TU NO ESTAS SOLO EN ESTE MUNDO si te ha gustado algun artículo , compártelo, envialo a las Redes sociales, Twitter, Facebook, : Compartamos el conocimiento

martes, diciembre 06, 2005

PERSONAL BRANDING M

¿QUE ES LA MARCA PERSONAL?:

Es algo que esta desarrollando Mentorconsultores   en  Mentorchile.blogspot.com

PERSONAL BRANDING – MARCA PERSONAL – MARCA PROPIA

Preguntas Frecuentes


  1. ¿Qué es una Personal Brand Marca Personal Marca Propia?

Una Marca Personal ó Marca Propia (Personal Brand en ingés), es la proyección pública de ciertos aspectos de la personalidad, habilidades ó valores de una persona; no es el ser humano completo.

Confundir estos dos conceptos usualmente causa temor en la gente en el sentido que deben abandonar ó dejar de lado a la persona real a cambio de crear una Marca Propia ó Personal, que no es el caso.

Una Marca Propia ó Personal es la percepción de la persona que se mantiene en el tiempo, no la persona real.

No obstante lo anterior, una Marca Propia ó Personal debe siempre reflejar el verdadero carácter de la persona detrás de ella.


  1. ¿Qué es una Marca Propia ó Personal?

El concepto de Marca Propia ó Personal es controlar los procesos que afectan como otros le perciben y administrar esos procesos estratégicamente para ayudarle a alcanzar sus objetivos.


  1. ¿Quién se puede beneficiar con una Marca Propia ó Personal?

Una Marca Propia ó Personal es una necesidad en el arsenal de marketing de cualquiera.

Beneficia a profesionales que están buscando ascender en sus carreras y a emprendedores / empresarios en virtualmente cualquier campo: actores, agentes, arquitectos, artistas, atletas, abogados, autores, chefs, quiroprácticos, consultores, contadores, dentistas, asesores financieros, diseñadores de moda, diseñadores gráficos, diseñadores de interiores, corredores de seguros, profesionales de los medios de comunicación, corredores hipotecarios, especialistas en marketing, expertos en redes de contactos, médicos, fotógrafos, profesionales inmobiliarios, terapeutas, agentes de viaje, presentadores, entrenadores, corredores de bolsa, productores de eventos, mayoristas.

Si usted tiene una carrera ó una visión para desarrollar su propio negocio, una Marca Propia ó Personal le puede brindar el motor de arranque que usted necesita para triunfar.



  1. ¿Qué es lo que una Marca Propia ó Personal puede hacer por usted?

√     Conferirle un muy buen estatus de recordación
√      Aumentar su autoridad y credibilidad en sus decisiones
√     Posicionarlo en un rol de liderazgo
√     Incrementar su prestigio
√     Atraer a las personas y oportunidades correctas
√     Agregar valor percibido a lo que usted está vendiendo
√     Hacerle ganar reconocimiento
√     Asociarlo con un movimiento ó “trend”
√     Aumentar su potencial de ganancias


5. ¿Qué es lo que una Marca Propia ó Personal no hará por usted?

√     Esconder incompetencias
√     Hacerlo famoso
√     Hacer el trabajo duro por usted para que pueda alcanzar sus metas


  1. ¿Cuándo debe usted desarrollar una Marca Propia ó Personal?

√     Cuando se sienta no reconocido por sus logros
√     Cuando otros están logrando objetivos que se propuso lograr usted
√     Cuando sienta que ha dado su máximo por medios convencionales
√     Cuando quiera una ventaja sobre su competencia


  1. ¿En qué se diferencian una Marca Propia ó Personal de una Imagen Personal?

Una imagen personal es la suma de los elementos superficiales de una persona, tales como su físico, automóvil, vestimenta, oficina ó vivienda.


  1. ¿Cuál es la conexión entre Marca Propia ó Personal y Marketing Personal?

El Marketing Personal es usar su Marca Propia ó Personal en actividades de construcción y desarrollo de un negocio, tales como publicidad, mailing directo y relaciones públicas.


Fuente: www.petermontoya.com

Traducción libre por:     José María Lasa S., Consultor-Socio de MENTOR CHILE
               jmlasa@manquehue.net / www.mentorchile.blogspot.com


Santiago, 6 diciembre, 2005

PAGE ONE

PAGE ONE
           





               










RAISING THE BAR: EVEN TOP LAWYERS FAIL CALIFORNIA EXAM
FORMER STANFORD LAW DEAN, BECOMES LATEST VICTIM;
A MAYOR TRIES FOUR TIMES

By JAMES BANDLER and NATHAN KOPPEL
Staff Reporters of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
December 5, 2005; Page A1
Kathleen Sullivan is a noted constitutional scholar who has argued cases before the Supreme Court. Until recently, she was dean of Stanford Law School. In legal circles, she has been talked about as a potential Democratic nominee for the Supreme Court. But Ms. Sullivan recently became the latest prominent victim of California's notoriously difficult bar exam. Last month, the state sent out the results of its July test to 8,343 aspiring and already-practicing lawyers. More than half failed -- including Ms. Sullivan.
Although she is licensed to practice law in New York and Massachusetts, Ms. Sullivan was taking the California exam for the first time after joining a Los Angeles-based firm as an appellate specialist.
The California bar exam has created misery for thousands of aspiring and practicing lawyers. Former California Gov. Jerry Brown passed on his second try, while former Gov. Pete Wilson needed four attempts. The recently elected mayor of Los Angeles, Antonio R. Villaraigosa, never did pass the bar after failing four times.
But it's unusual for the exam to claim a top-notch constitutional lawyer at the peak of her game. "She is a rock star," says William Urquhart, who last year recruited Ms. Sullivan to join his firm, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart Oliver & Hedges LLP. "Practically every lawyer in the U.S. knows who Kathleen Sullivan is." If anyone should have passed, Mr. Urquhart says, it is Ms. Sullivan. "The problem is not with Kathleen Sullivan, it is with the person who drafted the exam or the person who graded it."
Ms. Sullivan, 50 years old, did not return phone and email messages seeking comment. Her firm said she wasn't reachable over the weekend because she was at a remote location.
Mr. Urquhart says he does not know Ms. Sullivan's score, but knows she spent little time preparing because she was inundated with work for the firm and Stanford Law School, where she now runs the school's constitutional law center. Ms. Sullivan plans to take the test again, according to Mr. Urquhart. "She'll prepare more next time," he says. "My advice to her is that she should look at 15 bar questions and 15 sample, perfect answers. That is all she'll need to pass."
The California test, by all accounts, is tough. It lasts three days, as compared with two or 2 -day exams in most states. Only one state -- Delaware -- has a higher minimum passing score. According to the National Conference of Bar Examiners, just 44% of those taking the California bar in 2004 passed the exam, the lowest percentage in the country, versus a national average of 64%.
Like many professions, lawyers are regulated by the states, and nearly every state requires passage of a bar exam for attorneys to practice law. Some states grant reciprocity to out-of-state lawyers. California does not; to be licensed in the state, one must pass the California bar exam. This July's version of the California test aimed at lawyers licensed in other states -- like Ms. Sullivan -- claimed an unusually high percentage of victims.
The two-day test, which is identical to the longer exam but omits a long multiple-choice section, had just a 28% passage rate in July, an astoundingly low figure that state bar officials are at a loss to explain. Out-of-state lawyers can take the full three-day exam if they choose.
Critics say the test is capricious, unreliable and a poor measure of future lawyering skills. Some also complain that California's system serves to protect the state's lawyers by excluding competition from out-of-state attorneys. There has been some loosening of the rules. California adopted rules last year permitting certain classes of lawyers to practice in the state without having to take the bar.
Gayle Murphy, the senior executive for admissions for the State Bar of California, says that the purpose of the bar exam is to protect the public, not to restrain competition. Great efforts are taken to make sure exam grading is fair, including use of multiple graders, she says. The exam includes six essays and two written performance tests. Each written part is assigned a separate grader. Test-takers who are close to the passing line are assigned nine more graders, so a borderline exam will have as many as 17 graders.
One reason for California's high failure rate, Ms. Murphy says, is that graduates of unaccredited and correspondence law schools are allowed in California to take the test. California's pass rate for ABA-approved schools is in line with those of other states, Ms. Murphy says. She says a possible reason for failures by practicing lawyers is that they simply don't have enough time to put in the requisite studying hours. Attending a premier law school doesn't guarantee success: former Gov. Wilson got his law degree from Berkeley, while former Gov. Brown went to Yale.
Aundrea Newsome, an attorney in Hermosa Beach, Calif., who passed the July test, limited her prep time to two months, but she worked eight to 10 hours a day, every day, during that stretch. "That is standard," she says. "You make a deal with the devil and give up two months of your life to pass."
Ms. Newsome, who graduated from the University of Southern California Law School in May, says preparing for the exam requires studying so many different legal fields, including such arcane topics as 18th-century criminal common law, that practical knowledge or even mastery of several legal subjects is not enough.
Robert Pfister, who was already licensed in Indiana, Connecticut and New York, also found the experience grueling. After the first morning of the exam, "you feel like your hand will fall off from writing so much," says Mr. Pfister, an associate with Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP who passed the July exam in California. "After the second day, you just want to go home and sleep. But then you have to come back for a third day."
Mr. Pfister, who handles securities-fraud cases and had been practicing law for about four years before taking the California bar, recalls one question where he was asked to parse the law that would apply to a disabled child who was seeking to move to a housing complex. "You can be the greatest personal-injury lawyer in the country, or mergers and acquisitions lawyer," he says. "But the stuff they give you is often some area of law you haven't dealt with."
Former Gov. Wilson describes his need to take the bar exam four times as "frustrating." He blames his difficulties on his penmanship, which he says was not messy, but very slow. "To put it in the simplest terms, if I had not learned to type, I would never have passed it," says Mr. Wilson.
A spokesman for former Gov. Brown, who is currently mayor of Oakland, Calif., says several of his classmates from Yale also failed the exam, some of whom went on to be judges and prominent lawyers.
A native of New York City, Ms. Sullivan has an undergraduate degree from Cornell University and a law degree from Harvard University. She taught at both Stanford and Harvard before becoming dean of Stanford's law school in 1999. The author of a leading constitutional-law casebook, Ms. Sullivan has argued several cases before the Supreme Court. Earlier this spring, the nation's highest court ruled in favor of one of her clients, a California winegrowers' group, striking down state laws that restricted direct sales from vineyards to consumers.
Last year, after announcing she would step down from her Stanford post, Ms. Sullivan joined the Silicon Valley office of Quinn Emanuel Urquhart to head a new appellate practice.
Ms. Sullivan is unlikely to need as many attempts as Maxcy Dean Filer, who may hold the California bar endurance record, having passed in 1991 after 47 unsuccessful tries. The Compton, Calif., man, who says he'll practice any kind of law that "comes through the door -- except probate and bankruptcy," says he always tried to psych himself up before taking the test by repeating, "I didn't fail the bar, the bar failed me."

Fumar daa el coefici

Fumar daña el coeficiente intelectual
Aunque hay quienes afirman que fumar ayuda a concentrarse o despertar, una investigación de la Universidad de Michigan muestra que es falso, que con los años el tabaco disminuye la rapidez para pensar y el coeficiente intelectual.Tras estudiar a 172 hombres, se detectó que quienes fuman disminuyeron sus habilidades mentales de forma más notoria en comparación con quienes no lo acostumbran. El estudio explica por qué algunos problemas pulmonares derivan en daños en la función neurocognoscitiva.elige cualquier día!   Source: Once TVhttp://oncetv-ipn.net/noticias/index.php?modulo=despliegue&dt_fecha=2005-11-21&numnota=79

Saludos Rodrigo González Fernández  tabaquismos21.blogspot.com