08832323.2012.672934
Journal of Education for Business
ISSN: 0883-2323 (Print) 1940-3356 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vjeb20
Undergraduate Business Education: It's Time to
Think Outside the Box
John Duncan Herrington & Danny R. Arnold
To cite this article: John Duncan Herrington & Danny R. Arnold (2013) Undergraduate Business
Education: It's Time to Think Outside the Box, Journal of Education for Business, 88:4, 202-209,
DOI: 10.1080/08832323.2012.672934
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08832323.2012.672934
Published online: 20 Apr 2013.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 310
View related articles
Citing articles: 1 View citing articles
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=vjeb20
Download by: [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji]
Date: 11 January 2016, At: 21:01
JOURNAL OF EDUCATION FOR BUSINESS, 88: 202–209, 2013
C Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
Copyright
ISSN: 0883-2323 print / 1940-3356 online
DOI: 10.1080/08832323.2012.672934
Undergraduate Business Education: It’s Time
to Think Outside the Box
John Duncan Herrington
Radford University, Radford, Virginia, USA
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 21:01 11 January 2016
Danny R. Arnold
Rollins College, Winter Park, Florida, USA
For more than 100 years, institutions of higher learning in the United States have provided
millions of students with an education in business. Presently, business ranks as one of the
most popular undergraduate majors on American college campuses, awarding over 20% of all
undergraduate degrees granted each year. Despite its popularity, many people question whether
these students receive the type of education needed to effectively compete in a rapidly changing
world. The authors report the findings of an extensive study of undergraduate business curricula
in the United States, the results of which suggest that very little has changed since the Ford
and Carnegie Foundations Reports were published in 1959. The authors conclude with some
suggestions on how to improve business education for future graduates.
Keywords: business, curriculum, undergraduate
The University of Pennsylvania established the first formal
school of business in 1881 (Van Fleet & Wren, 2005). The13
business programs in existence in the United States prior to
1913 (Pierson, 1959) grew to approximately 1,500 by 2010.
During this time the number of students receiving a bachelor’s degree in business from U.S. colleges and universities
grew from just under 43,000 during the 1955–1956 academic
year to approximately 348,000 during 2008–2009 (National
Center for Education Statistics [NCES], 2010). Almost 22%
of all Bachelor’s degrees granted in the United States during
2008–2009 were granted in business.
This rapid growth helped encourage more intense scrutiny,
both from inside and outside the Business Academy. The
Ford and Carnegie Foundations sponsored two of the earliest comprehensive reviews and critical analyses of business education in America, typically referred to as the Gordon and Howell (1959) and Pierson (1959) studies. Almost
30 years later, the Association to Advance Collegiate Schools
of Business International (AACSB) commissioned an additional comprehensive study (Porter & McKibbin, 1988). All
three reports have provided the business academy with sig-
Correspondence should be addressed to John Duncan Herrington, Radford University, College of Business and Economics, Box 6950, Radford,
VA 24142, USA. E-mail: dherring@radford.edu
nificant guidance for improving undergraduate business education. The following provides a brief summary of some of
the key findings and recommendations provided by the three
reports.
First, Gordon and Howell (1959) found that business programs did not require enough mathematics. They reported
that only 63% of business programs had any math requirement. The remaining programs required only business math
(22%) or no math at all (15%). Many of the business math
classes at that time covered only basic arithmetic and/or financial calculations.
Second, both the Ford and Carnegie Foundation reports
suggested that programs required too many credit hours
in business courses and allowed too much latitude regarding specific course requirements. Pierson (1959) noted that
anywhere from 17 to 22 different core areas from which
schools required students to take courses. The eight most
commonly required business subjects were: accounting, finance (banking), business law, economics, marketing, statistics, management–policy, and production. The number of
credit hours required in core business courses ranged anywhere from fewer than 30 to more than 54.
Porter and McKibbin (1988) reported the findings of two
separate surveys conducted in the mid-1980s. The first, a
survey of AACSB International member institutions, can be
summarized as follows. First, respondents felt that programs
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 21:01 11 January 2016
THINKING OUTSIDE THE BOX
were lacking in integration across the various functional areas. Second, programs placed too much emphasis on problem solving and not enough on problem finding (i.e., vision)
and, further, too little emphasis on managing people (e.g.,
leadership, interpersonal skills), communication skills, external environments, international dimensions of business,
entrepreneurship, and ethics. Based on the findings of a separate survey of corporate executives, Porter and McKibbin
reported that many executives felt that quantitative requirements were somewhat adequate. But, they also felt that the
business curriculum should be more realistic, practical, and
hands-on and needed to place more emphasis on soft skills
(e.g., leadership, interpersonal skills).
Presently, three organizations in the United States offering accreditation of business programs provide recommendations regarding both the subjects and credit hours business
programs should require in their core curricula: AACSB International, the Accreditation Council for Business Schools
and Programs (ACBSP), and the International Assembly for
Collegiate Business Education (IACBE). Gordon and Howell
(1959) and Pierson (1959) each provided suggestions regarding what courses and credit hours should be required of all
business majors, which are summarized in Table 1. Compared to the business core of 1955–1956, the most prominent
recommended changes included adding 6–12 credit hours of
mathematics (e.g., algebra, finite, and/or calculus), the inclusion of more behaviorally oriented subjects in management,
and the delegation of courses in business communication
to non-business academic areas (e.g., English, communications).
While the reports differed in how many credit hours should
be required for some subject areas, both suggested that at least
one-half of the credit hours required for a degree in business
should be non-business. Gordon and Howell (1959) further
suggested that the common business core alone should con-
TABLE 1
Suggested Business Core Curriculum:
Carnegie and Ford Foundations Reports
Course(s)
• Mathematics
• Statistics
• Macroeconomics
• Microeconomics
• Accounting
• Legal Environment of Business
• Organization and Human Behavior
• Human/Industrial Relations
• Production/Operations Management
• Finance
• Marketing
• Business Policy
Note. Adapted from Gordon and Howell (1959) and Pierson
(1959).
203
TABLE 2
Summary of Competencies Desired of
Business Graduates by Employers
Most frequently mentioned competencies
• Business expertise
• Communication skills
• Creativity
• Customer focus
• Ethics/integrity
• Flexibility
• Interpersonal skills
• Leadership
• Motivation and commitment to firm
• Problem solving
• Quality focus
• Risk taking
• Teamwork
• Technical expertise
• Time management
• Work ethic
Note. Sources are Harper (1987); Tanyel, Mitchell, and
McAlum (1999); Abraham, Karns, Shaw, and Mena (2001);
Abraham and Karns (2009); and Wickramasinghe and De Zoyza
(2009).
sist of no more than 30–40% of the requirements for a fouryear degree.
One of the key stakeholder groups to which business programs are accountable consists of the organizations that offer
employment to the millions of students who have or will receive a business degree. While not a complete and exhaustive
list, Table 2 provides a summary of some of the more commonly mentioned competencies employers expect to see in
prospective employees.
In summary, the past 50 years have been a time of much
research, debate, and no small degree of angst within the
business academy. Beginning in earnest with the Ford and
Carnegie Foundations reports, the academy as a whole has
devoted much time and effort towards developing business
curricula worthy of professional status. Big questions remain,
such as the following: (a) what progress has actually been
made?, and (b) has it been enough? In the sections that follow
we report the results of a comprehensive study of four-year
business programs in the United States, followed by some
recommendations that may serve to guide future research
and development in the area of business education.
METHODOLOGY
Despite diligent search, no single source provides a complete
listing of all institutions offering bachelor’s degrees in business in the United States. Subsequently, a variety of sources
were used, including the membership rosters of recognized
U.S. accreditors approved by the Council for Higher Education Accreditation (e.g., AACSB International, ACBSP,
204
J. D. HERRINGTON AND D. R. ARNOLD
TABLE 3
Number of Colleges and Universities Offering
4-Year Degrees in Business by State
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 21:01 11 January 2016
Location
Alaska
Alabama
Arkansas
Arizona
California
Colorado
Connecticut
District of Columbia
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Iowa
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Massachusetts
Maryland
Maine
Michigan
Minnesota
Missouri
Mississippi
Montana
North Carolina
North Dakota
Nebraska
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
Nevada
New York
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Virginia
Vermont
Washington
Wisconsin
West Virginia
Wyoming
None/multiple
Total
No.
4
32
20
13
100
21
17
12
5
51
44
6
30
6
63
43
24
25
20
49
25
12
43
36
38
14
9
49
9
19
13
23
8
4
106
59
24
17
89
6
32
12
38
72
9
42
11
20
33
22
1
15
1,495
IACBE, Middle States Association of Colleges and Schools),
Peterson’s Guide to Four-Year Colleges, several Internetbased college directories (e.g., collegiateguide.com), and
serendipity. The data used for this analysis consisted of busi-
ness program requirements in effect for the 2010–2011 academic year, and were collected from official program websites, catalogs, and bulletins between August 2010 and April
2011.
The investigation identified 1,495 different institutions
(not including branch campuses) offering bachelor’s degrees
in business (see Table 3). All but one of the identified programs were accredited at the institutional level by one or more
organizations recognized by the Council for Higher Education Accreditation. Forty-nine percent held separate accreditation of their business programs—30% by the AACSB and
19% by either the ACBSP and/or IACBE.
Prior to sample selection, the total population of 1,495
known institutions offering one or more four-year business
degrees was stratified into three groups: (a) programs holding
accreditation by AACSB, (b) programs holding accreditation
by ACBSP or IACBE, and (c) all other programs. A random
sample was selected from each of the three groups resulting
in a total sample of 623, which is an appropriate sample size
to yield a maximum 5% sampling error overall and within
strata. The sample included programs located in all 50 states
as well as the Washington, DC.
FINDINGS
The analyses that follow include group comparisons expressed in terms of either proportions or means. For proportions, the chi-square statistic was used as an overall measure
of difference among groups and the Marascuilo procedure
(Marascuilo, 1966) was used to determine individual pairwise group differences. Analysis of variance was used to
compare overall group means followed by the least significant difference (LSD) procedure for means comparisons.
Business Core Courses
The results of this study suggest that the number of credit
hours required in business core courses increased between
TABLE 4
Semester Hours Required in Business Core:
1955–1956 Compared to 2010–2011
Percentage of programs
Semester hours
Under 30
30–35
36–41
42–47
48–53
54 or more
1955–1956
2010–2011
10.6
21.2
24.2
18.2
19.7
6.0
3.0
5.6
18.0
28.3
22.0
23.1
Note. Data from 1955–1956 (n = 132) were adapted from Pierson (1959). Estimate from 2010–2011 (n = 623) was obtained by
multiplying course count by 3.
205
THINKING OUTSIDE THE BOX
TABLE 5
Business Core Requirements (n = 632)
there remain 14 additional business courses required by 5%
or more of business programs (Table 7).
In summary, curriculum change has occurred, yet it would
be difficult to contend that the list now includes all of the
courses that should be included in the business core. Other
important topics potentially missing from the list of core
business courses include interpersonal skills, teamwork, international business, ethics, and experiential and business
integration, to name but a few—all of which are presently
required by fewer than 50% of business programs.
The typical business core of 2010 (Table 6) may not adequately address all of the competencies desired by employers
(Table 2). Certainly the competencies relating to communications, analytical skills, and business expertise (via functional
courses) are generally covered. As for the remaining competencies, it can only be guessed, as there seem to be few clear
connections with any given course title or description. Recent
research seems to call into question whether these competencies are adequately addressed (Abraham & Karns, 2009).
For example, employers have noted that business programs
have not done well at providing students with opportunities
to gain hands-on experience prior to entering the workforce.
While most business programs offer internships, very few
(15%) require them. One does not have to look far to find
examples of professors requiring students to engage in realworld projects as a course requirement, yet the extent to
which such activities were practiced is not clear.
Number of required business core courses
Accreditation
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 21:01 11 January 2016
AACSB
ACBSP/IACBE
Other
All programs
M
δ
LSD means comparisons
15.72
16.10
14.90
15.49
2.298
3.334
4.135
3.428
b
c
Note. F (2, 620) = 6.915, p = .001. Business math courses excluded
mathematics. Least significant difference (LSD) group comparisons were
the following: a = group 1 is different from group 2 at the .05 level of
significance or higher; b = group 1 is different from group 3 at the .05 level
of significance or higher; c = group 2 is different from group 3 at the .05 level
of significance or higher. AACSB = Association to Advance Collegiate
Schools of Business International; ACBSP = Accreditation Council for
Business Schools and Programs; IACBE = International Assembly for
Collegiate Business Education.
1955 and 2010 (Tables 4 and 5), yet most programs were
able to do so without exceeding 50% of the credit hours
required for a degree. In addition, programs seem to have
become more consistent in terms of business core courses
(Table 6). Information systems, business communications
and a management course (separate from business policy)
were the only courses added to the original list of eight
business core courses identified by Pierson (1959). However,
TABLE 6
Courses Required by 50% or More of Business Programs
Course
Accounting I
Economics I
Business Statistics
(one or more)
Marketing
Finance
Management course
Accounting II
Business Law/Legal
Environment I
Economics II
Strategy/Policy
Information
Systems I
Business
Communications I
Algebra (one or
more)
Operations
Management
AACSB
(n = 211)
%
ACBSP/IACBE
(n = 163)
%
Other
(n = 249)
%
Total (n = 623)
%
χ2
p
Group
differences
211
210
210
100.0
99.5
99.5
163
163
157
100.0
100.0
96.3
249
249
233
100.0
100.0
93.6
623
622
600
100.0
99.8
96.3
—
1.956
11.379
.376
.003
b
205
206
198
207
198
97.2
97.6
93.8
98.1
93.8
161
159
157
154
161
98.8
97.5
96.3
94.5
98.8
231
226
234
217
207
92.8
90.8
94.0
87.1
83.1
597
591
589
578
566
95.8
94.9
94.5
92.8
90.9
10.284
14.314
1.354
21.411
32.419
.006
.001
.508
.000
.000
b,c
a,b,c
200
189
193
94.8
89.6
91.5
147
143
109
90.2
87.7
66.9
206
191
126
82.7
76.7
50.6
553
523
428
88.8
83.9
68.7
17.091
16.375
89.051
.000
.000
.000
b
b,c
a,b,c
118
55.9
102
62.6
129
51.8
349
56.0
4.639
.098
92
43.6
105
64.4
123
49.4
320
51.4
16.592
.000
a,c
165
78.2
76
46.6
78
31.3
319
51.2
102.289
.000
a,b,c
c
b,c
Note. Group differences using the Marascuilo procedure were the following: a = group 1 is different from group 2 at the .05 level of significance or higher;
b = group 1 is different from group 3 at the .05 level of significance or higher; c = group 2 is different from group 3 at the .05 level of significance or
higher. AACSB = Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business International; ACBSP = Accreditation Council for Business Schools and Programs;
IACBE = International Assembly for Collegiate Business Education.
206
J. D. HERRINGTON AND D. R. ARNOLD
TABLE 7
Courses Required by 5–49% of Business Programs
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 21:01 11 January 2016
Course
Computer Literacy
Business Math (one
or more)
Calculus (one or
more)
International
Business
Ethics
Introduction to
Business
Human Resource
Management
Internship
Finite Math
Career/
Professional
Development
Economics III
Leadership
Accounting III
Excel
Systems/
Integration/Process
Information
Systems II
Society/
Environment
Research
Money and Banking
Entrepreneurship
Business Law II
Business
Communications II
AACSB
(n = 211)
%
ACBSP/IACBE
(n = 163)
%
Other
(n = 249)
%
Total (n = 623)
%
95
83
45.0
39.3
94
69
57.7%
42.3%
119
88
47.8
35.3
308
240
49.4
38.5
6.332
2.121
.042
.346
155
73.5
24
14.7%
57
22.9
236
37.9
174.426
.000
a,b
73
34.6
77
47.2%
85
34.1
235
37.7
7.686
.021
a,c
63
69
29.9
32.7
72
52
44.2%
31.9%
91
64
36.5
25.7
226
185
36.3
29.7
8.164
3.195
.017
.202
a
12
5.7
44
27.0%
51
20.5
107
17.2
32.536
.000
a,b
8
38
38
3.8
18.0
18.0
41
26
11
25.2%
16.0%
6.7%
44
25
23
17.7
10.0
9.2
93
89
72
14.9
14.3
11.6
35.502
6.424
13.593
.000
.040
.001
a,b
24
19
4
10
24
11.4
9.0
1.9
4.7
11.4
12
10
18
14
10
7.4%
6.1%
11.0%
8.6%
6.1%
25
22
27
24
11
10.0
8.8
10.8
9.6
4.4
61
51
49
48
45
9.8
8.2
7.9
7.7
7.2
1.705
1.240
15.695
4.098
8.638
.426
.538
.000
.129
.013
8
3.8
13
8.0%
20
8.0
41
6.6
4.039
.133
19
9.0
5
3.1%
16
6.4
40
6.4
5.395
.067
a
4
9
11
2
14
1.9
4.3
5.2
0.9
6.6
7
8
6
14
8
4.3%
4.9%
3.7%
8.6%
4.9%
24
18
17
16
10
9.6
7.2
6.8
6.4
4.0
35
35
34
32
32
5.6
5.6
5.5
5.1
5.1
13.643
2.102
1.927
12.434
1.631
.001
.350
.382
.002
.442
b
χ2
p
Group
differences
a,b
a,b
b
a,b,c
Note. Group differences using the Marascuilo procedure were the following: a = group 1 is different from group 2 at the .05 level of significance or higher;
b = group 1 is different from group 3 at the .05 level of significance or higher; c = group 2 is different from group 3 at the .05 level of significance or
higher. AACSB = Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business International; ACBSP = Accreditation Council for Business Schools and Programs;
IACBE = International Assembly for Collegiate Business Education.
Some change in the number and level of math courses
is evident. A total of 83% of programs required one or
more math (excluding business math and statistics) classes
(Table 8), compared to 73% in 1955. However, with an overall
average of one required math course (Table 9), it seems that
far too few programs have followed the advice of Gordon
and Howell (1959), Pierson (1959), and many others who
have advocated for increasing math requirements to 6–12
credit hours for business students—only 27% of programs
required more than one math course and 17% required none.
On the other hand, what passes for business math seems to
have improved—the vast majority of courses categorized as
business math in this study covered topics common to management science rather than simple arithmetic, yet only 39%
of programs required a business math course.
Credit Hour Requirements
To analyze credit hour requirements, subsamples consisting
of 53 programs accredited by AACSB, 29 programs holding
other business accreditation (ACBSP, IACBE), and 28 programs that do not hold separate business accreditation were
randomly selected from each of the three groups. Additional
data were collected for these programs regarding total credit
hours required for a degree and credit hours required for business core courses (excluding math and up to two semesters
of economics). Data obtained for programs operating on the
quarter system were converted to semester-hour equivalents
prior to analysis.
For the subsample, the average number of credit hours
required for a degree was 123 (SD = 4.2 credit hours) with
an average number of credit hours required in business core
THINKING OUTSIDE THE BOX
TABLE 8
Quantitative Course Requirements
Accreditation
None
%
1
%
2
TABLE 9
Quantitative Course Requirements for Business
Programs
%
3+
%
Accreditation
Number of required math courses
AACSB
9
4.3%
ACBSP/IACBE 30 18.4%
Other
67 26.9%
All programs
106 17.0%
108
101
139
348
51.2% 79
62.0% 28
55.8% 41
55.9% 148
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 21:01 11 January 2016
Number of required statistics courses
AACSB
1
0.5% 135
ACBSP/IACBE
6
3.7% 131
Other
16
6.4% 205
All programs
23
3.7% 471
M
δ
LSD means comparisons
1.47
1.05
0.91
1.14
.692
.727
.678
.737
a,b
c
37.4% 15 7.1%
17.2% 4 2.5%
16.5% 2 0.8%
23.8% 21 3.4%
Number of math courses
AACSB
ACBSP/IACBE
Other
All programs
19
9
15
43
9.0%
5.5%
6.0%
6.9%
4
0
4
8
1.9%
0.0%
1.6%
1.3%
Number of business math courses
AACSB
0.52
ACBSP/IACBE
0.48
Other
0.45
All programs
0.48
.739
.602
.683
.682
64.0% 74
80.4% 26
82.3% 28
75.6% 128
35.1%
16.0%
11.2%
20.5%
1
0
0
1
0.5%
0.0%
0.0%
0.2%
Number of statistics courses
AACSB
1.36
ACBSP/IACBE
1.12
Other
1.05
All programs
1.17
.499
.427
.418
.469
Number of required business math courses
AACSB
128 60.7% 60 28.4%
ACBSP/IACBE 93 57.1% 61 37.4%
Other
160 64.3% 70 28.1%
All programs
381 61.2% 191 30.7%
207
Note. For math courses, χ 2(2) = 80.0, p = .000; for business math,
χ 2(2) = 9.1, p = .166; for statistics, χ 2(2) = 52.5, p = .000. n = 623.
AACSB = Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business International; ACBSP = Accreditation Council for Business Schools and
Programs; IACBE = International Assembly for Collegiate Business Education.
of 36 (SD = 8.3 credit hours). With respect to the business
core as a percentage of total credit hours required for a degree,
the average among all schools was 29% and ranged from a
low of 27% for programs that did not hold separate business
accreditation to a high of 30% for programs holding AACSB
accreditation. The only significant difference observed was
between programs accredited by AACSB and the group of
programs that did not hold separate business accreditation.
DISCUSSION
The findings of this study can be viewed from at least two
interrelated perspectives: the view from the trenches as well
as the 30,000-ft view. The view from the trenches consists
of faculty and administrators attempting to review their curricula to determine its consistency with present practices. In
that light, the data provide present norms, which can be used
for benchmarking purposes. Business programs that do not
presently require a course in information systems, for example, may wish to consider adding such a course to their
curriculum because 69% of business programs have one. Alternately, a program presently requiring a course in money
and banking may wish to evaluate whether the course is still
relevant, as only 6% of other programs require such a course.
The 30,000-ft. view refers to that of the business academy
as a whole, which is concerned with loftier issues relating to
three basic questions. (a) Have business curricula changed
in the last 50 years or so?; (b) Have they changed for the
better?; and finally (c) Have they changed enough to address
a,b
Note. Least significant difference (LSD) group comparisons were the
following: a = group 1 is different from group 2 at the .05 level of significance or higher; b = group 1 is different from group 3 at the .05 level
of significance or higher; c = group 2 is different from group 3 at the .05
level of significance or higher. Math courses included algebra, calculus, and
finite. Business math courses included all math courses not clearly identified as math or statistics, typically management science. For math courses,
F(2, 620) = 39.085, p = .000; for business math, F(2, 620) = 0.627, p =
.537; for statistics, F(2, 620) = 27.989, p = .000. AACSB = Association to
Advance Collegiate Schools of Business International; ACBSP = Accreditation Council for Business Schools and Programs; IACBE = International
Assembly for Collegiate Business Education.
the concerns expressed in the Carnegie and Ford Foundations
reports (among others)?
It seems clear that overall, business curricula and practices
have changed. In addition, many would probably agree that
some improvements have occurred in the areas of mathematics and business core requirements. Yet despite some evident
progress, it appears that more could be done to improve
undergraduate business education. In light of the continued
growth in the demand for business degrees, it is critical that
these issues be addressed. But what changes may be needed?
Curriculum Change: Outside the Box Thinking
As can be seen from the various tables and discussions, the
business core in 2010 closely resembles that of 1955–1956.
Despite encouragement from the various accrediting agencies regarding innovation in curriculum design, there have
been few changes in the typical required core business
courses. There are several possible explanations as to why.
First, accrediting agencies generally try to encourage innovation, but business schools seeking to achieve or maintain
accreditation are often risk-averse. Faculty and administrators look at what has worked in the past for other accredited
business programs and see schools that offer the same list of
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 21:01 11 January 2016
208
J. D. HERRINGTON AND D. R. ARNOLD
traditional core courses. So, they do the same thing, thereby
perpetuating the business core of the 1950s.
Second, disciplinary turf protection may also play a role.
Quite often, faculty members think of their discipline as the
most important one in business. In addition, most business
programs maintain two or more separate academic departments, from which business core courses are staffed and
scheduled. At many institutions the number of faculty positions (as well as operating budgets) available to an academic
department is contingent upon the number of courses and
credit hours offered. Consequently, faculty often exert great
effort to maintain the status quo relative to the number of
credit hours required within academic departments in order
to protect silos.
In addition, many faculty and administrators appear to
resist change. Faculty members presently serving in higher
education generally have received their academic preparation within the last fifty years, during which there has been
little change in business core courses. Since many faculty
members tend to teach what they have been taught in the
manner in which it was taught to them, the status quo remains the norm. The resulting lack of inertia perpetuates the
cookie-cutter curriculum.
Further, a number of the concerns reported by Porter and
McKibbin (1988)—such as the lack of integration and too
little emphasis on problem finding, international dimensions,
entrepreneurship, and practical experience—have seemingly
not been widely addressed. Nor have many of the other
competencies considered important by employers (e.g.,
motivation and commitment to firm, creativity, quality focus,
customer focus, ethics–integrity, teamwork, flexibility, and
interpersonal skills, to name but a few). Why? Perhaps one
of the greatest reasons is that no academic department owns
these competencies. For example, there appear to be few if
any Departments of Business Integration. As a result, such
competencies remain in limbo unless covered under the
broader rubric of one of the traditional business core courses.
From a broader perspective, the inadequacies of business
education may be more systemic. Ghoshal (2005) suggested
that much of what is wrong in business today results from
problems associated with what students have learned, or
not, in business courses. Further, much of what is wrong
in business courses (academe) stems from problems related
to management research–theory and pedagogy. There seems
to be a general disconnect between the research business faculty conduct and what is actually needed and practiced in
the workplace (Khurana, 2007). Many academic institutions
place greater emphasis and rewards on discipline-based research at the expense of research relating to application and
pedagogy (Hambrick, 2005).
So, where has the cookie cutter approach gotten us? It
seems that few individuals outside of business programs
are particularly happy with the state of business education. As a result, business graduates quite often compete
against, and frequently lose out in the job market to, stu-
dents with degrees in liberal arts, engineering, and sciences.
If our business core were really good, wouldn’t business
graduates have a significant competitive advantage over nonbusiness graduates for business jobs? Perhaps a different
business core would provide students receiving a degree
in business with a distinct competitive advantage over students receiving a nonbusiness degree. But how is it possible
to get there? In the following discussion we touch on just a
few of the possibilities and we hope to provoke thought and
discussion.
There is little question that the subjects included in the
business core as it presently exists are relevant. However,
employers and other stakeholders are expecting more. The
issue therefore involves how best to incorporate more topics into the existing core business curriculum. The simplest
solutions (and perhaps the least desirable) include the following: (a) adding additional relevant courses to the business
core thus increasing total credit hours required for a business
degree; or (b) substituting additional business core courses
for either general education or specialization courses. Both
of these options are fraught with budgetary and political
danger.
A third option involves rethinking the traditional notion
that all business courses must be three credit hours. Consider
the present standards. The typical undergraduate business
degree requires approximately 120 credit hours consisting
of 60 credit hours of general education credits (50%), 21
credit hours in specialization courses (17.5%), and 39 credit
hours in the business core (32.5%). Table 6 lists 13 business
courses, totaling approximately 39 credit hours, required by
the majority of business programs. It is readily apparent from
this list that there is no room for additional courses/topics in
the business core without cannibalizing general education or
specializations (majors).
Now consider a different approach, one involving the redistribution of credit hours across core topic areas. Such a
curriculum could include a limited number of three–credithour courses (e.g., accounting and economics, which are
frequently transferred from community colleges), with the
remaining credit hours distributed in increments of 1.5 credit
hours. Why not one– or two–credit-hour courses? First, faculty teaching loads are generally devised in light of two, three,
or four courses per semester, each at three credit hours. Inserting a one– or two–credit-hour course causes load imbalance.
This is particularly problematic in the summer, when faculty
pay is often based on the number of credit hours taught. That
would leave the rest of the traditional core as 1.5–credit-hour
courses. In addition to the thirteen traditional topics, there
are many other topical areas to consider (see Table 2 for
examples).
Another solution would involve utilizing the strengths and
resources of general education programs to provide business
students with some of the competencies employers seek in
business graduates. In their recently published book, Rethinking Undergraduate Business Education: Liberal Learning
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 21:01 11 January 2016
THINKING OUTSIDE THE BOX
for the Profession, Colby, Ehrlich, Sullivan, and Dolle (2011)
made a strong case for business programs formally coordinating with liberal education to deliver competencies in such
areas as analytical thinking, multiple framing, and reflective
thinking to name but a few. Certainly some of the missing topics mentioned earlier could be adequately covered by
general education.
Still another approach might involve continuing the use
of the traditional three–credit-hour course format but, regrouping around related topics. For example, the traditional
corporate finance course could be combined with financial
statement analysis, and financial markets could be combined
with Investments into single three–credit-hour courses. Operations management and marketing could also be combined
into one three–credit-hour course in supply chain management.
An even more radical approach might involve creating a
mosaic design of shorter sequential, related modules perhaps
pooling common topics. For example, pricing is a topic commonly covered in four or more of the traditional business
core courses (e.g., accounting, economics, marketing, and
operations management). Such topics could be reorganized
into single modules thereby reducing redundancy and which
could involve clock hours of contact that could be converted
into credit hours. Certainly such an approach would be an administrative challenge with respect to scheduling and faculty
workload assignments. However, the flexibility in terms of
topic coverage would be tremendous. Regrouping and combining topics would also require changes to the pedagogical
and structural “silos” typically found in business programs
(Campbell, Heriot, & Finney, 2006; Stover, Morris, Pharr,
Reyes, & Byers, 1997).
The solutions discussed previously are just a few of many
possible alternatives. Some business programs are already
experimenting with such unique approaches (cf. Strempek,
Husted, & Gray, 2010). However, at this time it would seem
that the vast majority of undergraduate business programs in
the United States are mired in the past with little indication
of significant change in the near future. Students deserve
the absolute best education that can be provided and the
business academy should continue to strive to ensure that this
happens.
Limitations and Suggestions for Future Research
We have identified several seemingly important topics (e.g.,
integration, ethics, experiential), which did not appear to be
included in most business curriculum. However, some of
these topics could be sufficiently addressed within courses at
some institutions and yet not be discernible from course titles
or description. As the saying goes, you can’t judge a book
by its cover. Great care was taken to try to place courses in
the appropriate category. Some were easy (e.g., accounting,
economics) but others were more challenging and required
an examination of course title or descriptions. Consequently,
some margin for error should be considered.
209
In addition to the topics reviewed earlier, there are several
additional topics that are starting to receive the attention of
the business academy. These topics include innovation, entrepreneurship, sustainability, social responsibility, and critical thinking, to name but a few. While these topics are of importance, standalone courses in these areas were rare. Also,
the data on which business core credit hours were based
comes from a very small subsample. Additional research in
this area using a larger sample of programs is needed.
Both Gordon and Howell (1959) and Pierson (1959) expressed concerns regarding the role general education courses
(other than math) played in business curriculum. We did not
address any of these concerns other than to examine math
requirements. Additional research is needed in this area.
REFERENCES
Abraham, S. E., & Karns, L. A. (2009). Do business schools value the
competencies that businesses value? Journal of Education for Business,
84, 350–356.
Abraham, S. E., Karns, L. A., Shaw, K., & Mena, M. A. (2001). Managerial
competencies and the managerial performance appraisal process. The
Journal of Management Development, 20, 842–852.
Campbell, N., Heriot, K., & Finney, R. (2006). In defense of silos: An argument against the integrative undergraduate business curriculum. Journal
of Management Education, 30, 316–332.
Colby, A., Ehrlich, T., Sullivan, W. M., & Dolle, J. R. (2011). Rethinking
undergraduate business education: Liberal learning for the profession.
San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Gordon, R. A., & Howell, J. E. (1959). Higher education for business. New
York, NY: Columbia University Press.
Ghoshal, S. (2005). Bad management theories are destroying good management practices. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 4,
75–91.
Hambrick, D. C. (2005). Just how bad are our theories? A response to
Ghoshal. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 4, 104–107.
Harper, S. C. (1987). Business education: A view from the top. Business
Forum, 12(3), 24–27.
Khurana, R. (2007). From higher aims to hired hands. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Marascuilo, L. A. (1966). Large-sample multiple comparisons. Psychological Bulletin, 65, 280–290.
National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). (2010). Digest of education statistics. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest
Pierson, F. C. (1959). The education of American businessmen. New York,
NY: McGraw-Hill.
Porter, L. W., & McKibbin, L. E. (1988). Management education and development: Drift or thrust into the 21st century? New York, NY: McGrawHill.
Stover, D., Morris, J., Pharr, S., Reyes, M., & Byers, C. (1997). Breaking
down the silos: Attaining an integrated business common core. American
Business Review, 15(2), 1–11.
Strempek, R., Husted, S., & Gray, P. (2010). Integrated business core curricula (undergraduate): What have we learned in over 20 years? Academy
of Educational Leadership Journal, 14, 19–34.
Tanyel, F., Mitchell, M. A., & McAlum, H. G. (1999). The skill set for
success of new business school graduates: Do prospective employers and
university faculty agree? Journal of Education for Business, 75, 33–37.
Van Fleet, D. D., & Wren, D. A. (2005). Teaching history in business schools:
1982–2003. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 4, 44–56.
Wickramasinghe, V., & De Zoyza, N. (2009). A comparative analysis of
managerial competency needs across areas of functional specialization.
Journal of Management Development, 28, 344–360.
ISSN: 0883-2323 (Print) 1940-3356 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vjeb20
Undergraduate Business Education: It's Time to
Think Outside the Box
John Duncan Herrington & Danny R. Arnold
To cite this article: John Duncan Herrington & Danny R. Arnold (2013) Undergraduate Business
Education: It's Time to Think Outside the Box, Journal of Education for Business, 88:4, 202-209,
DOI: 10.1080/08832323.2012.672934
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08832323.2012.672934
Published online: 20 Apr 2013.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 310
View related articles
Citing articles: 1 View citing articles
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=vjeb20
Download by: [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji]
Date: 11 January 2016, At: 21:01
JOURNAL OF EDUCATION FOR BUSINESS, 88: 202–209, 2013
C Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
Copyright
ISSN: 0883-2323 print / 1940-3356 online
DOI: 10.1080/08832323.2012.672934
Undergraduate Business Education: It’s Time
to Think Outside the Box
John Duncan Herrington
Radford University, Radford, Virginia, USA
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 21:01 11 January 2016
Danny R. Arnold
Rollins College, Winter Park, Florida, USA
For more than 100 years, institutions of higher learning in the United States have provided
millions of students with an education in business. Presently, business ranks as one of the
most popular undergraduate majors on American college campuses, awarding over 20% of all
undergraduate degrees granted each year. Despite its popularity, many people question whether
these students receive the type of education needed to effectively compete in a rapidly changing
world. The authors report the findings of an extensive study of undergraduate business curricula
in the United States, the results of which suggest that very little has changed since the Ford
and Carnegie Foundations Reports were published in 1959. The authors conclude with some
suggestions on how to improve business education for future graduates.
Keywords: business, curriculum, undergraduate
The University of Pennsylvania established the first formal
school of business in 1881 (Van Fleet & Wren, 2005). The13
business programs in existence in the United States prior to
1913 (Pierson, 1959) grew to approximately 1,500 by 2010.
During this time the number of students receiving a bachelor’s degree in business from U.S. colleges and universities
grew from just under 43,000 during the 1955–1956 academic
year to approximately 348,000 during 2008–2009 (National
Center for Education Statistics [NCES], 2010). Almost 22%
of all Bachelor’s degrees granted in the United States during
2008–2009 were granted in business.
This rapid growth helped encourage more intense scrutiny,
both from inside and outside the Business Academy. The
Ford and Carnegie Foundations sponsored two of the earliest comprehensive reviews and critical analyses of business education in America, typically referred to as the Gordon and Howell (1959) and Pierson (1959) studies. Almost
30 years later, the Association to Advance Collegiate Schools
of Business International (AACSB) commissioned an additional comprehensive study (Porter & McKibbin, 1988). All
three reports have provided the business academy with sig-
Correspondence should be addressed to John Duncan Herrington, Radford University, College of Business and Economics, Box 6950, Radford,
VA 24142, USA. E-mail: dherring@radford.edu
nificant guidance for improving undergraduate business education. The following provides a brief summary of some of
the key findings and recommendations provided by the three
reports.
First, Gordon and Howell (1959) found that business programs did not require enough mathematics. They reported
that only 63% of business programs had any math requirement. The remaining programs required only business math
(22%) or no math at all (15%). Many of the business math
classes at that time covered only basic arithmetic and/or financial calculations.
Second, both the Ford and Carnegie Foundation reports
suggested that programs required too many credit hours
in business courses and allowed too much latitude regarding specific course requirements. Pierson (1959) noted that
anywhere from 17 to 22 different core areas from which
schools required students to take courses. The eight most
commonly required business subjects were: accounting, finance (banking), business law, economics, marketing, statistics, management–policy, and production. The number of
credit hours required in core business courses ranged anywhere from fewer than 30 to more than 54.
Porter and McKibbin (1988) reported the findings of two
separate surveys conducted in the mid-1980s. The first, a
survey of AACSB International member institutions, can be
summarized as follows. First, respondents felt that programs
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 21:01 11 January 2016
THINKING OUTSIDE THE BOX
were lacking in integration across the various functional areas. Second, programs placed too much emphasis on problem solving and not enough on problem finding (i.e., vision)
and, further, too little emphasis on managing people (e.g.,
leadership, interpersonal skills), communication skills, external environments, international dimensions of business,
entrepreneurship, and ethics. Based on the findings of a separate survey of corporate executives, Porter and McKibbin
reported that many executives felt that quantitative requirements were somewhat adequate. But, they also felt that the
business curriculum should be more realistic, practical, and
hands-on and needed to place more emphasis on soft skills
(e.g., leadership, interpersonal skills).
Presently, three organizations in the United States offering accreditation of business programs provide recommendations regarding both the subjects and credit hours business
programs should require in their core curricula: AACSB International, the Accreditation Council for Business Schools
and Programs (ACBSP), and the International Assembly for
Collegiate Business Education (IACBE). Gordon and Howell
(1959) and Pierson (1959) each provided suggestions regarding what courses and credit hours should be required of all
business majors, which are summarized in Table 1. Compared to the business core of 1955–1956, the most prominent
recommended changes included adding 6–12 credit hours of
mathematics (e.g., algebra, finite, and/or calculus), the inclusion of more behaviorally oriented subjects in management,
and the delegation of courses in business communication
to non-business academic areas (e.g., English, communications).
While the reports differed in how many credit hours should
be required for some subject areas, both suggested that at least
one-half of the credit hours required for a degree in business
should be non-business. Gordon and Howell (1959) further
suggested that the common business core alone should con-
TABLE 1
Suggested Business Core Curriculum:
Carnegie and Ford Foundations Reports
Course(s)
• Mathematics
• Statistics
• Macroeconomics
• Microeconomics
• Accounting
• Legal Environment of Business
• Organization and Human Behavior
• Human/Industrial Relations
• Production/Operations Management
• Finance
• Marketing
• Business Policy
Note. Adapted from Gordon and Howell (1959) and Pierson
(1959).
203
TABLE 2
Summary of Competencies Desired of
Business Graduates by Employers
Most frequently mentioned competencies
• Business expertise
• Communication skills
• Creativity
• Customer focus
• Ethics/integrity
• Flexibility
• Interpersonal skills
• Leadership
• Motivation and commitment to firm
• Problem solving
• Quality focus
• Risk taking
• Teamwork
• Technical expertise
• Time management
• Work ethic
Note. Sources are Harper (1987); Tanyel, Mitchell, and
McAlum (1999); Abraham, Karns, Shaw, and Mena (2001);
Abraham and Karns (2009); and Wickramasinghe and De Zoyza
(2009).
sist of no more than 30–40% of the requirements for a fouryear degree.
One of the key stakeholder groups to which business programs are accountable consists of the organizations that offer
employment to the millions of students who have or will receive a business degree. While not a complete and exhaustive
list, Table 2 provides a summary of some of the more commonly mentioned competencies employers expect to see in
prospective employees.
In summary, the past 50 years have been a time of much
research, debate, and no small degree of angst within the
business academy. Beginning in earnest with the Ford and
Carnegie Foundations reports, the academy as a whole has
devoted much time and effort towards developing business
curricula worthy of professional status. Big questions remain,
such as the following: (a) what progress has actually been
made?, and (b) has it been enough? In the sections that follow
we report the results of a comprehensive study of four-year
business programs in the United States, followed by some
recommendations that may serve to guide future research
and development in the area of business education.
METHODOLOGY
Despite diligent search, no single source provides a complete
listing of all institutions offering bachelor’s degrees in business in the United States. Subsequently, a variety of sources
were used, including the membership rosters of recognized
U.S. accreditors approved by the Council for Higher Education Accreditation (e.g., AACSB International, ACBSP,
204
J. D. HERRINGTON AND D. R. ARNOLD
TABLE 3
Number of Colleges and Universities Offering
4-Year Degrees in Business by State
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 21:01 11 January 2016
Location
Alaska
Alabama
Arkansas
Arizona
California
Colorado
Connecticut
District of Columbia
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Iowa
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Massachusetts
Maryland
Maine
Michigan
Minnesota
Missouri
Mississippi
Montana
North Carolina
North Dakota
Nebraska
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
Nevada
New York
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Virginia
Vermont
Washington
Wisconsin
West Virginia
Wyoming
None/multiple
Total
No.
4
32
20
13
100
21
17
12
5
51
44
6
30
6
63
43
24
25
20
49
25
12
43
36
38
14
9
49
9
19
13
23
8
4
106
59
24
17
89
6
32
12
38
72
9
42
11
20
33
22
1
15
1,495
IACBE, Middle States Association of Colleges and Schools),
Peterson’s Guide to Four-Year Colleges, several Internetbased college directories (e.g., collegiateguide.com), and
serendipity. The data used for this analysis consisted of busi-
ness program requirements in effect for the 2010–2011 academic year, and were collected from official program websites, catalogs, and bulletins between August 2010 and April
2011.
The investigation identified 1,495 different institutions
(not including branch campuses) offering bachelor’s degrees
in business (see Table 3). All but one of the identified programs were accredited at the institutional level by one or more
organizations recognized by the Council for Higher Education Accreditation. Forty-nine percent held separate accreditation of their business programs—30% by the AACSB and
19% by either the ACBSP and/or IACBE.
Prior to sample selection, the total population of 1,495
known institutions offering one or more four-year business
degrees was stratified into three groups: (a) programs holding
accreditation by AACSB, (b) programs holding accreditation
by ACBSP or IACBE, and (c) all other programs. A random
sample was selected from each of the three groups resulting
in a total sample of 623, which is an appropriate sample size
to yield a maximum 5% sampling error overall and within
strata. The sample included programs located in all 50 states
as well as the Washington, DC.
FINDINGS
The analyses that follow include group comparisons expressed in terms of either proportions or means. For proportions, the chi-square statistic was used as an overall measure
of difference among groups and the Marascuilo procedure
(Marascuilo, 1966) was used to determine individual pairwise group differences. Analysis of variance was used to
compare overall group means followed by the least significant difference (LSD) procedure for means comparisons.
Business Core Courses
The results of this study suggest that the number of credit
hours required in business core courses increased between
TABLE 4
Semester Hours Required in Business Core:
1955–1956 Compared to 2010–2011
Percentage of programs
Semester hours
Under 30
30–35
36–41
42–47
48–53
54 or more
1955–1956
2010–2011
10.6
21.2
24.2
18.2
19.7
6.0
3.0
5.6
18.0
28.3
22.0
23.1
Note. Data from 1955–1956 (n = 132) were adapted from Pierson (1959). Estimate from 2010–2011 (n = 623) was obtained by
multiplying course count by 3.
205
THINKING OUTSIDE THE BOX
TABLE 5
Business Core Requirements (n = 632)
there remain 14 additional business courses required by 5%
or more of business programs (Table 7).
In summary, curriculum change has occurred, yet it would
be difficult to contend that the list now includes all of the
courses that should be included in the business core. Other
important topics potentially missing from the list of core
business courses include interpersonal skills, teamwork, international business, ethics, and experiential and business
integration, to name but a few—all of which are presently
required by fewer than 50% of business programs.
The typical business core of 2010 (Table 6) may not adequately address all of the competencies desired by employers
(Table 2). Certainly the competencies relating to communications, analytical skills, and business expertise (via functional
courses) are generally covered. As for the remaining competencies, it can only be guessed, as there seem to be few clear
connections with any given course title or description. Recent
research seems to call into question whether these competencies are adequately addressed (Abraham & Karns, 2009).
For example, employers have noted that business programs
have not done well at providing students with opportunities
to gain hands-on experience prior to entering the workforce.
While most business programs offer internships, very few
(15%) require them. One does not have to look far to find
examples of professors requiring students to engage in realworld projects as a course requirement, yet the extent to
which such activities were practiced is not clear.
Number of required business core courses
Accreditation
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 21:01 11 January 2016
AACSB
ACBSP/IACBE
Other
All programs
M
δ
LSD means comparisons
15.72
16.10
14.90
15.49
2.298
3.334
4.135
3.428
b
c
Note. F (2, 620) = 6.915, p = .001. Business math courses excluded
mathematics. Least significant difference (LSD) group comparisons were
the following: a = group 1 is different from group 2 at the .05 level of
significance or higher; b = group 1 is different from group 3 at the .05 level
of significance or higher; c = group 2 is different from group 3 at the .05 level
of significance or higher. AACSB = Association to Advance Collegiate
Schools of Business International; ACBSP = Accreditation Council for
Business Schools and Programs; IACBE = International Assembly for
Collegiate Business Education.
1955 and 2010 (Tables 4 and 5), yet most programs were
able to do so without exceeding 50% of the credit hours
required for a degree. In addition, programs seem to have
become more consistent in terms of business core courses
(Table 6). Information systems, business communications
and a management course (separate from business policy)
were the only courses added to the original list of eight
business core courses identified by Pierson (1959). However,
TABLE 6
Courses Required by 50% or More of Business Programs
Course
Accounting I
Economics I
Business Statistics
(one or more)
Marketing
Finance
Management course
Accounting II
Business Law/Legal
Environment I
Economics II
Strategy/Policy
Information
Systems I
Business
Communications I
Algebra (one or
more)
Operations
Management
AACSB
(n = 211)
%
ACBSP/IACBE
(n = 163)
%
Other
(n = 249)
%
Total (n = 623)
%
χ2
p
Group
differences
211
210
210
100.0
99.5
99.5
163
163
157
100.0
100.0
96.3
249
249
233
100.0
100.0
93.6
623
622
600
100.0
99.8
96.3
—
1.956
11.379
.376
.003
b
205
206
198
207
198
97.2
97.6
93.8
98.1
93.8
161
159
157
154
161
98.8
97.5
96.3
94.5
98.8
231
226
234
217
207
92.8
90.8
94.0
87.1
83.1
597
591
589
578
566
95.8
94.9
94.5
92.8
90.9
10.284
14.314
1.354
21.411
32.419
.006
.001
.508
.000
.000
b,c
a,b,c
200
189
193
94.8
89.6
91.5
147
143
109
90.2
87.7
66.9
206
191
126
82.7
76.7
50.6
553
523
428
88.8
83.9
68.7
17.091
16.375
89.051
.000
.000
.000
b
b,c
a,b,c
118
55.9
102
62.6
129
51.8
349
56.0
4.639
.098
92
43.6
105
64.4
123
49.4
320
51.4
16.592
.000
a,c
165
78.2
76
46.6
78
31.3
319
51.2
102.289
.000
a,b,c
c
b,c
Note. Group differences using the Marascuilo procedure were the following: a = group 1 is different from group 2 at the .05 level of significance or higher;
b = group 1 is different from group 3 at the .05 level of significance or higher; c = group 2 is different from group 3 at the .05 level of significance or
higher. AACSB = Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business International; ACBSP = Accreditation Council for Business Schools and Programs;
IACBE = International Assembly for Collegiate Business Education.
206
J. D. HERRINGTON AND D. R. ARNOLD
TABLE 7
Courses Required by 5–49% of Business Programs
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 21:01 11 January 2016
Course
Computer Literacy
Business Math (one
or more)
Calculus (one or
more)
International
Business
Ethics
Introduction to
Business
Human Resource
Management
Internship
Finite Math
Career/
Professional
Development
Economics III
Leadership
Accounting III
Excel
Systems/
Integration/Process
Information
Systems II
Society/
Environment
Research
Money and Banking
Entrepreneurship
Business Law II
Business
Communications II
AACSB
(n = 211)
%
ACBSP/IACBE
(n = 163)
%
Other
(n = 249)
%
Total (n = 623)
%
95
83
45.0
39.3
94
69
57.7%
42.3%
119
88
47.8
35.3
308
240
49.4
38.5
6.332
2.121
.042
.346
155
73.5
24
14.7%
57
22.9
236
37.9
174.426
.000
a,b
73
34.6
77
47.2%
85
34.1
235
37.7
7.686
.021
a,c
63
69
29.9
32.7
72
52
44.2%
31.9%
91
64
36.5
25.7
226
185
36.3
29.7
8.164
3.195
.017
.202
a
12
5.7
44
27.0%
51
20.5
107
17.2
32.536
.000
a,b
8
38
38
3.8
18.0
18.0
41
26
11
25.2%
16.0%
6.7%
44
25
23
17.7
10.0
9.2
93
89
72
14.9
14.3
11.6
35.502
6.424
13.593
.000
.040
.001
a,b
24
19
4
10
24
11.4
9.0
1.9
4.7
11.4
12
10
18
14
10
7.4%
6.1%
11.0%
8.6%
6.1%
25
22
27
24
11
10.0
8.8
10.8
9.6
4.4
61
51
49
48
45
9.8
8.2
7.9
7.7
7.2
1.705
1.240
15.695
4.098
8.638
.426
.538
.000
.129
.013
8
3.8
13
8.0%
20
8.0
41
6.6
4.039
.133
19
9.0
5
3.1%
16
6.4
40
6.4
5.395
.067
a
4
9
11
2
14
1.9
4.3
5.2
0.9
6.6
7
8
6
14
8
4.3%
4.9%
3.7%
8.6%
4.9%
24
18
17
16
10
9.6
7.2
6.8
6.4
4.0
35
35
34
32
32
5.6
5.6
5.5
5.1
5.1
13.643
2.102
1.927
12.434
1.631
.001
.350
.382
.002
.442
b
χ2
p
Group
differences
a,b
a,b
b
a,b,c
Note. Group differences using the Marascuilo procedure were the following: a = group 1 is different from group 2 at the .05 level of significance or higher;
b = group 1 is different from group 3 at the .05 level of significance or higher; c = group 2 is different from group 3 at the .05 level of significance or
higher. AACSB = Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business International; ACBSP = Accreditation Council for Business Schools and Programs;
IACBE = International Assembly for Collegiate Business Education.
Some change in the number and level of math courses
is evident. A total of 83% of programs required one or
more math (excluding business math and statistics) classes
(Table 8), compared to 73% in 1955. However, with an overall
average of one required math course (Table 9), it seems that
far too few programs have followed the advice of Gordon
and Howell (1959), Pierson (1959), and many others who
have advocated for increasing math requirements to 6–12
credit hours for business students—only 27% of programs
required more than one math course and 17% required none.
On the other hand, what passes for business math seems to
have improved—the vast majority of courses categorized as
business math in this study covered topics common to management science rather than simple arithmetic, yet only 39%
of programs required a business math course.
Credit Hour Requirements
To analyze credit hour requirements, subsamples consisting
of 53 programs accredited by AACSB, 29 programs holding
other business accreditation (ACBSP, IACBE), and 28 programs that do not hold separate business accreditation were
randomly selected from each of the three groups. Additional
data were collected for these programs regarding total credit
hours required for a degree and credit hours required for business core courses (excluding math and up to two semesters
of economics). Data obtained for programs operating on the
quarter system were converted to semester-hour equivalents
prior to analysis.
For the subsample, the average number of credit hours
required for a degree was 123 (SD = 4.2 credit hours) with
an average number of credit hours required in business core
THINKING OUTSIDE THE BOX
TABLE 8
Quantitative Course Requirements
Accreditation
None
%
1
%
2
TABLE 9
Quantitative Course Requirements for Business
Programs
%
3+
%
Accreditation
Number of required math courses
AACSB
9
4.3%
ACBSP/IACBE 30 18.4%
Other
67 26.9%
All programs
106 17.0%
108
101
139
348
51.2% 79
62.0% 28
55.8% 41
55.9% 148
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 21:01 11 January 2016
Number of required statistics courses
AACSB
1
0.5% 135
ACBSP/IACBE
6
3.7% 131
Other
16
6.4% 205
All programs
23
3.7% 471
M
δ
LSD means comparisons
1.47
1.05
0.91
1.14
.692
.727
.678
.737
a,b
c
37.4% 15 7.1%
17.2% 4 2.5%
16.5% 2 0.8%
23.8% 21 3.4%
Number of math courses
AACSB
ACBSP/IACBE
Other
All programs
19
9
15
43
9.0%
5.5%
6.0%
6.9%
4
0
4
8
1.9%
0.0%
1.6%
1.3%
Number of business math courses
AACSB
0.52
ACBSP/IACBE
0.48
Other
0.45
All programs
0.48
.739
.602
.683
.682
64.0% 74
80.4% 26
82.3% 28
75.6% 128
35.1%
16.0%
11.2%
20.5%
1
0
0
1
0.5%
0.0%
0.0%
0.2%
Number of statistics courses
AACSB
1.36
ACBSP/IACBE
1.12
Other
1.05
All programs
1.17
.499
.427
.418
.469
Number of required business math courses
AACSB
128 60.7% 60 28.4%
ACBSP/IACBE 93 57.1% 61 37.4%
Other
160 64.3% 70 28.1%
All programs
381 61.2% 191 30.7%
207
Note. For math courses, χ 2(2) = 80.0, p = .000; for business math,
χ 2(2) = 9.1, p = .166; for statistics, χ 2(2) = 52.5, p = .000. n = 623.
AACSB = Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business International; ACBSP = Accreditation Council for Business Schools and
Programs; IACBE = International Assembly for Collegiate Business Education.
of 36 (SD = 8.3 credit hours). With respect to the business
core as a percentage of total credit hours required for a degree,
the average among all schools was 29% and ranged from a
low of 27% for programs that did not hold separate business
accreditation to a high of 30% for programs holding AACSB
accreditation. The only significant difference observed was
between programs accredited by AACSB and the group of
programs that did not hold separate business accreditation.
DISCUSSION
The findings of this study can be viewed from at least two
interrelated perspectives: the view from the trenches as well
as the 30,000-ft view. The view from the trenches consists
of faculty and administrators attempting to review their curricula to determine its consistency with present practices. In
that light, the data provide present norms, which can be used
for benchmarking purposes. Business programs that do not
presently require a course in information systems, for example, may wish to consider adding such a course to their
curriculum because 69% of business programs have one. Alternately, a program presently requiring a course in money
and banking may wish to evaluate whether the course is still
relevant, as only 6% of other programs require such a course.
The 30,000-ft. view refers to that of the business academy
as a whole, which is concerned with loftier issues relating to
three basic questions. (a) Have business curricula changed
in the last 50 years or so?; (b) Have they changed for the
better?; and finally (c) Have they changed enough to address
a,b
Note. Least significant difference (LSD) group comparisons were the
following: a = group 1 is different from group 2 at the .05 level of significance or higher; b = group 1 is different from group 3 at the .05 level
of significance or higher; c = group 2 is different from group 3 at the .05
level of significance or higher. Math courses included algebra, calculus, and
finite. Business math courses included all math courses not clearly identified as math or statistics, typically management science. For math courses,
F(2, 620) = 39.085, p = .000; for business math, F(2, 620) = 0.627, p =
.537; for statistics, F(2, 620) = 27.989, p = .000. AACSB = Association to
Advance Collegiate Schools of Business International; ACBSP = Accreditation Council for Business Schools and Programs; IACBE = International
Assembly for Collegiate Business Education.
the concerns expressed in the Carnegie and Ford Foundations
reports (among others)?
It seems clear that overall, business curricula and practices
have changed. In addition, many would probably agree that
some improvements have occurred in the areas of mathematics and business core requirements. Yet despite some evident
progress, it appears that more could be done to improve
undergraduate business education. In light of the continued
growth in the demand for business degrees, it is critical that
these issues be addressed. But what changes may be needed?
Curriculum Change: Outside the Box Thinking
As can be seen from the various tables and discussions, the
business core in 2010 closely resembles that of 1955–1956.
Despite encouragement from the various accrediting agencies regarding innovation in curriculum design, there have
been few changes in the typical required core business
courses. There are several possible explanations as to why.
First, accrediting agencies generally try to encourage innovation, but business schools seeking to achieve or maintain
accreditation are often risk-averse. Faculty and administrators look at what has worked in the past for other accredited
business programs and see schools that offer the same list of
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 21:01 11 January 2016
208
J. D. HERRINGTON AND D. R. ARNOLD
traditional core courses. So, they do the same thing, thereby
perpetuating the business core of the 1950s.
Second, disciplinary turf protection may also play a role.
Quite often, faculty members think of their discipline as the
most important one in business. In addition, most business
programs maintain two or more separate academic departments, from which business core courses are staffed and
scheduled. At many institutions the number of faculty positions (as well as operating budgets) available to an academic
department is contingent upon the number of courses and
credit hours offered. Consequently, faculty often exert great
effort to maintain the status quo relative to the number of
credit hours required within academic departments in order
to protect silos.
In addition, many faculty and administrators appear to
resist change. Faculty members presently serving in higher
education generally have received their academic preparation within the last fifty years, during which there has been
little change in business core courses. Since many faculty
members tend to teach what they have been taught in the
manner in which it was taught to them, the status quo remains the norm. The resulting lack of inertia perpetuates the
cookie-cutter curriculum.
Further, a number of the concerns reported by Porter and
McKibbin (1988)—such as the lack of integration and too
little emphasis on problem finding, international dimensions,
entrepreneurship, and practical experience—have seemingly
not been widely addressed. Nor have many of the other
competencies considered important by employers (e.g.,
motivation and commitment to firm, creativity, quality focus,
customer focus, ethics–integrity, teamwork, flexibility, and
interpersonal skills, to name but a few). Why? Perhaps one
of the greatest reasons is that no academic department owns
these competencies. For example, there appear to be few if
any Departments of Business Integration. As a result, such
competencies remain in limbo unless covered under the
broader rubric of one of the traditional business core courses.
From a broader perspective, the inadequacies of business
education may be more systemic. Ghoshal (2005) suggested
that much of what is wrong in business today results from
problems associated with what students have learned, or
not, in business courses. Further, much of what is wrong
in business courses (academe) stems from problems related
to management research–theory and pedagogy. There seems
to be a general disconnect between the research business faculty conduct and what is actually needed and practiced in
the workplace (Khurana, 2007). Many academic institutions
place greater emphasis and rewards on discipline-based research at the expense of research relating to application and
pedagogy (Hambrick, 2005).
So, where has the cookie cutter approach gotten us? It
seems that few individuals outside of business programs
are particularly happy with the state of business education. As a result, business graduates quite often compete
against, and frequently lose out in the job market to, stu-
dents with degrees in liberal arts, engineering, and sciences.
If our business core were really good, wouldn’t business
graduates have a significant competitive advantage over nonbusiness graduates for business jobs? Perhaps a different
business core would provide students receiving a degree
in business with a distinct competitive advantage over students receiving a nonbusiness degree. But how is it possible
to get there? In the following discussion we touch on just a
few of the possibilities and we hope to provoke thought and
discussion.
There is little question that the subjects included in the
business core as it presently exists are relevant. However,
employers and other stakeholders are expecting more. The
issue therefore involves how best to incorporate more topics into the existing core business curriculum. The simplest
solutions (and perhaps the least desirable) include the following: (a) adding additional relevant courses to the business
core thus increasing total credit hours required for a business
degree; or (b) substituting additional business core courses
for either general education or specialization courses. Both
of these options are fraught with budgetary and political
danger.
A third option involves rethinking the traditional notion
that all business courses must be three credit hours. Consider
the present standards. The typical undergraduate business
degree requires approximately 120 credit hours consisting
of 60 credit hours of general education credits (50%), 21
credit hours in specialization courses (17.5%), and 39 credit
hours in the business core (32.5%). Table 6 lists 13 business
courses, totaling approximately 39 credit hours, required by
the majority of business programs. It is readily apparent from
this list that there is no room for additional courses/topics in
the business core without cannibalizing general education or
specializations (majors).
Now consider a different approach, one involving the redistribution of credit hours across core topic areas. Such a
curriculum could include a limited number of three–credithour courses (e.g., accounting and economics, which are
frequently transferred from community colleges), with the
remaining credit hours distributed in increments of 1.5 credit
hours. Why not one– or two–credit-hour courses? First, faculty teaching loads are generally devised in light of two, three,
or four courses per semester, each at three credit hours. Inserting a one– or two–credit-hour course causes load imbalance.
This is particularly problematic in the summer, when faculty
pay is often based on the number of credit hours taught. That
would leave the rest of the traditional core as 1.5–credit-hour
courses. In addition to the thirteen traditional topics, there
are many other topical areas to consider (see Table 2 for
examples).
Another solution would involve utilizing the strengths and
resources of general education programs to provide business
students with some of the competencies employers seek in
business graduates. In their recently published book, Rethinking Undergraduate Business Education: Liberal Learning
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 21:01 11 January 2016
THINKING OUTSIDE THE BOX
for the Profession, Colby, Ehrlich, Sullivan, and Dolle (2011)
made a strong case for business programs formally coordinating with liberal education to deliver competencies in such
areas as analytical thinking, multiple framing, and reflective
thinking to name but a few. Certainly some of the missing topics mentioned earlier could be adequately covered by
general education.
Still another approach might involve continuing the use
of the traditional three–credit-hour course format but, regrouping around related topics. For example, the traditional
corporate finance course could be combined with financial
statement analysis, and financial markets could be combined
with Investments into single three–credit-hour courses. Operations management and marketing could also be combined
into one three–credit-hour course in supply chain management.
An even more radical approach might involve creating a
mosaic design of shorter sequential, related modules perhaps
pooling common topics. For example, pricing is a topic commonly covered in four or more of the traditional business
core courses (e.g., accounting, economics, marketing, and
operations management). Such topics could be reorganized
into single modules thereby reducing redundancy and which
could involve clock hours of contact that could be converted
into credit hours. Certainly such an approach would be an administrative challenge with respect to scheduling and faculty
workload assignments. However, the flexibility in terms of
topic coverage would be tremendous. Regrouping and combining topics would also require changes to the pedagogical
and structural “silos” typically found in business programs
(Campbell, Heriot, & Finney, 2006; Stover, Morris, Pharr,
Reyes, & Byers, 1997).
The solutions discussed previously are just a few of many
possible alternatives. Some business programs are already
experimenting with such unique approaches (cf. Strempek,
Husted, & Gray, 2010). However, at this time it would seem
that the vast majority of undergraduate business programs in
the United States are mired in the past with little indication
of significant change in the near future. Students deserve
the absolute best education that can be provided and the
business academy should continue to strive to ensure that this
happens.
Limitations and Suggestions for Future Research
We have identified several seemingly important topics (e.g.,
integration, ethics, experiential), which did not appear to be
included in most business curriculum. However, some of
these topics could be sufficiently addressed within courses at
some institutions and yet not be discernible from course titles
or description. As the saying goes, you can’t judge a book
by its cover. Great care was taken to try to place courses in
the appropriate category. Some were easy (e.g., accounting,
economics) but others were more challenging and required
an examination of course title or descriptions. Consequently,
some margin for error should be considered.
209
In addition to the topics reviewed earlier, there are several
additional topics that are starting to receive the attention of
the business academy. These topics include innovation, entrepreneurship, sustainability, social responsibility, and critical thinking, to name but a few. While these topics are of importance, standalone courses in these areas were rare. Also,
the data on which business core credit hours were based
comes from a very small subsample. Additional research in
this area using a larger sample of programs is needed.
Both Gordon and Howell (1959) and Pierson (1959) expressed concerns regarding the role general education courses
(other than math) played in business curriculum. We did not
address any of these concerns other than to examine math
requirements. Additional research is needed in this area.
REFERENCES
Abraham, S. E., & Karns, L. A. (2009). Do business schools value the
competencies that businesses value? Journal of Education for Business,
84, 350–356.
Abraham, S. E., Karns, L. A., Shaw, K., & Mena, M. A. (2001). Managerial
competencies and the managerial performance appraisal process. The
Journal of Management Development, 20, 842–852.
Campbell, N., Heriot, K., & Finney, R. (2006). In defense of silos: An argument against the integrative undergraduate business curriculum. Journal
of Management Education, 30, 316–332.
Colby, A., Ehrlich, T., Sullivan, W. M., & Dolle, J. R. (2011). Rethinking
undergraduate business education: Liberal learning for the profession.
San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Gordon, R. A., & Howell, J. E. (1959). Higher education for business. New
York, NY: Columbia University Press.
Ghoshal, S. (2005). Bad management theories are destroying good management practices. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 4,
75–91.
Hambrick, D. C. (2005). Just how bad are our theories? A response to
Ghoshal. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 4, 104–107.
Harper, S. C. (1987). Business education: A view from the top. Business
Forum, 12(3), 24–27.
Khurana, R. (2007). From higher aims to hired hands. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Marascuilo, L. A. (1966). Large-sample multiple comparisons. Psychological Bulletin, 65, 280–290.
National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). (2010). Digest of education statistics. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest
Pierson, F. C. (1959). The education of American businessmen. New York,
NY: McGraw-Hill.
Porter, L. W., & McKibbin, L. E. (1988). Management education and development: Drift or thrust into the 21st century? New York, NY: McGrawHill.
Stover, D., Morris, J., Pharr, S., Reyes, M., & Byers, C. (1997). Breaking
down the silos: Attaining an integrated business common core. American
Business Review, 15(2), 1–11.
Strempek, R., Husted, S., & Gray, P. (2010). Integrated business core curricula (undergraduate): What have we learned in over 20 years? Academy
of Educational Leadership Journal, 14, 19–34.
Tanyel, F., Mitchell, M. A., & McAlum, H. G. (1999). The skill set for
success of new business school graduates: Do prospective employers and
university faculty agree? Journal of Education for Business, 75, 33–37.
Van Fleet, D. D., & Wren, D. A. (2005). Teaching history in business schools:
1982–2003. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 4, 44–56.
Wickramasinghe, V., & De Zoyza, N. (2009). A comparative analysis of
managerial competency needs across areas of functional specialization.
Journal of Management Development, 28, 344–360.