This is a follow-up to my previous post on the MBA program rankings.
I'm intrigued with this because it touches on two timely topics for our class; research methodology and the debate surrounding the relevance of research being done in business schools.
Several good comments that pointed out various shortcomings in the Bloomberg methodology were made on my first post. These comments echo the ongoing criticism coming from academia surrounding the various methodologies being used to rank business schools. So, I wonder, if the rankings are so flawed, why does the business media continue to do them, and, why do business schools continue to take them seriously? (even while they are simultaneously protesting their very existence)
At the risk of sounding overly simplistic, I am attributing this to what I see as a series of disconnects surrounding the 'business' of business schools. It's as if all the stakeholders (students, faculties, university administrators, donors, businesses, and the business media) are taking on different agendas and driving them in different directions.
For instance, most business schools leaders would recoil at the thought of their purpose being, as the Bloomberg study said, "to channel its graduates into good jobs". Most of the top business schools compete for the top students by saying their value lies in how they prepare students to be great business leaders and entrepreneurs. Yet the Bloomberg research showed fewer than 10% of the full-time MBA students surveyed either went to start ups or started their own business and 43% of the full-time MBA students went into positions in either consulting or financial services which, coincidentally or not, is where the highest starting salaries were found.
Additionally, BloombergBusiness has set a new agenda for the conversation regarding the importance of creating new knowledge and the relevance of this once highly-regarded role of business school faculty, saying that it is irrelevant to what students or businesses want from MBA programs and/or business schools. Whether students or business leaders value the academic research done at business schools is, I believe, still an open question, but this decision is a disconnect that puts business schools in the defensive position of having to justify the value of their faculty research programs.
Lastly, Bloomberg's decisions bring to light that academic research - generally considered by the faculty to be the most prestigious and valued work of a business school - does not generate revenue for the school and that undergraduate teaching and expanding MBA programs are generating significant revenue, in both tuition and donations, for business schools that are otherwise strapped for cash. All of this highlights the disconnect between that which generates revenue for business schools, the expectations and desires of the academic business scholar, and what students, employers and donors expect from their investment in a business school.
It seems as if there are many research questions embedded in this dilemma.
Welcome to the wonderful world of higher ed! Things have changed fundamentally over the past decade in terms of how schools position their programs, and how they balance what academic leaders know to be important, and what the marketplace perceives to be important. As education becomes more expensive, and as schools are experiencing greater financial challenges, it seems that many things that were simply assumed in the past are now being called into question. In a perfect world, and educational program such as an MBA would be constructed based upon what the faculty, with input from their industry partners, determined to be the most rigorous and relevant subject matter to address, what the most important learning goals were, and what they determined to be the critical competencies necessary to develop in their students. In the days where student applications outnumbered available slots in MBA programs, there wasn't much consideration for what the "marketplace" deemed important, as many faculty believed that the "marketplace" might know what it believes to be important, but that faculty know what actually is important. Honestly...I think there is a bit of truth to that. However, times have changed. There are no longer more MBA hopefully than spots available, and schools are under more and more pressure to generate revenue in a challenging economic climate for higher ed. So...academic programs are shifting. Potential applicants and current students are now considered clients in many cases, and the academic institutions are becoming service providers. I think the change in the measurement of the Bloomberg study reflects this. Instead of MBA programs driving to develop leaders, critical thinkers, and innovators...well...screw it...let's just get them jobs so we can attract more students...who just want jobs...
ReplyDeleteAre our educational institutions in danger of transitioning from institutions of higher education, discovery, research, curiosity, and inquiry to career preparatory schools?
Correction...should have read
DeleteThere are no longer more MBA applicants than spots available...