Critical review of corporatism in university business schools

Education

The current state of institutions of higher learning is interesting and complex. The structure of universities throughout the world brings into question the traditional purpose of universities juxtaposed to the current climate at universities. In particular there is a great emphasis placed on the state of business education at Universities. An article entitled, "Scholarship in university business schools" written by Craig et al., 1999 explores issues of the changing university structure. The purpose of this essay is to provide a critical review of the conclusions made in the article. I will then discuss whether or not I agree with some or all of the conclusions, findings and opinions of the author.

Article critique

The article takes into consideration different assertions made by academics throughout the years related to defining traditional universities and corporate universities.

I didn't find a clear definition of what a traditional university is in the article. The definition given of a corporate university is that they "fit the model of a university described by Cardinal Newman some 150 years ago in his book, The Idea of a University. . .[since]. . .[t]hey seek to increase employees' aptitude for learning by instilling within each individual employee a commitment to lifelong learning, and by providing ease of access for learning and improvement (Craig et al., 1999) ." This seems to be a fair and accurate way to describe a corporate university because it takes into consideration the idea that corporate universities are specifically designed to engage the needs of future employees. This definition does not refer to those who matriculate at universities as students but employees. This is an indication of the influence that the corporate world has on the academic setting.

The authors also explain the conflict between universities academic interests and the interests of corporations. The article explains that universities are "the only institution in our public life that is self-consciously skeptical, that questions, doubts or challenges the prevailing consensus on what is right, true, or good." To be able to do this without fear or favour, the university treasury needs to be independent, so that word and mind are unshackled to a corporate ideology." The authors further assert that the mixture of corporate strategies with academic enquiry is problematic. The main problem with this scenario is that there is a conflict between what scholars believe should be the focus of education and what corporate strategies want to focus on as it pertains to their bottom line which is profitability. This conflict is a difficult battle and in many cases the corporate interests win.

I believe that the conclusions made about how universities become corporate and takeover the identity of a university is accurate. In many ways it is difficult for universities to break away from the corporate interests because of the relationship between corporations and universities. Many corporations have sponsorship relationships with universities. The sponsorship dollars aid the universities in offering students greater resources and assist with school expansion. As a result of this symbiotic relationship the integrity of education can become skewed. Universities, therefore, have to make a concerted effort to maintain the integrity of the education experience.

The authors assert that business professors can be greatly influenced by a world view that is not conducive to teaching business education. The article points out that much of the current worldview revolves around the survival of the fittest. In the context of this worldview there is the presence of unconstrained capitalism which encourages a "cult of success." This cult of success becomes part of the belief system of the professor and as such this worldview is taught to students. This, the authors claim, is detrimental to business students because these same students join corporate America or start the own businesses. Once they are in corporate America or business owners they operate in a manner that is geared toward a cult of success and their can be an abandonment of moral and ethical principles.

I agree with this assumption, professors are influenced by the world around them and it is quite possible that these influences have an effect on the way they teach students. This assertion is also confirmed by the type of courses that are offered through business schools. In most cases only one ethics course is required while there is a great deal of emphasis placed on other aspects of business the ethical aspect of running a business seems to get lost.

The authors also refer to some of the assertions made by Moore (1997) which argue that the faculty at corporate universities or non-universities " are really not faculty at all, since they may be "hired guns" who can readily "change to meet specialization and market needs," presumably on moment's notice (in real time?)." While the Craig et al., 1999 agree that professors are sometime the cause of many problems, it is unfair to dismiss them as nothing more than hired guns. I disagree with Craig et al. (1999) on this issue concerning the role and intentions of professors. Although many prfoessors ay not begin their careers with the thought of readily changing to meet specialization and market needs, professors often succumb to such pressure. This is particularly true when the economy is bad and professors do not have the option of relocating or teaching at a traditional university that has not be taken over by corporate interests. As such many professors succumb to the pressure of teaching in ways that are inconsistent with what being a professor is supposed to entail. In addition it is my belief that people often absorb the social norms around them without being fully aware of such absorption. For professors absorbing a philosophy that emphasizes the survival of the fittest can lead to business management instruction that is ripe with the pursuit of success which translate to the pursuit of money regardless of who is harmed in the process.