Heriot-Watt, Royal Holloway and Imperial College

Novemberdude and Michael:

Apologies for missing your question. I hope not to be controversial but let me attempt an answer. The MBA degree is often associated with myths with which I have argued endlessly with other academics who hold different views.

The MBA is classed as a Masters degree, post-graduate in level, from which some people make the erroneous conclusion that it consists of materials post-bachelor level in all subjects. This could not possibly be true if you think about it, especially in the context of the Master level programmes at MSc level, which are post-graduate level in single subjects.

For example, a MSc in Economics is definitely post-bachelor level in the single subject of Economics. Likewise, MSc degrees in Finance, Psychology, Sociology, Mathematics and so on are post-bachelor level in single subjects. The key marker is the words ‘in single subjects’.

A MBA normally covers at least seven single subjects, not one. To be post-bachelor level it would be an astonishing feat to reach this standard across seven core subjects (Economics, Finance, Marketing, Org Behaviour, Accounting, Project Management and Strategic Planning, say). Electives tend to draw on several elective subjects. Specialist MBAs tend to move towards MSc level in a single special subject but because of the other subjects contained alongside them they cannot be said to reach that standard.

MBAs are generalist degrees that cover multiple subjects at intermediate bachelor level in each subject. It is not the depth so much as the breadth that gives them the Masters level designation. You have to reach a certain standard in all seven core subjects, plus two electives, NOT seven post-bachelor level subjects, which would be unattainable except for a small minority of students.

Your question is whether a bachelor in commerce or business covers 80 per cent of a MBA. Only superficially to the academic equivalent of smart Asses who think they know everything but actually know very little. Most bachelor degrees do not require real world business experience and the big difference is the business experience component of the MBA ,which introduces application and evaluation into the knowledge base.

Much intermediate bachelor single subject degrees bring in topics of no value whatsoever into their syllabii. For example, in economics, 'indifference curves' and 'welfare theories' have no value to business managers and in MBA economics classes are poor value and should be avoided.

To be worthy of specialist value MBA classes in Finance go beyond intermediate level and into the practicalities of managing trading, derivatives, etc., from a business point of view. In this case Michael's friend is right. But for the rest of ehr remarks it depends on how the person is tested. Choice of questiosn feature strongly in undergraduate degree but not in reputable MBA final exams - for these you have to know a lot more and have to be able to apply it to practical scenarios. To have been 'taught' the same syllabus is not the same as demonstrating competence across the board in nine subjects, closed book, no choice of questions, and so on, with prior business experience.

Recently, a group of recent business bachelor graduates in a centre all failed their first MBA exams in a subject covered in their bachelor degree. We investigated and found them all without business experience, aged 21-22. They were advised to quit the programme and come back in a few years, or go and find a 'soft' MBA, but not ours.

 

A complication arises...!

Amidst all the back-and-forth on this thread between Tom57 and Professor Kennedy, let me add a further note of complication.

The graduate external programme at places such as the re-branded "Imperial College London" (formerly University of London, Wye College) now offers its students convenient "mixed mode" educational opportunities. In other words, no longer are internal and external graduate degrees clearly set apart - instead they are considered integrated courses of study covering nearly identical material. That is, on campus degree programmes are complemented by external programmes such that one may, at one's discretion, attend on-campus courses of study with students in the fall or spring and - in the latter case - do one's exams in May instead of October.

Flexibility for the adult learner who cannot afford a full-year away from work, but can - instead - manage a few months thereby maximizes formal learning opportunity and the application of professional-training. Both are better field tested, you might say! And the appeal to students is bettered, and ideally, University income is increased as well.

Thus, in the DL Newsletter of Imperial College London this September, one sees announcement of so-and-so's MSc degree, Germany, in "Rural Development (mixed mode)."

How do you like them (confusing) apples? Or does the result simplify the validity of a London degree - as advertised?

--Orson

 

Orson writes: "The graduate external programme at places such as the re-branded "Imperial College London" (formerly University of London, Wye College)."

Just a clarification in case readers unfamiliar with UK education draw the wrong conclusions. Imperial College, London was founded in 1907; Wye College was until 2000 a separate college of the University of London, when it 'merged' with the existing Imperial College. It was Wye that 're-branded' itself as Imperial College, Wye, and not Imperial College which re-branded itself.

Wye College was a smaller college within the federal London University set-up, covering agricultural science, etc.

The news about the mixed mode programmes is encouraging, especially if the content of the internal and 'external' degrees become the same. Next step is to remove stated differences on the degree certificates. Places that print DL or External on their degrees send the wrong message (though London's 'External' degrees have a long and honourable history - it used to have satellite campuses in the 19th century, which became universities in their own right.