BGA | BUSINESS IMPACT
E arlier this year, AMBA & BGA hosted an exclusive workshop, designed for Business School professionals and faculty, to outline how Schools can support students, graduates, and teaching faculty by forming strong links with overseas institutions. The session drew on the example of an international programme between EDHEC Business School in France, Nanyang Technological University (NTU) in Singapore, and UCLA Extension in the US. Henrick Totterman, Dean of Accreditations, North America, at Hult International Business School, was joined by Angelo Bisignano, Director, EDHEC International BBA, and Denis Couturier, Director of Custom Programmes and Corporate Education, UCLA Extension, to discuss the strategy in depth. Could you provide some background into the development of programmes in business education? Angelo Bisignano (AB): Joint programmes have, for a while, been in the literature of executive education; a decade ago, they promised to be the future of transnational education. This was like Emerald City [from The Wizard of Oz ] – the place where we should all aim to arrive; it promised to revolutionise the future of higher education. There were some fantastic examples from around the world but, in general, joint programmes were marginal in terms of numbers of students and income generated for institutions, despite the fact we could, qualitatively speaking, see good institutions with well-designed programmes. When partnerships such as this existed, they were run as bilateral agreements between Schools, and were not all in the same field of study. They were normally designed to offer students a cultural educational pathway to allow them a bit of experience and the flavour of a different country and educational system. Why would you say joint programmes didn’t take off at this point? AB: Higher education sees a lot of [faculty and leadership] turnover, and these programmes require mental energy and dedication. Often, the momentum around vested personal interests wane when promoters move on from roles. Schools often decide to move to work independently. Misaligned calendars and conflicting requirements from ministries, as well as different credit requirements, cause limitations. Assurance of quality processes is important, and there have been developments in this area, but Schools are not always on the same path; partnerships are about both taking the lead. Finally, joint programmes are often ‘boutique’, and while they are important within the portfolio, they require a lot of attention. When the strategy of the Business School adapts, these programmes are the ones that are impacted.
This list is not [exhaustive] but suggests why joint programmes have not lived up to the initial hype. What makes your joint programme different?
AB: The programme I want to discuss has thrived as a result of changes in the higher education landscape. The challenges we’re facing, and the solutions we’ve found, are here to stay. The social impact of Business Schools is becoming more relevant. Research, teaching, and student activity are now measured in terms of impact. Another aspect is responsible management, and this is going to stay relevant. Courses must inspire students to manage responsibly – not just to be effective, but to embed sustainability, finance and so on, into the ‘everyday-ness’ of management. Lifelong learning is vital, but it is treated differently across states and continents. Around the world, there are great examples of how lifelong learning can be improved and managed, but there is not a homogeneous approach to it. Two further trends are emerging. Hybridisation is one. This allows students to think outside the box and move beyond the course they’re taking. In the US, business students can take classes in other areas, but this is new in Europe and Asia. The evolution of learning methods means that it’s time to go beyond the classroom and how [Schools] work with students. The pandemic highlighted the importance of online and asynchronous teaching; audiences are diverse in terms of how they engage with content. We designed a four-year programme, promoted by the Business School, that focuses on two certificates: one on international commerce at UCLA Extension and one on international management at NTU. For the past number of years, we’ve had 80 students per year. They spend the first year at EDHEC Business School in Nice, where they engage with the French way of working: learning by doing. We’re an entrepreneurial School, but classes remain traditional, with professors presenting knowledge. For the second year, students move to UCLA Extension in California, where they engage in a modular international commerce certificate, which can be standalone. It was developed by UCLA Extension, custom-made for EDHEC. Students do a five-month placement, before moving to Singapore for an international management certificate, which is focused on future management. They work with MBA professors, but the course is tailored to undergraduates, using various innovations. We offer students three different educational systems: traditional teaching, flipped learning, and dialogic teaching, as well as three different cultural experiences. All three partners have a strong interest in interdisciplinarity at the core of their strategic plans. However, NTU counts on diversity of size in terms of the number of departments and faculties. UCLA relies on flexibility, while EDHEC counts on strategic partners to achieve this. The pathway allows hybridisation to take different forms. Students are encouraged
40
Made with FlippingBook - Share PDF online