The sweat glands of the feet produce moisture, fats, and oils which moisten and lubricate the skin, making it soft and supple. With age, and especially with the onset of vascular and neurologic problems such as those that accompany diabetes mellitus, the number of sweat glands and the amount of secretions decline. The skin tends to become dryer and thinner, lose some of its hair and elasticity, and itch.
Itching induces scratching, and scratching the feet may break the skin, permitting bacteria commonly found on the feet to cause infection. Also, dry skin is brittle and cracks easily. The cracking of chapped skin also opens a path for bacterial infection. Heel fissures are a common problem among the elderly, especially when the blood supply is inadequate. Deepening of the normal skin creases can lead to cracking and the likelihood of both pain and infection.
Treatment of dry skin aims to replace lost moisture, fats, and oils by application of an emollient skin cream. The cream should be rubbed in well over all parts of the feet except between the toes. In severe cases, the feet should be soaked for five or ten minutes in lukewarm water, then patted almost dry before cream is applied. The remaining dampness will help to moisten the skin and allow the cream to penetrate faster.
Although many good creams are available, it should be kept in mind that price is not a reliable index of quality. Also, because of the variability of the human skin, a product that works well for one person may not be satisfactory for another. Thus, several trials with different brands of cream may be necessary before one is found that is adequate. Use of petrolatum (petroleum jelly) and lanolin should be avoided as these are basically greases. When applied, they coat the skin but do not replenish moisture or oil. While greasy skin appears to be soft and supple, removal of the coating will reveal skin as dry as it was before the grease was applied.
The heels should be generously covered with skin cream because of their tendency to crack easily as a result of persistent dryness. Occasionally, heel fissures may require additional therapy, including bath oil soaks, protective petrolatum gauze dressings, and heel cups.
If, after several weeks of regular applications of cream, the foot has failed to respond satisfactorily, a professional examination is in order. Many skin conditions such as dryness, scaling, and peeling may be more than just dry skin. A break in the skin in particular is a sign to consult a podiatrist or physician without delay, because it may be associated with circulation changes which reduce the amount of blood reaching the foot and render it more vulnerable to infection. Such infection is much more easily prevented than treated.
The skin between the toes -- toe webs -- is usually moist, no matter how dry the rest of the foot may appear. It is important to keep the toe webs as dry as possible at all times, and this is most easily done by daily use of foot powder. Ordinary cornstarch is best because it absorbs more moisture than the talcum powder used in commercial preparations. It is also much less expensive.
Business schools, the capacity of students, business situations
How can business schools strengthen the capacity of students for precise but imaginative reasoning about business situations? The answer, briefly put, would seem to be to give them certain essential tools and knowledge of subject matter which can then be applied to a variety of business issues and problems. Both these aspects of the students' development need to be carried forward together, but preparation in the foundation subjects should be emphasized in the undergraduate years while application of such knowledge to specific business problems should be emphasized at the graduate level. The special province of business schools at both levels of study, however, is to serve as a bridge between these two phases of the students' growth.
The need for persons in business with technical competence in at least one significant area plus a capacity for grasping the broader implications of problems poses a difficult issue for business schools, especially at the undergraduate level. If the schools stress the kind of general preparation associated with executive responsibility, they are accused of preparing students for positions their students will never attain; if they stress specific job preparation, they are accused of providing narrow vocational training.
The view suggested here is that there is a wide range of jobs, both in and out of the managerial ranks, for which a broad type of education with very limited specialized training seems altogether appropriate. Simply because a school adopts this approach does not mean that it aims to prepare large numbers of students for top executive positions. Rather it means that essentially the same kind of education appears to be appropriate for a wide range of jobs and careers. This conception of the role of business schools has come to be associated with a management or managerial decision-making emphasis, and this terminology is accordingly used in the present study. This way of characterizing the work of business schools, however, should not be interpreted as meaning that all programs should be aimed exclusively at top-management or even uppermanagement positions.
The need for persons in business with technical competence in at least one significant area plus a capacity for grasping the broader implications of problems poses a difficult issue for business schools, especially at the undergraduate level. If the schools stress the kind of general preparation associated with executive responsibility, they are accused of preparing students for positions their students will never attain; if they stress specific job preparation, they are accused of providing narrow vocational training.
The view suggested here is that there is a wide range of jobs, both in and out of the managerial ranks, for which a broad type of education with very limited specialized training seems altogether appropriate. Simply because a school adopts this approach does not mean that it aims to prepare large numbers of students for top executive positions. Rather it means that essentially the same kind of education appears to be appropriate for a wide range of jobs and careers. This conception of the role of business schools has come to be associated with a management or managerial decision-making emphasis, and this terminology is accordingly used in the present study. This way of characterizing the work of business schools, however, should not be interpreted as meaning that all programs should be aimed exclusively at top-management or even uppermanagement positions.
Elements in Business Career - Business Schools
Any discussions of the elements which go into different careers in business must start with the admission that there is very little known about this complicated and elusive subject. While the effort to piece together some kind of a general picture seems worth attempting--and from the point of view of the business schools, inescapable--there is no use pretending that the results will be anything but first approximations, subject to numerous qualifications and questions.
Broadly speaking, careers in business which call for special college preparation can be said to consist of three main components: technical skills, general background qualities, and what might be termed "strategic capacities." The first refer to the particular techniques which have to be mastered to achieve competence in any line of work, whether as a stenographer or secretary, bookkeeper or comptroller, foreman or company executive; while there are certain general groupings of such skills. they obviously cover a wide range of positions, and any one school cannot hope to include more than a few. The second component refers to background preparation necessary to carry out job responsibilities, such as knowledge of language and literature, ability to handle numerical relations, observance of accepted standards of behavior, and the like. While an essential element in all lines of work, this phase of career preparation does not point to any special role for business schools since it can be satisfied by studies of a rather general nature. The third component refers to the capacity for grasping relationships between jobs, activities, physical magnitudes, and/or human beings in a business environment, and developing out of them a pattern of analysis and a specific course of action. This capacity for creative synthesis, though hard to define and harder still to prepare for in an academic program, can be brought to a wide variety of jobs in business and, by the same token, to every stage in a business career.
Put somewhat more specifically, this last-named capacity has to do with reasoning about business-operating questions with both precision and imagination, seeing the immediate and further removed possibilities in situations, using general principles to illuminate concrete problems, and working through the complexities of specific cases to workable solutions. Put more broadly, this quality has to do with the growth-potential which an employer or administrator always looks for in a subordinate. The capacity for seeing beyond the immediate and routine is, of course, much more important in some positions than in others, and different aspects of this capacity are emphasized in different branches of a business (production, finance, etc.); accordingly, such differences have to be taken into account in developing suitable programs of academic work. The underlying capacity required, however, is potentially useful in all jobs and careers in business, and the prime task of business schools is to foster it in every possible way.
Qualities of character and personality are still of great, even of paramount, importance in management. They can be learned only through practical experience. And such practical experience is still the most vital element in the development of any executive, provided it is practical experience of the right kind. But unless it is accompanied by mental capacity of a high order, the fruit of continuous intellectual development, it will be sterile. Everyone knows men of unimpeachable integrity and sterling worth who have remained janitors or mechanics. The difference, the new factor, in the total situation is the recognition of the importance of the intellectual factor in the complete picture and of the fact that intellectual growth can occur only as the result of continuous education.
Broadly speaking, careers in business which call for special college preparation can be said to consist of three main components: technical skills, general background qualities, and what might be termed "strategic capacities." The first refer to the particular techniques which have to be mastered to achieve competence in any line of work, whether as a stenographer or secretary, bookkeeper or comptroller, foreman or company executive; while there are certain general groupings of such skills. they obviously cover a wide range of positions, and any one school cannot hope to include more than a few. The second component refers to background preparation necessary to carry out job responsibilities, such as knowledge of language and literature, ability to handle numerical relations, observance of accepted standards of behavior, and the like. While an essential element in all lines of work, this phase of career preparation does not point to any special role for business schools since it can be satisfied by studies of a rather general nature. The third component refers to the capacity for grasping relationships between jobs, activities, physical magnitudes, and/or human beings in a business environment, and developing out of them a pattern of analysis and a specific course of action. This capacity for creative synthesis, though hard to define and harder still to prepare for in an academic program, can be brought to a wide variety of jobs in business and, by the same token, to every stage in a business career.
Put somewhat more specifically, this last-named capacity has to do with reasoning about business-operating questions with both precision and imagination, seeing the immediate and further removed possibilities in situations, using general principles to illuminate concrete problems, and working through the complexities of specific cases to workable solutions. Put more broadly, this quality has to do with the growth-potential which an employer or administrator always looks for in a subordinate. The capacity for seeing beyond the immediate and routine is, of course, much more important in some positions than in others, and different aspects of this capacity are emphasized in different branches of a business (production, finance, etc.); accordingly, such differences have to be taken into account in developing suitable programs of academic work. The underlying capacity required, however, is potentially useful in all jobs and careers in business, and the prime task of business schools is to foster it in every possible way.
Qualities of character and personality are still of great, even of paramount, importance in management. They can be learned only through practical experience. And such practical experience is still the most vital element in the development of any executive, provided it is practical experience of the right kind. But unless it is accompanied by mental capacity of a high order, the fruit of continuous intellectual development, it will be sterile. Everyone knows men of unimpeachable integrity and sterling worth who have remained janitors or mechanics. The difference, the new factor, in the total situation is the recognition of the importance of the intellectual factor in the complete picture and of the fact that intellectual growth can occur only as the result of continuous education.
Business schools on preparing students for work
The fact that even the most promising students cannot hope to assume highly responsible jobs in business for a number of years after graduation raises an issue of critical importance for this branch of higher education. If business schools concentrate on preparing students for work they will be doing twenty or thirty years after graduation, the value of their education will largely be limited to later stages in their careers. On the other hand, to concentrate on the initial stage of the students' working lives by only helping them secure their first jobs would lead to an even more restricted educational result.
Neither of these conceptions of the role of business schools appears wholly satisfactory since the full value of the college-going experience can only be realized if it contributes to every stage in a person's development. Knowledge tends to be quickly forgotten unless it is used regularly. If the work which students take at business schools is aimed either at beginning jobs or at some point late in their careers, its chances of achieving meaning for the individual are greatly reduced. In a changing world where many business school students will go to work in jobs and companies not known at the start, knowledge must be generally applicable across jobs and companies in order to have any value outside of pedagogy. The need is for knowledge and understanding which will transfer to new situations and for the kinds of abilities which will be useful at all stages of a person's career. A lifelong view of learning would thus appear to be quite as applicable to the work of business schools as to any other branch of higher education.
The foregoing raises the question whether there are elements which are common to a wide range of jobs and careers in business and if so, whether business schools are especially well qualified to prepare for them. If the answer to either part of this question is in the negative, the need for offering special preparation for careers in business as an aspect of a general college or university program largely disappears. Since the greater part of the rationale of the business school movement as it has developed in this country rests on the answer to this question.
Neither of these conceptions of the role of business schools appears wholly satisfactory since the full value of the college-going experience can only be realized if it contributes to every stage in a person's development. Knowledge tends to be quickly forgotten unless it is used regularly. If the work which students take at business schools is aimed either at beginning jobs or at some point late in their careers, its chances of achieving meaning for the individual are greatly reduced. In a changing world where many business school students will go to work in jobs and companies not known at the start, knowledge must be generally applicable across jobs and companies in order to have any value outside of pedagogy. The need is for knowledge and understanding which will transfer to new situations and for the kinds of abilities which will be useful at all stages of a person's career. A lifelong view of learning would thus appear to be quite as applicable to the work of business schools as to any other branch of higher education.
The foregoing raises the question whether there are elements which are common to a wide range of jobs and careers in business and if so, whether business schools are especially well qualified to prepare for them. If the answer to either part of this question is in the negative, the need for offering special preparation for careers in business as an aspect of a general college or university program largely disappears. Since the greater part of the rationale of the business school movement as it has developed in this country rests on the answer to this question.
Business careers involve many elements - Colleges and universities
Business careers involve many elements which lie outside the purview of higher education. The principal contribution which business schools can make is to help students apply general knowledge and special abilities to significant business problems. A variety of educational backgrounds is needed at all levels of company organizations but especially at upper management levels. Colleges and universities should concentrate on strengthening the students' powers of imaginative thinking. Business schools should concentrate on helping students apply background knowledge and general-purpose tools to significant business problems.
The problems encountered in running a business organization define the special province of business education while the staffing needs of these organizations determine how graduates of business schools will be employed. Any appraisal of academic work in this area must therefore consider the question of employer requirements for qualified personnel. In turning to the "market" for guidance, however, the business schools confront a welter of opinion.
Even with respect to the corporate sector, which includes the most influential companies, extreme care has to be exercised in interpreting employer thinking and practice because of the diversity of their needs, experience, and backgrounds. Few employers and company officers have had the opportunity to give these matters much systematic thought and quite naturally they are inclined to approach such questions in rather personal terms. It is therefore important to relate the discussion of employer viewpoints and experience to the particular industries or groups involved and wherever possible to check their opinions against observed behavior. The various soundings among employers which are attempted in this and the next chapter should be thought of, not as providing any precise guideposts, but as suggesting some general approaches to the field of business education.
In the face of the many diverse purposes which they might serve, a number of business schools have endeavored to center their programs around upper-staff and line positions in industry. Even under the most favorable circumstances there is real question how far students can go in this direction; no ready-made formula exists whereby a school's program can be given a top-management emphasis and thereby achieve solid content. Nevertheless, if this conception of business education were really held to, there is little doubt but what the work in this area would be greatly clarified--study designed to prepare for less complex and less important jobs would be left to other institutions, to on-the-job training, or to the individual studying on his own. The basic difficulty is that, if taken at all seriously, this conception of academic preparation for business would close out most programs now in existence, since there obviously are not enough openings in upper management to satisfy more than a minute fraction of the thousands of students enrolled in these courses. As a consequence, it leads to confusion and even misrepresentation for the great majority of business schools to assert, or imply, that they are preparing students for jobs at this level of responsibility. This applies with particular force to undergraduate business schools, but it bears on many offering graduate work as well.
The problems encountered in running a business organization define the special province of business education while the staffing needs of these organizations determine how graduates of business schools will be employed. Any appraisal of academic work in this area must therefore consider the question of employer requirements for qualified personnel. In turning to the "market" for guidance, however, the business schools confront a welter of opinion.
Even with respect to the corporate sector, which includes the most influential companies, extreme care has to be exercised in interpreting employer thinking and practice because of the diversity of their needs, experience, and backgrounds. Few employers and company officers have had the opportunity to give these matters much systematic thought and quite naturally they are inclined to approach such questions in rather personal terms. It is therefore important to relate the discussion of employer viewpoints and experience to the particular industries or groups involved and wherever possible to check their opinions against observed behavior. The various soundings among employers which are attempted in this and the next chapter should be thought of, not as providing any precise guideposts, but as suggesting some general approaches to the field of business education.
In the face of the many diverse purposes which they might serve, a number of business schools have endeavored to center their programs around upper-staff and line positions in industry. Even under the most favorable circumstances there is real question how far students can go in this direction; no ready-made formula exists whereby a school's program can be given a top-management emphasis and thereby achieve solid content. Nevertheless, if this conception of business education were really held to, there is little doubt but what the work in this area would be greatly clarified--study designed to prepare for less complex and less important jobs would be left to other institutions, to on-the-job training, or to the individual studying on his own. The basic difficulty is that, if taken at all seriously, this conception of academic preparation for business would close out most programs now in existence, since there obviously are not enough openings in upper management to satisfy more than a minute fraction of the thousands of students enrolled in these courses. As a consequence, it leads to confusion and even misrepresentation for the great majority of business schools to assert, or imply, that they are preparing students for jobs at this level of responsibility. This applies with particular force to undergraduate business schools, but it bears on many offering graduate work as well.
The natural trend among undergraduate business students
The natural trend among undergraduate business students appears to be in the direction of greater demand for strictly business subjects and, within the latter, for major specialties of a quite practical, first-job value. This poses the following question: If specific job training is what most of the students want and perhaps are best suited for, what would be gained, other than a certain amount of frustration and lowered morale, from tightening admissions policies, increasing the analytical content of the work, and generally raising standards?
The answer to this query, which is obviously crucial to any assessment of business school programs, turns on five principal considerations. First, it begs the question posed at the outset of this chapter whether there are certain areas of study which constitute the distinctive subject matter of this field. If not, then one program of work is quite as good as any other, and perhaps student appeal is as proper a criterion to apply as any; but from the viewpoint of an educational enterprise, this is certainly an argument of last resort. Student preferences and interests will naturally be reflected in the emphasis given certain parts of a school's program, but responsibility for its general direction and character must rest with the faculty and administrative leaders. After the basic elements have been worked out and the essential subjects agreed upon, rather than before, is the time to consider student motivation, morale, preferences, and the like. This in turn underscores the importance of looking at the programs of business schools in terms of the total career needs of the students, an aspect of the problem which is considered at some length in the next two chapters. Presumably, student demands for certain types of courses reflect their ideas as to what employers want and what successful careers in business require; a careful review of the problem from the latter point of view is accordingly very much in order.
Second, the prevailing pattern of student interests and motives is a product of the quality, previous training, and thinking habits of existing student groups at business schools. It would be hazardous to assume that this pattern is fixed and immutable for all time--it is not unheard of for people, even students, to change habitual ways of thinking. If the business schools, either singly or together, concluded that a certain level and type of work had to be mastered, the chances seem reasonably good that many students would respond. Furthermore, at any one institution there is the distinct possibility that higher standards would gradually attract a student body capable of handling the work at a more demanding level, while students who could not hold the pace would look elsewhere. Even before enrollment pressures have become great enough to exert much effect along these lines, a few business schools have already taken a number of steps to tighten admission policies and raise standards generally, a pattern which is increasingly characteristic of such areas as engineering, law, and medicine as well as of a number of other branches of higher education.
Third, it is easy to exaggerate the attitudinal-motivational differences between business students and other undergraduates. Mention has already been made of the strong career emphasis which apparently permeates the thinking of all campus groups, especially those in undergraduate professional schools.
The answer to this query, which is obviously crucial to any assessment of business school programs, turns on five principal considerations. First, it begs the question posed at the outset of this chapter whether there are certain areas of study which constitute the distinctive subject matter of this field. If not, then one program of work is quite as good as any other, and perhaps student appeal is as proper a criterion to apply as any; but from the viewpoint of an educational enterprise, this is certainly an argument of last resort. Student preferences and interests will naturally be reflected in the emphasis given certain parts of a school's program, but responsibility for its general direction and character must rest with the faculty and administrative leaders. After the basic elements have been worked out and the essential subjects agreed upon, rather than before, is the time to consider student motivation, morale, preferences, and the like. This in turn underscores the importance of looking at the programs of business schools in terms of the total career needs of the students, an aspect of the problem which is considered at some length in the next two chapters. Presumably, student demands for certain types of courses reflect their ideas as to what employers want and what successful careers in business require; a careful review of the problem from the latter point of view is accordingly very much in order.
Second, the prevailing pattern of student interests and motives is a product of the quality, previous training, and thinking habits of existing student groups at business schools. It would be hazardous to assume that this pattern is fixed and immutable for all time--it is not unheard of for people, even students, to change habitual ways of thinking. If the business schools, either singly or together, concluded that a certain level and type of work had to be mastered, the chances seem reasonably good that many students would respond. Furthermore, at any one institution there is the distinct possibility that higher standards would gradually attract a student body capable of handling the work at a more demanding level, while students who could not hold the pace would look elsewhere. Even before enrollment pressures have become great enough to exert much effect along these lines, a few business schools have already taken a number of steps to tighten admission policies and raise standards generally, a pattern which is increasingly characteristic of such areas as engineering, law, and medicine as well as of a number of other branches of higher education.
Third, it is easy to exaggerate the attitudinal-motivational differences between business students and other undergraduates. Mention has already been made of the strong career emphasis which apparently permeates the thinking of all campus groups, especially those in undergraduate professional schools.
College programs such as those offered by large public institutions
College programs such as those offered by large public institutions in business play a very important part in promoting social mobility for students "from lower positions in the social heap." They also help explain why business schools are tempted to offer a variety of courses of an immediate job-getting value and why it is so difficult to induce students to take work outside the business area. For many students attending these institutions, the pull to keep within the business curriculum, and even within a major subject within this curriculum, seems wellnigh irresistible. The tenor of the interview reports at almost every institution was strikingly uniform on this score--again and again those interviewed said that students were inclined to choose as many courses as possible in the business area, with a heavy emphasis on a given major. Students headed for jobs in accounting were reported as wanting all the accounting work they could get, the future marketing specialists as wanting course after course in marketing, the insurance majors as much insurance as possible, the more specific and practical the better-such was the gist of interviews conducted with deans and course advisers in business schools in all parts of the country. As the assistant dean in a large business school with a four-year program put the issue: "Our students don't see anything to be gained by taking advanced courses in liberal arts. If we didn't lay down the law, I think they'd take almost all their Junior and Senior year in their major."Another dean at an institution with a 2-2-year program stated:
We urge our students to take their "swing" electives outside the business school but it's an uphill fight. In spite of everything we do, I'll bet almost all of their work during the last two years is taken in business subjects and a good deal of that, in one area.
A review of the programs of undergraduate business students at the latter institution, one of the most highly regarded in the country, shows that nearly three-fourths of all the junior and senior students took their entire last two years in business subjects, whereas only a minimum of 42 of the 60 hours was actually required. A review of a large sampling of student transcripts at comparable institutions in other parts of the country modifies these results somewhat. For example, a random sampling of the course programs of fifty-five students majoring in accounting and marketing in six large business schools in the Middle West and South revealed that the great majority of accounting students took five or less courses outside business and economics during their last two years, while most of the marketing students took between six and nine such courses.
It seems doubtful that much of the latter work played a very vital part in the total educational development of these students. Within the business field, the accounting students tended to concentrate in their field of specialization beyond the minimum required by their departmental major (two-thirds took between ten and twelve courses in accounting whereas only seven to nine were actually required); most of the marketing students, on the other hand, kept fairly close to the minimum five to seven courses required by their departmental regulations.
We urge our students to take their "swing" electives outside the business school but it's an uphill fight. In spite of everything we do, I'll bet almost all of their work during the last two years is taken in business subjects and a good deal of that, in one area.
A review of the programs of undergraduate business students at the latter institution, one of the most highly regarded in the country, shows that nearly three-fourths of all the junior and senior students took their entire last two years in business subjects, whereas only a minimum of 42 of the 60 hours was actually required. A review of a large sampling of student transcripts at comparable institutions in other parts of the country modifies these results somewhat. For example, a random sampling of the course programs of fifty-five students majoring in accounting and marketing in six large business schools in the Middle West and South revealed that the great majority of accounting students took five or less courses outside business and economics during their last two years, while most of the marketing students took between six and nine such courses.
It seems doubtful that much of the latter work played a very vital part in the total educational development of these students. Within the business field, the accounting students tended to concentrate in their field of specialization beyond the minimum required by their departmental major (two-thirds took between ten and twelve courses in accounting whereas only seven to nine were actually required); most of the marketing students, on the other hand, kept fairly close to the minimum five to seven courses required by their departmental regulations.
Influence on a business school's program is the background
Ano important influence on a business school's program is the background, interests, and motivations of its students. A widely held view is that most students studying business subjects have a rather strong vocational orientation and that to a greater or lesser extent business programs will inevitably be shaped by this fact. According to this view, to force such students to spend any considerable amount of time studying subjects far removed from their main interest is felt to be largely a waste of time if not actually stultifying; rather, it is said, their college work should be geared closely to their career interests without permitting the latter to become completely dominant.
In assessing this point of view, it should be recognized at the outset that there is comparatively little known about the interests, motivations, and learning capacities or processes of college students, particularly when grouped by programs of major study, so these are not matters which can be discussed with much assurance. This comment may apply somewhat less strongly to students in a well-defined specialty like forestry or accounting and to students concentrating on a specific career objective at the graduate level, but it holds with special force for undergraduates, and even general graduate students, in broad, vaguely defined areas like business administration and the liberal arts. In both cases it seems only plausible to assume, a priori, that the interests and attitudes of the students would be spread out over a rather wide spectrum, with some (presumably a relatively small number) interested in the broader reaches of knowledge, others (presumably a somewhat larger number) interested almost exclusively in some specific vocational objective, and still others (presumably the largest group of all) lacking any clear educational or career purpose.
It is evident from the investigations that a substantial portion of college students, including those in liberal arts programs, think of their college experience primarily in terms of finding a good job and advancing their subsequent careers. This is hardly a surprising result and, particularly for men students, a thoroughly understandable one. The issue is not so much whether undergraduates (business students included) approach their college work in career terms but rather in what sense and to what extent this attitude is dominant during their college going years. The type of career interest, and the approach which students and schools take to it, is really the important issue, since some career interests can be most broadening and others may be very narrowing. The available evidence, while for the most part indirect and sketchy, is reviewed from this point of view.
In assessing this point of view, it should be recognized at the outset that there is comparatively little known about the interests, motivations, and learning capacities or processes of college students, particularly when grouped by programs of major study, so these are not matters which can be discussed with much assurance. This comment may apply somewhat less strongly to students in a well-defined specialty like forestry or accounting and to students concentrating on a specific career objective at the graduate level, but it holds with special force for undergraduates, and even general graduate students, in broad, vaguely defined areas like business administration and the liberal arts. In both cases it seems only plausible to assume, a priori, that the interests and attitudes of the students would be spread out over a rather wide spectrum, with some (presumably a relatively small number) interested in the broader reaches of knowledge, others (presumably a somewhat larger number) interested almost exclusively in some specific vocational objective, and still others (presumably the largest group of all) lacking any clear educational or career purpose.
It is evident from the investigations that a substantial portion of college students, including those in liberal arts programs, think of their college experience primarily in terms of finding a good job and advancing their subsequent careers. This is hardly a surprising result and, particularly for men students, a thoroughly understandable one. The issue is not so much whether undergraduates (business students included) approach their college work in career terms but rather in what sense and to what extent this attitude is dominant during their college going years. The type of career interest, and the approach which students and schools take to it, is really the important issue, since some career interests can be most broadening and others may be very narrowing. The available evidence, while for the most part indirect and sketchy, is reviewed from this point of view.
Undergraduate and graduate - levels reputation hard
In general, and at both undergraduate and graduate levels, fields which have the reputation of being "hard" get somewhat brighter groups of students than do fields which have the reputation of being easy. This is true whether one thinks of broad areas--for example, science ranks above education and commerce--or of individual fields--chemistry, mathematics, and physics average higher than do biology and geology. Thus the physical sciences, languages, engineering, and law are all fairly close to the top of the lists, while education, business, some of the social sciences, home economics, and physical education are close to the lower end.
Reports based on interviews with faculty members of about seventy undergraduate schools lend general support to these findings. On the other hand, the opinion was expressed by both the business and nonbusiness faculty at some schools that the intellectual quality and academic seriousness of the business students were improving, and at a few institutions it was agreed that they were "catching up" or had even gone ahead of some groups in the liberal arts schools.
In assessing the steps which undergraduate and graduate business schools might take to draw more highly qualified students, it is worth asking whether careers in business have as much attraction for the most capable students, academically speaking, as careers in science, medicine, engineering, and law. The difference cannot be measured at all precisely since careers in business are so diverse; to make the comparisons accurate, business would have to be broken down into a number of categories and levels--accountants, brokerage account executives, purchasing officers, office managers, sales directors, and the like. Moreover, business is entered by so many different educational routes--high school, night school, junior college, liberal arts, engineering and business schools, among others--that the sampling problem becomes most difficult.
Moreover, even under the most favorable circumstances, the study of business is a relatively undemanding subject or can easily be made so. The upshot is that, barring unusual factors, the pressures to dilute content, reduce standards, and concentrate on practical skills win out. It takes a most exceptional school, possessing bold, imaginative leadership, plus a venturesome, dedicated faculty and strong backing from the parent university to break out of this circle of unfavorable circumstances.
These facts may be interpreted as indicating that the situation is hopeless or, alternatively, that efforts should be redoubled to reverse the natural course of events and raise standards all along the line. The latter seems the only defensible course of action. The fact that serious difficulties stand in the way of raising academic standards at many business schools should not be allowed to determine university policies. Rather, the difficulties should be faced and dealt with as effectively as possible.
Reports based on interviews with faculty members of about seventy undergraduate schools lend general support to these findings. On the other hand, the opinion was expressed by both the business and nonbusiness faculty at some schools that the intellectual quality and academic seriousness of the business students were improving, and at a few institutions it was agreed that they were "catching up" or had even gone ahead of some groups in the liberal arts schools.
In assessing the steps which undergraduate and graduate business schools might take to draw more highly qualified students, it is worth asking whether careers in business have as much attraction for the most capable students, academically speaking, as careers in science, medicine, engineering, and law. The difference cannot be measured at all precisely since careers in business are so diverse; to make the comparisons accurate, business would have to be broken down into a number of categories and levels--accountants, brokerage account executives, purchasing officers, office managers, sales directors, and the like. Moreover, business is entered by so many different educational routes--high school, night school, junior college, liberal arts, engineering and business schools, among others--that the sampling problem becomes most difficult.
Moreover, even under the most favorable circumstances, the study of business is a relatively undemanding subject or can easily be made so. The upshot is that, barring unusual factors, the pressures to dilute content, reduce standards, and concentrate on practical skills win out. It takes a most exceptional school, possessing bold, imaginative leadership, plus a venturesome, dedicated faculty and strong backing from the parent university to break out of this circle of unfavorable circumstances.
These facts may be interpreted as indicating that the situation is hopeless or, alternatively, that efforts should be redoubled to reverse the natural course of events and raise standards all along the line. The latter seems the only defensible course of action. The fact that serious difficulties stand in the way of raising academic standards at many business schools should not be allowed to determine university policies. Rather, the difficulties should be faced and dealt with as effectively as possible.
Undergraduate and graduate business schools admissions standards
The direction which undergraduate and graduate business schools take with respect to their admissions policies is closely related to the issues just noted. If business administration becomes an increasingly distinct area of study with certain required subjects or skills to be mastered and certain standards of performance to be fulfilled, admissions policies would have to be modified accordingly. If, above a minimum level of quality, provision is made among schools for variation in an upward direction, it is obvious that the admission policies and/or graduation requirements of some schools would necessarily be a good deal more restrictive than others. As any field of learning develops, these two issues of minimum admission or performance standards, and variations above the minimum, become crucial.
For undergraduate business schools which admit students as freshmen, admissions standards are now largely decided on a university-wide basis. Looking ahead, there seems no reason why this should be universally true. Schools of architecture or engineering which admit freshmen are generally not bound by the admissions standards applicable to other students. If business schools continue to accept students in their first year, they should be permitted to establish standards equivalent to the stronger branches of instruction, though perhaps little progress can be made in this direction until this field of study becomes more clearly defined. As matters now stand, the admission policies of four-year undergraduate business schools are largely a result of the fact that these schools are concentrated at institutions which admit all graduates of accredited high schools.
There is only a bare handful of four-year schools located at universities which carefully screen beginning students. If many students and employers look to schools which maintain high admission standards, this small group of institutions will not begin to meet the demand. As long as present admission practices persist, any school seeking to raise its standards of academic performance is subject to the very serious handicap that there is a hard core of beginning students who do not have the minimum mental equipment to handle more demanding work. In the interests of diversity and greater variety of choice alone, there is pressing need for a good many more schools with high standards of admissions; schools which are obliged to accept all high school graduates have no alternative but to screen students at the end of their sophomore or junior years more carefully.
Most of the four-year business schools are located at universities which legally or in fact are committed to accepting any graduate from an accredited high school within a given state or locality. In these schools and universities the only effective way of improving the quality of students is to screen them more intensively at the end of the freshman or sophomore year. On the contrary, in many instances the business schools were found to be a good deal more lax than most other branches of the universities visited in setting promotion standards beyond the freshman year, with the consequence that they are serving as a dumping ground for students who cannot make the grade in engineering or some branch of the liberal arts. This need not be the case, as the example of a few of the four-year schools testifies, and the time seems well past when this condition should be allowed to continue.
Schools which admit students as juniors (a few admit them as sophomores) are in a rather different position with respect to admissions promotion standards, so comparisons are hard to draw. The great majority of the schools in this category, for which admissions information could be secured, required students to have maintained a C average during their first two years of college, typically a universitywide requirement. While this requirement may or may not be very exacting in a given case, at least these schools are not in the position of the four-year schools which have to cope with huge numbers of inferior beginning students. More important still, business schools which admit students as juniors and even sophomores (the so-called "2-2-" and "1-3year" schools) have somewhat more leeway in setting entrance requirements at higher levels. Admissions standards under these programs are definitely above those for the student body as a whole; this is true at California (both Berkeley and UCLA), Emory, North Carolina, and Wisconsin among others; at four-year schools for which information could be secured, Rutgers was the only example of a business school which requires its students to maintain a somewhat higher grade average after admission than is demanded by the parent university. Other considerations aside, this means that the 2-2- and 1-3year schools are in a considerably better position to raise standards than the 4-year schools.
For undergraduate business schools which admit students as freshmen, admissions standards are now largely decided on a university-wide basis. Looking ahead, there seems no reason why this should be universally true. Schools of architecture or engineering which admit freshmen are generally not bound by the admissions standards applicable to other students. If business schools continue to accept students in their first year, they should be permitted to establish standards equivalent to the stronger branches of instruction, though perhaps little progress can be made in this direction until this field of study becomes more clearly defined. As matters now stand, the admission policies of four-year undergraduate business schools are largely a result of the fact that these schools are concentrated at institutions which admit all graduates of accredited high schools.
There is only a bare handful of four-year schools located at universities which carefully screen beginning students. If many students and employers look to schools which maintain high admission standards, this small group of institutions will not begin to meet the demand. As long as present admission practices persist, any school seeking to raise its standards of academic performance is subject to the very serious handicap that there is a hard core of beginning students who do not have the minimum mental equipment to handle more demanding work. In the interests of diversity and greater variety of choice alone, there is pressing need for a good many more schools with high standards of admissions; schools which are obliged to accept all high school graduates have no alternative but to screen students at the end of their sophomore or junior years more carefully.
Most of the four-year business schools are located at universities which legally or in fact are committed to accepting any graduate from an accredited high school within a given state or locality. In these schools and universities the only effective way of improving the quality of students is to screen them more intensively at the end of the freshman or sophomore year. On the contrary, in many instances the business schools were found to be a good deal more lax than most other branches of the universities visited in setting promotion standards beyond the freshman year, with the consequence that they are serving as a dumping ground for students who cannot make the grade in engineering or some branch of the liberal arts. This need not be the case, as the example of a few of the four-year schools testifies, and the time seems well past when this condition should be allowed to continue.
Schools which admit students as juniors (a few admit them as sophomores) are in a rather different position with respect to admissions promotion standards, so comparisons are hard to draw. The great majority of the schools in this category, for which admissions information could be secured, required students to have maintained a C average during their first two years of college, typically a universitywide requirement. While this requirement may or may not be very exacting in a given case, at least these schools are not in the position of the four-year schools which have to cope with huge numbers of inferior beginning students. More important still, business schools which admit students as juniors and even sophomores (the so-called "2-2-" and "1-3year" schools) have somewhat more leeway in setting entrance requirements at higher levels. Admissions standards under these programs are definitely above those for the student body as a whole; this is true at California (both Berkeley and UCLA), Emory, North Carolina, and Wisconsin among others; at four-year schools for which information could be secured, Rutgers was the only example of a business school which requires its students to maintain a somewhat higher grade average after admission than is demanded by the parent university. Other considerations aside, this means that the 2-2- and 1-3year schools are in a considerably better position to raise standards than the 4-year schools.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)