itwasme wrote:
alinomoto, you sat in his class? I've been reading through Diaminds, and to be honest, I'm not too impressed. How did you find his integrative thinking class? Is it all just, for lack of a better word, fluff and well-disguised bs? Looks like "integrative thinking" is Rotman's differentiating factor, and I'm wondering if it really is something worth, um, thinking about.
Haha. You pretty much spelled out what I thought of the book. I found it tedious and frankly, boring. Which is why I said I'd have preferred the Opposable Mind (which has good reviews). Also, he is the second author on diaminds, and it seems to be more a work of Mihnea Moldoveanu (the chair of the DeSautels Institute).
Of the Integrative thinking - of course, I only sat through one class so I cannot give a complete or full representative picture. It is essentially a method that gives structure to strategic thought and helps you organize and diagram your thought processes. A lot of it is fluff, but there are useful nuggets in there too (for instance, prioritization of issues when suggesting a course of action for a client - saving on time/money - something that the diagramming makes easier).
I am not sure if I was beginning to develop some unique way of thinking or examining problems at the end of the class. But again, I repeat my caveat that this was a single class - apparently these 2Y students have been developing these concepts from their Y1 days.
Also, I was told that they are revamping their courses to make IT (int. thinking) much up upfront and centre right from the get-go (and in the core courses). Until now, it has featured much more in Y2 electives.
Roger Martin is an affable and personable chap, but honestly I found him/his lecture quite dry. He is not a good orator, even though he may be a great thinker. I was much more impressed with Schulich's dean when I attended their event; based on oratory prowess alone. However, it is the vision and the leadership of the dean that is important, not necessarily whether they are good public orators or not.
What struck me was how the students and the staff were completely invested in what dean Martin was selling and towards his vision for Rotman. That is a big plus for a school in my books. If the staff/students are apathetic or even opposed to the dean's ideas, I tend to steer well clear of the school (no matter how good those ideas are). Leadership begins at home. So yes, in terms of a well oiled machine, I think Rotman made much more of an impression on me than Schulich (which seems to have too many arms and is trying too much at the same time to claim - "me too"). Also, I actually met a bunch of American students at Rotman, which surprised me. I asked why they chose to forgo the much higher ranked US schools for Rotman, and the common answer was their belief in the Dean's and the school's main tenets (forefront of which is "Integrative Thinking").