In Defense of Silos: An Argument Against the Integrative Undergraduate Business Curriculum

• Published in: Journal of management education Vol. 30; no. 2; pp. 316 - 332
• Main Authors: Campbell, Noel D., Heriot, Kirk C., Finney, R. Zachary
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Thousand Oaks, CA Sage Publications 01-04-2006; SAGE Publications; Sage; SAGE PUBLICATIONS, INC
• Subjects: 20th century; Business; Business Administration Education; Business education; Business schools; Collaboration; College students; Communication; Cooperative Learning; Core curriculum; Course Content; Curricula; Curriculum Development; Decision making; Educational Change; Educational research; Educational sciences; Hedges; Independent study; Industry; Integrated Curriculum; Interdisciplinary Approach; Learning; Methodology; Observation, experimentation; Operations management; Pedagogy; Schools; Specialization; Studies; Teaching Methods; Teamwork; Undergraduate Students; Undergraduate Study; United States > US; undergraduate business curriculum; integrative business curriculum; Learning; Enterprise; Model; Curriculum; Management; Undergraduate
• DOI: 10.1177/1052562905277231
• EISSN: 1552-6658
• ISSN: 1052-5629

The literature urges business schools to change their undergraduate curricula in response to changes in the models and methods currently used by corporate America. Critics contend that business schools should place more emphasis on teamwork and integrative models. Business schools are urged to “break down the silos” between functional subjects by integrating traditional courses in the undergraduate business curriculum. This article argues such criticism is based on confusing the need for changes in business pedagogy with the need for change in business curricula, and on an incomplete appreciation of the specialization, signaling, and hedging embedded in the current curricula. Most existing MBA curricula and undergraduate “capstone” courses already address the critics' concerns. This article emphasizes individual courses should be modified to ensure students gain additional appreciation for collaborative, interdisciplinary projects; however, such modification should not sacrifice the current depth of specialized learning in individual courses.