Journal of Education for Business
ISSN: 0883-2323 (Print) 1940-3356 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vjeb20
Persistent Themes in Colleges of Business
Cecil E. Bohanon
To cite this article: Cecil E. Bohanon (2008) Persistent Themes in Colleges of Business, Journal of Education for Business, 83:4, 239-245, DOI: 10.3200/JOEB.83.4.239-245
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.3200/JOEB.83.4.239-245
Published online: 07 Aug 2010.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 23
n this article, I examine a number ofissuesincollegiatebusinessedu-cation that emerged during the early years of business schools, roughly from 1900 to 1930.After providing a cursoryhistoryoftheformationofcol-legesofbusiness,Iexaminefourissues oftheera:curriculumcontent,claimof theprofessionalnatureofbusinessand business schools, social responsibility of corporate managers, and the desire for integration of the business cur-riculum.The issues were not resolved during the period and have persisted as continual topics in collegiate busi-nesseducationtothisday.Inthefinal section, I offer tentative insights as to whateducatorscanconcludefromthis historicalexploration.
ACursoryHistoryofCollegesof Commerce
Colleges of commerce and business beganformingatU.S.universitiesinthe late 19th century.TheWharton School at University of Pennsylvania began in 1883. Other university-based busi-ness schools were established before 1900 at the University of Chicago, the UniversityofCalifornia,theUniversity of Ohio, and Columbia University. By 1900, schools of commerce existed at Dartmouth College, the University of Vermont,NewYorkUniversity,theUni-versityofMichigan,andtheUniversity
ofWisconsinandwereplannedforthe UniversityofIllinoisandtheUniversity ofIowa(James,1901).
Much of the impetus for establish-ingtheschoolscamefromthebusiness community. As an early Wharton pro- fessorpointedout,membersofthePhil-adelphia business community “did not seewhytheirsonscouldnotbelearning somethingbearingontheirfuturebusi-nesswhileacquiringaliberaleducation” (James,1901,p.154).InWisconsin,it was argued that many of the best high schoolstudentsinthestateweregoing directly into business and not going to thestateuniversity.Othergoodstudents wereenrollingasspecialstudentsatthe university,takingcoursesonlyrelevant tobusinessandneverbotheringtocom-pleteaformaldegree.By1900thiswas seen as so untenable by the university administration that a commerce col-lege was established at the University of Wisconsin (Scott, 1913). Laughlin (1902) argued that universities should develop commerce colleges to attract ablestudents.
It was also noted that, increasingly, universitygraduateswereenteringbusi-ness.OftheHarvardclassof1896,35% developedabusinesscareer,whereas2 decadeslater,thepercentagehadrisento 55%(Mears,1923).Universitiesestab-lishedcollegesofcommerceinresponse toanincreaseddemandforcommercial educationatthecollegiatelevel.
PersistentThemesinCollegesofBusiness
CECILE.BOHANON BALLSTATEUNIVERSITY MUNCIE,INDIANA
I
ABSTRACT.Inthisarticle,theauthorexaminesanumberofissuesincollegesof commerceintheirformativeperiodfrom 1900to1930.Hediscusses4areas:con-tentofbusinesscurriculum,professional natureofbusinessandbusinessschools, socialresponsibilityofcorporatemanagers, andintegrationofthebusinesscurriculum. Manyofthetopicsarestillimportanttoday andcanarguablybeconsideredpersistent themesincollegesofbusiness.
Keywords:businesscurriculum,business education,curriculumintegration,econom-ics,socialresponsibilityofbusiness
Copyright©2008HeldrefPublications
VIEWPOINT
Establishing a business curriculum was met with hostility and resistance atmanyuniversities.Thestudyofbusi-ness was seen as too vocational and outside the spirit of liberal education. Deansofcollegesofcommerceseemed to continually argue that their institu-tions were not trade schools (McCrea, 1926).At the University of Wisconsin in1900,manyfacultymembersconsid-eredaccountingcourses“unworthyofa place in the curriculum” (Scott, 1913, p.131).By1913,therehadbeensome “breaking down this faculty prejudice” (Scott, p. 131) so that accounting and business administration courses were taught. However, none of these cours-es counted for general credit for the undergraduatebachelor’sdegree(Scott, 1913).Aslateas1928,aparticipantat aroundtablediscussionatajointmeet-ing of theAmerican EconomicsAsso-ciationandtheAmericanAssociationof Collegiate Schools of Business stated, “Whichoneofushasnotheardtheslur-ringremarksthattrulyculturalcourses are not found in the college of com-merce” (Bogart, 1928, p. 74). Distanc-ingitselffromthelabelofcommercial, the economics curriculum at Amherst stated in 1917 that it “considers itself undernoobligationtomeetvocational orprofessionaldemands,eitherdirectly orindirectly”(Hamilton,1917,p.2).
CurricularResponsestoHostility TowardBusinessCourses
Desiring a place in the university, the administrators of early colleges of commerce had a number of curricular responses to the unwelcoming attitude ofthoseinmoretraditionalquartersof theuniversity.
LiberalArtsCoursesOutside theCollege
course” (Loos, 1903, p. 462), whereas another“inveighedagainstuselessedu-cation and pleaded for the practical” (Loos,p.463).Theconferenceseemed toconcludethattheidealbusinesscur-riculumwouldbeonewithwhich60% constitutedtheoldclassicalcurriculum, withtheremaining40%devotedtonew businessstudies(Loos).
The specific arrangement of the nonbusiness courses varied. The Tuck School required 3 years of general undergraduate work in the liberal arts before a 4th and 5th year of business study(Person,1913).Incontrast,Whar-tonofferedcommercialstudiesgrouped with liberal education for a 4-year period. General courses in economics, politics, and sociology were all given in the Wharton school, and “as much as (they) are of the liberal type . . . Whartonstudentsgetastronginfusion ofthetraditionallyculturaltypeofedu-cation”(McCrea,1913,p.113).Atthe UniversityofChicago,thefirst2years of the business curriculum emphasized general education and social sciences. Thiscurriculumwassharedwithpublic administrationandsocialworkstudents (Marshall,1913).
LiberalElementsinBusiness Curriculum
Anotherapproachwastoinfusethe commercial courses with liberal and scientificelements,makingthemmore thanmeredescriptionsofbusinessphe- nomena.Oneprominentdeansuggest-edthat“descriptive(business)courses that do not promise to be analytical should be replaced” and that all sub-jects in the curriculum must “embody scientificprinciples”(Hotchkiss,1920, p.90).Anotherstatedthat“everybusi-ness course shall have its analytical and philosophical phase” (McCrea,
PreponderanceofSocialScience andEconomicsCourses
Economics was often seen as the coreofthecommercialcurriculumthat ensureditsacademicstanding.Anearly commentatordescribedeconomicsasa “fundamentalelement”ofacommercial curriculum and argued that “the man whograpplesinearnestwiththeprob- lemsofeconomicswillsecure,ifnoth-ing else, a mental discipline” (James, 1901,pp.157–158).AtDartmouth,eco-nomicswasthe“foundationuponwhich the work of the Tuck school is based” (Person,1913,p.117).Economicswas seen by some educators as the compo-nent that made a school of commerce morethanatradeschool(Bogart,1928; Dowrie, 1928; McCrea, 1926). In the words of one commentator, “Without thepresenceofeconomicsinsomevital form...theschoolofbusinessislikely todegenerateintoadetaileddescription ofbusinessorganizationandprocedure withnoorganizingprinciple”(McCrea, 1926,p.222).
Many have affirmed this analogy: Economicsistobusinesswhatphysics or mathematics is to engineering, or what biology is to medicine (James, 1901; Kiekhofer, 1928; Mears, 1923). However, others have disagreed with such a characterization (Bonbright, 1926; Howard, 1917; Marshall, 1917). Some researchers have argued that the social implications of business were bettercoveredinotherdisciplines,such aspoliticalscienceorphilosophy,than in economics (Phillips, 1926), where-as others have asserted that business administration would likely develop intoitsownscienceseparatefromeco-nomics(Jones,1913).
ProfessionalNatureofthe BusinessSchool
theearlyschoolsofcommerce(James, 1901;Loos,1903;McCrea,1926).This aspirationwasattheheartofthenewly foundedcollegesofcommercein1900. Although not dismissing personal gain as a motive for the business student, the early business school administra-tors distanced their school from its pursuit,insistingthatpublicservicebe upheld as the ideal of business edu-cation. The dean of the University of Chicago argued that schools of com-merce“missedtheirpurposeif...[the] moneymakingsideispermittedtohave arulinghand”(Marshall,1913,p.101). Marshall (1913) argued that especially in a school of commerce, the “profes-sional attitude” (p. 101) is constantly tempted by “merely a moneymaking attitude”(p.101)andthat“eternalvigi-lance”(p.101)wasnecessarytoensure thatmoneymakingdidnotdominatein schoolsofcommerce.Atthemeetingof theAssociationofCollegiateSchoolsof Business in 1919, the leading speaker argued that public responsibility was the first aim that “the curriculum of a collegiate school of business should reflect”andthat“soundbusinessrather thanindividualrewardsisthefirstcon-cernofacollegiateschoolofbusiness” (Hotchkiss, 1920, pp. 89–90). In 1926 another commentator emphasized that money making must not be allowed to overshadowcultural,social,andethical considerations(Phillips,1926).
However, the claim that colleges of commerce were professional schools wasnotuniformlyaccepted,evenwith-in the colleges themselves. A member ofthecollegeofcommerceattheUni-versity of Iowa noted that given the popularusageofthetermprofessional, itwas“difficulttounderstandhowany school of business can be professional in character” (Phillips, 1926, p. 231). Wooster (1919) of the University of Missouri decried that the college of commerce “has had to undertake pro-fessional training for nonpropro-fessional pursuits” (p. 48). He argued that busi-ness was not a profession because it had little in terms of a code of ethics or commitment to public service that werethehallmarksofotherprofessions. Wooster, however, thought that busi-ness could establish such a code that could eventually raise it to a
profes-sional status and saw colleges of com-merce essential in that quest. Wooster said,“Itisnotimpossible,however,that businessmaybecomeaprofession”(p. 48). These sentiments were echoed in anessaytitledTheEmergingProfession ofBusiness(Donham,1927a).
Recent authors inHarvard Business Review argued that “business schools are on the wrong track” (Bennis & O’Toole, 2005, p. 1) because they fail toimpartusefulskillsforactualworkin business.Theauthorsattributethisstate ofaffairstobusinessschoolsadoptinga modelofacademicexcellencethattreats business disciplines as traditional aca-demicfields.Underthismodel,faculty members focus on scientific research at the expense of practical application. Theauthorssuggestedthat“businessis a profession akin to medicine and the law”(Bennis&O’Toole,p.2)andthat business schools ought to reflect this by being more willing to “deliberately engagewiththeoutsideworld”(Bennis &O’Toolep.2).
Then,asnow,thisquestionarises:Are business schools professional schools? Theanswerliesinwhatismeantbypro-fessional.Boththenandnow,anumberof criteriatypicallyemerge.Wooster(1919) argued that professions were modeled aftermedievalcraftguildsthatrequired extensive periods of specific training. Moreover,theprofessionalhasdefinitive ethicalobligationstothepublic,hisfel-lowcraftsmen,andhisclients,andthese obligationsareoftencountertohispecu-niary interests. For example, Wooster argued,aphysicianisoftencalledonto provideservicewhenanepidemicarises “forthepublicgood...givenfreelyand withoutcomplaint”(p.49).
More recently Khurana, Nohira, and Penrice (2004) argued that professions have(a)commonbodiesofknowledge, (b) certification procedures affirming the acquisition of the body of know- ledge, (c) a commitment to the pub-lic good, and (d) an enforceable code of ethics. Those authors went further andsuggestedthatbusinessandsociety would do well to establish clear pro-fessional status for business managers, although they were vague about how such a system of managerial profes-sional certification and public control wouldoperate.
Althoughthetwodefinitionsofpro- fessional are85yearsapart,littlesepa-ratesthemintermsofcontent.Moreover, justasWooster(1919)thoughtthatbusi- nesswasalongwayfrombeingapro-fession,Khuranaetal.(2004)lamented that “In comparing management with the more traditional professions of law and medicine along these criteria, one inevitablyfindsitwanting”(p.3). ness education. Although many issues areinvolved,acentralquestionisthis: To whom do corporate officers have a fiduciary obligation? Discussion about how the various groups that interact withacorporationaretoberegardedby corporatemanagershasbeenvigorous.
EconomistssuchasFriedman(1970) argued that corporate executives are agents of the shareholders, duty bound toadvancetheirinterestsovertheexec-utive’s own personal interest. This is typically accomplished by maximizing thefirm’sprofitsinawaythatissubject to the rules of business as outlined by legal restraints and by the admonition offorgoingtheuseofforceandfraudin businessdealings.Theuseofcorporate resourcestopromoteothersocialagen-dasisamisappropriationofshareholder wealth and an unethical indulgence on thepartofthecorporatemanager.
This view is often identified as the
shareholder theory of management responsibility. This is often inaccurately identifiedasaminimalethic,asifputting others’interestoverone’sownandadher-ingtoacodeoftransparencyaremorally simple tasks. Its critics often ignore that under the shareholder theory, corporate managersdohaveresponsibilitiestocus-tomers,employees,andsuppliersintheir decisionmaking.Managersarerestrained by law and contract and—more impor-tant—by competitive pressures. Failure topayattentionconsistentlytotheinter-ests of these other parties leads to legal consequencesorerosionofmarketshare that directly harms the long-run interest of shareholders. Smith’s (1987) “invis-ible hand” works to promote a balanced
harmonyofinterestsbetweensharehold-ers and other corporate constituencies throughthepriceandprofitmechanisms.
Incontrast,professorsofmanagement such as Carroll (1991) and Donaldson andPreston(1995)haveofferedanalter-native stakeholder theory of corporate responsibility.Underthisapproach,cor-porate officers have an explicit obliga-tionnotonlytoshareholdersbutalsoto all of those affected by corporate deci-sion making. The corporate executive becomes,ineffect,theagentofallwho areaffectedbythecorporation(thestake-holders) is duty bound to advance their interests over his own personal interest, and is duty bound to balance the inter-ests among the different groups. In this view, contractual, legal, and competi-tive restraints are not enough to ensure that adequate attention is paid to the interestsofnonshareholdersaffectedby corporate decision makers. The invis- iblehandisseenasgenerallynonopera-ees, customers, suppliers, and the gen-eral public. Making the correct tradeoff between the shareholders’ interests and other interests is the essence of respon-siblemanagement.
Although the terminology varied, the issue was discussed among early business educators, and the conflicts between perspectives were parallel to those of contemporary positions. One early leader argued that administrators of colleges of commerce should try to influence business policy to ends that clearlywentbeyondinstructingstudents to maximize profits for shareholders in a Friedman-like way. Jones (1913) of the University of Michigan argued
of stock- and bondholders on one side, and the wage earning classes and public asconsumersontheother....Thisspe-cial class is more and more responsible for the inauguration and execution of industrialandcommercialpolicies.Itisa greatopportunityofthecollegetoassist this rising profession to a consciousness of itself, to help it realize its trusteeship and to stimulate it to conceive itself as anintellectualaristocracyintheworldof affairs.(pp.187–188)
Jonesconcludedthatthetaskforcolleges of commerce was to raise the tone of industry by setting forth new ideals of efficiency,ofdistributivejustice,andof democracy“...[to]stimulatetheambi-tion on the part of industrial leaders to realize these newer and more social ideals (as opposed to the desire for materialacquisition)”(p.195).
Wooster(1919)arguedthatthehall-markofaprofessionwasawillingness to place public service above gain and argued that “the principle thing neces-sary to make a profession of business is the substitution of service for sell-ing as the proper end of business” (p. 52).Althoughrecognizingthatcompeti-tive pressures require the businessman to not “slight the customer too much” (Wooster,p. 52)hearguedthatpartof the purpose of business education was “totametheleopardbeforewesethim loose”(Wooster,p.59).
The dean of the Harvard Business School argued that because business leaders control the “mechanisms of material wealth of modern society” (Donham,1927b,p.415),theobjective of business education was “the multi-plicationofmenwhowillhandletheir currentbusinessproblemsinasocially constructive way” (Donham, 1927b, p. 407). The corporate executive was “to consider not only the permanency and goodstandingofhisinstitutionbutthe sound stability and development of his
theymightormightnotapprove,simply because he feels quite apart from his business the results would be socially desirable”(p.415).
There was, however, another discus-sion that was more in line with the shareholderview.Oneprofessorargued that the objective of business practice was“notsocialservicebutprivateprof-it” (Howard, 1917, p. 106).Viewing a businessorganizationasasetofsocial relations, he distinguished between the proprietors of a business organization and its creditor, employees, purveyors, and others that in contemporary jar-gon would be identified as stakehold-ers, and argued that “Successful busi-nessadministrationismeasuredbythe . . . maximum of ultimate profit for the proprietors” (Howard, p. 106). He argued that the “science of business is thescienceofprofit-making”(Howard, p.109)andthatthiswasthedomainof businesseducation.Herecognizedthat deviations from profit maximization, either as social policy or as individual choice,werepossiblebutthattheywere notthedomainofbusinessstudybutof political economy, sociology, religion, andethics(Howard).
Another professor at a panel discus-sion distinguished between the view thatthebusinesscurriculum“shouldbe designed . . . to teach students how to makethemostmoneyintheirbusiness careers” (Bonbright, 1926, p. 234) in comparison with one that would teach howtorunindustryfrom“thepointof view of the public interest” (p. 234). Hecalledthefirstthe“acquisitivetest” (234) and the second the “social test” (234).Arguing that the social test was “a very vague and ill-defined concept” (Bonbright, p. 234), he proceeded to defend the acquisitive curriculum in light of the “mean and slurring com-ments” (p. 235) that other panel
ersdowntothelastfarthingorwhosays meanthingstohisstenographermaybe richernextyear,butintenyearshewill beapauper”(Bonbright,p.236).
Bonbright (1926) lampooned the social concept of business education that“taughtbusinessmentomakedeci-sions not merely on their reactions on hispocketbook”(p.241).Howcoulda business graduate decide, for example, whethertobecomeastockbrokerorto sellfruitonthebasisofasocialtest?
Ononehand,heneedstoknowallabout the theory of stock speculation and its social utility and disutility. On the other hand,heshouldhaveaccurateinformation aboutthenutritivevalueofbananas,and heshouldalsobeinapositiontoweigh critically the possible incidental results ofhisbusiness,suchasthosethatmight
In the past 20 years or so, colleg-es of business have made a persistent effort to promote curriculum integra-tion. Although the definition of cur-riculum integration may vary, the idea isthatbusinessschoolsshouldinculcate their students in a “broad understand-ingofhowthefunctionsworktogether in a business enterprise” (Stover, Mor-ris,Pharr,Reyes,&Byers,1997,p.1). Business education, it is argued, has been relegated to departmental silos wherestudentsreceiveexcellenttraining in selective functional business disci-plines—suchasaccounting,marketing, or production—but fail to see the big pictureofhowfunctionalbusinessareas fittogether.Collegiatebusinessschools have implemented various models to promotecurriculumintegration,ranging from extensive curriculum redesign to the introduction of common themes in the curriculum (Cannon, Klein, Koste, &Magal,2004).
It is often argued that curriculum integrationisaby-productofchanging business conditions. Because of the increasingly dynamic nature of com-mercial enterprises, businesses have moved from function-based organiza-tional structures. The university busi-nesscurriculum,however,isstillmired in a functional mentality.The modern
curriculum must be more integrated to meet current demands of business (Cannonetal.,2004;Hartenian,Schel-lenger,&Fredrickson,2001;Stoveret al.,1997).Thissuggeststhatdemands for curriculum integration are primar-ily driven by contemporary business conditions. However, a reading of the literature describing the forma-tive years of university-based schools of commerce indicates that the early business schools were aware of the integration issue. Then, as now, dif-ferent methods were used to promote integration. However, the demand for broad integrative thinking by busi-nessgraduatesisnotparticularlyaby- product of contemporary business trends (although such trends may accentuatethedemand)but,rather,an inherentcomponentofanysoundcol-legiatebusinesseducationcurriculum. At the first meeting of the Associ-ated Collegiate Schools of Business in 1919,WillardE.Hotchkiss,whoserved as dean at a number of early schools ofcommerce,outlinedtheelementshe thoughtappropriateforthecurriculum. In Hotchkiss’ view, the freshman and sophomoreyearsofthebusinessstudent should be composed of a prebusiness course of study. This should include a large component of liberal education and what we would today call foun-dational courses in business, such as economics, accounting, and statistics (Hotchkiss,1920).
This should be followed by a more specialized curricula—because a num-berofalternativecoursesofstudycould be pursued—in the junior and senior years. Each of those curricula should begin with a discipline-specific survey course.Althoughthecoursewastobein the specific discipline, the point of the coursewasnottobedisciplinespecific. Rather, he argued that the important componentofeachofthesurveycours-eslayindevelopingthehabitsofmind conducivetoabroadviewofbusiness:
Theideaofthesurveythenisnottogive thestudentaninsightintoallthesubjects he may have occasion to use, but rather togivehimsamplescomingfromawide-enough range of subjects whose content ispertinenttohisproblemsothathewill develop the habit of following collateral aswellasdirectlinesofinquiry.Thefact that a student has been unable to take a
courseintransportationwouldnotneces- sarilyimplythathewouldomittranspor-tation phases in analyzing a problem in marketing.(Hotchkiss,p.100)
Incurrentjargon,Hotchkisscalledfor thesurveycoursetoprovidecurriculum integrationanddevelopcritical-thinking skills. A second case of early integra-tionawarenessandeffortswasoutlined byWallaceB.Donham(1922),deanof the Harvard School of Commerce. He extolledthepedagogicalvirtuesofcase studies in graduate business education (amethodstillassociatedwithHarvard Business School). He noted, however, that after the first year of foundational andfunctionalcourses
the typical first-year man at the end of theyearseemedtohavestudiedindivid-ualcourseswithlittleconceptionoftheir interrelation. Accounting was . . . sim-plyaccounting,andfinanceonlyfinance. Therewasnoclearunderstandingofthe usefulness of factory management train-ing for the accountant. He wished in far toomanycasestomakehimselfanarrow specialist.(Donham,1922,p.63)
Donham(1922)indicatedthattheprob-lemwasresolvedwithabusinesspolicy course that was given in the 2nd year of the curriculum but asserted that an integratedviewoughttobepresentedin the1styear,andheofferedamethodto accomplishthatend:
Yetthereisagreatneedthatmenshould from the beginning of their work build toward a coordinated structure of train-ing rather than toward isolated units whose interrelationship is beyond their vision. In the effort to bring about this coordinationwegivethefirst-yearclass immediately after their arrival a very complicatedbusinesscasewhichshould foritssolutiondependuponthesubject matterofalargepartofthecoursesgiven intheschool.Ofcoursesuchaproblem is beyond the capacity of every man in the class. It nevertheless is presented for their consideration and after careful studybythemdiscussedbytheinstruc-tor. This discussion serves as an object lesson in the preliminary analysis of a complicated business problem, and at thesametimebringsouttherelationof the problem to the different courses. In thiswaythestudentatoncerealizeshow theindividualcoursesintheschoolwork togetherasapreparationofasolutionof a single executive problem while at the same time he acquires a more adequate conceptionofthegeneralandinterlock-ing nature of business problems. (Don-ham,1922,pp.63–64)
Although described in dated lan-guage, the problems that Donham (1922)andHotchkiss(1920)considered the changing business world. Perhaps anintegratedcurriculumisthemanifes-tationofthepersistentvalueofabroad, liberal, and interconnected course of studyincollegiatebusinesseducation.
Conclusion
Many of the issues that colleges of businessfacetodayarethesameasthose facedintheearlypartofthe20thcen-tury.Thesameissueswilllikelybewith business schools in the 22nd century. Fromtheearliereducatorsofbusiness, two conclusions and one admonition readily arise: First, collegiate business educationispartofageneraluniversity education. Business students at univer-sitiesandcollegeshavealwaysandwill alwaysbe“learningsomethingbearing ontheirfuturebusinesswhileacquiring a liberal education” (James, 1901, p. 154).Thisimpliesnotonlythatmuchof theircourseworkwillinevitablybeout-side the business college, but also that business courses must be disciplined, analyticallyrigorous,andbeyondmere descriptions of business phenomena. These were the aspirations of the first generation of business educators. This wasreinforced50yearslaterwhenthe Carnegie report on collegiate business educationentreated,“Bothundergradu-ateandgraduatecourseworksneedsto be kept in a broad context and limited to problems of solid analytical con-tent” (Pierson, 1959, p. xi). Although the exact blend between the practical andtheliberalwillalwaysevolve,both
sional in the strict sense of the term. Perhaps it is time to ask: So what? Businessschoolsshouldthinkofthem-selves as academic hybrids. Parts of thebusinessschoolcurriculum,notably economicsandfinancecourses,areaca-demicinnature.Othercomponentssuch as accounting and certain specialized courseworkinmanagement(e.g.,human resources) are professional or quasi-professional in nature. Others such as communications and technical courses are somewhere between the two and aptly considered vocational. So what? Businessschoolshavebeenaroundfora century.Dotheyneedtomakeextraor-dinary claims of professional status to justifytheirpresenceinauniversityset-ting? Such self-confident clarity might do much to improve interdepartmental andintercollegialrelationships.
Last, an admonition arises. Contem-porary business colleges are subject to demandsforchangefrombothinternal andexternalconstituenciesandaccredi-tationsagenciesonanynumberofissues. Althoughsuchpressureisundoubtedly necessaryandusuallyhealthy,itwould be useful if the proponents of reform adopted the scholarly habit of review-ingthehistoryoftheissueinbusiness education. This would serve the two-foldpurposeofhelpingtheadvocatesof change to better understand and refine theirpositionandsimultaneouslygiving theirclaimincreasedlegitimacy.
Ifanadvisoryboardmemberofacol-lege of business wants to make a case thatstudentsaredeficientintheirwriting skillsandthatthefacultyandadministra-tionofthecollegeshoulddosomething about it, the board member’s case and credibility would be enhanced if he or shedocumentedtheproblemsofstudent writingincollegesofbusinessovertime. Ofcourse,thiswouldrequireabroader knowledge of the history of business
REFERENCES
Bennis,W.G.,&O’Toole,J.(2005).Howbusi-ness schools lost their way.Harvard Business Review,83,1–9.
Bogart, E. L. (1928). The relationship between departments of economics and collegiate schools of business. American Economic Review,18,74–77.
Bonbright, J. C. (1926). The place of econom-ics in the curriculum of a school of business: Discussion.Journal of Political Economy, 34,
233–242.
Cannon, D. M., Klein, H. A., Koste, L. L., & Magal, S. R. (2004). Curriculum integration usingenterpriseresourceplanning:Anintegra-tive case approach.Journal of Education for Business,80,93–101.
Carroll,A. B. (1991). The pyramid of corporate social responsibility: Toward the moral man-agement of organizational stakeholders. Busi-nessHorizons,34,39–48.
Donaldson, T., & Preston, L. E. (1995). The stakeholder theory of the corporation: Con-cepts, evidence, and implications.Academy of ManagementReview,29,65-91.
Donham,W.B.(1922).Businessteachingbythecase system.AmericanEconomicReview,12,53–65. Donham, W. B. (1927a). The emerging
profes-sion of business.Harvard Business Review, 5,
401–405.
Donham,W. B. (1927b).The social significance ofbusiness.HarvardBusinessReview,5,406– 419.
Dowrie, G.W. (1928).The relationship between departments of economics and collegiate schools of business. American Economic Review,18,82–84.
Friedman, M. (1970, September 13). Social responsibilityofbusinessistoincreaseitsprof-its.NewYorkTimesMagazine,33,122–126. Hamilton, W. H. (1917). Problems in economic
instruction.Journal of Political Economy, 25,
1–13.
Hartenian, L. S., Schellenger, M. S., & Fred-rickson,P.(2001).Creationandassessmentof an integrated business course: One college’s experience.JournalofEducationforBusiness, 76,149–159.
Hotchkiss,W.E.(1920).Thebasicelementsand their proper balance in the curriculum of a collegiatebusinessschool.JournalofPolitical Economy,28,89–107.
Howard,E.D.(1917).Economicsandthescience ofbusiness.JournalofPoliticalEconomy,25,
106–110.
James, E. J. (1901).Relation of the college and university to higher commercial education. Publication of the American Economic Asso-ciation,3rdSeries,2,144–165.
Jones,E.D.(1913).Somepropositionsconcern-inginstructioninbusinessadministration. Jour-nalofPoliticalEconomy,21,185–195.
Marshall, L. C. (1913). The college of com-merce and administration of the University ofChicago.JournalofPoliticalEconomy,21, 97–110.
Marshall,L.C.(1917).Abalancedcurriculumin businesseducation. JournalofPoliticalEcono-my,25,84–105.
McCrea,R.C.(1913).TheworkoftheWharton School of Finance and Commerce.Journal of PoliticalEconomy,21,111–116.
McCrea,R.C.(1920).Thebasicelementsand their proper balance in the curriculum of a collegiatebusinessschool:Discussion. Jour-nalofPoliticalEconomy,28,107–109.
McCrea,R.C.(1926).Theplaceofeconomicsin thecurriculumofaschoolofbusiness.Journal ofPoliticalEconomy,34,219–227.
Mears, E. G. (1923).The teaching of commerce and economics.American Economic Review 13,648–651.
Person,H.S.(1913).TheAmosTuckSchoolof DartmouthCollege. JournalofPoliticalEcon-omy,21,117–126.
Phillips, C. A. (1926). The place of econom-ics in the curriculum of a school of business: Discussion.Journal of Political Economy, 34, 231–233.
Pierson,F.C.(1959).TheeducationofAmerican
businessmen.NewYork:McGraw-Hill. Scott,W.A.(1913).TrainingforBusinessatthe
University of Wisconsin.Journal of Political Economy,21,127–135.
Smith,A. (1987).Wealth of nations: The great booksoftheWesternworld(Vol.39).Chicago: EncyclopediaBritannica.
Stover, D., Morris, J. S., Pharr, S., Reyes, M. G.,&Byers,R.C.(1997).Breakingdownthe silos:Attaininganintegratedbusinesscommon core.AmericanBusinessReview,15(2),1–11.
Wooster,H.A.(1919).Universityschoolsofbusi-nessandanewbusinessethic. JournalofPoliti-calEconomy,27,47–63.
������������������������������������������������������������������������������� ��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� �������������������������������������������������������������������������������� ��������������������������������������������������������������������������������� ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ �������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� ����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� ����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������
���������� ������ ����
������� �������� �������
����������������������� ������������������������������� ������������������������������������������
������������������������������������������������������������� ������������������������������
�����������������
��������������������
�������������������������������������������
������������ � ������ �� ��� ������
����������� �� ����������
�� ��������������� ������������
������������������������������ ���������������
