You are given a passage. You need to construct a question about the information present in the passage. Construct a question in such a way that (i) it is unambiguous, (ii) its answer is the whole paragraph. Avoid creating questions that can be answered correctly without actually understanding the paragraph.

[Q]: Wow. There are some pretty negative answers in this thread.

Pick a good program. Pick a highly rated program. The brand *is* part of the value of an MBA, and frankly, the lower rated programs aren't that much cheaper. Here in the Bay Area, Haas (Berkeley) has a great ranking (top 5 in part time rankings, recently been in the top 10 for full time). I am currently a student at Haas (in the PT program), and I can't understand why people would pick a different program in this region. Stanford, unfortunately, doesn't have a part time program.

I agree with the previous poster who said you need to have an idea what you want out of it. Go in with a plan on how you're going to get value from the MBA, and just from being a student. I'm amazed at the access I get just by being an MBA student. It opens a lot of doors. But you need to be very goal directed to get this value.

I can't agree with the person who said networking in a PT program isn't good. As a current PT student, I have an *amazing* network of rising stars at a number of bay area companies, right now. Comparing notes with some co-workers who are recent graduates from the FT programs at Wharton, Stanford, Columbia, it's clear that my network is broader, more active, and more useful right now than their networks.

So - to your actual question. If you are in the Bay Area, pick Berkeley (I'm biased, obviously). Really, you can gain a lot of value from any part time MBA program. But talk to people, figure out how *you* can gain value from an MBA, and then go from there.
[A]: Which part-time MBA program will add value to a software developer with 15 years experience?

[Q]: Generally, film geeks tend to come down in favor of Vertigo or Notorious, but the previously mentioned North By Northwest gets a lot of votes, too.

Notorious is usually cited by European critics because of the amazing work by both Cary Grant and Ingrid Bergman, plus it is the film that introduced the concept of the McGuffin. Essentially, this is the plot device that everything seems to be hinging upon while the story is doing something else (much sneakier) in the background. In Notorious, the McGuffin is (are) the wine bottles full of uranium.

I tend to think that Vertigo is his best because it's just so damn unbelievable and over-the-top but he still pulls it off. Jimmy Stewart was never better in his whole career and the cinematography, music and mood is just amazing.

Other (not yet mentioned) great Hitchcock films that you must see would be:

1. Early Period: The Thirty-Nine Steps (1939), The Lady Vanishes, Strangers on a Train
2. Middle-Period: The Trouble with Harry (very funny), Suspicion, Rebecca
3. Later: Rear Window, and Psycho (of course)
[A]: what was Hitchcock best movie?

[Q]: Defeated from the lackluster performance of Don't Tell a Soul, Paul Westerberg planned on recording a solo album, but Sire rejected the idea. Consequently, the next Replacements album, All Shook Down, was a solo Westerberg record in all but name. Recorded with a cast of session musicians as well as the band, All Shook Down was a stripped-down, largely acoustic affair that hinted at the turmoil within the band. Chris Mars left shortly after its fall 1990 release, claiming that Westerberg had assumed control of the band; he would launch a solo career two years later. The Replacements toured in support of All Shook Down, with Steve Foley, formerly of the Minneapolis-based Things Fall Down, as their new drummer. Neither the tour nor the album were successful, and the Replacements quietly disbanded in the summer of 1991.
[A]:
Why did the Replacements break up?