The traditional, full-time MBA program environment has become increasingly tumultuous. The many pressures facing business schools, from declining interest of applicants to the burgeoning number of schools and degree formats, have led many to predict that the model cannot continue as is and is ripe for change. Many believe consolidation in the business school marketplace is inevitable and survival is not guaranteed.
Business schools instruct students that, in today’s competitive environment, companies must be able to adapt and quickly respond to changes in the business environment. However, business schools do not seem to have practiced what they preached. Although most business schools would say that they are continuously improving the degree, they likely would agree that most of the changes have been incremental and that the traditional MBA program has remained largely unchanged since its inception. The primary purpose of this study is to explore how the full-time MBA program might be transformed by seeing how four highly ranked business schools would view innovations developed by two leading business schools and whether reengineering the educational model also transforms the business model.
There is a strongly held belief that the traditional two-year, in-person MBA will continue to be relevant but may be sustained only by the top-20 schools. The hundreds of other business schools will be forced to adapt, but the degree and urgency to which they do may vary based on their perception of the school’s standing and their willingness to challenge existing beliefs around their brand image, pride of creation, and entrenched incentives.
Change and adopting innovation do not guarantee success. Likewise, doing nothing does not guarantee failure. Change, however, is inevitable and might happen quicker than business schools anticipate because of market forces. Business schools that have the most to lose already have begun experimenting with innovation outside their reputation-based full-time program. Should the expertise built and lessons learned from this experimentation be incorporated into their full-time programs, the established schools may witness a new pecking order.
|Commitee:||Beardsley, Scott C., Moneta, Larry|
|School:||University of Pennsylvania|
|Department:||Higher Education Management|
|School Location:||United States -- Pennsylvania|
|Source:||DAI-A 78/03(E), Dissertation Abstracts International|
|Subjects:||Educational leadership, Business education, Organizational behavior|
|Keywords:||Business schools, Change, Higher education disruption, Innovation, Management education|
Copyright in each Dissertation and Thesis is retained by the author. All Rights Reserved
The supplemental file or files you are about to download were provided to ProQuest by the author as part of a
dissertation or thesis. The supplemental files are provided "AS IS" without warranty. ProQuest is not responsible for the
content, format or impact on the supplemental file(s) on our system. in some cases, the file type may be unknown or
may be a .exe file. We recommend caution as you open such files.
Copyright of the original materials contained in the supplemental file is retained by the author and your access to the
supplemental files is subject to the ProQuest Terms and Conditions of use.
Depending on the size of the file(s) you are downloading, the system may take some time to download them. Please be