The
first quote is from the Head of the Masters Programme at Cass (City University)
Business School which has launched a joint programme in ‘quantitative finance’
with Singapore Management University.
The rather questionable claim is that ‘the pre-eminence of British
Education is here to stay’, a claim that those at Harvard, INSEAD and IMD might
want to question! They might also roll
their eyes at the further reference to the ‘UK’s great research and teaching
standards’ and ‘extraordinary achievements’.
I believe that some of our business schools are pretty good but this is
way over the top.
Despite
this questionable start, the article still provides some interesting information
and insights into trends in management education. It follows the quote from Cass by admitting
that, though some UK institutions may be extending their influence abroad, the
number of international students coming to UK business schools is in consistent
decline. Overall enrolment is at an
eight year low and is 21% down on the numbers only three years ago.
Just
when it is in danger of becoming interesting, the article strays from its main
theme when it tries to make references to the implications for SMEs - Small and
Medium Enterprises - but the links are tenuous to say the least. The Head of Henley’s Executive Education claims
that the expansion of business education into Asia somehow opens opportunities
for SMEs, with business schools offering inside knowledge and even arranging
meetings for SME managers.
Apparently
Henley is expanding physically into Asia with a wholly owned campus in Saudi
Arabia and a planned launch into Malaysia.
Strathclyde Business School has chosen to make similar moves into
Africa. This strategic response to
declining numbers at home is seen as the best way to counter increasing
competition from the major consulting firms and specialist training
organisations. Despite the increase of
on-line learning, Mike Brooks of Henley believes that ‘getting on a plane to
deliver learning remains the best option for delivery to students’.
This is
still in line with the views of many buyers in top international companies -
though increasing numbers are changing their mind as virtual classroom technology and expertise develops - but it does beg the question of why you therefore need
a campus in Saudi Arabia as a base for those who are to catch the planes. MTP’s experience is that the physical location
of those who deliver business training is becoming less and less important, it
is the ability to be flexible and to tailor material to each company and
culture that matters. And those who try
to compensate for falling numbers in the UK by establishing expensive overheads
abroad are exposing themselves to much higher risk.
There is
however no doubt that the route of collaboration with institutions in other
countries can pay off and the IOD finds room in the article to describe its own
educational activities in a wide range of countries. The author quite reasonably asks the IOD’s
Director of Learning & Development, Ryan Ahearn, why countries that are wanting to develop
their own skills should look to the UK and the answer is that ‘the UK’s
professional qualifications are well respected overseas’. Ahearn suggests that partnership with local
institutions is the way forward, helping such organisations to develop their
own resources.
Susan
Roth of Cass Business School continues the self-serving tendency by claiming
that ‘British Executive Education is embedding ethical behaviour in the mindset
of a new generation of business leaders’.
I am quite prepared to believe that our ethics are more acceptable than
most countries but the activities of our banks in recent years might cause
sceptical students to doubt our pre-eminence in this area.
However,
in the battle for the gold medal in self-serving and patronising comment, Mike
Brooks of Henley surpasses even Cass and the IOD. He makes the questionable claim that ‘Western
Business Schools, as opposed to home grown ones, have a clear edge in thought
and understanding’. Even more outrageous
is his view about business training in China that ‘where bald research and
data’ as apparently delivered by consultancies is no substitute for the
‘in-depth understanding and translation’ which Henley can provide. I wonder how the Chinese feel about that.
This is
followed by a more balanced comment from Susan Hart of Strathclyde who stresses
that collaboration must be two-way and that we must forget any ideas of
imposing our western views offshore; instead we should be learning from those
in other parts of the world. Maybe she
needs to visit Henley! Bill Shedden of
Cranfield also adopts a more balanced approach by emphasising the importance of
customising content and the benefits of delivering webinars on-line.
Each of
the contributors are encouraged to make comments about the issues for SMEs but
these are contrived and few coherent points are made. No-one seems to accept the key problem for SMEs
- that they are too small to develop their own tailored training activity. Their managers are therefore limited to
generic, publicly available business courses that mainly contain content that
is more suitable for larger businesses.
How many Harvard or LBS case studies feature SME issues?
The
article would have been more convincing if it had explored this issue in more
depth rather than allowing business school representatives to make questionable
claims and contrived links to SMEs. My
main conclusion from the article is that I would have great concerns about the
future of those business schools who think that the UK is so pre-eminent and
that physical expansion into developing countries is the right strategy. But as Business Schools are among MTP’s key
competitors, I guess I should be grateful.
Read the original article;
No comments:
Post a Comment