Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=vjeb20
Download by: [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] Date: 11 January 2016, At: 19:04
Journal of Education for Business
ISSN: 0883-2323 (Print) 1940-3356 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vjeb20
The ROOT and STEM of a Fruitful Business
Education
Frank Badua
To cite this article: Frank Badua (2015) The ROOT and STEM of a Fruitful Business Education, Journal of Education for Business, 90:1, 50-55, DOI: 10.1080/08832323.2014.973826
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08832323.2014.973826
Published online: 21 Nov 2014.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 96
View related articles
The ROOT and STEM of a Fruitful Business
Education
Frank Badua
Lamar University, Beaumont, Texas, USA
The author discusses the role of the liberal arts in a business curriculum for an increasingly science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM)–centered world. The author introduces the rhetoric, orthography, ontology, and teleology (ROOT) disciplines, and links them to the traditional liberal arts foundation of higher education. The expanded role of the ROOTs in a business curriculum and its contribution to the STEM disciplines is explored. Finally different approaches for integrating ROOTs into the business curriculum are considered.
Keywords: classical education, critical thinking, humanities, liberal arts, STEM, writing
Despite the increasing relevance of science, technology, engi-neering, and mathematics (STEM) education, it must not be forgotten that the humanities are an essential component of a business curriculum, and arguably a necessary foundation of the STEM disciplines. This paper will analyze what comprises the humanities or liberal arts, and introduce the concept of the rhetoric, orthography, ontology, and teleology (ROOT) disci-plines. Here I consider the role of the ROOTs in a business curriculum, their contribution to STEM disciplines, and sug-gest different ways by which ROOTs could be integrated into the business curriculum.
The relevance of STEM education to the business disci-plines is patent. Business school students of all majors are typically required to take business calculus and statistics courses. Courses focusing on computer technology for busi-ness functions exist throughout the busibusi-ness school catalog, taught by faculty in every business major. Degree programs such as accounting information systems and management engineering dealing with the nexus of technology and busi-ness have been carved out and soldered together from vari-ous disciplines. However, here I show that the humanities can contribute much to the business curriculum also.
HUMANITIES OR LIBERAL ARTS AND ITS ROOT COMPONENTS
The ROOTs are the humanities complement to STEM. They extend the horticultural metaphor in the other (right-brained)
direction, and are of classical Greek provenance. The acro-nym is thus a reminder of the philological fields that are overshadowed in the thicket of STEMs, despite the fact that the modern academic system was founded on them. The ROOT disciplines are inspired by, and are an amplification and extension of, the Classical Trivium, which historically formed the basis of a university education (Rait, 2010), and consists of rhetoric, grammar, and logic (Joseph, 2002). Both curricular schemes include rhetoric, which develops the abil-ity to communicate in order to inform and persuade. How-ever, as explained in subsequent sections of this article, while grammar is akin to orthography, the latter is broader, and is relevant to more than just philology or languages. Fur-thermore, while logic encompasses ontology and teleology, the distinctions made in the ROOT schema between the lat-ter subjects allows for a more precise guidance for the direc-tion of school curricula. Such precision is especially important in dealing with a curriculum as broad and dynamic as that of a business school. While none of the ROOT fields corresponds exactly to particular college majors, they are found in many humanities or liberal arts courses that some have considered phasing out from a business education (Cohan, 2012; Wecker, 2012).
Rhetoric is most often associated with speech making, but encompasses much more. It includes mastery of logic, ability to sway hearts and minds, and elegance and econ-omy in exposition.
Orthography is narrowly taken to mean spelling, but ety-mologically it is a portmanteau of Greek words meaning correct writing. It also includes grammar and style, and has applications even in poetry where verbal idiosyncrasies
Correspondence should be addressed to Frank Badua, Lamar Univer-sity, College of Business, 4400 MLK Parkway, Beaumont, TX 77710, USA. E-mail: frank.badua@lamar.edu
CopyrightÓTaylor & Francis Group, LLC ISSN: 0883-2323 print / 1940-3356 online DOI: 10.1080/08832323.2014.973826
abound, but internal consistency in rhythm and rhyme are required.
Ontology is the study of existence and essences, con-cerned with what it means to be, and abstracting general principles by observing specific examples. This is where philosophy meets science, the pivot point at which the trog-lodyte in Plato’s cave turns away from the shadows and sees reality.
Teleology is the study of causes, the history of every-thing from the Big Bang onward. The philosopher and the theologian will extend the teleological timeline as far back as possible to the (perhaps) divine Ultimate Cause, whose design of the universe and will for humankind are suppos-edly the final cause, the reason or goal for which all phe-nomena occur. The historian and scientist will also be concerned with causation, focusing on how events and institutions came about, via the operation of efficient causes, the natural, social, or mechanical means by which phenomena occur. Although teleology was originally con-ceived as the study of final causes, in recent years, it has come to embrace efficient causes as well (Allen, 2009).
These ROOT disciplines were once envisioned as exclu-sively for independently wealthy men, seeking profound wisdom and broad knowledge, rather than preparing for employment. However, paradoxically, the ROOT disci-plines can benefit those who aspire to wealth and are pre-paring to be business professionals.
THE GREAT UPROOTING AND THE RECENT REPLANTING: CHANGES IN ATTITUDES TOWARD
LIBERAL ARTS IN EDUCATION AND BUSINESS
The humanities or liberal arts were once considered the foundation of a university’s curriculum (Dirks, 1997). These disciplines were referred to as the humanities because of their focus on what is essential to human iden-tity, values, and culture, as reflected in historical, linguistic, and philosophical artifacts of great classical civilizations all over the world. They were also called liberal arts because they were meant for aliber, a free person whose socioeco-nomic situation was such that he (typically) would not need employment because he was a wealthy gentleman of lei-sure, and therefore did not require the commercially practi-cal, narrowly specialized, technically detailed education that poorer men might pursue in order to obtain work beyond the farm or factory.
The Industrial Revolution and the rise of self-made men whose wealth and social standing were earned in business brought a new attitude regarding the old humanities curric-ulum. Steel and rail magnate Andrew Carnegie and elevator manufacturer Richard Teller Crane broadcasted their dis-dain for the traditionally educated gentleman’s suitability for business, urging reform of the university (Donoghue, 2004). They recommended uprooting the liberal arts from
the curriculum, replacing them with more professionally and technically oriented courses.
Ironically in the 21st century, when the accumulated technologies of the Industrial and Digital Revolutions enable the professional and personal pursuits of the world’s population, there is a call for an about-face, and a reintegra-tion of the humanities into business schools (Colby, Ehr-lich, Sullivan, & Dolle, 2011). Universities are exploring ways by to do so, by inviting philosophy faculty to give workshops in business schools (Kim, 2013) and creating degree programs that combine the liberal arts and business curricula (Jay and Graff, 2012). They have realized ROOT disciplines are relevant to business, and essential to the STEMs.
However, although there is evidently a revived aware-ness of the vital necessity of ROOT disciplines to a busi-ness education, there seems to be no consensus about the way in which the ROOTs should be replanted into the cur-riculum. Indeed the variety of ways alluded to above in which business schools are attempting the task is symptom-atic of the problem (Colby, 2007).
Nevertheless, simply relying on the existing liberal arts curriculum as offered in other colleges in the university or other pre–School of Business institutions is insufficient for several reasons. For one, there appears to be a mutual dis-trust between liberal arts and other faculty, with the former viewing the latter as parvenus and interlopers, coming between the educator and the student with newfangled, nar-rowly focused, technical curricula, that interferes in the task of providing a true, broad-based, skills-imparting (as opposed to knowledge-imparting) liberal education (Van Sandt, 2007). Furthermore, even when a liberal arts curricu-lum is included as part of the preprofessional, general edu-cation curriculum that preceded a student’s entry into business or professional programs, the lag between the time a student completed these courses and the time he/she enters business school, and the apparent exogeneity of one curriculum to the other, causes the student to develop but a fragile understanding of the humanities, which would easily crumble away with the passage of time and the introduction of more technical, occupationally specific material (Colby, 2007). Finally, the necessarily different foci in topics and teaching between the ROOT disciplines as taught in a gen-eral purpose course within the libgen-eral arts curriculum versus as an integrated part of a business school curriculum (Fogarty, 1991).
ROOT’s Role in the Business School
Every ROOT discipline is necessary to a business educa-tion. Rhetoric, orthography, ontology, and teleology all play a role in business, and should be inculcated in the busi-ness student.
It is easy to connect rhetoric to business. Marketing is evi-dently concerned with what moves minds and markets. A lot
THE ROOT AND STEM OF A FRUITFUL BUSINESS EDUCATION 51
of the techniques of advertising and consumer persuasion are of Aristotelian provenance (Heller, 2012). But the relevance of rhetoric to the business world is not limited to the selling side. In economics and finance good investors see through the irrational exuberance or Chicken Little panic that often bedev-ils capital markets to rationally assess a stock’s true value. They parse out the appeals to pathos that appear in annual reports, headlines, and corporate prospectuses, and focus on the logos, the valid, rational arguments that ought to determine the prudent allocation of funds to businesses that are run sensi-bly and ethically (ethos plays a part as well). The choices that analysts, investors, and managers make are the products of internal debate.
Orthography too remains relevant to business. Correct use of language remains important in the business world (Jerald, 2009; Wecker, 2012). The Bureau of Labor Statistics (2008) identified a strong positive correlation between the increase in required prose literacy levels for job categories and the growth rate in those job categories. The jobs to be created in the future will be for the more literate workers. But orthography does not necessarily imply Ciceronian circumlocution. An email or memo consisting of concise but grammatical and intelligible sentences is what is demanded and impressive in the modern corporate environment. Orthographic standards have evolved from classical times, but those that are in place enable quick, clear, and unambiguous transmission of the writer’s thoughts to the reader.
Ontology and teleology are essential elements of critical thinking. Critical thinking was defined by Das (1994) as the skill to deduce from all available evidence and prior knowl-edge what is true or what should be done in order to achieve a certain result. Therefore, because ontology involves iden-tifying the essence of things, it is needed in determining what is true of business phenomena based on individual examples, as well as identifying exceptions. Also, because teleology focuses on causation, it is fundamental to analyz-ing who or what causes certain effects, and are not merely coincident with them, and what ought to be done in order to achieve desired effects or avoid undesirable ones.
A traditional business education focuses mainly on con-tent-based as opposed to skill-based instruction and is poorly configured to inculcate critical thinking (Snyder & Snyder, 2008). This deficiency is more acutely felt in the modern business environment that is fast-evolving and globally oriented. Merely teaching students what is true about business without inculcating the ontological skill of determining the truth futile because the information taught is susceptible to obsolescence and they are at risk of infor-mation overload and cognitive dissonance (Badua, 2008; Festinger, 1957). The result is professionals whose posi-tions are obsolete or outsourced before they have earned enough to pay their college loans, advertising campaigns that do not translate well from one culture to another, and macroeconomic policies that cause prosperity in one place or at one time, and poverty in others. Most importantly,
ethics, so sorely needed in business as demonstrated by the accounting scandals at the end of the 20th century and the financial scandals at the beginning of the 21st century, are most effectively taught as a special application of ontology and teleology. Paul (1988) asserted that teaching morality and ethics to students without critical thinking would be indoctrination, the imposition of a set of rules whose valid-ity would never be evaluated by the recipient, and whose applicability in different circumstances the student could never discern.
ROOT Before STEM
The ROOTs also nourish STEM disciplines. Each of the ROOTs is important to the study and practice of STEM subjects.
Science is not necessarily what is true about a certain phenomenon or field, but merely what is predominantly believed to be true about it. Thus, rhetoric is the tool and province of the scientist who does not merely collect data about observed phenomena and formulates theories to explain them, but also presents the findings and proposed theories persuasively (Gross, 2006).
Orthography’s connection to STEM is fundamental and pervasive. Math and statistics are as orthographic as litera-ture is, as anyone who has misplaced parentheses or switched the order of subtrahends can acknowledge. Pro-grammers obey programming language syntax. And beyond mere grammatical norms, programming has styles as well. Hierarchical and object-oriented programs are as distinct as the haiku and the ode.
The ontologies of the STEMs are narrow, because they are hierarchically oriented and reductionist in method. But for philosophers and scientists, ontology determines rele-vance and context. Ontology informs the scientist’s efforts to solve the scientific jigsaw puzzle by helping him/her decide where the piece in his or her hand would fit, or if it is even a piece of that particular puzzle. Much of the research work of scientists is observing data, reconciling it to the current ontological framework, and if necessary reworking that framework or building a new one.
Similar to philosophers, scientists are also concerned with their stretch of the teleological track, albeit that stretch tends to be short, attributing causation to a “What” rather than to a divine “Who.” Newton showed what made things move or stay, stop, and start. Darwin explained what makes organisms attain their characteristics. Pasteur found what makes us sick, and what can be done to prevent sickness. Again, the scien-tist’s focus is narrower but similar, finding causes.
Most importantly, the same questions that are broached narrowly in the STEMs, are approached broadly in the ROOTs. That discursiveness limits the length travelled along a particular intellectual road, but makes it easier to detect alternative routes. A person trained exclusively in
the STEMs is less likely to think beyond ontological boundaries.
SETTING DOWN ROOTS ONCE MORE
The approaches that various institutions have used (e.g., workshops, dove-tailing degree programs) differ from one another, and would differ from those of other institutions pursuing the same goal. This article considers several approaches developed by Fogarty (1991) for integrating course material across disciplines to help these efforts.
These approaches include those with little, moderate, and significant integration. Low integration is typical of current business school undergraduate and master of busi-ness administration curricula, while near total integration typifies PhD curricula for business specializations. Other approaches where integration is moderate and targeted best serve the goal of reintegrating the ROOT disciplines.
The fragmented model considers courses separate and distinct, taught without explicit reference to others. For example, while a business school may offer a writing course (the rhetoric and ontology component of ROOT), and business calculus or statistics courses (STEM subjects), along with more business oriented courses in accounting, finance, management, and marketing), instructors in these courses would make no effort to link the curricula. They assume the students had absorbed and retained content in other courses, and give assignments accordingly, such as essays that require adherence to appropriate grammar and style and the use of data analysis. The connected model is barely more integrated, with the instructor perfunctorily referring to related courses when teaching those portions of a course that are based on or related to those courses. Thus, the instructor in this example may require that the assign-ment use a template learned in the writing course (e.g., the issue-rule-analysis-conclusion [IRAC] format), and that summary statistics or exploratory data analysis be deployed when applicable. The instructor would otherwise never mention writing or statistics courses when teaching his/ her subject. Such limited integration would fail to achieve the desired result of inculcating a deep and lasting ROOT (or STEM) foundation in the student, who might relapse into habits of sloppy writing or inadequate analysis.
High integration models, while quite useful in training PhDs, are infeasible for most other business students. In the immersed model, the student is exposed to all aspects of a particular discipline. Every subject that contributes to that discipline’s store of knowledge is in the curriculum. Vari-ous orthographies and rhetorics pertinent to an academic’s writing tasks, which include writing reviews, research papers, and books, would be discussed. Diverse research methods and modes of reasoning would be taught for gath-ering and analyzing all sorts of data. These would exist side by side with subject-specific courses relevant to the PhD
specialization. The networked model would entail similar subject variety, but the student would independently pursue non–discipline-specific ROOT and STEM courses relevant to the specialization. Obviously, such catholic approaches as these would be infeasible for undergraduates lacking the maturity to persevere in such a comprehensive curriculum.
This leaves the moderately integrated approaches avail-able for the replanting of the ROOTs. These approaches are discussed individually in the following paragraphs.
The web model is built around a central, non–discipline-specific theme, with courses from different disciplines con-tributing perspectives on that theme. The central theme is the hub of the web, and the contributing courses are spokes. At some point discussion in each spoke-subject intersects the central hub theme. The webbed model’s integration is relatively small, because the point of intersection with the hub is usually reached at just one point during each of the component course’s curriculum. However, it is more inte-grated than the connected model since all courses are linked to the thematic hub, rather than having individual pairs of courses occasionally being linked through a briefly dis-cussed common topic. In a business school context, the ROOTs could provide the thematic hub, with the business subjects being the spokes. For example, with the ROOT dis-cipline orthography as a thematic hub, various business courses involving the presentation of data and information according to a structured format would comprise the web spokes. These would easily include courses in accounting, which is primarily concerned with the preparation of finan-cial statements and tax returns, marketing, which relies heavily on strengths-weaknesses-opportunities-threats (SWOT) analyses, and finance, where structured business plans are presented to banks and other lenders in order to obtain capital.
The threaded model stresses the development of skills rather than coverage of topics. Thus, the ability to perform tasks is given priority over the memorization of facts and definitions. In every subject taught, various pedagogically valuable skills are inculcated (i.e., threaded through the cur-riculum), adapting the discipline specific curricula of those subjects to the teaching of the desired skill sets. Because of the rapidly changing nature of business, economics, and technology, the specific skill sets required of students will change radically within a few years. However, the ability to write correctly and convincingly, analyze and integrate concepts and information according to various frameworks, and uncover causal factors and surmise future develop-ments, abilities developed by the ROOTs, will always be relevant, even if the specific manifestations of those skills change over time.
The nested approach assumes that there is a broad mother discipline that nestles more applied or specific sub-jects, all of which are taught as special varieties of the mother discipline. Business schools could use the nested with the ROOTs as the mother discipline, and the various
THE ROOT AND STEM OF A FRUITFUL BUSINESS EDUCATION 53
business courses as the nestling children. For example, vari-ous marketing and financial reporting courses could be framed as specific applications of rhetoric, concerned with the task of influencing the public, whether potential cus-tomers or potential investors. Each aspect of these business functions would be framed and analyzed according to the concepts of ethos (truth in advertising, fair representation of financial position), logos (the earnings response coeffi-cient), and pathos (using Maslow’s hierarchy for segment-ing markets), with constant reference to these underlysegment-ing concepts throughout these courses. Teleology would inform many courses, especially those related to business ethics (business law, organizational behavior) and those analyzing the cause–effect relationships between business policies and outcomes (logistics management, cost accounting, business statistics).
In the sequenced approach, the courses are organized according to a series of themes, each of which provides frameworks that the courses use to select and structure topics. One might consider the sequenced approach as an implementation of the nested approach in series. Each of the themes would lead to the next one, with the courses comprising last theme serving as capstones for the curricu-lum. Business curricula could thus use the ROOTs as the organizing themes, with the business subjects and STEM-based service courses comprising the subjects in the theme. For example, the curriculum could start with ontology and orthography as the initial theme, to provide the students with a grounding in the formalisms and strictures with which business information is conceptualized and commu-nicated, move on to teleology, to expose the students to the dynamics and mechanics that govern business and the econ-omy, and end with rhetoric, which utilizes the concepts dis-cussed in the previous themes to equip the students to effectively interact with the market for capital or revenue.
Such factors as faculty resistance to change, the resour-ces available to the institution, and the type of business major curriculum wherein integration occurs will influence the choice of integration approach. These factors are dis-cussed in the following paragraphs.
The current curricular setup in business schools mirrors the fragmented or perfunctorily connected approaches of integration discussed previously. Thus, this implies that academic inertia, a hallmark of educational institutions according to Dirks (1997), will resist any initiatives toward greater integration. Therefore, for institutions where faculty resistance to change is high, or where integration is in a very preliminary stage, those approaches wherein there is a modicum of integration should be used (webbed and threaded). On the other hand, institutions where the faculty are more open to change would benefit from those approaches that fostered greater integration (shared, inte-grated, nested, and sequenced).
The availability of university resources for the integra-tion of the ROOTs into the curriculum will also determine
the appropriate model. There are many kinds of resources needed by a university, but arguably the most important of these is faculty expertise. Institutions wherein the faculty is comprised of academics with a broad and profound knowl-edge of both the liberal arts and business specific disci-plines, could use the most integrated approaches, where every course is suffused with ROOTs. Business schools at the other extreme, staffed primarily with profession-based practitioners, with very strong backgrounds in their busi-ness discipline, but with moderate training in the liberal arts, extensive integration would be infeasible. However, it would still be possible to integrate with the webbed and threaded models. With proper coordination and an openness to partnering with liberal arts faculty, even the shared and integrated models might be implemented.
A final aspect that needs to be considered is the extent and manner which integration initiatives should be imple-mented in different business majors. There is a great differ-ence in the degree to which different majors are comprised of courses and topics that are conceptual or technical. The extent to which these majors are able to be integrated with others will vary (Gackowski, 2004). Technical majors will admit only moderate integration, because most of its topics will necessarily be specific to the major, and cannot be framed or linked to those of other disciplines, including the ROOTs. For such majors, the webbed model would be an easy choice to use, since, as explained in preceding sec-tions, there is at least a tangential connection between the ROOTs and every other discipline, no matter how techni-cal. However, the threaded model would be feasible with a little effort on the part of the faculty, and greatly benefit the students because of the skills developed by exposure to the ROOTs.
CONCLUSION
Business is meant to be the mutually profitable intercourse between humans. This would be impossible without the skills of communication, persuasion, analysis, and evalua-tion that a ROOT educaevalua-tion directly attempts to supply. Nor is there is a contradiction or conflict between ROOT and STEM. The former is the foundation of the latter. When budgets, teachers, time, and student attention are scarce, administrators must make choices, but before they get caught up with their pruning of the pedagogical pro-gram, let them consider the present horticultural analogy. Let it not be forgotten that there would neither be fruit nor STEM without the ROOT.
REFERENCES
Allen, C. (2009). Teleological notions in biology. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.),The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. Retrieved from http://plato. stanford.edu/entries/teleology-biology/
Badua, F. (2008). Pedagogy and the PC.Journal of Education for Business, 83:5, 259–264.
Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2008). Occupational projections and training data, 2008–2009 edition. Washington, DC: U.S. Depart-ment of Labor.
Cohan, P. (2012, May 29). To boost post-college prospects, cut humanities departments. Forbes. Retrieved from http://www.forbes.com/sites/ petercohan/2012/05/29/to-boost-post-college-prospects-cut-humanities-departments/
Colby, A. (2007, May).Business entrepreneurship and liberal learning. Paper presented at the Council of Independent Colleges and Universities Symposium on the Liberal Arts and Business, Chicago, IL.
Colby, A., Ehrlich, T., Sullivan, W., & Dolle, J. (2011).Rethinking under-graduate business education: Liberal learning for the profession. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.
Das, T. (1994). Educating tomorrow’s managers: The role of critical thinking.International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 2, 333– 360.
Dirks, A. (1997, June 22).The liberal curriculum and the canon. Retrieved from http://webhost.bridgew.edu/adirks/ald/papers/libcan.htm
Donoghue, F. (2004). The uneasy relationship between business and the humanities.American Academic,1, 93–109.
Festinger, L. (1957).A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford, CA: Stan-ford University Press.
Fogarty, R. (1991). Ten ways to integrate curriculum.Educational Leader-ship,49, 61–65.
Gackowski, Z. J. (2004). What to teach business students in MIS courses about data and information.Issues in Informing Science and Information Technology,1, 845–878.
Gross, A. G. (2006).Starring the text: The place of rhetoric in science studies. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.
Heller, P. (2012, March 15). Powers of persuasion.Bloomberg Business-week. Retrieved from http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-03-14/jay-heinrichss-powers-of-persuasion
Jay, P., & Graff, J. (2012, January 5). Fear of being useful.Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved from http://www.insidehighered.com/views/2012/01/05/ essay-new-approach-defend-value-humanities
Jerald, C. (2009).Defining a 21st century education. Center for Public Education. Retrieved from http://www.centerforpubliceducation. org/main-menu/policies/21st-century/defining-a-21st-century-education-full-report-pdf.pdf
Joseph, M. (2002).The Trivium: The liberal arts of logic, grammar, and rhetoric. Philadelphia, PA: Paul Dry Books, Inc.
Kim, S. (2013, July 9). Humanities in business education.Huffington Post. Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sunmin-kim/ humanities-in-business-ed_b_3565403.html
Paul, R. (1988). Ethics without indoctrination.Educational Leadership,45, 10–19.
Pierson, F. (1959).The education of American businessmen. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Rait, R. (2010). Life in a medieval university. London, UK: Forgotten Books.
Snyder, L., & Snyder, M. (2008). Teaching critical thinking and problem solving skills.Delta Pi Epsilon Journal,50, 90–99.
Van Sandt, C. (2007, May).Augustana College: Devising a new curricu-lum to bridge two worlds. Paper presented at the Council of Independent Colleges and Universities Symposium on the Liberal Arts and Business, Chicago, IL.
Wecker, M. (2012, July 11). B-schools seem to downplay writing skills.
U.S. News and World Report. Retrieved from http://www.usnews.com/ education/best-graduate-schools/top-business-schools/articles/2012/07/11/ b-schools-seem-to-downplay-writing-skills
THE ROOT AND STEM OF A FRUITFUL BUSINESS EDUCATION 55
