POLL: True or False - Business equals social progress

[UCFEE]

My old strategy professor from b-school recently released a new edition of his book and outlines his 10 principles of strategic sustainable value creation. Some of the debate in another thread centered around some of these ideas, and wanted to get WCers take....


1. Business equals social progress.
2. Shareholders do not own the firm.
3. Identifying stakeholders is easy; prioritizing among stakeholder interests is difficult.
4. CSR is not solely a corporate responsibility.
5. Market-based solutions are optimal.
6. Profit = economic value + social value.
7. The free market is an illusion.
8. Scale matters; only business can save the planet.
9. Strategic CSR is not an option; it is business.
10. Milton Friedman was right, the social responsibility of business is business.

 

[Game_Day_Sports]

If your society is subsistence farming and hunter gathering, that is your base. Once you add one goat herder who begins "selling" his goat milk and then uses his money to buy goat feed from the corn farmer, your society has progressed past the base line.

However, in a society that moved past subsistence needs and now has businesses, the addition of another business is not social progress AND a business owner is not socially more advanced than a worker.

That being said, it looks like he fell victim to the publish or perish mentality. A lot of the rest of the stuff he has there is utter bonk.

 

[UCFRogerz]

Originally posted by Game_Day_Sports:
If your society is subsistence farming and hunter gathering, that is your base. Once you add one goat herder who begins "selling" his goat milk and then uses his money to buy goat feed from the corn farmer, your society has progressed past the base line.

However, in a society that moved past subsistence needs and now has businesses, the addition of another business is not social progress AND a business owner is not socially more advanced than a worker.

That being said, it looks like he fell victim to the publish or perish mentality. A lot of the rest of the stuff he has there is utter bonk.

Those who can't do, teach.

 

[barrister1602]

Originally posted by UCFRogerz:

Originally posted by Game_Day_Sports:

That being said, it looks like he fell victim to the publish or perish mentality. A lot of the rest of the stuff he has there is utter bonk.

Those who can't do, teach.

Or work for the gov't.

 

[UCFEE]

Originally posted by Game_Day_Sports:
If your society is subsistence farming and hunter gathering, that is your base. Once you add one goat herder who begins "selling" his goat milk and then uses his money to buy goat feed from the corn farmer, your society has progressed past the base line.

However, in a society that moved past subsistence needs and now has businesses, the addition of another business is not social progress AND a business owner is not socially more advanced than a worker.

That being said, it looks like he fell victim to the publish or perish mentality. A lot of the rest of the stuff he has there is utter bonk.

But a business won't survive unless its perceived as adding some social value, regardless of how advanced your society is. If a business could thrive without adding social value, then its owners are gaining financial reward without doing anything meaningful right?

I happen to think the ideas in his list are right on, although some of it goes against some classic business school dogma.

 

[Game_Day_Sports]

Originally posted by UCFEE:

Originally posted by Game_Day_Sports:
If your society is subsistence farming and hunter gathering, that is your base. Once you add one goat herder who begins "selling" his goat milk and then uses his money to buy goat feed from the corn farmer, your society has progressed past the base line.

However, in a society that moved past subsistence needs and now has businesses, the addition of another business is not social progress AND a business owner is not socially more advanced than a worker.

That being said, it looks like he fell victim to the publish or perish mentality. A lot of the rest of the stuff he has there is utter bonk.

But a business won't survive unless its perceived as adding some social value, regardless of how advanced your society is. If a business could thrive without adding social value, then its owners are gaining financial reward without doing anything meaningful right?

I happen to think the ideas in his list are right on, although some of it goes against some classic business school dogma.

Really?

BP, Monsanto, bullet manufacturers?

Hell Apple and Nike are known to employ child labor yet we buy the shit out of their stuff.

A business survives if it supplies a product that people want/need in a perceived convenient method at a perceived economical cost or they lack competition regardless of if they are complete ass hats. History is littered with businesses whose trade was morally corrupt and detrimental to society. Look at the traders who transported and sold slaves from Africa into America. They made a fortune yet took more from society than they ever contributed to it.

 

[UCFEE]

Right, but you're applying your own value judgements to the businesses you mention. Others will have different value judgements, and so "social value" equals the sum of all of those judgements.

Taking BP for example, oil obviously has a very high social value worldwide and individuals "vote up" that value by choosing to buy products that require oil-based fuels... As society has progressed, some have observed the detrements of relying so heavily on oil, and as a result some of those "social value votes" (aka dollars) for oil have gone to other products and sources of energy. In time as people become more educated and as less impactful alternatives to oil become more convenient, the social value of oil will come down to the point where the business cannot be sustained. In this case, the producers of oil can 1) be progressive and themselves adapt to where society is going, 2) they can do all they can to sway social value judgements by spreading misinformation and/or buying influence, or 3) they can fail... The 2nd case happens much more than it should and that becomes easier to do when society is not well educated.........

So while some have made a fortune in busnesses that take more from society than is given, those businesses have ultimately failed or are in the process of failing. Thanks to misinformation, lack of education and corruption many will fail much slower than they should and many will extract much more wealth than they should, but they will eventually fail if they are not providing social value.

"Those who cannot do" as they have been called in this thread now seem pretty damn important to a well functioning society.

This post was edited on 1/23 2:53 PM by UCFEE

 

[ChrisKnight06]

Pretty sure that's adding value.
Posted from Rivals Mobile

 

[1ofTheseKnights]

EE going hard in the paint for most business illiterate poster
Posted from Rivals Mobile

 

[Bob the Citronaut]

Your professor is a moron. He was wrong at number 1.
Posted from Rivals Mobile

 

[UCFEE]

He was actually incredibly intelligent. If you have an argument to make then make it.

 

[Bob the Citronaut]

Alcohol.
Posted from Rivals Mobile

 

[UCFEE]

I'll toke to that, cheers

 

[Game_Day_Sports]

Originally posted by UCFEE:
Right, but you're applying your own value judgements to the businesses you mention. Others will have different value judgements, and so "social value" equals the sum of all of those judgements.

Taking BP for example, oil obviously has a very high social value worldwide and individuals "vote up" that value by choosing to buy products that require oil-based fuels... As society has progressed, some have observed the detrements of relying so heavily on oil, and as a result some of those "social value votes" (aka dollars) for oil have gone to other products and sources of energy. In time as people become more educated and as less impactful alternatives to oil become more convenient, the social value of oil will come down to the point where the business cannot be sustained. In this case, the producers of oil can 1) be progressive and themselves adapt to where society is going, 2) they can do all they can to sway social value judgements by spreading misinformation and/or buying influence, or 3) they can fail... The 2nd case happens much more than it should and that becomes easier to do when society is not well educated.........

So while some have made a fortune in busnesses that take more from society than is given, those businesses have ultimately failed or are in the process of failing. Thanks to misinformation, lack of education and corruption many will fail much slower than they should and many will extract much more wealth than they should, but they will eventually fail if they are not providing social value.

"Those who cannot do" as they have been called in this thread now seem pretty damn important to a well functioning society.

This post was edited on 1/23 2:53 PM by UCFEE

But you are assuming that BP as a company is the only provider of those services when there are dozens of others who are not socially bankrupt. Yet BP managed to destroy the ecosystem of the gulf while placating people with settlements that didn't even dent the profits that they earned by cutting corners and running the risks that eventually happened. They provide nothing while taking more and for that they should by your terminology be gone because they lack social profit. But in fact they continue to bank because people have short memories and all you have to do when doing something that is morally and socially unacceptable is to placate people long enough for them to forget.

Furthermore, they fill no specific need in the marketplace that can't be found elsewhere so your basic tenet that they serve society and gain social value for profit is also bunk. There are other companies who do things (as far as we know) the correct way and yet BP continues to flourish because social value does not equate to the bottom line.

Go back to the slave ships. They are selling people that they harvested from Africa. That sounds like a harsh term and a dehumanizing term, but that is what these people did to the slaves, they dehumanized them for profit. Yet those ship owners ran financially successful businesses. Even if you were appalled by the practice, people still did business with those individuals. I could keep going on, but the reality is that social responsibility is not a determining factor of success.

In fact, anybody who has ever been friendzoned can tell you that often times the exact opposite is true.

Apple basically builds their phones with slave labor yet, even though people detest the practice, when the next new shiny iPhone 47 comes out, half of you will be lined up waiting to trade in your previous year old version for the latest one thus perpetuating the cycle of the mental and physical abuse that was used to create your trendy device.

 

[ChrisKnight06]

I think we're confusing social value and morality.

Slavery:
Morally wrong. The social value however was rapid growth of pre Civil War America and all that came with it.

" By 1840, the South grew 60 percent of the world's cotton and provided some 70 percent of the cotton consumed by the British textile industry. Thus slavery paid for a substantial share of the capital, iron, and manufactured good that laid the basis for American economic growth. In addition, precisely because the South specialized in cotton production, the North developed a variety of businesses that provided services for the slave South, including textile factories, a meat processing industry, insurance companies, shippers, and cotton brokers."

" And yet, there can be no doubt that opponents of slavery had come to view the South's "peculiar institution," as an obstacle to economic growth. Despite clear evidence that slavery was profitable, abolitionists--and many people who were not abolitionists--felt strongly that slavery degraded labor, inhibited urbanization and mechanization, thwarted industrialization, and stifled progress, and associated slavery with economic backwardness, inefficiency, indebtedness, and economic and social stagnation. When the North waged war on slavery, it was not because it had overcome racism; rather, it was because Northerners in increasing numbers identified their society with progress and viewed slavery as an intolerable obstacle to innovation, moral improvement, free labor, and commercial and economic growth."


There you have it. Social valuable is malleable and not some objective value. Once the negative social value outweighed the positive economic value then slavery was on its death bed.

We can apply this all over. Yea child labor is morally wrong. The social value the smartphone adds as far as communication, connectivity, information accessibility etc clearly outweighs any negative impact from the labor practice right?


Apparently I'm an idiot too bc I fail to see the problem with what has been posted.
Posted from Rivals Mobile

 

[ChrisKnight06]

" Right, but you're applying your own value judgements to the businesses you mention. Others will have different value judgements, and so "social value" equals the sum of all of those judgements."



BINGO
Posted from Rivals Mobile

 

[Sir Galahad]

Originally posted by UCFEE:
My old strategy professor from b-school recently released a new edition of his book and outlines his 10 principles of strategic sustainable value creation. Some of the debate in another thread centered around some of these ideas, and wanted to get WCers take....


1. Business equals social progress.
2. Shareholders do not own the firm.
3. Identifying stakeholders is easy; prioritizing among stakeholder interests is difficult.
4. CSR is not solely a corporate responsibility.
5. Market-based solutions are optimal.
6. Profit = economic value + social value.
7. The free market is an illusion.
8. Scale matters; only business can save the planet.
9. Strategic CSR is not an option; it is business.
10. Milton Friedman was right, the social responsibility of business is business.

My first question is, has he ever worked in upper management of a non government entity?

This guy might as well teach a political science class, he is very confused.

 

[Sir Galahad]

Originally posted by UCFEE:
He was actually incredibly intelligent. If you have an argument to make then make it.

I'll make it, he would not survive a week working in the real world because he is too busy trying to solve the problems of the people rather than providing a profit for the employer or corporation. Sorry to bust his little bubble but he has no place teaching a business class.

 

[Game_Day_Sports]

Originally posted by ChrisKnight06:
" Right, but you're applying your own value judgements to the businesses you mention. Others will have different value judgements, and so "social value" equals the sum of all of those judgements."



BINGO
Posted from Rivals Mobile

I have found a way to create energy through the "recycling" of human body parts. Send us all of your dead and we can power your cities and your cars. Oops "mining" graveyards is too expensive and isn't efficient enough. Send the homeless over and we will grind them up. Wow living people produce even more energy than the dead.

I am providing social value by powering your homes and cars which you need to survive, but eventually Uncle Ernie is going to have to become energy even though he isn't that old. Am I still providing social value? After all, you would be applying your own value judgment to it being bad because you think grinding up people for energy is a bad thing, but I am powering hospitals and your car.

You hate me and everything I stand for, but you love your iPhone53 and it needs to be charged and there is no more liquid dinosaur left and this is cheaper than solar or wind.

 

[ChrisKnight06]

It may be monetarily cheaper which means greater economic value however killing living people may be determined to negate that value resulting in no profit. You essentially re-framed the whole slavery example that I addressed. If at some point in the future we literally have no other options and harvesting humans is our only way to produce energy then I'm guessing the social value would be a net positive. See every future sci-fi movie created. This isn't hard.
Posted from Rivals Mobile

 

[UCFKnight85]

What is going on in this thread?

The social value of a corporation is that is employs people and pays them a wage to support themselves in whatever they choose to do in life. Whether that's owning 10 cars or having 3 kids.

Corporations assure that people are driven to work for compensation and thus provide the intrinsic incentive to work for your living rather than expecting someone else to provide it.

That's it. If a corporation happens to usher in some major change in society then fine, but it's not a core responsibility.

 

[Game_Day_Sports]

Originally posted by UCFKnight85:
What is going on in this thread?

The social value of a corporation is that is employs people and pays them a wage to support themselves in whatever they choose to do in life. Whether that's owning 10 cars or having 3 kids.

Corporations assure that people are driven to work for compensation and thus provide the intrinsic incentive to work for your living rather than expecting someone else to provide it.

That's it. If a corporation happens to usher in some major change in society then fine, but it's not a core responsibility.

exactly

and Chris, yes, I did reframe it according to your context to show the fallacy in the argument.

 

[ChrisKnight06]

There's no fallacy in the argument. What part of it is difficult for you to understand? It's a very simple concept. Nobody said a company is forced to maximize social value. Who said that?
Posted from Rivals Mobile

 

[ChrisKnight06]

"Building social values into the company's development strategy may finally lead to new, stronger growth models."

http://www.pwc.com/gx/en/audit-services/corporate-reporting/governance-reporting/business-is-developing-real-social-values.jhtml

 

[ChrisKnight06]

Originally posted by Game_Day_Sports:

Originally posted by UCFKnight85:
What is going on in this thread?

The social value of a corporation is that is employs people and pays them a wage to support themselves in whatever they choose to do in life. Whether that's owning 10 cars or having 3 kids.

Corporations assure that people are driven to work for compensation and thus provide the intrinsic incentive to work for your living rather than expecting someone else to provide it.

That's it. If a corporation happens to usher in some major change in society then fine, but it's not a core responsibility.

exactly

Exactly what? That contradicts nothing. It's a very simple math formula.

Company A: "Profit" = 100(economic value) + 100(social value)
Company B: "Profit" = 100(economic value) + 50(social value)


Which company is more "profitable"?

It is exactly what I said about slavery. The economics of slavery was still valuable. The social value got to a point where the scales had tipped and as a whole was no longer "profitable" in the broader sense of the word.



Societies shape values. Companies that best combine those values with economic values will be at an advantage. Why are you arguing that? Nobody is arguing that their core responsibility is to affect major change in society. Nowhere has that been suggested.

 

[ChrisKnight06]

It's like yall are arguing with the OP just to argue with him. Did you even read #10 on the list?

"10. Milton Friedman was right, the social responsibility of business is business."

Apparently that was lost in translation. He's not saying that social responsibility is the business of business. He's saying that the only responsibility of business is in fact.... business. The question becomes how you go about business and maximizing profits. It is then that the argument comes in to play about CSR and the role it plays in profitability and business survivability.

Dismiss it if you want as just some blowhard professor talking out of his ass with no concept of the "real world" but there are very real corporations that believe practicing CSR does affect their bottom line.

This post was edited on 1/26 4:34 PM by ChrisKnight06

 

[ChrisKnight06]

Morals and values are not the same thing.

The sum of our individual values makes up our social values. A company obviously adds social value the more they are in line with those societal values.

Our social values can center around a free loving agrarian society or they can be a capitalistic free for all, it doesn't matter. The point is social values are what we mold them to be and successful long living companies are more in harmony with those values than they are in disagreement.
Posted from Rivals Mobile

 

[Sir Galahad]

Originally posted by ChrisKnight06:
Morals and values are not the same thing.

The sum of our individual values makes up our social values. A company obviously adds social value the more they are in line with those societal values.

Our social values can center around a free loving agrarian society or they can be a capitalistic free for all, it doesn't matter. The point is social values are what we mold them to be and successful long living companies are more in harmony with those values than they are in disagreement.
Posted from Rivals Mobile

I still want two answers:

1. What is the "teachers" professional experience in the business world?
2. Why is he teaching business at my university considering he is a moron.

 

[ChrisKnight06]

This whole thing started with confusing morality and social values.

No one would argue slavery was moral. It did provide social value however. Once our social values evolved (due to technology, education, politics etc) slavery went away. At one time it was socially valued, at a later time it was not. At no time was it moral (unless you want to get in to another philosophical debate over the nature of morality) .

The OPs response to GDS bringing up BP is right on point.

The rest of the peanut gallery is either making fun of the OP just bc they don't like him, or making fun of his professor bc they hate academia and assume there's no real world experience behind it.
Posted from Rivals Mobile

 

[Game_Day_Sports]

Car is at its core a marketing strategy. What? That's right a marketing strategy. Yes there are companies that have it at their foundation but it is a point of differentiation between similar brands.

I will use chik_fil_a. They are fast food chicken but they have a hook. They are religious and close on Sundays. Sure the owner believes in it but if they weren't successful because of the strategy they would abandon it.

But as it relates to profit if I make $1m and you make $1m and both are equally sustainable my csr means nothing related to profit.

I enjoy this debate primarily because there is no politics our strawman arguments or awkward sexual tension that usually shows up.

 

[Sir Galahad]

Originally posted by ChrisKnight06:
This whole thing started with confusing morality and social values.

No one would argue slavery was moral. It did provide social value however. Once our social values evolved (due to technology, education, politics etc) slavery went away. At one time it was socially valued, at a later time it was not. At no time was it moral (unless you want to get in to another philosophical debate over the nature of morality) .

The OPs response to GDS bringing up BP is right on point.

The rest of the peanut gallery is either making fun of the OP just bc they don't like him, or making fun of his professor bc they hate academia and assume there's no real world experience behind it.
Posted from Rivals Mobile

It's not a hate of academia, its questioning why a "professor" is teaching something that most likely he has no clue about the results. It's easy to say that a corporation should do this and should do that but to value a business based upon a pipe dream is ignorant. If the professor actually has lived these experiences than he could teach on that but most likely, as with most University professors, their real world experience is less than the students they are teaching.

 

[fabknight]

Originally posted by Sir Galahad:

Originally posted by ChrisKnight06:
This whole thing started with confusing morality and social values.

No one would argue slavery was moral. It did provide social value however. Once our social values evolved (due to technology, education, politics etc) slavery went away. At one time it was socially valued, at a later time it was not. At no time was it moral (unless you want to get in to another philosophical debate over the nature of morality) .

The OPs response to GDS bringing up BP is right on point.

The rest of the peanut gallery is either making fun of the OP just bc they don't like him, or making fun of his professor bc they hate academia and assume there's no real world experience behind it.

Posted from Rivals Mobile

It's not a hate of academia, its questioning why a "professor" is teaching something that most likely he has no clue about the results. It's easy to say that a corporation should do this and should do that but to value a business based upon a pipe dream is ignorant. If the professor actually has lived these experiences than he could teach on that but most likely, as with most University professors, their real world experience is less than the students they are teaching.

BTW most of my business professors at UCF had previously worked in the private sector for extended periods. I know this because they all talked about it extensively in the classroom. Professors love talking about themselves.

 

[KnighttimeJoe]

Originally posted by fabknight:

Originally posted by Sir Galahad:

Originally posted by ChrisKnight06:
This whole thing started with confusing morality and social values.

No one would argue slavery was moral. It did provide social value however. Once our social values evolved (due to technology, education, politics etc) slavery went away. At one time it was socially valued, at a later time it was not. At no time was it moral (unless you want to get in to another philosophical debate over the nature of morality) .

The OPs response to GDS bringing up BP is right on point.

The rest of the peanut gallery is either making fun of the OP just bc they don't like him, or making fun of his professor bc they hate academia and assume there's no real world experience behind it.

Posted from Rivals Mobile

It's not a hate of academia, its questioning why a "professor" is teaching something that most likely he has no clue about the results. It's easy to say that a corporation should do this and should do that but to value a business based upon a pipe dream is ignorant. If the professor actually has lived these experiences than he could teach on that but most likely, as with most University professors, their real world experience is less than the students they are teaching.

BTW most of my business professors at UCF had previously worked in the private sector for extended periods. I know this because they all talked about it extensively in the classroom. Professors love talking about themselves.

Please don't confuse Wad with facts.

 

[UCFKnight85]

I did UCF Business so I can only comment on that. I'll say this:

- in undergrad, I clearly had some goober professors who had never worked a single day in an industry, and had spent their lives writing theory papers and teaching. My Consumer Behaviors professor was a social weirdo who couldn't market food to a bum, yet was trying to teach people how consumers think and react to stimulus. There were a few like him.

- in graduate school, it was the opposite. Most all professors had come out of indsutry and had actual real life perspective to provide. For accounting we had Dr Allen (is he still around?) who had been the CFO at Pepsi and General Mills (I think). He was great.

 

[Sir Galahad]

Originally posted by UCFKnight85:
I did UCF Business so I can only comment on that. I'll say this:

- in undergrad, I clearly had some goober professors who had never worked a single day in an industry, and had spent their lives writing theory papers and teaching. My Consumer Behaviors professor was a social weirdo who couldn't market food to a bum, yet was trying to teach people how consumers think and react to stimulus. There were a few like him.

- in graduate school, it was the opposite. Most all professors had come out of indsutry and had actual real life perspective to provide. For accounting we had Dr Allen (is he still around?) who had been the CFO at Pepsi and General Mills (I think). He was great.

I have two degrees from UCF, one is an accounting degree. 85, you're right about many of the graduate level professors, its their second life as many are going back to teach what they have learned. The issue is the undergrad professors who mostly are as ignorant as the text books they use to teach. These are the people that are basically directing which careers people go in and I would say 80% of them should not be teaching.

 

[Game_Day_Sports]

Originally posted by Sir Galahad:

Originally posted by UCFKnight85:
I did UCF Business so I can only comment on that. I'll say this:

- in undergrad, I clearly had some goober professors who had never worked a single day in an industry, and had spent their lives writing theory papers and teaching. My Consumer Behaviors professor was a social weirdo who couldn't market food to a bum, yet was trying to teach people how consumers think and react to stimulus. There were a few like him.

- in graduate school, it was the opposite. Most all professors had come out of indsutry and had actual real life perspective to provide. For accounting we had Dr Allen (is he still around?) who had been the CFO at Pepsi and General Mills (I think). He was great.

I have two degrees from UCF, one is an accounting degree. 85, you're right about many of the graduate level professors, its their second life as many are going back to teach what they have learned. The issue is the undergrad professors who mostly are as ignorant as the text books they use to teach. These are the people that are basically directing which careers people go in and I would say 100% of them in the MUSIC DEPARTMENT should not be teaching.

amirite

 

[Sir Galahad]

Originally posted by Game_Day_Sports:

Originally posted by Sir Galahad:

Originally posted by UCFKnight85:
I did UCF Business so I can only comment on that. I'll say this:

- in undergrad, I clearly had some goober professors who had never worked a single day in an industry, and had spent their lives writing theory papers and teaching. My Consumer Behaviors professor was a social weirdo who couldn't market food to a bum, yet was trying to teach people how consumers think and react to stimulus. There were a few like him.

- in graduate school, it was the opposite. Most all professors had come out of indsutry and had actual real life perspective to provide. For accounting we had Dr Allen (is he still around?) who had been the CFO at Pepsi and General Mills (I think). He was great.

I have two degrees from UCF, one is an accounting degree. 85, you're right about many of the graduate level professors, its their second life as many are going back to teach what they have learned. The issue is the undergrad professors who mostly are as ignorant as the text books they use to teach. These are the people that are basically directing which careers people go in and I would say 100% of them in the MUSIC DEPARTMENT should not be teaching.

amirite

No idea about music department but business wise the undergrad professors would not survive a week working for me.

 

[chemmie]

Originally posted by Sir Galahad:

Originally posted by Game_Day_Sports:

Originally posted by Sir Galahad:

Originally posted by UCFKnight85:
I did UCF Business so I can only comment on that. I'll say this:

- in undergrad, I clearly had some goober professors who had never worked a single day in an industry, and had spent their lives writing theory papers and teaching. My Consumer Behaviors professor was a social weirdo who couldn't market food to a bum, yet was trying to teach people how consumers think and react to stimulus. There were a few like him.

- in graduate school, it was the opposite. Most all professors had come out of indsutry and had actual real life perspective to provide. For accounting we had Dr Allen (is he still around?) who had been the CFO at Pepsi and General Mills (I think). He was great.

I have two degrees from UCF, one is an accounting degree. 85, you're right about many of the graduate level professors, its their second life as many are going back to teach what they have learned. The issue is the undergrad professors who mostly are as ignorant as the text books they use to teach. These are the people that are basically directing which careers people go in and I would say 100% of them in the MUSIC DEPARTMENT should not be teaching.

amirite

No idea about music department but business wise the undergrad professors would not survive a week working for me.

Yea, they'd get tired of hearing your bullshit, kick you in the nads, and walk out.

 

[Sir Galahad]

Originally posted by chemmie:

Originally posted by Sir Galahad:

Originally posted by Game_Day_Sports:

Originally posted by Sir Galahad:

Originally posted by UCFKnight85:
I did UCF Business so I can only comment on that. I'll say this:

- in undergrad, I clearly had some goober professors who had never worked a single day in an industry, and had spent their lives writing theory papers and teaching. My Consumer Behaviors professor was a social weirdo who couldn't market food to a bum, yet was trying to teach people how consumers think and react to stimulus. There were a few like him.

- in graduate school, it was the opposite. Most all professors had come out of indsutry and had actual real life perspective to provide. For accounting we had Dr Allen (is he still around?) who had been the CFO at Pepsi and General Mills (I think). He was great.

I have two degrees from UCF, one is an accounting degree. 85, you're right about many of the graduate level professors, its their second life as many are going back to teach what they have learned. The issue is the undergrad professors who mostly are as ignorant as the text books they use to teach. These are the people that are basically directing which careers people go in and I would say 100% of them in the MUSIC DEPARTMENT should not be teaching.

amirite

No idea about music department but business wise the undergrad professors would not survive a week working for me.

Yea, they'd get tired of hearing your bullshit, kick you in the nads, and walk out.

Absolutely right, I would expect them to;
Work more than 30 hours a week.
Actually work an entire year.
Do their job correctly.

No way they last.