Every one has started writing some non-sense in articles with heading like-> "3 things that a b-school doesn't teach" or "5 things a b-school doesn't teach" or " What you can't learn at a B-School" ... and write some non sense in that article.
In the above article there are things which a b-school teaches. For instance, "Initiative and Risktaking" is well taught in a B-school. It gives you opportunity to lead a team to present a simple Case study or to lead a team to organize a event to work on New concepts which might totally fail and so on...
What my point here is... Start thinking above and first inculcate things in your self on what you are writing even before you start writing. Since your article can get published in a paper, it doesn't mean that you can write scrap over there.
Management learning rather that teaching is not done in any scientific lab. There, with the help of prior proven theory you achieve an expected result. In management schools, students are exposed to situations that has happened in the past. B schools make them mentaly fit to solve like problems in the future. It works on the principle that, when there is a lack of excellene, there is a skill, that can be cultivated. This is cultivated in the b school. The author's view point is like searching suger in the salt.
I was some what convinced with the author, Nalin garg, /but the author has forgotten one thing that with the experience that three rules can be managed, you cannot blame a b school for it as the markets are changing at fast pace and the thing which is good in one region cannot be implemented on another, and to know the market condition with proper scenario they must go to the base of the market and be part of the frontline force to understand it , As the situation in the higher up is different from field. The intiative and risk taking, adaptibility and application is matter of experience.
