User:COYW

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hello!! I am available to lend my opinion to whatever is happening with the pages you edit. Just ask! No problem!

As for me, I am very interested in improving the articles about MBA programmes and welcome third-party opinions-- your opinions. Anything you can offer will be a big help and very much appreciated. The whole issue is detailed below. It will take you about ten minutes to read and click through the links. Good luck & thanks!

User:COYW

Contents 1 My current editing problem 2 An Example 3 Global MBA Rankings 4 Other MBA Rankings 5 Two headers: Not a cure-all, but a step in the right direction.

[edit] My current editing problem

I think one of my current edits is an improvement, but it keeps getting reverted by another editor. To be specific, I wish to organise MBA programme rankings into two sections, either completely separate ones, or even a "1A & 1B" set up. First, note that MBA programme rankings are a developing area of content. There are more rankings now than ten years ago. Second, the nature of these rankings is changing. So, a simple reorganisation of this increasing quantity and quality is in order. That's my view. What do you think?

Actually, I am not a fan of having any programme rankings on a Wikipedia page. All these rankings promote schools and ranking bodies. As such, they are better left on a school's own Web site and on a ranking body's own Web site. Wikipedia pages normally provide links to those pages, so are our readers poorer for not seeing them on here? Not at all. Anyhow, I am currently resigned to the fact that Wikipedia editors do add MBA programme rankings.

But why?

Who are these editors? Why add these rankings? Think of all the reasons for them to add those rankings. Brainstorm. Eventually, and inevitably, you will hit on the idea of self interest. Graduates naturally want to see their own school get promoted. And why not? They have attached their wagons to a school, or "brand" as the Dean of Wharton himself recently described Wharton! Alumni hold stock in their own brand. As their school's fortunes rise, so do their own. They hold a degree from the place, after all! Why would business students not look at their own business education from a marketing point of view? It's natural, don't you think?

It is also a clear case of COI, but since we can never know who editors are... what can you do?! Almost nothing.

What about the publications and organisations that rank programmes? It is against self-interest to alienate schools with bad reviews. For-profit magazines and organisations would probably not get access to information if they pissed off schools. They rely on the schools for participation. Many footnotes to rankings show that one school or another did not co-operate, in a fit of pique, no doubt. No matter how well the descriptive statistics are compiled, this "research" is more akin to Jane Goodall observing chimps in the wild than scientists looking at chimps in a lab setting. Where is the control? Where is the verifiability? At least old Jane can hide herself in trees and not affect her subjects. On the other hand, schools know all too well about the effects these rankings have on their fortunes. Rankings = Advertising. Publications calling their self-response questionnaires a "methodology" is overstating things just a bit. Self-response questionnaires are unreliable for the purpose of ranking self-interested parties. There is no way around this fact.

At least some, but not all, rankings reveal information about their survey questions and response rates. People can then see and judge sample sizes for themselves. Yet, even if all the collected data were 100% true and 100% reliable, the schools do have this golden opportunity to promote themselves. Do they? Why wouldn't they? This is another matter of COI. Without accusing anyone of anything, we can agree it all looks bad. For that matter, why wouldn't the publications themselves want to maintain good relations with their source of data? Human nature is what it is and all of this smacks of being too cozy and too dirty. COI is about more than just reality. COI is about appearances.

So, after that ambling preface, I have arrived at what I want your opinion about. I want to compare apples with apples and oranges with oranges. Many rankings are comprehensive in nature. They cover many criteria, such as mean average starting salary of graduates, student satisfaction and recruiter opinions. Objective or subjective criteria, Wikipedians can judge for themselves. And they can see all the schools are ranked irrespective of, say, a school's location or its programme's length. They indicate that a certain programme A is better than another programme B. A is better than B this year. That is the gist of ranking. School C fell X places in the rankings. School D rose X places. School E has been at an average rank of 53 for the past three years. Certainly business majors can appreciate that MBA programmes are analogous to stocks. We "rank" stocks, after a fashion, when we choose to buy one instead of another. Stock prices have a little to do with underlying value and a little to do with the perception of that value. School rankings can be represented in much the same way.

Other rankings are more specialised in nature. They may size up a programme based on its graduate's ecological sensibilities, accounting prowess or the profitability of the graduates' start up enterprises. These rankings may separate programmes based on location or programme length (Programmes have much the same content whether taught in one year or two). It is worth noting that the more the publications narrow their rankings, the higher a school's ranking rises... and the less useful it all seems to the reader. How does a "top school" outside a country compare with a "top" domestic one? With domestic/international/one-year/two-year categories, who can tell? As the pond gets smaller, the fish seem bigger.

Comparing all programmes with all other programmes, on a wide variety of criteria, is clearly different than narrower comparisons. Separate is better and does the additional service of drawing attention to why they are separated. Wikipedians will benefit the distinction that mitigates some aspects COI. So, I want an edit with two separate groups, preferably with completely different headers to emphasize the difference.

[edit] An Example

Existing rankings are either for all the schools in the world or for schools within one country. According to the rankings themselves, their purpose is either specific or not. I have put some of these purposes in bold, in the "Other Rankings" section.

If some disagreements were to arise, they would be exceptional. Terrific. That is good for more discussion. If one cannot see a difference between, say, the four general criteria of The Economist's rankings versus the single, overarching criterion of the Aspen Institute's "alternative" rankings, then good on that person! Write about it. Somewhere. All the same, exceptional cases are no reason to censure two headers that cover the main.

Below is a rough, sandbox edit of two headers. Here is what it would look like on the "Rankings" section of today (Oct.20, 2007):

++++++++++++++++++++++

++++++++++++++++++++++

++++++++++++++++++++++

[edit] Global MBA Rankings

--11th in the world overall according to Wall Street Journal 2007. The ranking measures full-time MBA programs from a recruiters' perspective. The ranking specifically measures "the recruiters intention to return and hire a school's graduates over the next two years."

--49th in the 2007 Financial Times MBA rankings, down 31 spots from previous ranking and 30th over a three-year average (2005 - 2007). The ranking measures MBA programs against graduates' current weighted salary, graduates' increase in salary, percentage of graduates employed in three months, and number of faculty publications.

--24th in the world in the 2007 MBA rankings by the Economist Intelligence Unit, up six spots from previous ranking. The ranking measures full-time MBA programs against four criteria: "[opens] new career opportunities," "personal development/educational experience", "increase [in] salary," and "potential to network."

[edit] Other MBA Rankings

--4th non-US, in the "non-US, two-year program" category according to Forbes Magazine. The "survey ranks schools based on return on investment--meaning compensation five years after graduation minus tuition and the forgone salary during school"

--3rd in Aspen Institute's Global Rankings in a research survey and "alternative ranking of business schools" that "spotlights innovative full-time MBA programs" leading the way in the integration of issues concerning social and environmental stewardship in to the curriculum. The school ranked 1st in Canada.

--8th in the world for financial services according to Wall Street Journal 2007. The ranking measures full-time MBA programs from a recruiters' perspective. The ranking specifically measures "the recruiters intention to return and hire a school's graduates over the next two years."

++++++++++++++++++++++

++++++++++++++++++++++

++++++++++++++++++++++

[edit] Two headers: Not a cure-all, but a step in the right direction.

Okie-dokie. What about this Beyond Grey Pinstripes ranking then? Go to its Homepage: http://www.beyondgreypinstripes.org/index.cfm The first sentence describes its alternative nature. The second sentence describes its mission. “Our mission is to spotlight innovative full-time MBA programs that are integrating issues of social and environmental stewardship into curricula and research. ”. So far, so good?

Now, go to its methodology Web page: http://www.beyondgreypinstripes.org/about/methodology.cfm Overlooking the self-report nature of its methodology, and its 18.8% response rate, this ranking addresses “three broad categories”: MBA coursework, Faculty Research & Institutional Support at the school. In keeping with its mission, each of these is related to a single, overarching criterion; namely, the social or environmental relevance. The Aspen Institute writes:

“The ranking is tabulated directly from the self-reported survey data collected. The four specific categories by which schools are measured include: Student Opportunity, Student Exposure, Course Content and Faculty Research.” Furthermore, as the Aspen Institute itself writes, are its six specific mission goals (Link: http://www.beyondgreypinstripes.org/about/index.cfm):

--1.Promote and celebrate innovation in business education. The School Rankings (Link: http://www.beyondgreypinstripes.org/rankings/index.cfm) call attention to places that do this work well.

--2.Inform Prospective students about environmental and social impact management programs.

--3.Raise the bar by challenging business schools to incorporate social and environmental impact management topics into their curricula.

--4.Inform corporate recruiters of business schools that are providing training in social and environmental skills as part of business decision making.

--5.Disseminate best practices in teaching, research, and extracurricular activities. The Search function (Link: http://www.beyondgreypinstripes.org/search/search_coursework.cfm) on the website provides access to detailed information-often including syllabi-on thousands of courses, journal articles, and more.

--6.Facilitate Conversation – Real change only comes after students, faculty, administrators and business leaders begin to discuss these issues.

This celebration seems something wonderful to me. Yet, it is a ranking unlike others and should be labelled as such. However broad its methodological scope, its stated purpose is a narrow one. My proposal is that it be displayed under a separate header with similar rankings. What is the other side of the argument against two headers? Frankly, I will leave the épistémé and Venn diagrammes to others. All I can say is this: Just because there are intersexed people in this world, doesn't mean the world does not function with a binary system of gender. Nothing is perfect. Two headers does more good than bad.

One opponent to two headers, editor DTORGERSON, writes that his name is Damon Torgerson. He writes that he is an MBA grad from Schulich. Surely, 'Schulich MBA' is written on his résumé. As the fortunes of the Schulich School of Business rise, so do his. It's a money thing. This obvious COI situation does not dissuade him from editing the page. Bear in mind that he also writes, again and again, that he wants to be held to “a higher standard”. I have no idea what he is on about. Just edit-- damn it-- and let your edits do the talking. Anyhow, conversing with him and other alumni is difficult because of the conflict of interests. Lord knows that I have tried. Once more for old-times sake...

Dear Damon,

Hello. I see that Schulich has answered (Link) a questionnaire for the Aspen Institute's Beyond Grey Pinstripes rankings. Looking at Accounting 5100, the first class on the list, Schulich wrote the “economic, social and environmental impact that accounting practices have on various stakeholder groups, as well as the various accounting tools firms use in their annual reports, are the focus of this course.”

Is that so? Since you have taken this class, you should comment, Damon. What percentage of the class was spent on social and environmental impacts? Ballpark number, please. 30%? 10%? 2%? Hey, even two percent would a big number! Other Schulich MBA grads have told me what they remember from that class, and now I am asking you . Is Schulich's questionnaire description of its ACTG 5100 class accurate or an overstatement? Would you like to ask Schulich (media@schulich.yorku.ca)? C'mon! How about asking Grey Pinstripes, too? Write & share their responses.

You can start earning your 'higher standard' stripes here and now. Refer to [1] from Kevin Markle about one class. I Googled a bit and came up with THIS [2] about accounting classes in general from the Schulich Website. Where is any prominent mention of the environment? Let's see.

Word count of the word ”environment” from the 29 courses listed on Beyond Grey Pinstripes = 18.

Word count of the word ”environment” from the general descriptions on these 20 Schulich pages = 9. That is every instance of the word even when it was not "the environment" outdoors. With trees.

(Yes, do this "research". You are the one making an editing fuss, and this discussion is now basically just for you.)

Looking at the individual course descriptions does not paint a prettier picture, either. How about different keywords? “Environmental”, “environmentally”, “social”, “socially”, etc... whatever word you use, there are very different pictures on the official site versus the Beyond Grey Pinstripes one. Schulich wrote both, yes? Hey! I expect Schulich to do this. The leaders of it and many other MBA programmes seem to be marketing a product at least as much as they are providing education. That is my view. They market the product to potential students. Schulich marketed itself to you, Damon.

Schulich MBA grads, like you, spent two academic years and $40000 in tuition and forfeited another $60000 in potential salary. After a $100K investment, I do expect you and other alumni to have certain attitudes. You are an MBA grad who posts a lot on weekdays during regular business hours (EST). What's up with that? Something is fishy in the state of Denmark.

I am skeptical in the extreme. Still, I am convinced that you are the type of gung-ho IT-type that will 'stick around' and 'see things through' and 'give 100%'. Good for you! I have to work with you here, right? OK. Regarding two headers, your continued, umm..., disagreement is out of place. After all, it is just you making this editing fuss. Why? I am not taking information away! I am just making it easier to sort & add various new rankings. And all the yahoos will be less likely to spoil the page.

Now then, for your final badge, click HERE, and add whatever pertinent information you can glean from these rankings. For bonus points, get Cyril2006 and Fmassara to help you. Haha!

Yours truly,

COYW

Again, I reckon that all of these rankings, treated as promotional material, are better left on a school's or ranking body's Web site. The rankings themselves seem self-serving and iffy. Still, what a wonderful opportunity to add to the Wikipedia page on MBAs. Schools pages could then link to them there... but that is now all pie in the sky. Two headers is not a cure-all, but one small step towards greater integrity. COYW 02:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC)