I am not expecting this to be a high traffic topic, but there seems to have been an unusual level of interest in curricular redesign in recent years. There has been considerable buzz surrounding Yale SOM's new design, Western Ontario/Ivey's move to a one year program, and even electives being offered in the first year at UVA/Darden.

The dominant theme for many of these redesigns is of "cross functional leadership" or "education beyond the disciplinary silo system" or some broadly similar notion.

Here is one expression of this idea:
http://www.ivey.uwo.ca/mba/whyivey/cel_advantage.htm

The cross-fuctional movement seems logical enough- if real business problems present themselves as combinations of (say) finance, HR, and technology issues, why not have courses that encourage multifaceted solutions?

The first-level rebuttal is that foundation courses are supposed to focus on mastering the basics of a given subject before combining that knowledge with other subjects to address a complex problem.


In some ways this gets back to the classic question that has been stalking graduate business education for decades- Is an MBA program intended to train someone how to be a manager/leader or is it intended to provide a set of analytical tools that that s/he can apply on her own when presented with management problems? The cross-fuctional idea is related to this first concept and often views this type of learning environment as more conducive to training managers because it forces students to solve more complex problems. On the other hand, the "tool box" method is far less concerned by the concept of "academic silos" since each silo can impart valuable methods that students can combine on their own to fit the problems they actually encounter in their careers.

Good one Hjort

Hjort, from the handful of adcom's presentations I attended, 2 programs focused on stating how their programs were or had become highly flexible.

1) Chicago: they spent an important amount of time discussing how their program was very flexible and capable of maximizing every applicants experience. I won't add much to this as I'm unsure whether it's recent or not.

2) Stanford: both at their site and presentation, the recent curriculum change is discussed extensively. Again, flexible curriculum replaces fixed one.

On this particular case, they cited alumni feedback. Many respondents said they would have liked to have more seminars and flexibility in general. A large donor stated his donation was to ensure students would get more seminars.

Comparing with trends outside B-school, it makes sense that when most goods and services, from cars to mobile phones through home insurance and financial services, have been steadily becoming highly customizable so should graduate education?

But, how would a recruiter know which type of Stanford grad they'd be getting? Should they carefully deconstruct their choice of courses?

I think it's an interesting issue and I have no definitive opinion about it. In my case, I appreciate the flexibility as I have specific plans and I'd benefit from being able to specialize on some disciplines at the expense of others. But I can understand how someone would appreciate a more standardized "seal of approval".

Cheers. L.

In addition to the number of course hours that are prescribed, note that schools differ in their willingness to let students waive core courses in favor of more advanced courses.

For example, HBS is fully prescriptive in the sense that it does not permit any waivers.

HBS
"Because our aim is broad, foundational, interactive learning, all MBA students undertake the same course of study during the first year of the program. Individual courses in the first year cannot be waived."

In contrast, Chicago is is very willing to allow students to take more advanced coursework in place of the core class if they have already mastered the subject at the level of the core course.

Chicago GSB
"our extremely flexible curriculum offers options for fulfilling even the three required foundation core courses. You will not find yourself forced to repeat courses you have already mastered."


For some candidates, the fact that all students must take a large number of the same courses is an attractive prospect. A large number of core courses allows extended interaction with classmates and less "fragmentation" relative to a curriculum that is largely self-directed. On the other hand, some candidates find "lockstep" programs needlessly paternalistic and force students to take coursework that effectively duplicates what they have taken previously.

It seems logical that schools in the leader/manager mold would favor lockstep/no waiver curricula. After all, if business school is designed to teach students the craft of management, the idea of exceptions or substitutions in this process borders on anathema. On the other hand, for schools in the "analytical toolbox" mold the idea of waivers makes perfect sense. If a student already has (say) a degree in economics, why not let that student develop more advanced tools by taking a higher-level course in economics.

I think the "better" option largely comes down to the student. I have a rather limited background in business - I've never taken acctg or finance or even stats.

I certainly need to take the basic course for all of these topics. And when I am learning something new, I prefer to get a solid, basic overview of the topic before I "muddy" it up with other aspects. I fear I would miss important pieces of any topic in a more integrated approach.

Overall, I think it's great that different schools have different approaches. Different strokes, etc etc. It allows us to choose based on our own understanding of what will best serve our needs and goals.

other thoughts?[/i]

I'm finding this thread useful too, and was hoping to revive the discussion now that Stanford is going to implement its new curriculum this fall. I went to their infosession and really liked the flexibility offered by the curriculum. Did any other schools implement the change? What's the feedback like?

How about a rough discussion for the elite schools too, like Haas, UCLA, Stern, etc...?

Just checking to see if the Elite schools will be covered in the near future? =)