As a college student at Swarthmore, I never got a flu shot. I had a bad flu in grad school at Berkeley, graduated and began to teach at Cornell. During those (about) 10 years, I got a shot maybe twice. After moving to Columbia, I always got a shot. If my memory serves, Swarthmore did not offer "flu shot fairs"; neither did Berkeley nor Cornell (at least they did not advertise much). Columbia has long been very aggressive about offering and advertising them. a) Was my behavior rational at each stage in life? Discuss briefly, with reference to costs and benefits. b) Did my behavior impose an externality? c) Is Columbia making a better decision than did Swarthmore, Berkeley, and Cornell? Discuss briefly using a supply/demand graph. d) Might the physical location of these schools help account for their choices? e) The text refers to "command and control" and "(Pigouvian) tax/subsidy" approaches to dealing with externalities. Which is Columbia using?