When I first stepped into university, the calendars showed the beginning of the 21st century. Everything in universities was slower, more physical, more class-oriented. Information was sacred, access to information was difficult. Classrooms were the temple of information, and professors were the carriers of truth. There were no smartphones or tablets, laptops were a luxury for students, and carrying a laptop, if you had one, was another problem. The professor would draw a diagram on the board, and in a world where you couldn’t take out your phone and take a photo of the board, there was no other choice but to take notes because that drawing was neither in the library nor on Google.

Therefore, students had to go to class to access information. It was difficult to understand what the professor was saying without hearing it, without being in that environment. The lesson was unique, like the professor’s voice. In fact, most of the time, even a friend’s notes were not enough to help. Information was alive, bound to space and limited to time. Therefore, coming to class was not a choice, it was a necessity.

We are now in a period where artificial intelligence tools are directly involved in daily education, where we question the place of information rather than access to it. We should admit that the questions of students who come to class asking, “What is here that ChatGPT cannot give me?” are quite legitimate. Do students have to go to class to learn course content today? To be honest, I don’t know. But I have some answers to this question, although I am not sure of their accuracy, but I am convinced about them.

Here, I think the question needs to be reformulated first. Can they find the content I teach in class in a complete, contextual, interpreted, and pedagogically filtered form from a scattered internet sea? It is easy to access information, but I think it is still difficult to establish meaning. Indeed, finding information is not enough, you need to know what to associate with what, in what context to analyze. Courses are areas that establish this context, transforming information from “memorization” to “meaning”. If all you need is information, then yes, Wikipedia or ChatGPT are more than enough. But constructing meaning, guiding thought, and providing a framework remain the tasks of the course and the professor.

At this point, another very reasonable question can be raised. So why do we invite students to the class instead of recording lessons and sharing them with students? If we take this question a step further, we need to accept that when we record lessons as videos today, we produce not only a narrative but also a data set. These video contents are not only watched again by students, they also become open to analysis by artificial intelligence systems. My diction, my example selection, the time I allocate to topics, questions, and answers, all of these become data that can be analyzed. This means that what is explained in the lesson becomes not only a pedagogical object but also a digitally reproducible object.

So why don't I record a video of the lesson and share it, but I re-teach it every semester? Because I don't see teaching a lesson as just "transferring information." Narration is shaped by the rhythm of the moment, the reaction of the class, and the student's current state. The same joke works one day, and the class remains silent the next. The same example may attract the student's attention one year, but lose meaning the following year. The value of live narration lies not in the content but in the context, relationship, and interaction.

Therefore, the video of the lesson can be watched, but the classroom is lived. This difference is, in my opinion, the only pedagogical area that the digital age has not yet been able to fully replace. Therefore, I am in favor of seeing the lesson as a relationship that can be “established” and not just “recorded.” And this relationship should be reestablished and breathed anew each semester.

Or maybe this article is just the ravings of an academic trying to produce romantic justifications for an outdated educational process. I don’t know. Time will tell.

Why the Right Kind of Thinking Leads to More Ethical Decisions at Work

Based on our article published in the Journal of Business Ethics

Authors: Öykü Arkan Tunç, Mahak Nagpal, Tobey Scharding, and Danielle Warren

In today’s fast-moving work environment, we all make countless decisions every day—some routine, some high-stakes, and others that challenge our moral compass. But when it comes to doing the right thing, is it better to trust your gut or to pause and think it through?

In our recent study, published in the Journal of Business Ethics, we explored this very question. While philosophical traditions have long emphasized the importance of ethical reasoning, recent findings in behavioral ethics have painted a more skeptical picture, suggesting that deliberation, especially when dealing with conflicting viewpoints, might sometimes lead people to make less ethical choices.

That sounded counterintuitive to us. So, we asked: could it be that what people think about, not just how much they think, is what really matters?

We focused on something called normative deliberation—the kind of thinking that involves reflecting on moral values, ethical principles, and the interests of stakeholders. We wanted to know: Does encouraging this kind of reflection actually lead to better ethical decisions?

Across six experiments, we compared people who were asked to think normatively with those who were prompted to think in non-ethical ways, like solving math or logic problems. The results were clear: normative deliberation consistently led to more ethical judgments, intentions, and behaviors. People who were encouraged to think about what’s morally right made better choices, without any sign that deliberation itself led to worse behavior.

So what does this mean for organizations?

It suggests that fostering ethical behavior isn’t about telling people to “just follow their instincts.” Instead, it’s about creating a culture where people are encouraged to reflect on what’s right and why. This can be done through ethics training, stakeholder analysis exercises, or simply encouraging thoughtful conversations about values.

In short, when people think about ethics the right way, they’re more likely to act ethically. And that’s something organizations can actively support.
 

Why Are Inflation Expectations Important?

In an economy like Turkey’s, where prices are constantly rising, understanding inflation expectations is of great importance. Inflation expectations show what people think inflation will be in the coming months or years. So why are these expectations so important?
Because expectations shape reality.
When people think inflation will rise in the future, they take precautions today and try to protect themselves from price increases. Consumers bring their shopping forward, stock up, or demand higher salaries. Companies start raising their prices and creating relatively long-term contracts in line with these expectations, thinking that costs will increase. Professionals, on the other hand, carry out asset pricing according to these expectations. This set of behaviors causes expectations to turn into inflation itself over time.
That’s why central banks like the Central Bank of the Republic of Turkey (CBRT) keep a close eye on inflation expectations. If expectations are “anchored”—that is, if people trust that inflation will be kept under control—central bank policies are more effective and inflation is easier to control. Because if everyone believes in the same expectation anchor, that expectation turns into realized inflation. It wouldn’t be wrong to call this a “self-fulfilling prophecy.” But if expectations get out of control, the economy starts to sail through stormy waters like a ship without a compass, and no one can predict where realized inflation will end up. This environment of uncertainty is the last thing policymakers want.
So, whose expectations are more important? Households make their consumption and savings decisions based on inflation expectations. Therefore, households can put pressure on prices through demand. But at the end of the day, it is companies that determine prices and salaries. Therefore, perhaps we should listen to the expectations of companies the most. If companies expect inflation to increase, they increase their prices, adjust their contracts according to this expectation, and offer their customers prices in line with this expectation. They may also have to offer higher salaries to avoid losing their employees to other companies. Such steps will further increase the actual inflation.

 

These results are not based solely on theoretical models. Recent empirical studies have shown that there is a strong correlation between firms’ inflation expectations and pricing, employment, investment, and borrowing decisions, especially during periods of high inflation. If firms expect inflation to fall, they become more optimistic about the future, less inclined to increase their prices, and more willing to invest. In short, confidence in the future increases as uncertainty decreases.

In short, inflation expectations are not just a forecasting tool, they are a policy target for economic stability. If we want to steer the economy in the right direction, understanding what firms expect regarding inflation can be one of the most powerful compasses we have.