It was a rainy Tuesday morning in
The first article was part of a special report on International Education in the IHT. The article was titled MBA a Safe Haven, by Sonia Kolesnikov-Jessop. Basically, the article addressed the fact that enrollments and applications were up for full time MBA programs. At the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology (HKUST), for example, applications for an MBA are up 50% over 2007. Although this is interesting, it isn't earth shattering news. However, what caught my eye was the following paragraph:
"But with fewer jobs for the their graduates, especially in the financial sector, and radical changes reshaping the global economy, business schools are having to rethink career services offerings, and in some cases their curriculums."
Ok, then. Now I am awake, and I push back my cereal to read on. I am seduced by this article, thinking maybe, just maybe, business schools might start building MBA programs that address execution, which might focus more on how to get predictable business results (hmm, maybe project, program and portfolio management), rather than pure analytical skills. And so, I eagerly read on while my cereal got soggier.
Well, the seduction continued. George Yip, Dean of the Rotterdam School of Management was quoted in the article as saying that corporations are becoming far more cautious about sponsoring employees in their pursuit of an MBA. In fact, he said:
"Given that there are advantages to having more qualified managers, there has also been a trend to more business case-style applications...with a firm cost-benefit analysis."
Now we're talking! I knew it would come soon...I believed that the article would quote academic executives that would say something like "graduates need more skills and competencies in areas like project, program, and portfolio management." I just knew it. Who cares about the cereal, I am going to read about an intellectual breakthrough!
As luck would have it, I was disappointed. Though the article proved to be interesting, and to some extent valuable, it didn't play out they way I had hoped. Instead, it placed heavy emphasis on career coaching and outplacement help, except for one very disappointing quote from Stephen DeKrey, MBA program director and senior associate dean of the business school at HKUST.
He said that graduates in the future will face a different marketplace, with Government playing "...an increased role in corporates, and it's important for students to understand that." Fair enough! He goes on to explain that they need to change curriculum to address the changing marketplace. The big question is how will curriculum be changed?
Well, disappointment reigned when he said that the school was considering making "macro-economics" part of the core curriculum, rather than an elective. He states that "...all of what's happening worldwide is macro. It's a worldwide phenomena, and it just shows the importance of that knowledge base."
Forgive my cynicism, but I just don't get it. Do we want graduates that can readily distinguish between supply-side and trickle down economics? Or do we want graduates who can successfully manage change that will transform the organization they work for? If, as the article says, there are fewer jobs in the financial sector, then why are universities considering changes that continue to prepare them for the same environment? It seems like "more of the same."
You know, there is a quote that I use often, but can't take credit for. It goes something like this: "Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results is the definition of insanity."
I wonder, are we really going to get a different graduate, more capable of managing in this kind of environment -- or are we teetering on the brink? I don't know, but unless things have changed in the business world, I believe it is still all about results.
More later.
