MBS in Review: Electives

Continuing from yesterday's post about MBS core subjects, today I'll talk about the electives, which are half of your subjects at MBS.

During orientation, different study strategies were suggested. The first broad view, taking different subjects in different areas without any specialisation in mind. The other option, of course, was to specialise by selecting multiple subjects in the same area.

In my opinion, specialisation is really not much of an option. With the exception of marketing and possibly finance, there are simply not enough subjects offered in a given discipline to specialise.

This is further complicated by popular electives being frequently oversubscribed. If you did have your heart set on finance, for example, it is likely you would have been unable to take the Financial Institutions subject this term. MBS generally offers places to those graduating the soonest so, presumably you'd be able to take the subject some time before you graduated. Of course, that only works if the next time it is offered, it doesn't clash with another class you want to take or, if you are a part-time student, taking a leave of absence for work-related reasons. Personally, I was excluded from both Business Law and Social Policy this term and will not have a chance to take these subjects at a later date unless they offered when I am on exchange (not likely, and I doubt Israeli business law will be very useful in Australia).

I must say, though, that I have taken some excellent electives at MBS. Standouts include:

• Managerial Judgement - examines the psychology of decision making
  
• Brand Management - an MBS staple taught by renown brand guru Mark Ritson
  
• Business and World Trade - a half subject (we call it a unit) taught by Gary Sampson, a former WTO official. My final exam is Friday.
  

It is unlikely you will take any bad electives because you can drop a bad class relatively easily assuming a replacement class isn't oversubscribed. MBS also provides the quantitative assessments of prior classes so you can check what your peers thought of the subject the last time it was taught by the same lecturer. This helps, but word-of-mouth is much more powerful. For example, I was strongly advised against taking the Entrepreneurship subject by several people. This was reinforced by a last minute information session run by the lecturer for future students of his class at a time that was nearly impossible to make. I wasn't impressed and dropped the class shortly thereafter.

I also found one elective had the wrong prerequisites. While I really enjoyed a subject called Managerial Accounting Control Systems (sounds bad, I know), my mark was less than spectacular. One reason is that the final exam favoured those with finance experience, or those who had completed the Financial Management core subject. I hadn't. This remains, by far, my lowest mark at MBS.

Let me sum up what I've been saying. In general MBS electives are pretty good – some of are excellent – and you aren't likely to be stuck in one you don't enjoy unless it is the first time it is offered, the professor is new or you haven't asked around. An MBA from MBS is more for those who want a broad perspective; if you want to focus on HR or innovation, for example, you are out of luck. Students frequently complain that subjects are oversubscribed. This has certainly been fodder for unhappiness this term and I expect it to continue. Expect some frustration in this area.

MBS in Review: The Core Subjects

I had a chat with one of my fellow Melbourne Business School bloggers this past weekend, and he mentioned wrapping up his blogging with some closing remarks regarding his studies at MBS and his MBA in general. Not wanting to be outdone, I thought I would chime in too.

A little context. I am currently half way through my last term at MBS and my second-last term of the program. My last term will be spent on exchange. I have very ambivalent feelings about MBS and I will try to structure my entries in a fair way and I am happy to amend each post as comments are made or to respond to others in the comments section.

The MBA at MBS is divided into the "core" subjects and electives. This entry will be about the core subjects.

There are 9 electives and one subject called World of Management that I'll discuss separately. The core subjects are similar to offerings in other business schools. Overall, I'd rate their content and breadth highly. After completing all but one (Managing Processes), I'd say my metaknowledge has increased (I now know how little I know) but can still hold an intelligent conversation on subjects like accounting and finance. I also have the tools to continue learning in these areas. I'd say that after completing the core, I'd make a better manager and can better engage with "the business."

I was fortunate: I'd rate the lecturers I had for most of the core subjects above average. This wasn't the case for everyone. Most of my intake, for example, has a very poor experience in Financial Management. Because I fell a bit behind with the core subjects, I was fortunate to get someone better.

Some of the core subjects, such as Data & Decisions (D&D) and Managerial Economics, are somewhat mathematical. As MBS students have such a diverse background, some students with rusty math skills struggle with the quantitative subjects. Others, particularly those for whom English is a second language, may struggle through the qualitative subjects. Luckily, MBS allows students to "test out" of a few core subjects. This, no doubt, saves former statisticians the boredom of 12 weeks of D&D. However, for people who have a relatively strong quantitative background (me: major in computer science, master's in software engineering), the math isn't that challenging but I probably won't be able to test out of any of the subjects. Yet, they move a pace more suitable to those without any background in hard sciences. I get get bored…

One last point about the electives. When people ask me why I chose an MBA, one of my responses is that "an MBA is a good course for someone who doesn't know what to do with their lives." I stand by that. An MBA is probably the broadest of all professional degrees. One outcome has been that I can definitely eliminate certain careers from consideration. For example, I now know I have little interest in finance.

World of Management (WoM) is a different beast. This is the very first subject you take at MBS. It is only offered as a one-week intensive (basically 9-5 Monday to Friday), with separates weeks for full time and part time streams. There is no real structure or pattern to WoM. It introduces you to a potpourri of "business related" concepts such as diversity, public speaking, and stress management. No knowledge from anything in these sessions is retained, and I have basically done WoM twice! (Long story, and, no, I didn't fail.)

One good thing about WoM is that there were many break-out activities such as a negotiations exercise, a public speaking contest (I won!), and some peer-to-peer interviewing. So, more than anything, WoM solidifies a connection between new classmates. I'd describe it as a week long orientation. However, unlike a real orientation, you pay for it as if it was a normal subject. That makes it a very expensive orientation. Even more so if you are working and need to take the week off.

In conclusion, I'd rate the MBS core subjects highly for both their breadth and the quality of teaching. However, variance in teaching quality and student capabilities is definitely a problem. World of Management, on the other hand, makes for an excellent social experience, but offers little in terms of learning outcomes. Fortunately, as this point, you only have a vague concept of "value for money."

MBA Exchange

Unable to take all the classes I wanted this term, I decided that rather than take any old class, I would have a reduced course load. The indirect result of this is that I will be left with four subjects to go for next term, just enough to be considered "full time" study.

I decided I will undertake these subjects on exchange.

Now the problem is: where to go? The list of MBS exchange partners is long (about 30 schools). However, I can eliminate over half of them because you are not allowed to go on exchange to your "home country" which for me includes both the U.S. (by citizenship) and Canada (having completed a degree there). Most MBS students go to the U.S. on exchange, with NYU being the most popular. Few go to Europe and fewer still to Asia so it is unlikely I will not be accepted to my top-ranked school.

Choices

Deciding where to go on exchange is typical of most of the hard life decisions one makes. There is a lack of good information and, fortunately, all the choicest seem good; I'm not forced to choose between the lesser of two evils.

Cape Town currently ranks highly on my list. The weather is great, I've been told that the business school is in a fantastic location and Cape Town has natural beauty that is missing in Melbourne. Scandanavian and some other clean, orderly European cities are also appealing: Vienna, St. Gallen, Copenhagen, and Oslo. Rotterdam is a candidate, but seriously, they are not doing anyone any favours with their promotional video (see bottom of the page).

Tel Aviv is also appealing. While I don't like Tel Aviv as a city, I do have friends and family in Tel Aviv and around Israel and they do have subjects related to technology and entrepreneurship that interest me.

East Asian schools have a certain draw. Singapore might a nice place to spend a couple of months, but its low diversity means I may stand out a bit more than I'd like to. (Then again, that could be an opportunity for personal development.)

The deadline is this week, so I'll need to make a decision shortly…

On Psychologists and Technologists

In my Business Strategy class on Saturday morning (!), I asked a seemingly harmless question about why economies of scale did not apply to the now defunct MBS-Melbourne Uni merger. The question apparently struck a nerve with both the lecturer and some of the students. One of the students expressed something I have long felt, not just about the merger, but during my time working at the business school.

We have great faculty in the leading edge of their field. Often, they are engaged in helping real organisations improve their business during the day while lecturing at night and somehow managing to publish their research. Why, then, did the merger fiasco play out the way it did given the business expertise within the school? Why weren't leasons from the Business Strategy subject, for example, applied?

This was the most frustrating thing about working at MBS in general. There was consistent pattern: what I had learned in class was not being applied in the business of the business school. In fact, to the best of my knowledge, the school made very little attempt to integrate the knowledge of the faculty with anything practical.

The lecturer in my class described the general phenomenon whereby those who are best equipped to fix a problem neglect their own problems to focus on those of others This is know as the problem of the problem of the cobbler's children.

This is, of course, no excuse. It's not an explanation. And it isn't generalizable.

Let us consider a counter-example very near to me. Those who work in the IT industry as technologists (as distinct from those in other functions such as project managers) almost always reserve the very best hardware and software for themselves.

Think about it. At a technical conference (say Java), a majority of participants are using Macs (widely considered to be the superior platform). Developers are usually early adopters of the latest and greatest. My peers were the first to use GMail and, more recently, Google Wave. We were the first to set up wireless networks at home. We do things with our laptops that are difficult and complicated, but that help enrich out lives through technology. We have bigger monitors.

Do you really think Sergey Brin, founder of Google, is really using Windows XP? Do you think Joel Spolsky is using Outlook? I don't.

Unfortunately, as I previously wrote, organisations are less likely to adopt the IT practices of their staff, much to their detriment. They are missing the opportunity to make themselves as productive as their most productive employees.

So what separates technology workers from some of the other professions? I'm not sure.

First, my underlying premise may be false. Are IT workers really different from those in other professions? Certainly my perception is that they are but I don't have the research to back this up.

Part of it may be that IT workers genuinely enjoy their field more than others. It is certainly not uncommon to use my leisure time learning new technologies and new ways of doing things; much more so than other professions who might attend a conference or two, and only when paid for by their employer.

Another explanation could be pragmatism. Is a psychologist really going to give himself therapy? Is a doctor really more inclined to diet and exercise? Installing a new Twitter client or learning a new programming language certainly seem much more attainable goals, and the costs are generally small.

The main thing I can conclude is that if you are in a profession or work for a company that doesn't implement the skills you market, your outcome is probably not going to be as successful as you want. That, and technologists probably enjoy their field, on average, more than others. Join us!

Applied Managerial Economics

The Signals vs Noise blog recently cited [via Carly Bishop Cheney] — aside: Carly's home page is dozens of megabytes so you might want to skip the link on your iPhone — the following tweet:

If I get one more inquiry from someone having a huge wedding at an expensive venue asking for ‘recession pricing’ I am going to explode!

Many comments support the logic that because the expenses haven't changed, there is no reason to consider changing the prices. This is, of course, missing half of the equation. A market has a supply curve (this is your expenses) and a demand curve. You are pricing at a markup over your cost, so, indeed, you do have some room to readjust prices.

Certainly, recessions can change the demand curve so it is worth considering whether this has any effect on the elasticity of demand at your current price. If you can increase your profit by lowering prices (thus selling more of your goods or services), you should certainly consider it, but, of course, one must consider the longer terms effects of this strategy. On the other hand, you might also consider raising your prices and selling less, but at a higher price. Elasticity will determine which strategy maximises profit.

I'm surprised that there are so many comments by those who things lowering their price during a recession is such a ridiculous proposition, mainly on the basis that their expenses haven't changed.

Don't Diss the MBA

One of my first blog posts was in praise of Joel Spolsky whose insights into the software sector from both a business and technology perspective are invaluable. But last month Joel wrote an article for Inc magazine on commissions, taking two opportunities to blame poor commission schemes on corporate MBAs:

I can picture the M.B.A. who worked at corporate headquarters. I bet he reaped a big bonus for coming up with an incentive program that dramatically increased the sales of the high-profit silicone spray.

Meanwhile, did anybody notice that the sales of shoes fell by about the same amount?

Or that I started buying my shoes on the Internet?

Sure, blame the MBA for the success of Zappos!

And then:

...Instead of buying the exciting new products I wanted, I was hurled into a mass of people scamming one another -- and all because of stupid, perverse commission systems that seemed like good ideas to the M.B.A.'s back at corporate.

Why Joel has chosen to single out this with a postgraduate degree in business is beyond me. During my MBA class Managing People for High Performance (MPFHP) [see description of the class] we learned of the pitfalls of poor incentive systems, as well as scheme to motivate people through a sophisticated, multi-tiered reward system and to develop them through feedback, not to mention consideration to

• organizational structure and design
• investment in training
• impact and analysis of corporate culture

and lighting the fire to make implement these changes in a dysfunctional organization.

Joel shouldn't blame the business school graduate (or degree) for the demise of companies with poor incentive schemes; he should be engaging MBAs and MBA students to further improve his company, and to articulate and enhance what makes his people high performers.

There will be some MBA students looking to analyze companies in the MPFHP class beginning in Term 1, 2009. I suggest any company skeptical of MBAs to engage the school for these projects.