|
The last two decades have been a tumultuous
time for the traditional B-School.
The explosion of distance learning and satellite campuses, the introduction of
the executive MBA, and the onset of increased competition amongst colleges and universities
has shaken the foundation of many long-standing, established business programs. To add insult
to injury, there is now a plethora of metrics that attempts to objectify the process of
determining where the business programs rank amongst
the many competing institutions worldwide. This intentionally provocative article seeks to:
1) challenge what B-School evaluators are
accessing in determining superiority in business
education, 2) address if these rankings and metrics
translate into superior pedagogical outcomes and 3)
provide an alternative model that promotes market competition amongst universities and results
in improved critical thinking of students and improved educational outcomes overall.
The challenge of B-School comparisons and rankings is to ensure the emergence of
healthy competition and improved educational
outcomes. Unfortunately, many comparative studies to
date failed to measure true educational advancement
or lead to true improved academic results. Many commercial rankings - academicians
and practitioners argue - are more a media marketing tool to drive magazine readership or
overall advertising support from higher ranking institutions, challenging the objectivity of
the statistics and the criteria on which the
evaluations are based. Scholarly rankings are flawed as
well, as many in higher education challenge that
the measurement criteria are not based on
evaluating the quality of a university's ability to
educate.
Villanova Professor, Jonathan Doh argues that B-Schools should be evaluated on their ability
to advance knowledge, learning and impact, challenging that our existing ranking system for
B-Schools and other academic institutions fail to measure an institution's ability to
advance learning, knowledge and relevant
understanding.
McGill University Professor, Nancy Adler and University of Melbourne
Professor, Anne Wil-Harzing, are outraged over the current
scholarly evaluation systems. The scholars call for
a "Temporary moratorium on rankings" until a
more reliable and valid assessment of
"Scholarly contributions can be developed" arguing that
the current assessment system is flawed, dysfunctional and fails to address the
questions that plague our global business
organizations. The professors challenge that the current
ranking mechanisms foster an overall emphasis on
prolific publishing while diluting and drawing scholarship away from a university's
fundamental purpose. |
