IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/usg/econwp/201107.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Kaderschmieden der Wirtschaft und/oder Universitäten? Der Auftrag der Wirtschaftsuniversitäten und -fakultäten im 21. Jahrhundert

Author

Listed:
  • Kirchgässner, Gebhard

    ()

Abstract

After a short sketch of the history of modern business schools in the German speaking countries, their four major activity fields are considered: (i) academic teaching, (ii) scientific research, (iii) consulting and (iv) executive education. While teaching was traditionally dominant, research has gained more importance in recent decades, not only in Economics but also in Management departments. With respect to consulting, we have to distinguish between consulting for governments by economists and for private companies by professors of management. Executive education is mainly a domain of management (and law) departments; economists only play a minor role in this area. We conclude with discussing some of the ethical questions with which Economics and Management departments are confronted today.

Suggested Citation

  • Kirchgässner, Gebhard, 2011. "Kaderschmieden der Wirtschaft und/oder Universitäten? Der Auftrag der Wirtschaftsuniversitäten und -fakultäten im 21. Jahrhundert," Economics Working Paper Series 1107, University of St. Gallen, School of Economics and Political Science.
  • Handle: RePEc:usg:econwp:2011:07
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://ux-tauri.unisg.ch/RePEc/usg/econwp/EWP-1107.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. J. S. Butler & T. Aldrich Finegan & John J. Siegfried, 1998. "Does more calculus improve student learning in intermediate micro- and macroeconomic theory?," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 13(2), pages 185-202.
    2. Gebhard Kirchgässner, 2009. "Die Krise der Wirtschaft: Auch eine Krise der Wirtschaftswissenschaften?," Perspektiven der Wirtschaftspolitik, Verein für Socialpolitik, vol. 10(4), pages 436-468, November.
    3. Gautier, Axel & Wauthy, Xavier, 2007. "Teaching versus research: A multi-tasking approach to multi-department universities," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 51(2), pages 273-295, February.
    4. Byron W. Brown & Carl E. Liedholm, 2002. "Can Web Courses Replace the Classroom in Principles of Microeconomics?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 92(2), pages 444-448, May.
    5. Bruno S. Frey, 2010. "Withering Academia," CREMA Working Paper Series 2010-19, Center for Research in Economics, Management and the Arts (CREMA).
    6. Krueger, Anne O, et al, 1991. "Report of the Commission on Graduate Education in Economics," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 29(3), pages 1035-1053, September.
    7. Bruno S. Frey & Katja Rost, 2010. "Do rankings reflect research quality?," Journal of Applied Economics, Universidad del CEMA, vol. 13, pages 1-38, May.
    8. Colander, David, 2003. "The Aging of an Economist," Journal of the History of Economic Thought, Cambridge University Press, vol. 25(02), pages 157-176, June.
    9. Robert H. Frank, 2002. "The Economic Naturalist: Teaching Introductory Students How to Speak Economics," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 92(2), pages 459-462, May.
    10. W. Lee Hansen & Michael K. Salemi & John J. Siegfried, 2002. "Use It or Lose It: Teaching Literacy in the Economics Principles Course," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 92(2), pages 463-472, May.
    11. Kirchgassner, Gebhard, 2005. "(Why) are economists different?," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 21(3), pages 543-562, September.
    12. Margit Osterloh & Bruno S. Frey, 2009. "Research governance in academia: are there alternatives to academic rankings?," IEW - Working Papers 423, Institute for Empirical Research in Economics - University of Zurich.
    13. Cohn, Elchanan & Cohn, Sharon, 1994. "Graphs and Learning in Principles of Economics," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 84(2), pages 197-200, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:usg:econwp:2011:07. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Martina Flockerzi). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/vwasgch.html .

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.