Talk:Master of Business Administration

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This article is within the scope of the Business and Economics WikiProject.
B rated as B-Class on the assessment scale
Top rated as top-importance on the assessment scale
This article is part of WikiProject Education, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of education and education-related topics. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to featured and 1.0 standards, or visit the WikiProject page for more details.
Portal
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] Archives

Past discussions about this article:

[edit] MBA Rankings

As one of the schools in question, I have to tell you that when we are ranked by BusinessWeek, Forbes, WSJ, etc. there is ALWAYS a written release from the publisher in question that allows us to use the ranking & their name on our web site, marketing materials, etc. Fair use doesn't even enter in to it. I thought that might help to clarify the argument that you're having here. I can also tell you that most of the financial publications that rank business schools only publish a portion of the list publicly. If you want to see the whole list, they charge you for that. I hope that this helps with your argument.

QueenB.

Thanks for that clarification. The argument above is 5 months old, and has been resolved. It should probably be archived and this talk page cleared. =Axlq 04:15, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
I have just archived that argument; it was supposed to have gone into the archive (which says it's through October) but seemed to have been missed. -Amatulic 23:07, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] First MBA?

Which Unversity first started MBA and in which year —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.169.1.144 (talk • contribs) 2007-03-22

Regarding the first MBAs in Europe the data wasn't completely accurate, I added more detail with IESE and Cranfield. --ExoFrame 10:02, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Synopsis needed

May I suggest a more detailed synopsis in the first paragraph? Material from the "Breadth" section would be perfect. Or maybe move the whole "Program Content" section to the top, as this makes a better overview than the "Background" section. (I won't move any sections without a consensus.) -- JEBrown87544 23:17, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

As one of the 2 or 3 regular contributors to this article, I think that's a great idea. I have always been bothered by the unsubstantial and uninspiring lead section, but wasn't sure what to do with it. Why not be bold and make the change, and see how it goes? -Amatulic 23:01, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Well, after a month of nothing happening, I wrote up a better lead section. I hope others can improve upon it. My main concern are the sentences that contain comma-delimited items; we should avoid these growing into unwieldy lists, especially in the lead section. =Axlq 17:28, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The MBA degree outside the U.S.

This whole section still needs work. This section should be about the MBA degree, not about specific schools in other countries. I've deleted some content here as promotional fluff, and I'm tempted to delete more. The part on the UK, Germany, Ukraine, and South Africa are fine; those paragraphs focus on country-specific aspects the MBA degree, not individual schools. Ghana, India, Pakistan, etc. need to be fixed or deleted. =Axlq 17:28, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] MBA definition

What is MBA? No such definition here. It attracts ... cannot be regarded as a definition —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.95.101.179 (talk) 16:29, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

The lead sentence says an MBA is a master's degree in business administration. I don't know how much clearer it could be. If you have an idea for improvement, be bold and make the change. =Axlq (talk) 01:50, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Linkfarm

I've tagged the "External links" section as a linkfarm. I think all the links should be removed per WP:EL, WP:SPAM, and WP:NOT#LINKS. --Ronz (talk) 02:10, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

As one of the regular maintainers of this article, I disagree. The links that are currently there are well organized, stable, and have survived the scrutiny of several regulars over the past year or so. With one or two exceptions, the links are all official sources, which are appropriate.
That said, I have been bothered with the redundant linking of accreditation agencies when we also have a "See also" section linking to articles about some of those agencies. I think those links are least enhancing to the article. The links on ranking resources, however, do greatly enhance the article, display results from official sources, and comply with WP:EL in that they link to expanded information that is inappropriate for inclusion in the article.
I have removed the linkfarm tag. If someone wants to remove the accreditation agencies links (even though they are official sources relevant to the article), I won't complain. -Amatulic (talk) 02:24, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
I've removed the agencies. I'm glad we agree on that.
I'm not sure how well reviewed the rest is, given that there's been no discussion. --Ronz (talk) 02:45, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

You got me in a panic then… I thought you deleted the "Accreditations Agencies". Now that would not be a good thing. --Studio1st (talk) 02:59, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Ronz: the accreditation agencies are notable, but not illuminating to this particular article. Believe me, the ranking resources links have been examined by the regular contributors here. Anytime an inappropriate link appears, it gets reverted almost immediately. The links you see are those that survived scrutiny.
Studio1st: He did delete the external links to the accreditation agencies, but not the "See also" wikilinks to accreditation agencies. I think the article is better this way too. =Axlq (talk) 07:01, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with those changes, as they have their own wikilinks. Studio1st (talk) 22:44, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of promotional text about schools

An anonymous editor persists in adding biased language and promotional text about Asian schools in the "Rest of Asia" section. I correct it, but the anonymous editor reverts it without explanation.

This article is about the MBA degree. This is not an article about specific schools or what they offer.

That section, in particular, is about special characteristics, accreditation, regulations, or alternatives to the MBA degree in other countries, not what schools in other countries do. =Axlq 14:49, 27 February 2008 (UTC)