Deans' Corner: The Deans Respond Further to Student Questions
Issue date: 10/29/01 Section: Deans' Corner
We greatly appreciate the careful thought you gave in your thorough answer to the class norms question. As a brief follow-up, do you think it appropriate for each class to vote on its own norms? Alternatives to consider might be either a vote for both classes or a vote that remains the norm indefinitely until changed by a future class?
We’re mildly in favor of each class deciding on its own what norms it sets, if the alternative is the two classes voting together. We definitely would hope that the 1st years, in setting norms, would take advice from the 2nd years, as well as from faculty, staff, and administration (and, if and when we are able to make this more feasible, from alumni!), but in the end, the norms should belong to the class. And for that reason, we prefer that each class meet and discuss the norms. Norms of behavior work best when they are clear to all concerned, and when the reasons for them are clear. We can’t think of a better way to get that sort of clarity than to meet and discuss.
A recent e-mail mentioned a 'space study' being conducted at the GSB. Can you elaborate a little on the study's goals and process, and whether students will be involved?
The specific mention concerns the use of space in the GSB, and how we might get a bit more use out of the finite square footage we have. Sad to say---sadder to say because we just dedicated the Knight building---we are really short of space. There are a number of causes behind the shortage. For example, over the last two years, we have increased the tenure-line faculty by almost twenty. We have also increased the number of rooms that have been allocated to the CMC for interviews, and we have increased the size of the staff in key areas, such as development, IT, and public relations. All of these increases have been mandated by strategic and/or operational needs of the GSB.
While we are talking to the University about future buildings (and the question of expanding Schwab), the time frame for building is something on the order of five years, not the least because before we can build, we have to raise the capital required, and the economy isn’t helping matters just at the moment! So, to get back to the question, we are going over what we have with a fine-tooth comb, and with the assistance of some space-utilization architects, to see stuff like: Can we move books on stacks on to more but still accessible storage? (The second floor of Jackson isn’t strong enough for this, but the basement of South might be.) Can we use the fourth floor of Littlefield? (Bet you didn’t even know there was one.) And so forth.
Will students be involved? We currently have one representative from the Student Association on the committee, Jeral Poskey. Right now the committee is simply gearing up, but as the committee starts to focus on concrete issues of relevance to the MBA population, we will certainly – with Jeral’s assistance – solicit broader views on space utilization.
Understanding the macroeconomic environment is crucial for managers in global firms. Have the Deans ever considered including a macroeconomic course as part of the Core curriculum? In addition there are electives such as International Trade and Investment in Developing countries that require a basic knowledge of macroeconomics concepts but are offered before the Macroeconomics elective (E300). Could you share your thoughts on this timing issue?
(Boy, do we love these questions, sometimes.) Once upon a time---more than ten years ago, now, the basic macro course was in the Core. It had its moments in the sun---there was a period back in the early 80s when the students were very happy with it---and some other periods when it was…how to say this…somewhat shadier. It fell out of the core during one of the shady periods, because the macro group we had at the time sort of immolated, for a variety of reasons. Our latest (and entirely “sunny”) senior macro person, Paul Romer, is out on a two-year leave doing a start-up, but we have every reason to expect that Paul will be back. We’ve got Peter Henry as a junior faculty member in macro, doing quite well, we’re happy to say, and last year, among the offers we made that were turned down, was one to another senior person in macro. The Economics group plans to make yet another senior offer in macro this year---maybe even one and a half---plus we always consider macro as a prime category for recruiting at the junior level.
But, as of right now, we simply don’t have the bodies around to staff a core course.
Also, our general tendency (a very strong tendency in the case of Kreps) is to compress the core, not extend it. We’d like, of course, to have enough seats in macro courses so that every student who wants one can get in. And, at least to this point, we believe this has been so. (But with Romer on leave this year, it may be a bit tight.) We also are trying to get a variety of electives on the books that are macro-related; this follows general trends in macro, moving from a specific base course in, essentially, national income fluctuations, to courses focused on specifics such as development, transitional economies (Eastern Europe, especially), the emerging structure of the European Community, growth, and trade. One bit of progress to announce is that, while we haven’t quite closed the deal yet, we will probably have a 2-unit elective in the second half of the spring term on macro-dynamics, taught by Tom Sargent of the Department of Economics and a colleague of his. (If you want to maximize the number of past or future Nobel Laureates you meet while here, take this course: Tom will get the Prize some day soon.)
So the general picture is, We hope we have enough seats in E300 so that everyone who wants macro---which isn’t as many as should do so---can get a seat. And we are otherwise trying to build the electives we have in this very important topic.
As for the timing issue: This is one of the unhappy frictions that plagues course planning at a small school. In “normal times,” when Romer is not on leave, he does two sections of E300 in the fall, with Peter Henry following up later in the year with more sections. Moreover, Romer’s two in the Fall is normally one of the places that we sent exemptees from Fall Quarter core courses. But Romer is away---somewhat unexpectedly, we might add---and academics make scheduling commitments that make moving courses around on short notice quite difficult. So, we are left with a less-than-optimal sequence of courses. We apologize, and we’re working at making it better for next year.
We’re mildly in favor of each class deciding on its own what norms it sets, if the alternative is the two classes voting together. We definitely would hope that the 1st years, in setting norms, would take advice from the 2nd years, as well as from faculty, staff, and administration (and, if and when we are able to make this more feasible, from alumni!), but in the end, the norms should belong to the class. And for that reason, we prefer that each class meet and discuss the norms. Norms of behavior work best when they are clear to all concerned, and when the reasons for them are clear. We can’t think of a better way to get that sort of clarity than to meet and discuss.
A recent e-mail mentioned a 'space study' being conducted at the GSB. Can you elaborate a little on the study's goals and process, and whether students will be involved?
The specific mention concerns the use of space in the GSB, and how we might get a bit more use out of the finite square footage we have. Sad to say---sadder to say because we just dedicated the Knight building---we are really short of space. There are a number of causes behind the shortage. For example, over the last two years, we have increased the tenure-line faculty by almost twenty. We have also increased the number of rooms that have been allocated to the CMC for interviews, and we have increased the size of the staff in key areas, such as development, IT, and public relations. All of these increases have been mandated by strategic and/or operational needs of the GSB.
While we are talking to the University about future buildings (and the question of expanding Schwab), the time frame for building is something on the order of five years, not the least because before we can build, we have to raise the capital required, and the economy isn’t helping matters just at the moment! So, to get back to the question, we are going over what we have with a fine-tooth comb, and with the assistance of some space-utilization architects, to see stuff like: Can we move books on stacks on to more but still accessible storage? (The second floor of Jackson isn’t strong enough for this, but the basement of South might be.) Can we use the fourth floor of Littlefield? (Bet you didn’t even know there was one.) And so forth.
Will students be involved? We currently have one representative from the Student Association on the committee, Jeral Poskey. Right now the committee is simply gearing up, but as the committee starts to focus on concrete issues of relevance to the MBA population, we will certainly – with Jeral’s assistance – solicit broader views on space utilization.
Understanding the macroeconomic environment is crucial for managers in global firms. Have the Deans ever considered including a macroeconomic course as part of the Core curriculum? In addition there are electives such as International Trade and Investment in Developing countries that require a basic knowledge of macroeconomics concepts but are offered before the Macroeconomics elective (E300). Could you share your thoughts on this timing issue?
(Boy, do we love these questions, sometimes.) Once upon a time---more than ten years ago, now, the basic macro course was in the Core. It had its moments in the sun---there was a period back in the early 80s when the students were very happy with it---and some other periods when it was…how to say this…somewhat shadier. It fell out of the core during one of the shady periods, because the macro group we had at the time sort of immolated, for a variety of reasons. Our latest (and entirely “sunny”) senior macro person, Paul Romer, is out on a two-year leave doing a start-up, but we have every reason to expect that Paul will be back. We’ve got Peter Henry as a junior faculty member in macro, doing quite well, we’re happy to say, and last year, among the offers we made that were turned down, was one to another senior person in macro. The Economics group plans to make yet another senior offer in macro this year---maybe even one and a half---plus we always consider macro as a prime category for recruiting at the junior level.
But, as of right now, we simply don’t have the bodies around to staff a core course.
Also, our general tendency (a very strong tendency in the case of Kreps) is to compress the core, not extend it. We’d like, of course, to have enough seats in macro courses so that every student who wants one can get in. And, at least to this point, we believe this has been so. (But with Romer on leave this year, it may be a bit tight.) We also are trying to get a variety of electives on the books that are macro-related; this follows general trends in macro, moving from a specific base course in, essentially, national income fluctuations, to courses focused on specifics such as development, transitional economies (Eastern Europe, especially), the emerging structure of the European Community, growth, and trade. One bit of progress to announce is that, while we haven’t quite closed the deal yet, we will probably have a 2-unit elective in the second half of the spring term on macro-dynamics, taught by Tom Sargent of the Department of Economics and a colleague of his. (If you want to maximize the number of past or future Nobel Laureates you meet while here, take this course: Tom will get the Prize some day soon.)
So the general picture is, We hope we have enough seats in E300 so that everyone who wants macro---which isn’t as many as should do so---can get a seat. And we are otherwise trying to build the electives we have in this very important topic.
As for the timing issue: This is one of the unhappy frictions that plagues course planning at a small school. In “normal times,” when Romer is not on leave, he does two sections of E300 in the fall, with Peter Henry following up later in the year with more sections. Moreover, Romer’s two in the Fall is normally one of the places that we sent exemptees from Fall Quarter core courses. But Romer is away---somewhat unexpectedly, we might add---and academics make scheduling commitments that make moving courses around on short notice quite difficult. So, we are left with a less-than-optimal sequence of courses. We apologize, and we’re working at making it better for next year.