HW-MBA as compared to unddergraduate work

Hello everyone. Hopefully, Dr. Kennedy of EBS/HW or perhaps a current EBS/HW can jump in here and answer this for me. I was originally going to post this on the unofficial "watercooler" message board for HW students, but I must say that the software used to run those boards is one of the worst I've ever seen (from a usability standpoint). At any rate ...

I am currently evaluating Heriot Watt as a potential MBA school, as I am fast approaching the completion of my BSBA from TESC.

I was on the EBS/HW web site, and was going over the courses for the MBA program. Of the "core" MBA courses, several are related to the coursework I've done for my undergraduate business degree, specifically:

• Accounting
• Marketing
• Finance
• Economics (macro/micro)

As my degree is in "business administration", and not "accounting", "marketing", etc., I realize that I will not qualify for a HW/EBS exemption for any of these courses, however:

I am curious as to how the HW courses in these subjects compares to typical undergraduate work in these areas (in terms of coverage, difficulty, etc.). I am trying to "lessen" the pain of my graduate work as much as possible. I know that I will need to study my ass off for the electives and the other core courses, so it would be nice if the material in the courses above was someone reminiscent of what I have already studied.

Many U.S. schools that offer so-called "accelerated" MBA programs achieve the acceleration by waiving "core business courses" for students who hold an undergraduate degree in business.

Am I safe to assume that the four courses above (perhaps even all of the HW core MBA courses) are comparable in material to the courses that would be waived at a U.S. school under an accelerated program?

Hope this makes sense ...

Thanks in advance!

Cheers.

 

Damn 10 minute editing limit ....

I wanted to add that I do realize that the EBS exams have a reputation for being on the brutal end of the spectrum, and I know that graduate work is *supposed* to be more difficult than undergraduate work.

What I am looking for is an indicator that *some* of the material in those courses would already be known to me. For example, would it be unreasonable for me to expect that 40% of the accounting material would be a review for someone who has already taken financial and managerial accounting in an undergraduate program? 50%? 60%?

Hope this makes sense - the HW program looks ideal for me, especially given my work schedule and their flexibility ...

Cheers.

 

Hi unixman

The MBA is a generalist management degree, typically, covering at least seven core subjects (Org. Behaviour, Economics, Accounting, Finance, Project Management, Marketing, and Strategic Planning – subjects can vary at different School, though some ‘variations’ are achieved by breaking the core subjects down – macro-micro economics, etc.,).

The MSc degree is a specialist degree usually in a single subject, which takes the single subject beyond an Honours Level bachelor degree. MScs in Finance, for example, are advanced degrees in a specialist area. The MSc is an academic award, sometimes used as a bridge to a doctoral programme, and would be a required degree for an academic appointment (today, a PhD is required to join a UK university faculty, even for the most junior post).

The EBS MBA programme is modelled on the standard MBA syllabi practised in North American and UK Schools. The standard in each core subject is approximately at intermediate level bachelors, not Honours level. To achieve the award you have to pass nine standard level subjects (7 core and 2 Electives). If you think about it, it the MBA degree was above or at Honours bachelor level in all subjects this would be equivalent to passing nine Honours level bachelor degrees – a wholly unlikely event! (Those few Schools that claim to do this are somewhat ingenuous and from the Barnum school of marketing.)

In your case, having taken the four subjects (Accounting, Finance, Marketing and Economics) you will have covered a large part of these subjects any MBA degree programme that I know of. If you had done any one of these to Honours bachelor level you would be eligible for an exemption in that subject alone, depending on the status of the awarding university (if there is any doubt or ‘argument’ about your entitlement, we give you an ‘exemption exam’ in that subject and if you pass you are exempted; if not you must take the course and pass the MBA exam).

What you will find different in an EBS exam is the regime and its requirement that you really know how to apply the subjects to business problems. For this there is the DL Text book and the online additional materials (more cases, exercises, essays, MCQs, past exam papers and solutions, PDF/HTML files and simulations, the Profiler for feedback and faculty web boards in each subject).

Much of the core material (c.50+ per cent seems a reasonable working figure, depending on what you covered in your generalist bachelor’s degree) will be familiar to you at least at the knowledge level. The MBA stretches your application of that knowledge through analysis, synthesis and evaluation of business problems. You will need about 200-300 hours study per subject, including practice in application work. Our exams are tough but fair; but, then, anything worthwhile ain’t easy. We measure what you take out of the programme, not what you put into it.

I do not recognise your reference to Watercooler and its software. Watercooler, the EBS students’ site and totally independent of EBS, is part of the Delphi Forums platform, a wholly US software product. But I do think you should ask its North American members what they think of the comparability questions you have asked, as they will be more familiar with local standards.

 

Prof Kennedy, thanks for the response - I'm heading out the door and out of town at the moment - but will digest this later - good info!

 

Also - can someone explain the UK use of "honours", "bachelor's", etc. I do recall there being some difference, but can't remember what it is exactly ...

 

Hi Unixman

The UK Bachelor degree sounds complicated but isn't in practice. Being Britain, there is a mxiture of practice and tradition.

The Bachelor degree in England is of three years duration and entry is by achieving 'A' level passes at School in three or more subjects. In Scotland (a different country within the UK!) the Bachelor degree is of four years duration and entry is achieved by passing five or more subjects at 'Highers' level.

The English 'A' level is taken at about 18 years and is one year further on in standard than the Scottish 'Highers' at 16-17 years, and is one year behind 'A' levels (hence, the Scottish Banchelor degree is an extra year long).

Now, the Honours Bachelor degree is a slight complication. In Scotland, a three year Bachelor programme leads to the award of an Ordinary Degree, and four years to an Honours degree; in England the distinction between the award is done by the grade of pass in third year: Honours are First Class and Upper Seconds and Ordinary awards are Second Class and Third Class.

In both countries you need either a First or Upper Second class to undertake postgraduate degrees.

On the horizon, we are about to import the 'Associate' degree or, '2 year' degree, into universities and higher education colleges.

 

Hi Prof,

Either you've made a slip or things have DRAMATICALLY changed since I was at Nottingham, for you wrote:

Both II:ii and III were honours degrees, just not very good ones; we also had this wonderfully cruel thing called the "sub-honours Pass," in other words, the student attempted an honours devgree but didn't make it (usually only a handful a year, across the university, and more common in the Sciences). And you would see a smattering of ordinaries where no attempt at honours was made.

The ordinaries when I was at St Andrews were all either Americans or future school-teachers.

jon

 

Hi Jon

Depends when you did you PhD. I am talking about how admissions staff treat the 'Honours' degree of a student who gets an English 2.2 or 3rd in its third year or a Scottish 2.2 or 3rd in the fourth year today.

Technically, they are all 'honours' degrees, true, but only the two upper divisions would class as an admission award to post-graduate study, and the lower divisions are thereby treated, de facto, as 'ordinary' degrees. This began with requiring 'good' Honours degrees (i.e., 1sts and upper seconds) for admission to post graduate programmes and, as the lower divisions were rejected as not meeting the admission criteria, their 'Honours' designations were discounted in practice.

I agree about the status of the Scottish 'Ordinary' Bachelors degrees and there were, when I started teaching in 1970, regrettably far too many young women queuing up at graduations taking Ordinary degree awards, not I hasten to say because they lacked ability, but only because, for some social reason, they lacked ambition.

Thankfully, that dreadful trend was reversed in the 1990s and young women were dominating the upper divisions in the Honours awards in many subjects from then on.

I am, of course, speaking only of my experience of graduations, since 1970. We have our July 2004 graduations next week, which I will attend (as usual) on the platform. At post graduate level, we do not have these differences and the balance of 'Distinctions' is fairly even. Adults who take DL MBAs, etc., tend to be pretty determined people from both sexes and all nationalities.

I admit the Honours designation in the UK can seem a bit arcane to outsiders but I think we know what we are doing. Its a bit like American 'Football' rules - obscure to outsiders but the players, referees and spectators seem to know what is going on, and why!

 

Has the value of a Higher really eroded that much? Requirements for entry into a Scottish university when I finished Higher grade were five SCE passes, with a minimum of three Highers at grade "C" plus two passes at O-grade.

The only unfortunates required to produce five Higher passes were those entering Law or Medicine where the competition for places, rather than admissions policy, drove the qualification arms race.

Of course we're talking of a different era, when exams were exams, and women knew it.


.

 

Lawrie
As usual you are closer to the facts than I am. It's some time since I was dealing with undergraduates (I teach in the Graduate School of Business at Heriot-Watt - since 1982) and my information on what was required referred to my own children who needed 3 Bs and 2Cs to get into university in the late 80s, early 90s.

The actual intake minimum always exceeded by a long way the nominal intake rules of 3Cs when you studied, from the competition for a fixed capacity of places in the campus universities. The drift upwards above the 3Cs minimum began in law, medicine and accountancy, and even the setting of maximum quotas in these subjects did not stem the applicants. Many with better than the minimum entry passes just did not get a place.

Since then the rapid expansion of higher education intake under Government pressure meant a whole lot more teenagers with 3Cs (and sometimes worse) being admitted to the new universities and ex-polytechnics. This expansion is matched by the even higher standards required for some or all courses at the 'top' universities - 4 and 5 'A' levels (at 'A' standard) or the 'super' Highers (at 'A' standard) still do not stop many students with these grades exceeding the number of places available.

At the other end of the scale many students have doubtful grades to complete their courses, and many don't. Hence, the new two year degrees are appearing - akin to 'Associate' degrees in the US? These can be converted to full degrees for the better graduates, as can HND certificates (we have just started such a scheme with six Scottish further education colleges - they do two years (hard) DL work in the BA DL degree in Business from the undergraduate School.

So, the value of Highers vis a vis A-levels has eroded in one sense in certain subjects in certain courses in certain universities. In the other sense, across the quality divide, entry qualification standards have eroded because entry standards have been dumbed down.

From 8 per cent of the educable population attending university in the 70s, we are now approaching 50 per cent. With the erosion of examination regimes across the board, and in top schools too, quality standards in many degree courses are also falling. This is a bigger problem, in my view, that looser admission standards, as the only safe way to measure performance is by outputs not inputs. In campus programmes the proximity of wide ability and motivation levels causes its own problems, none of which are infectious with distance learning self study programmes.

Thanks for correcting some sloppy thinking on my part.

 

Incidentally, how is US upper level credit in an undergraduate business program assessed in the UK's MBA programs? I, for example, have Business Law 1 which is lower credit and Business Law 2, which is considered upper or advanced credit in my Excelsior business program; Could I reckon to get some exemptions for advanced undergraduate courses/exams later in a UK MBA program?

Thanks for feedback,

Dennis