BU vs NorthEastern vs Babson vs Bentley

Lergnom
Sun, 19 Apr 2009 00:14:24 +0000

Are you trying to gain some knowledge from an answer to why I chose this metaphor? If there is and if you can phrase what that is, I’ll try to provide it.

Do you want to know why I chose that metaphor?

You keep pointing out things about MBA programs - like they all use teams, etc. - when the comparison I was making is whether undergrad business programs do that and the degree to which that is integrated as a philosophy into the curriculum. I’ve clarified that point now like 3 times but you harp on the obvious, that SOM is not SMG. Well, duh. If I say, “That guy is as big as a mountain,” I’m not saying he’s actually a mountain. Perhaps the issue is that you didn’t go to an undergrad business program so you don’t know how they differ. (Or maybe you’re a quant and need me to state this as a regression. :))

I was kind of thrown off by your use of the words “philosophy spew is nonsense” not only because my metaphor was explicitly about philosophy but because education in general is about philosophy. Different schools not only have differing philosophies, they trumpet those differences and use them to market themselves.

This is obvious in graduate business programs: Harvard’s case method, SOM’s “organizational perspectives” in its “integrated curriculum,” Sloan’s use of the phrase “visionary pragmatists,” etc. You may consider this all to be “spew” but the schools spend a hell of a lot of time thinking and talking and planning based on how they understand and then articulate their specific “spew.”

Undergrad - note the word - business schools also have philosophies. Maybe you’re unfamiliar with undergrad business but SMG has an articulated philosophy. Babson talks about entrepreneurship. Northeastern’s philosophy is rooted in the co-op. If I knew anything about Bentley, I’d know it’s philosophy too. (Looked it up: “a new kind of business leader.”)

Now, if you’re going to illustrate the difference between the undergrad business school philosophy of say BU and Northeastern, you have a number of valid options. You could, for example, recite the mission statements. You could pick a program that has similarities and point at the similarities. You could pick substantially different programs to highlight what one is not. I could list more options, but the point is that each of these is a valid method - and the three above could be described as “here is what each is, here is what this is like, here is what this is not like” or “descriptive, metaphorically same, metaphorically different” or, in essence, how inquiry works.

In specifics, it would make no sense to draw this particular illustration to Wharton because it doesn’t fit in any way at all. Wharton’s philosophy is straight-forward: we’ve been here forever, we’re big and powerful, we’re great. Sloan also wouldn’t work because their concept is that MIT is engineers and we’re from that DNA so we have the pragmatism of engineering but we’re also seers and thus are “visionary pragmatists.” No comparison in philosophy at all. Harvard doesn’t work because they’re case study - and proprietary ones at that - and no one outside of Harvard really knows what the heck that means. SOM? Well, SOM talks about “organizational principles” and “integrated curriculum” in words that sound similar to the words used by SMG.

[Spoiler Alert - scroll down]

I chose this metaphor because I spoke recently with an old friend who teaches at SOM and the school was in my mind.