Yash Gupta, Dean of the USC Marshall School of Business, Robert R. Dockson Dean’s Chair in Business Administration
In much the same way that corporations are being driven to produce immediate returns for stakeholders, many management educators seem compelled to generate instantaneous responses to public criticism. As institutions specializing in intelligent management, we can’t afford the classic marketing mistake of knee-jerk reactions. Our schools are in business for the long haul and we must maintain the breadth of and integrity of our objectives. This doesn’t mean we accept current levels of achievement or that we resist change. Staying the course is rooted in a vision that bolsters and builds upon our unique strengths and hews to these fundamentals.
Leverage what we do best.
In their eagerness to respond to criticism, many business schools have tried too hard to act like businesses rather than acting like business schools that know and understand their mission and assets. Recently, business schools have imported ideas from the business community like hands-on learning programs, but without the benefit of theory. This is the wrong approach. Learning on the job is a centuries-old practice, but one the best business schools in the world cannot possibly match. In a business school, students are free to experiment and err without financial peril. Business schools should provide the "safe laboratory" to take concept and theory, convert them to strategies and tactics, and finally implement them for a "reality check."
Emphasize soft skills.
We are often told that the "soft skills" of leadership, teamwork, and swift decision-making are missing in business schools. Some have argued that these are un-teachable elements but I submit these can be taught and reinforced. We must add these elements to the classroom, not only as separate courses, but as fundamental themes.
Strengthen and expand the hard skills.
Even if we enhance our training in the soft skills, it’s still a given that no one wants fewer "hard skills. Beyond the basics – finance, accounting, marketing, etc. -- we must add a fundamental understanding of economics and international trade.
Broaden our entrance requirements.
Graduate education starts with the premise that entrants have absorbed the foundation of communications and mathematics needed for management. Business schools must broaden and raise entrance requirements. The singular stress on scores (e.g., GMAT), is dangerously narrowing the spectrum of managers we produce. At the same time, however, we must not turn aside applicants who lack outstanding leadership and teamwork backgrounds. If we accept so-called "soft skills" as essential to management, business schools must infuse each course with these skills
Add another dimension to case studies.
How can we compress the knowledge process? In effect, by smarter teaching. The case study approach has been our classic teaching tool but it needs drastic overhaul. Nearly a century old, it remains effective but at the same time is primitive. Technology, thoughtfully applied, can bring a new era to cases and the teaching methodology. Using simulations and computerized models to build three-dimensional, interactive laboratories will more realistically replicate the marketplace.
Integrate breadth of knowledge beyond the business school.
Classic business tools must be welded with fields too often dismissed as separate and exclusive of business -- the arts, humanities, history, environmental, political, and cultural studies. In the end, the top-flight managers are the individuals who can link "hard" and "soft" skills, and who possess a macro-understanding of the global environment.
Obviously, all of us want our business schools to be relevant and attuned to changing needs and environments. It is our opportunity—and indeed our obligation—to create educational experiences that exceed our "customers’" wildest dreams.
When evaluating a program, it is difficult to appreciate the impact of what are seemingly insignificant attributes to the program. In USC's emba program, grading is unique. Instead of receiving discrete grades, students are given a single grade for all courses in a theme (semester). I have alluded to this in a prior post. Theme grading undermines the program. It allows for the administration to ignore weaknesses in the individual courses and it also allows students to “game” the system. The actual process is hidden from the student, the nearest I can tell is grades are assigned on a statistical basis for each course in the theme (semester). A true curve is used in combination with std deviations away from the curve. Based on an aggregate, a theme grade is assigned. How can students “game” the system. I did not have an appreciation for theme grading until the end of theme 2. I did very well in 3 of the courses, nearly two std deviations from the mean in one course. However, in 1 course, I essentially failed the course with almost two std deviations below the mean. According to the USC catalog, all courses below C (2.0) are not acceptable and must be repeated. Since the emba program runs lockstep, there is no possibility to repeat a course. I think USC came up with this grading to keep more students enrolled in the program. More students, more fees. According to the USC catalog, all courses below C (2.0) are not acceptable and must be repeated. Since the emba program runs lockstep, there is no possibility to repeat a course. I think USC came up with this grading to keep more students enrolled in the program. More students, more fees
Posted by: EMBA Student | Saturday, 17 May 2008 at 12:14 PM