Three articles on the issues around business school education

• The pedagogy of the privileged, Economist September 26th
• Enlightenment rules, Director October 2009
• MBA focus report, Times 5th October
• A recipe for MBA success, Management Today October 2009

For this review I have taken three recent articles and a Times Supplement that all cover the issues around business school education. I am taking the Economist article first because, despite being the shortest, it is the most interesting and challenging.

The Economist’s message is mainly directed at the top business schools in the USA but should have meaning for all those who claim to prepare potential senior managers for their future roles in business life. It is reflecting the widespread feeling in the USA that places like Harvard and MIT should be feeling some guilt and responsibility for the irresponsible actions of their graduates that led to the financial crisis, for instance the former CEOs of Lehman Bros, Merrill Lynch and HBOS were all MBAs at the top schools. Enron was also a company that was’ stuffed with Harvard MBAs from top to bottom.’

The issue raised in the article is whether this means that management education should start again from scratch or merely initiate changes in tone and curriculum. The anonymous author comes out in favour of the latter, making the point that, despite financial crises and scandals, companies that are run in accordance with MBA theory are generally more successful. There is therefore still a steady demand for top MBAs from leading companies and countries.

The main change required, it is suggested, is more challenge and scepticism about the companies that are studied on MBA courses and a more realistic study of genuine history, not the ‘puffs’ that companies like Enron have received in case studies of their transient success. It is argued that it is not enough to paper over the cracks with token sessions on business ethics; there is a need for professors to move away from their tendency to boost their favourite companies via fawning case studies and to be more challenging around fads and ‘supercorps’. They must show greater independence of thought, a surprising criticism of institutions that are supposed to lead the way in the development of theory.

How then do the other three contributions match up against the Economist article? The answer is – not too well, because all three are barely hidden puffs for some business schools, presumably selected on the basis of willingness to contribute and advertising potential.

The Director’s contribution is the best of the three because it does face up to the issue raised by the Economist and allows the Heads of several UK schools to say how they have adapted to the recession. Most claim that these hard times have not materially reduced numbers enrolling for MBAs and there are the usual platitudes about the need to invest in people during the downturn. There are also several comments about business ethics receiving more attention but no sign of the more challenging approach suggested by the Economist article.

The Times supplement confirms the apparent buoyancy of the MBA market though one wonders if this is a concerted attempt to raise morale and present a ‘hard to get’ image to potential applicants. The supplement contains a number of interesting contributions, though one has to accept that its whole purpose is clearly to generate more business for the schools who contribute. The short article that stands out is from Leigh Drake, Dean of Nottingham Business School, who also seems to realise that business schools must bear some responsibility for the financial scandals and crises and recommends fundamental changes if they are to retain credibility.

The Management Today article adds very little, making some general and obvious points about the need for ROI and the requirements of a successful MBA student. There is however some interesting data on cost which is frequently bypassed by those who are advocating MBA benefits. The examples quoted are not the top UK names and these reveal a range of £20K to £40K, depending on whether part or full time. The issue that would have justified more attention is who pays the bill and whether the ROI on such an investment is likely to come to the individual or the company.

This could have been extended to an interesting debate on the pros and cons of in-company MBAs and why these, with a few honourable exceptions (for instance the IBM course at Warwick as mentioned in the Times Supplement) have not achieved as wide popularity as was initially expected.

To read these articles go to:
http://www.economist.com/node/14493183/comments
http://www.director.co.uk/MAGAZINE/2009/9%20October/ed_bus_ed_63_02.html
http://www.managementtoday.co.uk/news/940675/mba-business-education-guide-autumn-2009-recipe-mba-success/
We cannot locate the Times article online, if you have a link or an electronic copy please send it to alanwarner@mtpplc.com