t.struck (t.struck@bham.ac.uk)
Tue, 13 May 1997 16:34:47 -0700

Replying to LO13560 --

Dear Thomas Benjamin,

Firstly, reading my remarks in your message, I get the impression that it
sounds somehow impolite. If so, you and LO might excuse me. I'm for the
fourth month in the UK and probably miss the right tone from time to time.
Secondly, some of my remarks seem to miss what I actually wanted to say.

>d) Is "management" relevent? Do cooperatives, producer organisations
>require management in their enterprise? If yes, then what is wrong? If
>T Struck's following quote is valid.
>Quote "And you should consider your own objectives. Are they still
>appropriate?" End Quote.

I did not want to question, whether or not management in such
organizations is required. It definitely is. The sequence in your case
might be seen as follows: a certain organization has a demand for people
with a certain education. Your organization is supposed to delivers such
an education. You are attracting students, because the quality of your
teaching is good enough.

>The educational process is rated to be as
>good as the better business schools. Thus, student behaviour is seen as
>backdoor entry to the corporate job market.

I think in your original message you stated, that the cooperations, which
are the actual target of your education are not very happy with your
graduates. Considering that your students do join your school with this
"backdoor" approach, how does it effect their expectation and performance
when they have to work within organisations that they do not admire?

>e) I think the educational process does affect the outcome. Management
>education does have its contribution. Several months ago, I had
>contributed on this list my own unlearning process after my management
>education while working in similar organisations. To produce a technical
>engineer uses time tested methods. So have time tested means been tried
>for business schools. My hypothesis is, does this hold true for Rural
>Management. I have no answers.
>Quote "IMO students are not raw material. They cannot be formed as one
>wants to."

Your certainly right. The education process does effect the outcome. I
just want to question, that you can predict this outcome apart from the
knowledge the students have acquired. And still, even this IMO is pretty
difficult, especially where knowledge tends to include ethical or moral
topics. I tend to see knowledge as something which has to be seeded on
fertile and solid ground. One has to have already some kind of knowlegde
about what has to be learned (the fertile ground). Furthermore the new
knowledge has to correnspond with the observations of the learning person,
thereby his or her past, present and future social environment, desires
and so on (the solid ground). At the end, it might still be nothing more
than a good guess if one tries to desribe what students do know. Their
knowledge is embedded in their personal history, present and future.

The certificate at the end of my studies say nothing more than that I have
past some exams and did some projects with a certain success. I can't tell
whether or not I believe in what I have learned to get this certificate
especially where ethical issues where concerned.

>b) The Question we have is, When the resources of the institute is meant
>for preparing graduates for a sector, how do we ensure students go where
>they are required. Education is relatively subsidised, because, the jobs
>do not offer the same pay packets. How do we attract, select the right
>type of students.

What makes this sector attractive? What does people motivate to work

All the best

bis demnaex
Thomas Struck <t.struck@bham.ac.uk>
University of Birmingham, UK


"t.struck" <t.struck@bham.ac.uk>

Learning-org -- An Internet Dialog on Learning Organizations For info: <rkarash@karash.com> -or- <http://world.std.com/~lo/>