not just okay, but it's celebrated to be a little ... well ... stupid.  And other kids come from environments of extreme wealth and privilege and opportunities, and they're emulating the same behavior, and styles. 

What we have these days is a culture where it's not just okay to not be a smarty-pants - it's okay to be actively against it.  It is perfectly acceptable to be actively in opposition to displaying traits and qualities and acting in a manner that supports being smart. 

It's okay to be an anti-intellectual.

The unfortunate thing is that these kids don't understand the doors of opportunities that they're closing on themselves.  They ask questions like, "why don't people take me seriously?"  Or, "why did he or she get something that I didn't?"  Or, "why can't I find a job that pays me what I need to get what I want?"  Sometimes that answers are ugly - they're ugly in the sense that some of these things happen because of bias, because of racism, because of privilege holding over the lack of privilege...

But more and more, I believe, the answers are ugly in different ways.  Ugly because it's personal choices on the part of the questioner as to why he or she is being held back. 

We are human beings.  The recommendation to "not judge a book by its cover" is drawn from the fact that "first impressions are the ones most remember."  Malcom Gladwell, in his book Blink stated that "[we thin-slice]...snap judgments are...enormously quick: they rely on the thinnest slices of experience...they are also unconscious."

He also says that "we thin slice because we have to..."

The kids, because of picking up a manner of dressing, a style of speaking, a way of portraying themselves as anti-intellectuals have put themselves into the position of being negatively "thin-sliced" in the places that some of them want to go.  You don't get to be an investment banker, or make the money of an investment banker, by imitating a rap star. 

The same is in reverse - you don't get to be a rap star by acting like a Wall Streeter, or a white-shoe lawyer, or a surgeon, or any of those pursuits that are founded on the precepts, and reward the dedication, to intellectualism.  The problem is that we have these great divides; as adults you may see the divides, you understand them, may even be able to better traverse them.

The unfortunate thing is that they kids of today don't see the divides.  They fall into the cracks, they can't climb out of it, and in the anti-intellectuals are on one side, living life one way, and the intellectuals are on the other side, living life that way, and that's fine.  That's accepted.  It's even perfectly reasonable.

It's okay.

I didn't finish the conversation with my friend - he had to go, and I had to go.  We may continue it another time, but probably not.  At the end of the day, we're no longer "kids" - we're still young, but if we go anywhere near an academic institution again it will be for graduate and advanced degrees or to put our future kids through school. 

Right now I can't forsee what side of the divide those future children will end up on; I'm sure it will be there, I'm sure they'll have to make a choice.  I just hope they make the right one which gives them all the choices in the world, and not the one that takes those choices away.

Paddling North [for food, of course]

It's Wednesday again, and for me, that means cooking class again!  As much as I'm enjoying pounding out 4.5 hours a week in a professional kitchen, at the same time, it's tiring to do that after a full day of work, and then trekking home for another 30-45 minutes, to get up a couple of hours later for another full day of work.

I'm not complaining much, though.  I'm learning, and more importantly, I'm enjoying it.  Let's see what's on the list for today...

We're leaving Vietnam, Thailand, and Malaysia behind and journeying into China for the week.  By 10:30 tonight, we should be nibbling on:
- Shrimp Shao Mui
- Chinese Pork Potstickers
- Chinese Velvet Corn and Crab Soup
- Pan Friend Chinese Egg Noodles with Beef and Broccoli
- Crisp Velvet Shrimp with Walnuts and Shiitakes
- Whole Steamed Ginger Fish
- Fried Chinese Long Beans
- Chinese Scallion Bread

I can honestly say that the only thing I have never tasted on this menu is the scallion bread.  Everything else [especially the ginger fish], I'm 150% excited to try and see if my class and I get it right.  If we do, awesome.

If we don't, it's a first effort - nothing to be held against us.