ABSTRACT We analyze the unique experiment of teaching junior level economics to business students at the University of Idaho within the framework of the Integrated Business Curriculum (IBC). Economics was originally directly embedded in the IBC program, but later became an independent course to be taught in conjunction with the IBC. We look at the costs and benefits of teaching economics within and outside of IBC. We use concepts and criteria borrowed from software engineering, to develop what we call The Three C's of Curriculum Development, Cohesion, Coupling and Cost. JEL Classification: (Primary) A22, (Secondary) I21 INTRODUCTION The idea of integrating a common body of business courses has gained wide acceptance within the academic and professional business communities. In recent years, the American Assembly of Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB) has been actively promoting such integration, noting that without integration the traditional business education could become out of touch with the reality of the business world (Smith, 1995). The general literature on various innovative teaching methods has grown dramatically as a response to demands for change and is far too large to list all here. (However, interested readers may also refer to Stover et al. (1997), Dangerfield and Bailey (1996), and Cluskey et al. (2001) on issues related to integrated undergraduate education.) We focus here on studies, which concentrate on devising methods in business schools to improve the managerial skills of the graduates (among others, see Pharr and Morris (1997), Byrne (1993), and Lataif (1992)). The arguments about the improvement usually focus on adapting a system that has "cross-functional" integration or interdisciplinary and team-based approaches to business problems (Miller, 2000). A common point in this literature is that business students should learn management skills in a team-based environment, not in the traditional textbook way. Many companies are dissatisfied with the education and research coming out of traditional business programs, and thus have turned more to in-house training (Leonard, 1992). Also, as Mintzberg (1992) points out, the graduates of business schools are parachuted into mid-level companies with authority over people who have vast knowledge in on-the-ground business and customer relations, thus creating a two-tier system. A boss has formal education, but not enough experience on one side, and an employee knows the customers, market conditions, and business environment, but has less formal education. This in no way means that everybody has dropped the so-called traditional teaching models. As a matter of fact Jacobs (1991), Pharr et. al. (1998), Cotton (1982), St. Clair and Hough (1992) and Mason (1996) warn those who rush to integrative programs about problems created by the newly invented methods such as teacher knowledge, assessment, commitment from the faculty members and their institutions. A few undergraduate business programs listened to the demands of the business world and attempted to develop new integrative programs. However, the scope and content of an integrative program varies from school to school, or even from year to year within the same school. No undergraduate program, however, is more integrated than that of the University of Idaho College of Business and Economics (UI CBE). Furthermore, many business programs embarked on a curriculum development process to survive in the competitive educational market, and especially to improve employment prospects for their graduates. The College of Business and Economics at the University of Idaho is an example of an institution that has adopted the policy to review the curriculum constantly. Its Integrated Business Curriculum (IBC) is the result of these efforts. One specific challenge for program designers is to incorporate the relevant disciplines of economics and accounting into the program. …
[1]
K. Cotton,et al.
Effects of Interdisciplinary Team Teaching. Research Synthesis.
,
1982
.
[2]
Jon R. Miller,et al.
Economics in the Integrated Business Curriculum
,
2000
.
[3]
The Execution and Evaluation of an Integrated Business Common Core Curriculum.
,
1998
.
[4]
David L. Hough,et al.
Interdisciplinary Teaching: A Review of the Literature.
,
1992
.
[5]
Linda J. Morris,et al.
The Fourth-Generation Marketing Curriculum: Meeting AACSB's Guidelines
,
1997
.
[6]
Glenford J. Myers,et al.
Structured Design
,
1999,
IBM Syst. J..
[7]
Louis E. Lataif,et al.
MBA: Is the Traditional Model Doomed?.
,
1992
.
[8]
Terrence C. Mason.
Integrated Curricula: Potential and Problems
,
1996
.
[9]
Heidi Hayes Jacobs,et al.
Planning for Curriculum Integration.
,
1991
.