Now that our season is over...

[Swampy]

Business school curricula legitimize the role of private business in our society? truly shocking! who would have thought?

Inequality in income and wealth is a good thing. Gradients drive change, encourage innovation.

One would think the history of the twentieth century would serve to refute and discredit anything that Karl Marx had to say.

You know, Keith, people who throw words like "Marx" and "socialism" around loosely really add nothing substantive to the discussion.  You can't be as shallow as propaganda artists like Palin and Beck and O'Reilly, can you?  Give us all a break and drop the right-wing blather.  It adds nothing to eLynah.

I don't consider it throwing Marx around loosely when I'm responding to someone who brought up Marx as someone who should be taught in business school. Sure my post is a little snarky but it's far from right wing blather. I could say that people who immediately compare anyone with "right-wing" ideas to Palin, O'Reilly and Beck aren't adding anything substantive to the conversation either and are also being pretty shallow.

Keith, you're misrepresenting my point. I didn't say Marx should be taught in business schools. I said if business schools were about studying business impartially, then work by people like Marx and Vance Packard would be more central to what's covered. My point is that business schools are more vocational than purely academic/scientific or whatever term you want to use for impartial, objective education. I don't know what they teach in China these days, but I would not be surprised if the average Chinese student knows more Adam Smith and Milton Friedman than the average U.S. student knows of Marx or even Schumpeter and Keynes. And we have the nerve to accuse the Chinese of indoctrination!

As for Marx having something of value to add to our understanding of the twentieth century, read Giovanni Arrighi's The Long Twentieth Century (Verso 1994, 2006), which is heavily influenced by Marx but written in the early nineties. The book is remarkably prescient. Here's one example:

we shall designate the beginning of every financial expansion ... the "signal crisis" ... of the dominant regime of accumulation. It is at this time that the leading agency of systemic processes of accumulation [by which he means the dominant capitalist power] begins to switch its capital in increasing quantities from trade and production to financial intermediation and speculation. ... when the leading agency of systemic processes of capital accumulation reveals, through the switch, a negative judgment on the possibility of continuing to profit from the reinvestment of surplus capital in the material expansion of the world economy, as well as a positive judgment on the possibility of prolonging in time and space its leadership/dominance through a greater specialization in high finance.

If you don't recognize this as an apt description of Britain in the early 20th century and the U.S. since about 1980, then there's simply no point in further discussion. One would think the history of the the twentieth century would lead intelligent people to want to learn how Marx developed such insight.

[YankeeLobo]

Does anyone think we don't teach Marx because the guy was an anti-Semite?  He was one of the first philosophers to talk about the 'Jewish problem.'  The guy was absolutely nuts.  The Communist professors at Cornell don't teach about Marx and the 'Jewish problem' though.  Interesting.

[KeithK]

Keith, you're misrepresenting my point. I didn't say Marx should be taught in business schools. I said if business schools were about studying business impartially, then work by people like Marx and Vance Packard would be more central to what's covered. My point is that business schools are more vocational than purely academic/scientific or whatever term you want to use for impartial, objective education. I don't know what they teach in China these days, but I would not be surprised if the average Chinese student knows more Adam Smith and Milton Friedman than the average U.S. student knows of Marx or even Schumpeter and Keynes. And we have the nerve to accuse the Chinese of indoctrination!

Business schools are professional schools.  They are supposed to be vocational in the sense of teaching students how to succeed in business. This isn't a flaw or limitation. If you want academic/scientific study get a graduate degree in economics. And in what way is vocational training not "impartial" or "objective"?

I think there probably is no point in further discussion when it comes to Marx.  Maybe he did have a few insights - I haven't read his works. And Jefferson Davis had some good points about states rights.

[Jeff Hopkins '82]

Gosh. I love the off season.

Great discussion.::popcorn::

Yeah I just skipped the last dozen posts, I didn't miss anything did I?

Certainly nothing about hockey.

[mnagowski]

I think there probably is no point in further discussion when it comes to Marx.  Maybe he did have a few insights - I haven't read his works.

So there you go. Al was right.

[Trotsky]

Yeah I just skipped the last dozen posts, I didn't miss anything did I?

Not that you couldn't read a thousand times a day on any forum. ::wank::

[Swampy]

Keith, you're misrepresenting my point. I didn't say Marx should be taught in business schools. I said if business schools were about studying business impartially, then work by people like Marx and Vance Packard would be more central to what's covered. My point is that business schools are more vocational than purely academic/scientific or whatever term you want to use for impartial, objective education. I don't know what they teach in China these days, but I would not be surprised if the average Chinese student knows more Adam Smith and Milton Friedman than the average U.S. student knows of Marx or even Schumpeter and Keynes. And we have the nerve to accuse the Chinese of indoctrination!

Business schools are professional schools.  They are supposed to be vocational in the sense of teaching students how to succeed in business. This isn't a flaw or limitation. If you want academic/scientific study get a graduate degree in economics. And in what way is vocational training not "impartial" or "objective"?

We're pretty close to agreeing on this. Your point that professional schools are supposed to be vocational is a good one. Still, I think professional schools today have an uncomfortable relationship with science and objectivity in general. Professional fields like accounting or law can be characterized as teaching students to deal with a complex set of social practices and rules. Fields like medicine, on the other hand, define themselves in relation to a simple end -- human health -- but rely almost entirely on scientific knowledge to achieve that end. Although there are lots of things wrong with both the practice of medicine and professional preparation for it, the relation to medical science is not that problematic. On the other hand, many aspects of education in business school today (e.g., marketing or management) rely heavily on what they call social science, but this "science" is limited by the fact that it can't discover anything too nasty about business and still be relevant (or it it permissible?) to business education. Business therefore belongs to a category of professional education (along with education for social work and several other professions) in which the educational institution stakes its legitimacy not on teaching complex, institutionalized procedures (as law) or teaching science rather independent of the profession (e.g., medicine or engineering) but on teaching about society, which necessarily opens up the possibility of  reflexive, critical analysis of the profession itself.

Recall that veeman5 started this thread by expressing dismay that so many players on the basketball team seem plugged into careers on Wall St. Veeman5 put this in the context of the disdain many of us share for the thinly disguised professional status of so-called "student athletes" at big-time basketball schools. I responded with a number of observations, one of which was that the relation between Ivy League business schools and Wall St. is very analogous to that between big-time basketball schools and the NBA. Veeman5's dismay reflected his assessment of Wall St. and its role in the world today.

So we can think of all sorts of real and imaginary professional schools: the military service academies, schools for torturers (the School of the Americas has been accused of this), schools for concentration camp designers, for gamblers, etc. To simply say they are professional schools and leave it at that evades veeman5's point. Morally, the NBA may even be preferable to Wall St. and, by extension, the big-time basketball school to the Ivy b-school. To evaluate such questions necessarily entails addressing bigger issues, such as the role of Wall St. (and the NBA) in the world today. If we're going to talk about the predominantly black basketball players who do not graduate but go on to the NBA after making millions for their alma maters, we necessarily have to look at the larger society, just as we do  for the predominantly white basketabll-playing students   who do graduate and go on to careers on Wall St.

I think there probably is no point in further discussion when it comes to Marx.  Maybe he did have a few insights - I haven't read his works. And Jefferson Davis had some good points about states rights.

I'm not sure what this establishes. Marx may have had an insight or two, and then again he might have been the most insightful and profound social thinker in history. Surely we didn't need to spill so much electronic ink to establish this since it is obvious and almost tautological.

[Robb]

On the other hand, many aspects of education in business school today (e.g., marketing or management) rely heavily on what they call social science, but this "science" is limited by the fact that it can't discover anything too nasty about business and still be relevant (or it it permissible?) to business education. Business therefore belongs to a category of professional education (along with education for social work and several other professions) in which the educational institution stakes its legitimacy not on teaching complex, institutionalized procedures (as law) or teaching science rather independent of the profession (e.g., medicine or engineering) but on teaching about society, which necessarily opens up the possibility of  reflexive, critical analysis of the profession itself.

On the contrary.  I haven't been to business school, but from talking with friends who have, it seems to me that they do at least as many case studies about where things have gone wrong in business as they do where things have gone right.  It's almost a form of entertainment for them - laughing at the misfortunes and foibles of those who have gone before...

[ugarte]

On the contrary.  I haven't been to business school, but from talking with friends who have, it seems to me that they do at least as many case studies about where things have gone wrong in business as they do where things have gone right.  It's almost a form of entertainment for them - laughing at the misfortunes and foibles of those who have gone before...

"Things that have gone wrong in business" is a distinct category from "things that businesses do, by design, that have negative consequences for society at large." The former is about learning from the mistakes of others; the latter is about making sure not to repeat them even if it was profitable.

[Robb]

On the contrary.  I haven't been to business school, but from talking with friends who have, it seems to me that they do at least as many case studies about where things have gone wrong in business as they do where things have gone right.  It's almost a form of entertainment for them - laughing at the misfortunes and foibles of those who have gone before...

"Things that have gone wrong in business" is a distinct category from "things that businesses do, by design, that have negative consequences for society at large." The former is about learning from the mistakes of others; the latter is about making sure not to repeat them even if it was profitable.

That's expecting rather a lot.  How many law schools teach the negative effects of lawyering?  Or poli-sci programs the negative consequences of governmental actions?  Etc.  That sort of study is more suited to Economics (if you're worried about the quantifiable consequences) or Philosophy (if you're more concerned about the less tangible aspects of "the human condition").  Business school is simply about learning the amoral tools and skills of business, and there's nothing wrong with that.  But businesses run by Businessmen should be regulated by Politicians who are informed by Economists and Philosophers to prevent those Businesses from harming society.  Would it be great if all Businessmen knew how to make those kinds of decisions themselves and had the moral fortitude to do so?  Of course.  But that's not realistic - better just to understand the world we live in and work to make it better than merely to wish for one that doesn't exist.

[Rosey]

But businesses run by Businessmen should be regulated by Politicians who are informed by Economists and Philosophers to prevent those Businesses from harming society.

It's not at all clear that it's even possible for businessmen to do as much damage to society as politicians have.

[Robb]

But businesses run by Businessmen should be regulated by Politicians who are informed by Economists and Philosophers to prevent those Businesses from harming society.

It's not at all clear that it's even possible for businessmen to do as much damage to society as politicians have.

Absolutely a fair point.  Who regulates the regulators?

[Rosey]

But businesses run by Businessmen should be regulated by Politicians who are informed by Economists and Philosophers to prevent those Businesses from harming society.

It's not at all clear that it's even possible for businessmen to do as much damage to society as politicians have.

Absolutely a fair point.  Who regulates the regulators?

This is the problem with bigger-dog approaches to regulation: there's always a biggest dog that answers to no one.  It also encourages rent-seeking, in which corporations buy regulations favorable to them and unfavorable to upstart competitors that have the net result of reducing market choice.

[Trotsky]

Who regulates the regulators?

Jesus?

[ugarte]

On the contrary.  I haven't been to business school, but from talking with friends who have, it seems to me that they do at least as many case studies about where things have gone wrong in business as they do where things have gone right.  It's almost a form of entertainment for them - laughing at the misfortunes and foibles of those who have gone before...

"Things that have gone wrong in business" is a distinct category from "things that businesses do, by design, that have negative consequences for society at large." The former is about learning from the mistakes of others; the latter is about making sure not to repeat them even if it was profitable.

That's expecting rather a lot.  How many law schools teach the negative effects of lawyering?

All of them, probably? All states and the federal government have canons of ethics that are binding and I'd be shocked if every law school didn't have an ethics curriculum. Are you really asking "do lawyers act unethically/selfishly/stupidly/destructively in their professional capacities? Of course some do.