![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
MBA Completion
I have now completed my MBA in Technology Management; final two exam results were: 80% for E-Business Strategy, 73% Leadership, with two Distinction grades overall (apparently for US readers). My first non-work implementation of said qualifications will be to try to fix the extraordinary bureaucracy that is the Melbourne Unitarian Church committee of management; attended my first meeting since being co-opted on to said body on Sunday. Saddened to discover that they still go through each piece of correspondence etc., individually rather than getting the respective office-bearers to do it. In the workplace well under way for the first test of said qualifications, namely a company-wide ISO Audit in five weeks.
It is perhaps traditional to celebrate in someway after such an event, and I suppose having just downed a bottle of Veuve Clicquot counts, although I think it is a somewhat over-rated champagne (for much cheaper and slightly better choose Grandin, mais oui!). It is also a time to reflect on the course content. Overall there is a degree of satisfaction on the way that Chifley has managed this course; the union of academia with a professional association (go on, call it a union) gives the course a strong combination of theory and practise in most cases. The online delivery (and resultant reduction of course fees) was certainly a good idea, along with the trimester structure.
However, these opportunities were not always taken advantage of. Despite the online delivery, the subjects overwhelming depended on (written, closed book!) final exams for the overwhelming proportion of grades. Chifley also proved "fairly ordinary" in their response to student and graduate recommendations, and some have noticed the complete lack of any student or alumni representation on any of the academic committees, a situation unheard of in any Australian higher education of repute. Finally, many have raised concerns of the lack of anonymity in assignments and exams allowing for the possibility of bias (whether they are aware of it or not) by course co-ordinators. Seeming that this is technically trivial to implement, it is a little disconcerting that Chifley has not. Finally, there is simply not enough technical content for the technical stream; the course dedicated to innovation, for example, was soundly lacking in technology, concentrating instead in the co-ordinators somewhat unorthodox approach to economics (an extremely anachronistic combination of national socialism and state-regulated capitalism).
It is perhaps traditional to celebrate in someway after such an event, and I suppose having just downed a bottle of Veuve Clicquot counts, although I think it is a somewhat over-rated champagne (for much cheaper and slightly better choose Grandin, mais oui!). It is also a time to reflect on the course content. Overall there is a degree of satisfaction on the way that Chifley has managed this course; the union of academia with a professional association (go on, call it a union) gives the course a strong combination of theory and practise in most cases. The online delivery (and resultant reduction of course fees) was certainly a good idea, along with the trimester structure.
However, these opportunities were not always taken advantage of. Despite the online delivery, the subjects overwhelming depended on (written, closed book!) final exams for the overwhelming proportion of grades. Chifley also proved "fairly ordinary" in their response to student and graduate recommendations, and some have noticed the complete lack of any student or alumni representation on any of the academic committees, a situation unheard of in any Australian higher education of repute. Finally, many have raised concerns of the lack of anonymity in assignments and exams allowing for the possibility of bias (whether they are aware of it or not) by course co-ordinators. Seeming that this is technically trivial to implement, it is a little disconcerting that Chifley has not. Finally, there is simply not enough technical content for the technical stream; the course dedicated to innovation, for example, was soundly lacking in technology, concentrating instead in the co-ordinators somewhat unorthodox approach to economics (an extremely anachronistic combination of national socialism and state-regulated capitalism).
no subject
Contrast this with my partner who is doing online delivery through RMIT; they've given up on supporting her to the extent that last semester they started putting up week 1 lectures in week 8 and this semester they haven't even made provision for the lectures to be recorded. If it were all reading and exams it would be OK, but it's being marked on work done in tutorials (there hasn't been a provision for her to participate in tutorials at all during the course, and she's third year) and assignments discussed in tutorials. Added to that there is no reduction in course fees. It's been a total sham and has done nothing to dissuade me of the opinion that it's a sham institution (and my old man used to be on one of the boards).
no subject
It really surprises me that an institution like RMIT, which from at least some consideration seems to pretend it's serious, would behave like what you've described. I mean, they're one of the largest and oldest higher education institutions in the country. They should know better.