• Welcome to the Internet Infidels Discussion Board.

How MBA Programs Drive Inequality: Business school students are taught to extract resources instead of creating value.

Taxes are collected and then spent on something supposedly useful (for taxpayers). Here they are collected and then spent on useless stuff like tax collecting system itself. In other words people who pay that "tax" get absolutely nothing in return. So it's more like extortion.

Whatever. HFT has no authority to tax, but that's what their activities amount to. A non-productive drain on the system.
Yes, keyword here "non-productive". I would also argue it's worse than that and is "counter-productive". Because people who enrich themselves through these schemes then try to propagate their retarded ideas and views through politics and such.
 
Ugh, I wouldn't touch those with dismal's abacus.

It's probably changed a lot since you were in school.

Maybe the two sides of the balance sheet don't have to match any more.

I thought thanks to Enron it doesn't matter any more.

I only remember one or two classes where they talked about duty to shareholders. We also had an ethics class that has been added in most schools to address the problem outlined.
 
It's probably changed a lot since you were in school.

Maybe the two sides of the balance sheet don't have to match any more.

I thought thanks to Enron it doesn't matter any more.

I only remember one or two classes where they talked about duty to shareholders. We also had an ethics class that has been added in most schools to address the problem outlined.

I've heard from several different philosophy professors that "business 'ethics'" is one of the most unfortunate philosophy classes, often targeted at teaching claptrap focused on doing things with a narrow focus on legality, loyalty, duty to backers, and discussions about whistleblowing, however I admittedly have no direct experience of such courses as I generally focus any such coursework on 'real' ethics and philosophy.

Needless to say, I'm pretty sure that business ethics courses as required for these degrees are kind of like the math and literature courses targeted at football players.
 
I'm often curious as to how colleges think you can teach ethics. You either are or aren't a sociopath.
 
I thought thanks to Enron it doesn't matter any more.

I only remember one or two classes where they talked about duty to shareholders. We also had an ethics class that has been added in most schools to address the problem outlined.

I've heard from several different philosophy professors that "business 'ethics'" is one of the most unfortunate philosophy classes, often targeted at teaching claptrap focused on doing things with a narrow focus on legality, loyalty, duty to backers, and discussions about whistleblowing, however I admittedly have no direct experience of such courses as I generally focus any such coursework on 'real' ethics and philosophy.

Needless to say, I'm pretty sure that business ethics courses as required for these degrees are kind of like the math and literature courses targeted at football players.

It was an okay class, but I did like philosophy at the time. They try and have you take a look viewing decisions in the different frameworks.
 
I'm often curious as to how colleges think you can teach ethics. You either are or aren't a sociopath.

Actually, you are quite wrong. You assume that ethics are the same as morality. I myself am... well, let's just say I like a great many things which I know that I ought never do, and have many fantasies that the average person on the street would pale at hearing about. I would hazard to say that I could make Lovecraft himself blush at the artistry of my depravity, and I take pride in that fact.

Despite this rather abnormal mindscape I find in my head, I can, due entirely to the products of rational thought and education, understand why I ought not do many of the things that I otherwise would, and I do so for what I am pretty certain are entirely selfish reasons. I have even begun to take pleasure in the sadistic joy of watching my own dark desires be foiled by my ability to decide to do what is prudent over what is directly enjoyable, like laughing at a dog who is injuring himself in the act of attempting to free himself from a cage, or like deriving pleasure from watching a crack addict write in agony as he suffers from withdrawal (though in this case, I happen to share my head space with said beast or addict).

The teaching of ethics starts with understanding the world and strategies and justifications for survival and how these systems of thought can be built to cover all cases without introducing contradictions or concealed vagueness.
 
I think the value of an MBA has been in a sort of recession of it's own, due in no small part to the points being made in the OP. This article is from 2012:

http://business.financialpost.com/executive/business-education/why-the-value-of-the-mba-has-declined?__lsa=6e3a-c684

Rakesh Khurana, a professor at Harvard Business School and author of From Higher Aims to Hired Hands, a historical analysis of business education, says business schools never really taught their students that, like doctors and lawyers, they were part of a profession with professional standards. In the 1970s, he said, the idea took hold that a company’s stock price was the primary barometer of a leader’s success. Among other things, this changed business schools’ concept of proper management techniques. Instead of being viewed as long-term economic stewards, he says, managers came to be seen primarily as the agents of the owners — the shareholders — responsible for maximizing shareholder wealth.”We can’t rely on the usual structure of MBA education, which divides the management world into the discrete business functions of marketing, finance, accounting, and so on,” he says.

The challenge for business schools now is how to develop leaders not managers — people who believe business has bottom lines beyond shareholder value.

I'm also a huge proponent of promoting leaders from within - even if it means sending them to be educated on the administration aspects of business.

aa
 
Or his experience is over 30 years old and things are changing. Plus, not all schools are going to be teaching the same philosophy.

Maybe my being a biologist makes me misunderstand the modern market. I've only studied economics as a hobby (reading Friedman, Smith, etc...) apart from some courses in school in ag econ, natural resource and environmental economics, and game theory. My current belief is that the tax code, low rate on capital gains and whatnot, encourages people to seek profit by winning at trades rather than by producing something and selling it. A smart kid coming out of school is going to learn how to extract capital and grow a portfolio rather than build a business that produces a product or service. I consider it a by-product of the supply-side scam. Capital is going to just magically go to productive use even if it is more lucrative to grow the Capital by buying and selling rather than by producing and selling.

I'd bet a testicle that MBA programs have not become less touchy-feely in the last 30 years.
MBA Programs are now a dime a dozen. Most are bloated money makers for colleges and universities. I recently learned that many colleges are calling their continuing professional education courses "mini-MBAs".

- - - Updated - - -

I'm thinking through my business experience back to my college classes and I'm not familiar with the technical term "touchy-feely". What's that mean?
See: Roger Alias
 
I'm thinking through my business experience back to my college classes and I'm not familiar with the technical term "touchy-feely". What's that mean?

In this context the Business Ethics classes I took focused on the fact that there are multiple stakeholders for any organization. Shareholders, Employees, Customers, anyone else impacted such as the local community. Decisions should not be made without due consideration of everyone.
 
Back
Top Bottom