Thank you for sharing this interesting article, Jeff. I think there are some things that we can definitely take away from the article but also a few issues I have with the author's stance that I think could be debated.
Great takeaways:
- Issues with rigor: the author quoted an advertising executive from the 1960's saying that "business courses in many cases are catchalls for inferior students who cannot or will not try to make the grade in more rigorous programs." For some reason, this is still the perception. Given that I teach entrepreneurship, I get a mix of majors and students in my courses. There is still the perception that any courses in management or in entrepreneurship in particular are "easy" classes compared to taking a course that seems tough, like chemistry. However, I have had students drop my courses when they found out that wasn't the case. Not only do we need to make sure our courses are rigorous, but contribute to making the perception as such. As I say to students "if being an entrepreneur is not easy, why would a class about it be?"
- Complacency: I agree there is a certain level of complacency in many b-schools. Getting more donor money than most other programs on campus means that we don't have to apply for grants or "justify" what we do to as much to external stakeholders. However, I have met many individuals who are doing great work and aren't complacent. I would agree that the system certainly allows for a lot of it.
- Unification of the mission: I agree that there are some issues with business schools having different motivations and missions. We should have a more united front on what exactly our purpose is to society.
Some issues:
- Vast generalizations: While many of the problems discussed in the article plague business schools to some extent, not all are the same. For instance, Mr. Conn states that "schools of agriculture have developed into thriving places that marry pure research with practical application… in the best combination. Business schools, on the other hand, cannot make the same claims, either to academic success or to public utility." I am sure there are great agriculture programs that do just that and some that do not. I would say business schools would be in the same boat.
- Training students to become productive members of the workforce is not necessarily a bad thing: the author states "develop a new cancer treatment drug in a university lab, and no one would deny that the research constitutes a public good; teach students in an upper-division marketing class new ways to sell drugs to consumers more aggressively, and that starts to feels like the university has become a subsidiary of Big Pharma." I think this is a particularly interesting example for a few reasons.
First, it is easy to say if a field isn't trying to cure cancer, it is inferior. Just because the field itself is inherently different or seems less altruistic as another, does not mean it should not exist or doesn't have role in society. Also, curing cancer is not purely altruistic… we all know there is a lot of money and accolades associated with doing well as a scientist!
Second, sometimes training a student to get a job, make money, support themselves, and influence others in a positive way IS benefitting society. This is particularly true for those of us working at public universities where we get students that had a legitimate chance of ending up unemployed, homeless, in jail, or dead without the opportunity to get a college degree and have a career.
Third, it is not accurate to say that nothing we teach in business contributes to the overall good of society. There are of course obvious examples such as social entrepreneurship, economic development, etc. However, the act of creating or running organizations can truly positively impact individuals, communities, and ultimately our world. Organizations are more than soulless entities trying to take people's money. Look at the theme for Academy this year. We aren't all heartless!
- Sensationalizing a few examples: as an entrepreneurship professor, I have an open discussion with my students in my 300-level class about the role a college education plays in entrepreneurship. We make lists of what you can learn about business and entrepreneurship outside of the classroom and inside of classroom. Typically, the lists are of equal length. Yes, as the author pointed out, "To become a doctor routinely requires more than a decade of education after high school, while any high school dropout can go into business." Sure, a college dropout can start a business or work in some business fields (I think he is ignoring the certifications required to be an accountant or financial advisor, for instance). However, that really isn't the case for MOST Americans. If you ask most people, who are successful business owners without college degrees? They typically name Steve Jobs, Mark Zuckerberg, Bill Gates, and so forth. A Black Enterprise article (Spiropoulos, 2014) pointed out that on that list made by Business Insider of the top 100 entrepreneurs without college degrees that there were only 2 were people of color (both who were entertainers turned entrepreneurs). I looked at this list and only found 5 women. While some dropouts can ease into business, it is not as realistic for everyone, particularly those who don't have as many resources at their fingertips. If you look at Census Bureau data, entrepreneurs are more educated, on average, than the general population. While some CAN be successful in business without a college education, it doesn't mean the degree is useless to everyone.
Saying that "Trump exemplifies exactly the kind of man for whom business school was invented" is a bit harsh. I think that would equivocate me saying that history, literature, and arts degrees were invented to create more interesting bartenders. I kid! But I think he took a cheap shot here.
- More recent examples: I know the guy is a historian, but pointing out people's issues from the 1960's with business schools can only get you so far. His discussion about the financial crisis was the only recent example. Mr. Conn states that "business schools surely deserve a great deal" of blame for the Great Recession. While I think we can all admit to some blame landing on what has been taught in business schools, the author cannot both say business schools don't actually train people to work in businesses and that business schools do actually train people to work in businesses and what they are teaching them is wrong. I also wouldn't state that "business schools failed to see what was coming" in regards to the recession. Speaking as someone who was in a business school prior to and during the recession, a lot of people did! However, just knowing what is coming is not always enough to stop it. As a history professor, he should understand how phenomenon work. Should I blame the history professor from not stopping war from happening again since they should have known the warning signs?
Overall, interesting article and I would be interested to see what others have to say.
------------------------------
Christina Tupper
Assistant Professor
North Carolina A&T State University
------------------------------
Original Message:
Sent: 02-22-2018 10:05
From: Jeffrey Pollack
Subject: recent article in Chronicle of Higher Education
Hi all,
Many of you have seen a recent article in the Chronicle of Higher Education (from Feb 20th). It is titled, " Business Schools Have No Business in the University." It is attached.
I thought the article offered a very interesting perspective.
In particular, two things (among others) stood out.
1. Regarding the "good" that business schools create, the author asks:
"Is their task to teach and research about American business, or do business schools work for business? The difference was and remains critical. In their production and dissemination of knowledge, universities serve a public good. Do business schools function in the same way, or do they simply provide information that benefits profit-making companies and train their future workers?"
2. Regarding the outcome of business schools, the author claims:
"Unable to truly create a profession of business, business schools more often function as finishing schools for the new junior executive."
For the most part (but definitely not all), those of us in academia who are scholars in entrepreneurship do so in schools of business, and colleges of management. So, here are my 2 questions-How can we, as academics, be better at our role in enabling students (undergrad, MBA, and PhD) to thrive and be positive contributing members of society? And, how can we be better at communicating to key stakeholders (both inside and outside the University) that what we do is beneficial?
Thoughts?
Best, Jeff