MBA Completion
Jul. 18th, 2011 09:31 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
tcpipI 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).
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2011-07-19 10:50 pm (UTC)Best of luck untangling the bureaucracy - that sounds like quite a task...
no subject
Date: 2011-07-20 03:22 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-07-21 05:53 am (UTC)