Issue link: http://www.e-digitaleditions.com/i/57875
Critical Mass Critics of the MBA abound, even within our own ranks. An analysis suggests, however, that while there is a kernel of truth in some criticisms, often the claims are incomplete, unfounded, and off-base. by Paul Danos I t has become fashionable for journalists and business faculty to proclaim the devaluation of the MBA and predict the demise of modern business educa- tion. Two or three years ago, business schools seemed vulnerable. Applica- tions were down at many schools, salary growth for graduates had moder- ated, and many industry observers linked those trends to fundamental problems with business education. Now that applications are up for two out of three business schools and the demand for MBAs is through the roof, we might be tempted to use these positive trends to shrug off any criticisms. Instead, I believe we must study and evaluate the charges, which largely focus on faculty. Critics have claimed that faculty are studying irrelevant issues, using out- dated materials, failing to integrate topics across the curriculum, focusing too much on theory, wasting time on esoteric research, and failing to obtain enough practical experience before they teach a class. In short, the criticisms boil down to four main groups, each in turn suggesting that faculty are: • Not managerial enough. • Not student-centered enough. • Not scientific enough. • Distracted from important scholarly work because of a focus on rankings. None of us would argue that there is not room for improvement in manage- ment education; but, in my view, these well-publicized claims are often incom- plete or invalid. In fact, each of them can be refuted. Managerial Focus The first group of critics—represented by Henry Mintzberg, Warren Bennis, and James O'Toole—claim that today's faculty are not teaching actual manage- ment skills, that they are over-emphasizing analytics, and that as a result the MBA degree has lost its value. For instance, in his 2004 book Managers Not MBAs, Mintzberg criticizes full-time MBA programs for relying too much on theory, while offering students too few experiential learning opportunities. He points out that business schools enroll students who are not experienced enough to absorb management con- cepts; don't provide authentic management experiences; and don't offer the appropriate experiential laboratory in which to learn business leadership. This line of argument overlooks the fact that at many full-time programs the average age for full-time students is not 23 or 24, but 28. Even more impor- tant, it ignores the fact that students generally graduate onto a ladder toward leadership, not into top leadership itself. This criticism also fails to take into account the fact that many MBA students are enrolled in part-time programs, where the average age is higher, and students are often already well up the lad- der toward leadership. These students do have the experience to absorb man- 40 BizEd SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2007