Della Bradshaw, The Financial Times Business Education editor.
I am always rather amused when business schools point an accusing finger at newspapers and complain that we are there to make money.
Is making money such a bad thing? Is that what you teach in business school?
If newspapers didn't make money through sales and advertising, how on earth could they continue to "educate, entertain and inform"?
I am also rather concerned about Prof Thomas's comments that rankings are too important to be left to the media, and should be carried out by the industry bodies, such as AACSB, AMBA, Equis and GMAC.
To begin with, I do not believe organisations which are financed by the business schools are best placed to carry out these kinds of rankings, nor that this type of assessment would carry weight with potential students and employers.
Second, I think you would have a hard time persuading 500-1,000 schools to accept a single set of criteria.
At the FT we constantly ask business schools to assess topics, such as the research publications we use to compile our rankings. It never ceases to amaze me how many professors write to me, often in quite insulting tones, to tell me the FT research list is ludicrous because it does not include the "Journal of socio-accounting political economics in the Isle of Wight", or somesuch.
I really do think organisations such as AACSB and Equis have a vital role in helping to define industry standards. That was why I think it is so important that they talk to each other. As Prof Iniguez writes, Equis is now publishing a glossary of terms for business schools to adopt. But will this be seen as an end in itself, or a starting point for working with AACSB and GMAC in the US to produce international standards?
Perhaps Prof Thomas, with experience as a dean in both Europe and the US, could act as honest broker here?
Comments