MBA proposal threatens BU’s integrity

Hey there, time traveller!
This article was published 05/12/2015 (3608 days ago), so information in it may no longer be current.

An open letter to Brandon University president Dr. Gervan Fearon:

Due to a commitment I made a month ago, I was unable to attend Tuesday’s special AFC meeting during which the province’s ‘accelerated request’ that Brandon University put forth a proposal for an MBA program was considered. This is a short note to advise you of several serious concerns regarding this matter.

I would note at the outset that this situation only became possible because the NDP government eliminated the Council on Post-Secondary Education (COPSE, whose predecessor was the Grants Commission) a year or so ago. This action objectively ended the ‘arm’s length’ relationship between government and universities and placed universities (and community colleges) under the direct control of the Ministry of Education.

As I cautioned folks at the time, this change effectively eliminated the pretence of university autonomy, making Manitoba universities in essence an arm of government, directly accountable to government, and subject to the political ends/whims pursued/promoted by government — regardless

of the impact on the academic integrity/reputation of universities, their programming, etc. We now see this coming to pass.

Under the old system, as you know, it was no easy task to obtain COPSE approval/funding allocation for new programs, because COPSE carefully scrutinized new program proposals, taking into account such things as program integrity (proposals were circulated to all universities

for comment/assessment), duplication with other universities’ programs, demand/need, and so on. The process generally took a couple of years and in many cases longer (eg., environmental science at BU).

Now, under the government’s direction/instruction, such careful scrutiny is jettisoned — even within the internal mechanisms of BU itself. Out of the blue, near the end of the term with final examinations coming up, and without any prior faculty consultation whatsoever, the arts faculty was presented — at Tuesday’s AFC — with the task of giving approval to a document purporting to be a ‘program proposal’ (quickly cobbled together by who knows and circulated on the Friday before the meeting) — because, arguably, the current government wants it in place before the April election.

In this, I am reminded of Ben Franklin’s wise axiom: “Fraud and deceit are always in a hurry.”

The implications of this for the academic integrity of our university’s programming are disturbing indeed. I submit that had we a senior administration that was actually committed to the academic integrity of the institution and its programming (instead of engaging in enrolment-driven decision-making), the government would have been told: thanks, but no thanks — we will put your request (order?) through the normal internal consultative mechanisms and get back to you in a year or so, so as to ensure the design and delivery of an academically sound program.

Sadly, however, your administration is now pushing this ‘request’ with vigour. Is it because money is money and if we have to prostitute the academic integrity of the institution — by, for example, circumventing established program development, assessment and approval processes — to get more, then so be it? In this regard, it is instructive that while a salary line and other costs are specified for the MBA ‘proposal,’ there is no specific academic content proposed. It is also instructive that another — ‘out of the blue’ — program proposal (‘Public History’) was included, arguably in an attempt to make the MBA proposal less unpalatable to the faculty.

If it is, as you are reported to have advised the Brandon Chamber of Commerce, the university’s mission “to serve you, to serve the region, to serve the sector” (The Brandon Sun,

Nov. 20), is this mission now expanded to include pandering to the wishes and interests of the government of the day? What kind of precedent does this set?

At the limit, what happens when/if the government changes and the new Ministry of Education ‘requests’ BU create a masters degree in Christian fundamentalism (with anti Halloween and anti-atheist sub-fields), or to create a Monsanto/Cargill School of Agriculture (in conjunction with the Brandon Research Station), or to replace the Department of Economics with a Department of Free Enterprise?

In the end, all of us, and especially the senior administration, must have as the top priority the academic integrity and soundness of degree proposals we offer, as ultimately the university’s national and international reputation is at stake. In this context, I would remind you that the Department of Economics has expressed serious concerns to you arising out of the proposed amalgamation of the BU/ACC business programs, which will house the proposed MBA.

In particular, currently 22:131 (Principles of Economics) is a co-requisite for the business administration major and, for reasons explained to you earlier, students taking the principles series at ACC must attain a grade of A in order to obtain the equivalent of 22:131 by means of transfer, as a performance requirement.

However, according to the information I have subsequently received from Prof. Heather Gillander, it appears that an ACC student in the 2+2 program can achieve a grade of, say D, in the economics component of the programs (Econ 1 and/or 2) taken at ACC and — if the overall GPA in the block of courses transferred is 3.0 — he/she will have been deemed to have met the 22:131 requirement for the BU business degree, because, as Prof. Gillander writes, “As long as this 3.0 gpa is achieved, we do not look into the degree at individual grades.”

Moreover, the economics course series at ACC is available via distance education and PLAR (whatever that is), and is even listed as an elective in some streams. So, once again, the question is: how did it happen that the BU business degree’s 22:131 requirement, in effect, vanished (the economics department was neither advised nor consulted about this), so that now BU offers, in my view, a watered-down university degree — for those coming from ACC?

Once again, will it not be the case that, with the BU/ACC amalgamation, 22:131 enrolments for business students will now be encouraged to shift to ACC, so that there is effectively no bona fide

and uniform performance requirement in an academic (as opposed to ‘professional’) course for such students? Quite apart from the collateral damage to the our economics program this implies (about which we advised you earlier), what does this say for the quality of any proposed MBA? What would the University of Manitoba’s business school — who have not and likely will not be consulted about the MBA ‘proposal’ — have to say about all this?

In closing, I would reiterate that, in our view, your responsibility as president is to preserve the academic integrity of our institution and its programming. Fast-tracking initiatives such as this MBA ‘proposal’ is clearly antithetical to that end.

Joe Dolecki

Chair, Department of Economics, Brandon University