MBA Curriculum: How Different is Different?
It was rather strange to see the Economic Times "The Q to Become an MBA Just Got a Bit Longer! " 25th May 2011, make headline news about the development of emotional, spiritual and social quotients to the wards of business schools. I am sure even if the interviewees made no such claim, the reporter Kala Vijayaraghavan seemed to have had a 'gestaltic' vision of the synchronicity of multiple intelligences. She goes on to say
"Befriending and mentoring students living in slums, hardship stints in backward villages, mandatory internships with NGOs and hospitals, treasure hunts deep inside the city of Mumbai, immersions in other global cities, lectures by Aamir Khan and his 3 idiots co-star R Madhavan, compulsory lessons on ethics and environment, and even management mantras from the Bhagvad Gita it now takes a lot more than the usual dose of case studies and classroom sessions to earn an MBA. And honing social and spiritual quotient is now as important as sharpening the intelligence quotient (IQ).At the same time, the MBA is also beginning to reflect the changing world order"
I am unsure how much of that really counts as a curriculum developed on the basis of Howard Gardner's theory of multiple intelligences. Let me restate. This whole bandwagon of 'not just IQ but EQ, SQ, and every alphabet followed by Q is based on the ideas of Howard Gardner and his theories of multiple intelligences especially in his book Frames of the Mind (1985). He details several kinds of intelligence: linguistic, logico-mathematical, musical, kinaesthetic, interpersonal, intrapersonal, naturalist, spiritual, existential and moral. While intuitively appealing this theory has been found wanting on grounds of lack of empirical evidence but more so the problem is that of specification of criteria based on which these intelligences are delineated; with ample room for subjective interpretation. More troublesome is whether there are positive correlations across these intelligences with some general intelligence. Moreover what was earlier called talent (e.g. musical and kinaesthetic) is now called intelligence. There has been much debate and no agreement on how do these get deployed in a curriculum. Nonetheless the idea is attractive as it intuitively appeals to the teacher and parent that everyone is differently endowed.
What seems squarely odd is the apparent equation of anything different in pedagogy and curriculum in a business school in India as profoundly grounded in Gardner's theories. In many cases if not most they have been generally tools to garner the good press and an instrument for public relations than curricular experimentation. We have basic problems of a general lack (and apathy) of good management and business faculty, and delivering on just the basics. It would be presumptious to think that the tide has turned from the West to the East with our claimed innovation. Over time we might believe that our own models are robust and eclectic when in reality they are merely a patch work quilt like "Joseph and his Technicolor Dream coat". I am surprised at the number of people who seem to blend Vedanta into the business school with little understanding of the subject and the context and of a secular inquiry into the same (in most cases they are unable to differentiate the patently religious from the spiritual). In many business schools the curriculum is based on the availability of faculty and calendar slots and the much vaunted integral models are merely so much of obfuscation. Apart from our IIMs and few business schools most schools run on an acute faculty deficit unable to service their curriculum by their own. Often it is disguised as open to external practitioner influence and institutional cross pollination. But this is merely an alibi to cover an unwieldy set of proliferated programs and curricular demands even within the flagship program. If one believes Kala Vijayaraghavan we might as well believe that our business schools seem to be as ideal as the fabled Plato's Academy or Aristotle's Gymnasium.
It was rather strange to see the Economic Times "The Q to Become an MBA Just Got a Bit Longer! " 25th May 2011, make headline news about the development of emotional, spiritual and social quotients to the wards of business schools. I am sure even if the interviewees made no such claim, the reporter Kala Vijayaraghavan seemed to have had a 'gestaltic' vision of the synchronicity of multiple intelligences. She goes on to say
"Befriending and mentoring students living in slums, hardship stints in backward villages, mandatory internships with NGOs and hospitals, treasure hunts deep inside the city of Mumbai, immersions in other global cities, lectures by Aamir Khan and his 3 idiots co-star R Madhavan, compulsory lessons on ethics and environment, and even management mantras from the Bhagvad Gita it now takes a lot more than the usual dose of case studies and classroom sessions to earn an MBA. And honing social and spiritual quotient is now as important as sharpening the intelligence quotient (IQ).At the same time, the MBA is also beginning to reflect the changing world order"
I am unsure how much of that really counts as a curriculum developed on the basis of Howard Gardner's theory of multiple intelligences. Let me restate. This whole bandwagon of 'not just IQ but EQ, SQ, and every alphabet followed by Q is based on the ideas of Howard Gardner and his theories of multiple intelligences especially in his book Frames of the Mind (1985). He details several kinds of intelligence: linguistic, logico-mathematical, musical, kinaesthetic, interpersonal, intrapersonal, naturalist, spiritual, existential and moral. While intuitively appealing this theory has been found wanting on grounds of lack of empirical evidence but more so the problem is that of specification of criteria based on which these intelligences are delineated; with ample room for subjective interpretation. More troublesome is whether there are positive correlations across these intelligences with some general intelligence. Moreover what was earlier called talent (e.g. musical and kinaesthetic) is now called intelligence. There has been much debate and no agreement on how do these get deployed in a curriculum. Nonetheless the idea is attractive as it intuitively appeals to the teacher and parent that everyone is differently endowed.
What seems squarely odd is the apparent equation of anything different in pedagogy and curriculum in a business school in India as profoundly grounded in Gardner's theories. In many cases if not most they have been generally tools to garner the good press and an instrument for public relations than curricular experimentation. We have basic problems of a general lack (and apathy) of good management and business faculty, and delivering on just the basics. It would be presumptious to think that the tide has turned from the West to the East with our claimed innovation. Over time we might believe that our own models are robust and eclectic when in reality they are merely a patch work quilt like "Joseph and his Technicolor Dream coat". I am surprised at the number of people who seem to blend Vedanta into the business school with little understanding of the subject and the context and of a secular inquiry into the same (in most cases they are unable to differentiate the patently religious from the spiritual). In many business schools the curriculum is based on the availability of faculty and calendar slots and the much vaunted integral models are merely so much of obfuscation. Apart from our IIMs and few business schools most schools run on an acute faculty deficit unable to service their curriculum by their own. Often it is disguised as open to external practitioner influence and institutional cross pollination. But this is merely an alibi to cover an unwieldy set of proliferated programs and curricular demands even within the flagship program. If one believes Kala Vijayaraghavan we might as well believe that our business schools seem to be as ideal as the fabled Plato's Academy or Aristotle's Gymnasium.
A good picture of our MBA curriculum. most of the private B-schools are just money making machines and they introduce these Q courses just to show that they are different and thus attract students.
ReplyDelete