[REBORN FROM THE ASHES][comment][01.05]

海王泪UID: 2673613

My Sum-Up
How do business schools remain relevant in today’s changing world?
1.Business change what they wants from the MBA students.
2.Introduction to two deans: Santiago & Paul
【1】Has the role of the business school changed as a result of the economic crisis?
[Santiago] 『Changes occur in (diverse) courses and (practical ) research』
1.Programmes in management are very much demanded and varied from several quarters.
2.But some things have changed when the business schools also prepared graduated for governments.
3.Demand for entrepreneurship courses have increased.
4.Business schools develop research which can actually address the real problems of business.
【2】Have you seen a change in what professors are researching over the last two years?
[Paul] 『No』
1.Reserch grinds slowly and most of the business courses have not changed.
2.We need changes for leader to understand the complexity of the world and notice risk factors.
[Santiago] 『Yes』
Managers should come back to school.
[Paul] 『We need changes in mindset』
1.We need the right kind probing mindset.
2.Courses are offered for skeptical mindset of truly questioning the foundation of theories.

3. It is not true that some people say "everything has changed."
4.Practive hypnotize people into using old models and thinking to solve new problems.
5.Wrong mental attitude about models and methods result in the crisis.
【3】Does that imply that schools have historically failed to inculcate that attitude in their students?
[Santiago] 『No, it is not the fault of business schools.』
1.The crisis was not caused by education of business school but resulted from the interplay between banks and regulators.
2.We need to recover the golden rules of what is good management.
【4】Can business schools exert any leverage over regulators?
[Paul] 『Yes』
Research groups at Tuck begin trying to affect regulators. But whether it works remains a question.
[Santiago] 『Yes』
Business schools need to develop financial theory and they also can train regulators.
[Paul] 『Examples for Santiago’s suggestion』
Regulators need training for the basic skills of management.
【5】Is the nature of leadership changing?
[Paul] 『Yes』
Self-awareness is more important not.
[Santiago] 『Yes』
We place more emphasis on teamwork but charismatic leadership.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Sentence and Phrases
Useful Expressions
Business schools sense a chance to drive the agenda.
Sense a chance=find a chance
the regulators are supposed to keep things safe and keep people from doing unsafe things and they didn't do it.
Be supposed to=should
Can business schools exert any leverage over regulators?
Exert leverage over=pose effects on
I think that in every aspect of society some amount of management education is necessary in order for those institutions to deliver the services that they intend to deliver at a reasonable cost.
In (condition/every aspect of sth), something is necessary in order for somebody to do something.
Materials
【What Managers should do in crisis】
In times of crisis managers need to reinvent their existing businesses, launch new products and diversify.
It's not the person that charges ahead and rallies the troops. It's more of a person that is sensitive to the situation and to themselves.
【An Analogy to Similarity of History】
History is very recurrent and we are attending again a move of the pendulum.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
My Comment
Well, reading dialog is a new experience and it is a little harder to get what they mean because of easily changed issue.
Around all the issue they talk about, I am interested in the debates about “Can business schools exert any leverage over regulators?”

Paul and Santiago come into agreement that business schools are becoming more and more important to government. Not only the voice of research teams in schools could pose effects, though there are lobbyist disturbing scholars’ opinions, but also courses for management could help a lot when officials learn better skills in basic finance. That is, an official without good skills such as how to budget, or reading statistics, may fail to make optimal or even reasonable decisions themselves.

I believe that governments should offer in-service training for their officials. It is very possible that politicians without real management, especially those for only rhetoric winning their position and job , could ruin a society. Perhaps they are not sensitive to the situation and problem they meet. But they hold power of decision. Thus such politicians may easily adopt others’ suggestion when they have no ideas, possibly for only “it sounds good”, without critical thinking.

jinziqiUID: 2387034

clamour  loud and persistent outcry from many people
prominent 显著的
clinical 临床的
mindset 心态
esoteric 深奥的
regulator 管理者
charismatic possessing an extraordinary ability to attract

But business is also changing its mind about it wants from MBA students.

Comment
The debate topic is how do bussiness schools remain relevant in today's changing world. As we all know, our world is developing as a really fast speed. For example, a brand new computer will be produced in just half an year with a higher standard. However, our textbooks in school were edited many years ago.Even the textbook publiced recently, the knowledge will be outdated after 2 years. As the author discussed, because the economic crisis, should we develop new thory about management to adapt the market? I think the issue is not only relvent to business school, but also to the extent to any other area. Although we need to catch up with the pace of time, we should also learn the basic study way in college, so that we can learn anything in the future.

domudomuUID: 2670967

How do business schools remain relevant in today’s changing world?AS THE clamour（喧闹） grows for more regulation to address the corporate failings that led the world into a two-year recession（不景气）, business schools sense a chance to drive the agenda. By producing academic research that can inform the debates within Washington and Brussels, there is a chance to become relevant once again. But business is also changing its mind about it wants from MBA students. The super-confident, gung-ho（热心忠诚的） leader, that was once their calling card, has fallen out of fashion. So can schools adapt to a changing world?
To find out, The Economist spoke to two prominent business deans（院长） from either side of the Atlantic: Santiago Iñiguez de Ozoño, dean of Spain’s IE Business school, and Paul Danos, dean of Dartmouth College’s Tuck School of Business in America.
Has the role of the business school changed as a result of the economic crisis?
Santiago Iñiguez de Ozoño: Actually management is very much demanded these days. Management is everywhere. All our universities are demanding programmes in management from many different quarters: for engineers, for doctors, for architects.
But some things have changed. The presence of the visible hand [of regulation] is now more explicit. This means that business schools may have a role in preparing members of governments and the administration. The collaboration between the public and private is becoming one of the fastest growing areas of business schools.
We also see more demand for entrepreneurship courses. In times of crisis managers need to reinvent（重新使用，彻底改造） their existing businesses, launch new products and diversify. But also there are many opportunities for the creation of new business—start-ups in fields like technologies, biotechnology, in energy, even in education.
Then we also see some things changing at business schools. We field the demand from the real world to develop research which can actually address the real problems of business. This will probably affect the profile of professors. Not only must they be solid in terms of their research skills and teaching skills, they should also be able to interface（界面，接触面） with the top management.
Have you seen a change in what professors are researching over the last two years?
Paul Danos: Research grinds slowly. Let's take a marketing professor who's an expert on internet marketing. Well that hasn't changed because of this crisis. Some people say "everything has changed," well it's not true. Most of the courses that we teach MBAs have not changed because of the crisis.
I think the change has come at a higher level. It's the level of: can leaders be made to be both responsible and analytical enough to understand the complexity of the world? And why did the leaders, the regulators, the CEOs and the board members miss these risk factors? Well you can debate that but it doesn't change everything. It doesn’t even change everything in finance. Finance is primarily the same as it was before the crisis. When you get to a higher level though, when you start asking CEOs and board members to contemplate their responsibilities, then you have to think about it in a different way. So it's subtle, nuanced（细微差别）.
Santiago Iñiguez de Ozoño: This brings me to another thing that many of our schools are currently contemplating: that all the areas evolve over time. So in finance, as Paul was saying, the golden rules are still valid. But the institutions, the concepts of risk, the ways of assessing risk have evolved in the past years. We need people to come back to school. Managers cannot just rely on what they learned 30 years ago in their MBA programmes. This is a clinical profession like medicine, like architecture, where you need to update your knowledge. So something that may come out from this crisis is the need of managers to come back to school and update their knowledge and validate what they do in the real world.
Paul Danos: I think one thing I've walked away from the crisis with is that no-one can know it all. You need the right kind of probing mindset when you attack problems of such complexity because no one could have ever seen the combination of factors before. So it's not the understanding of every eventuality—which is impossible—it's the right mindset（心态).
So at Tuck we have instituted a whole series of small scale, deep courses where students are forced into that sceptical mindset of truly questioning the foundation of theories. Now that sounds esoteric(秘密的神秘的）, but it's really practical.
My main takeaway was not that it was an ethics problem, not that people were cheating overtly, it is that people were using the wrong mental attitude when they approached extremely complex problems that they hadn't seen before. Practice can hypnotise(催眠使恍惚） you into using old models and old ways of thinking. When you talk to people about the risk management systems in the big banks and at the Fed and at the regulators, it's amazing how they put together old models and old ways of thinking and tried to lay it on top of a new system.
So it proved that they weren't doing it right; they just didn't have the right mental attitude about the models and how they worked and how they hooked up. So we're trying to reinvestigate that.

Does that imply that schools have historically failed to inculcate（教育谆谆教诲） that attitude in their students?
Paul Danos: The crisis was not caused by the broad 90% of our students who went into businesses. It was caused by the dynamics of the interplay between big banks and the regulators. Now you might say [that] those are business people too and they were trained at business schools. True, but ordinary corporations didn't do what banks did. I'm on boards of corporations and we weren't blinded, we weren't 40-to-1 leveraged. So this particular virus was in the banking system, and I think it can be analysed. I really think, at the end of the day, even though the banks themselves were irresponsible, the real irresponsibility was with the regulators because when everything else fails, the regulators are supposed to keep things safe and keep people from doing unsafe things and they didn't do it.
Can business schools exert any leverage over regulators?
Paul Danos: I think so. We have a group at Tuck right now that is made up of several schools—finance professors and economists—and they are writing white papers on many aspects of regulation. So they, as an independent party, are trying to get their voice into Washington and into Europe about the future of regulation and the future regime. They are able to get into congressional and other hearings, but it's just one voice. You know how politics is: there are many voices and lobby groups trying to influence the future of regulation.

Santiago Iñiguez de Ozoño: My impression is that we still need to develop many new things in financial theory and the way we assess risk. Again, we are attending the early stages of these sciences. If you look at medicine 200 years ago and the remedies（救济方法） that were applied to some illnesses we get horrified now. So we will probably see some changes and here academics are actually paying the best possible service to society. Again, now we need good management. We need to recover the golden rules of what is good management, what is establishing the mission for a company. And from business schools I think we can train regulators because they need a very solid technical preparation that they lack. If you look at public administrations, people in both national, local and federal administrations, they need more preparation in finance, in management in order to take better decisions.
Paul Danos: For instance, we're doing a lot of work with healthcare delivery which is a big, important topic. If you talk to people who try to deliver healthcare, one of the biggest problems is that there's very little management education. I'm not talking about high-level finance, I'm talking about the basics of budgets, of cost containment, of deficiency. Very little of that is part of the medical-school training.
I think that in every aspect of society some amount of management education is necessary in order for those institutions to deliver the services that they intend to deliver at a reasonable cost.

Is the nature of leadership changing?
Paul Danos: If you looked at the top-level demand from executives for our programmes, it's almost all about leadership. And it's really interesting how it has evolved. So much is now focused on a teamwork-based leadership model that really emphasises self-awareness. It's a very humanistic philosophy. It's not the person that charges ahead and rallies（重振旗鼓，集合） the troops. It's more of a person that is sensitive to the situation and to themselves.
Santiago Iñiguez de Ozoño: It is a different sort of leadership than the one which has grown in the past decade. It is not charismatic（有领袖气质的） leadership, but teamwork. We will also see in the future many institutions getting rid of this spirit of elitism or arrogance which has contributed to create this atmosphere of overconfidence. They [believed that they] were actually beyond any controls or rules—that Nietzschean moral of the super-masters. We will get back to more controls, the golden rules, more supervision, getting rid of superficial things. History is very recurrent and we are attending again a move of the pendulum（钟摆摆锤）.

domudomuUID: 2670967

This artical mainly talks about the relationship between business school and today's changing world.
Santiago
point out the importance of management in nowadays. Management is now used in in diverse filed and is not limited any more. The big change in business school adress the real problems to theory research.And knowladge about management should also be adapted actually, even though the experience is really important, the basic knowladge and .acdemic learing also makes an important role. Thus a good business school is needed to  train wonderful management.
Paul Danos
Not everything is changing as some people always think. By citing the financial crisis, paul point out some shubtle thing about mangement and practice. No matter you are an expert or a common people, you all can't tell the complexity of situation when huge factors come together.Practice brings you a lot of models, and models are the perfect resources you can use to think, thus get amazing feedbacks. The regulator let down the hope of peole in this society, cause they are the corret person who can avoid some unsafety things.

In my mind, the world is truely developing in an amazing speed, the speed of update in electronic things is even beyond our imagination. So is the continuos changing of knowladge in management necessary? Maybe, learning some basic things in school can play a more important role in future. For instance, we still learn the old artical from thousands years in acient China. We can certainly benifit from that. So, school education is indispensible in management.

prettywraithUID: 197049

Comments (2010-01-05):
With economic crisis spreading the world, numerous articles, talking about business school how to face the hard times, appear in media. I have seen some articles with same topic in Wall Street. In this article, the journalist asks several good questions to two deans of business school. He more concerns what the business school will change in future. Two deans give us complete answers, which are interesting for me.

Comparing with Mr.Danos's response, Mr.Ozono admits the existent deficiency of business school education, and tells us his plan to improve. Though Mr.Ozono shows us little detail about his plan, he answers the sharp question candidly. Mr. Danos looks like more tactful when he faces these questions. But he still tells the truth. Indeed, after economic crisis attack, nothing has changed in government and financial institutions, which is accused for leading to this crisis. I can understand his position. After all, when he begins to criticize the government, he needs to be careful. Although both them mention the recovery of golden rules many times, actually I feel both them will be impeded forcefully for their reforms. Especially, following the economic crisis is going away, as some experts have said, the resistance is becoming huge.


Good sentences:
Not only must they be solid in terms of their research skills and teaching skills, they should also be able to interface with the top management.
Now that sounds esoteric, but it's really practical.


Wrong spelling:
business
school
journalist
admit
deficiency

tequilawineUID: 2702008

11# zhengchangdian
clinical professional
我感觉是像有职位资格认证的五大职业，医生，会计，工程师，建筑师，还有律师，这些职业的特点就是实践大于理论。
但作者是说你要不断的与时俱进。

emteddybearUID: 2699606

字面意思应该晓得三，
第一句：I think one thing I've walked away from the crisis with is that no-one can know it all.
我其实也有点问题，不晓得我的理解对不对，我理解 one thing 应该接在with 后面，就是说 我透彻的看清整个经济危机之后（从经济危机中走出来的时候）明白了一件事情，但是那个no-one为啥子要加连字符号有点不懂了。

My main takeaway was not that it was an ethics problem.
这句话的意思是不是就是我提炼出来的主要的东西不是一个伦理道德问题。takeaway是外带食物的意思，我觉得就是和上面的那句差不多，就是透过整个经济危机所认识的东西。



拙见，希望指正，讨论

我觉得这篇文章虽然生词不多，但是好多句子都好绕啊，do  you think so?

7# rodgood

emteddybearUID: 2699606

问题：1.It's not the person that charges ahead and rallies the troops.这句话什么意思啊
2.They [believed that they] were actually beyond any controls or rules—that Nietzschean moral of the super-masters. We will get back to more controls, the golden rules, more supervision, getting rid of
superficial things. History is very recurrent

and we are attending again a move of the pendulum.这句也不懂

clamour:喧闹
gung-ho：同心协力的
dean：学院院长
explicit：详尽的
reinvent：再造
grind：磨碎

subtle：微妙的
nuance：细微的差别
mindset：心态
sceptical：怀疑的
overtly：明显的，公然的
inculcate：谆谆教诲
leverage：杠杆作用，力量
exert：用力，施力
charismatic：有魅力的

superficial things：表面的东西
recurrent：循环的，再生的
pendulum：摆钟


MY COMMENTS：
As for this report, maybe its words are not so obscure, while its languages are so confused. Many sentences are hard to understand.

This report is mainly about the role of economic students. It is true that the economic crisis arouse people to think about a lot of things in our past period. Economic students are the mainly part of the source of the management. But there is a practical probelm [problem] that all these students are just full of theories but lack of experiences. How can they do the right decision? That is just my question in my mind.

Now, return to this report, the two deans gave us particular explanations about the question proposed at the begining [beginning] of the report. They all think that business schools play a important role in economy domain, and management is very much demanded these days. All the students in different majors (I think some literities [literaties] don't need) should be educated with some management course. I think that is true. But it is more reasonable that each university can give the selection of economic course volunterily [voluntarily].

What's more, Mr.Santiago said that administrations should make more preparations in finance, in management in order to take better decisions. It is a good suggestion. But one of MR.Danos' statements is a little unfair, although he gave some explanations. "The crisis was not caused by the broad 90% of our students who went into businesses."
"I really think, at the end of the day, even though the banks themselves were irresponsible, the real irresponsibility was with the regulators because when everything else fails, the regulators are supposed to keep things safe and keep people from doing unsafe things and they didn't do it." When the managers have made some mistakes, the regulator should do some something to keep people from doing unsafe things, but he should not say that the business students didn't cause the crisis. I think they should take some responsibilities; alough [although] the faught [fault] is not belongs to them all.

qxn_1987UID: 2610437

How do business schools remain relevant in today’s changing world?AS THE clamour grows for more regulation to address the corporate failings that led the world into a two-year recession, business schools sense a chance to drive the agenda. By producing academic research that can inform the debates within Washington and Brussels, there is a chance to become relevant once again. But business is also changing its mind about it wants from MBA students. The super-confident, gung-ho（同心协力的，强烈的，雄心壮志的） leader, that was once their calling card（名片）, has fallen out of fashion. So can schools adapt to a changing world?
To find out, The Economist spoke to two prominent business deans from either side of the Atlanti: Santiago Iñiguez de Ozoño, dean of Spain’s IE Business school, and Paul Danos, dean of Dartmouth College’s Tuck School of Business in America.

Has the role of the business school changed as a result of the economic crisis?

Santiago Iñiguez de Ozoño: Actually management is very much demanded these days. Management is everywhere. All our universities are demanding programmes in management from many different quarters（住处，岗位）: for engineers, for doctors, for architects.
But some things have changed. The presence of the visible hand [of regulation] is now more explicit. This means that business schools may have a role in preparing members of governments and the administration. The collaboration between the public and private is becoming one of the fastest growing areas of business schools.
We also see more demand for entrepreneurship courses. In times of crisis managers need to reinvent their existing businesses, launch new products and diversify. But also there are many opportunities for the creation of new business—start-ups in fields like technologies, biotechnology, in energy, even in education.
Then we also see some things changing at business schools. We field the demand from the real world to develop research which can actually address the real problems of business. This will probably affect the profile of professors. Not only must they be solid in terms of their research skills and teaching skills, they should also be able to interface with the top management.

Have you seen a change in what professors are researching over the last two years?

Paul Danos: Research grinds slowly. …So it's subtle, nuanced.

So something that may come out from this crisis is the need of managers to come back to school and update their knowledge and validate what they do in the real world.

Paul Danos: I think one thing I've walked away from the crisis with is that no-one can know it all. You need the right kind of probing mindset when you attack problems of such complexity because no one could have ever seen the combination of factors before. So it's not the understanding of every eventuality（不测的事，可能性，可能发生的事）—which is impossible—it's the right mindset.

esoteric（深奥）
hook up
overtly
inculcate
rally

Paul Danos: The crisis was not caused by the broad 90% of our students who went into businesses. It was caused by the dynamics of the interplay between big banks and the regulators. Now you might say [that] those are business people too and they were trained at business schools. True, but ordinary corporations didn't do what banks did. I'm on boards of corporations and we weren't blinded, we weren't 40-to-1 leveraged（杠杆作用）…

Can business schools exert any leverage over regulators?

Paul Danos: I think so. We have a group at Tuck right now that is made up of several schools—finance professors and economists—and they are writing white papers on many aspects of regulation. So they, as an independent party, are trying to get their voice into Washington and into Europe about the future of regulation and the future regime. They are able to get into congressional and other hearings, but it's just one voice. You know how politics is: there are many voices and lobby groups trying to influence the future of regulation.

Is the nature of leadership changing?

Santiago Iñiguez de Ozoño: It is a different sort of leadership than the one which has grown in the past decade. It is not charismatic leadership, but teamwork. We will also see in the future many institutions getting rid of this spirit of elitism or arrogance which has contributed to create this atmosphere of overconfidence. They [believed that they] were actually beyond any controls or rules—that Nietzschean moral of the super-masters. We will get back to more controls, the golden rules, more supervision, getting rid of superficial things. History is very recurrent and we are attending again a move of the pendulum.


Comments:

Frankly speaking, the debate is not so clear to me as I have expected. It is neither so explicit, from my personal point of view, as the economic debate we have commented on a few days before.

Bluntly put, MBA is a profession always means, to me, that who are admirable decision-makers and have excellent managing skills, furthermore, always take a great amount of money home.

Nowadays, some people begin to think that some things have changed at business school attribute to the financial recession, while others not. Then we have a deans debate today.

I am more willing side with Paul Danos, as this debate, since his refutation is more convictive and suasive to me. And yet, the debate is not so clear to me that I am afraid I could not elaborate.

adammaksimUID: 2675466

gung-ho  很有意思
来自中文
共和 extremely or overly zealous or enthusiastic

calling card  visiting card

dean the head of a division, faculty, college, or school of a university

grind to move with difficulty or friction

golden rules  a guiding principle

mindset  思维倾向

esoteric 深奥的

This is a clinical profession like medicine, like architecture, where you need to update your knowledge.

white paper  a government report on a subject

Nietzschean  尼采的~

History is very recurrent we are attending a move of the pendulum.

comments:

To some extent, I doubt whether this debate is a advertisement for certain business schools.- -
The role of the business school is not a new subject, though, iterated in a background of economic crisis, this theme seems much more interesting. And this debate mainly deals with the transition of business schools' role in an after-crisis economy.
As we know, the very characteristic of market economy is its operation is mostly, if not totally, controlled by the invisible hand, the natural force of self-regulation from market itself. However, this hand always seems disable in preventing the economy disaster. As a result, people call on another hand of regulation from Keynes. In a market regulated simultaneously by both two hands, MBA students really need to update their knowledge and skills to meet the new demand.

敛寒影UID: 2613052

reinvent  彻底改变
in terms of  根据，按照，用。。的话；在。。方面
subtle  微妙的，细微差别
clinical  临床的
leverage 影响，杠杆作用
remedy 补救办法
elitism  精英论
pendulum  摇摆不定的（事态或局面）

Comment:

Firstly,I will sum up the main idea the two prominent business deans pointed out.They both think the the business school is necessary after the economic crisis.Paul Danos figures out that the most important thing is the right mental attitude about the medels and how they worked and how they hooked up.For instance,the basic-level financial training is nesessary.Santiago siding on assimilating experance from the economical ceisis,including the updated knowledge and new things developed in financial theory and the way we assess risk.What’s more, they both consider teamwork as the demand for the nature of leadership.

Following,I will share the idea inspired me in this atcle with evrybody.This passage enlightened
me that we should learn from historic experance and the right way in learning is to grasp one subject’s focus or main idea,in an onther word,we should master a method of thinking and solving problem through learning.So the process of learning is to prove the comprehensive ability and inherent ability of thinking and solving problem.As long as you find a learning way suit youself,any courses learning should be efficient,and during these process,your intrinsic intellect is cumulated and your ability is promoted.Accordingly,we can not judge you have hold one certain subjet by whether you can recite the specific content adroitly,in deed,is to master the most important knowledge of one subject and aquiant the general content of this subject,then you can apply it flexible under different situations.

Another aspect I conprehended from this article is that the most valuable knowledge is the experance what we learned from history. Admittedly,basic knowledge is the foundation of high-level theory which can not be neglected.But the unchanged knowledge would not arouse the creative thoughts and only updating the knowledge from experence can suit this variational real word.

That’s what I caught from this aticle,a little digression.

dingyi0311UID: 2627919

MY COMMENT
This is a debates over the role of business school. The different, or even can be called opposite , opinions was presented. There debates generally answer the questions as follows.
1.
Has the role of the business school and profession changed as a result of the economic crisis?
Santiago Iñiguez de Ozo&ntilde thought the role of the school have changed after the crises. The government wll place the visible hand(regulation) on economic world, the school need to cultivate student who can serves to help government to stipulate laws or supervise. And the students also need to have knowledge about new regulations and laws.
Paul Danos can hardly agree. He thought changes have not taken place because the research have progressed little. Even there are people who blame that the manager should take the responsibility, Danos thought that even it is ,
nothing can be done to make a different, the finance have not changed after the crisis.

Paul Danos thought that the profession should changes along with the change of our society. In his argument, he use a example that was illustrating: “If you look at medicine 200 years ago and the remedies that were applied to some illnesses we get horrified now”
this is a very good case to illuminate the old things, whether mordels and old thinking ways, can not be laid on the top of new systems.

Does that imply that schools have historically failed to inculcate that attitude in their students?
by answering this question, Paul Danos points out that the school not failed to intricate a mindset of the students. His explained that the problem is not stem from those managers but the banks, and the bank system have failed to function right. .
Can business schools exert any leverage over regulators?
Paul tell us that there are a group consists of professers are striving to make their voice into Washington about the future regulation for future regime, yet, he also point out that it is just one voice. You know how politics is” there are many voice and lobby groups trying to influence future regime.

In the final paragraph, this two debaters make a consensus that financial world are putting emphasis on team work, too much reliance on the leadership or individulsm will result in over confidence.

番茄斗斗UID: 2720914

1.ASTHE clamour grows for more regulation to address(处理，解决) the corporate failingsthat led the world into a two-year recession, business schools sense achance to drive the agenda.
2.The super-confident, gung-ho（偏激的，狂热的） leader,that was once their calling card, has fallen out of fashion.

3.We field（处理） thedemand from the real world to develop research which can actuallyaddress the real problems of business. This will probably affect theprofile of professors. Not only must they be solid in terms of theirresearch skills and teaching skills, they should also be able tointerface with the top management.
4.Research grinds slowly.
5.You need the right kindof probing mindset（追根究底的思维模式） when you attack problems of such complexity becauseno one could have ever seen the combination of factors before.
6.Practice can hypnotise（催眠） you into using old modelsand old ways of thinking.
7.Can business schools exert any leverage（影响力） over regulators?
8.History is very recurrent（反复出现的） and we areattending again a move of the pendulum（钟锤）.

Comment：
The two-year crisis has aroused the quesion on business school. Thanks to the intensive interview, I finally grasp a clearer running image of business school.

According to the public conception, crisis will deeply harm the business school as the fact of the increasing unemployment related to financeand economic.However, according to the interviewees, crisis reveals the large demand on entrepreneur management , as well as research launched by professor to address the problem.

Interviewees claim that research stays the same, while they see a necessity of CEOs' coming back to school to have their knowledge updated. At the same time, they point out a novel idea of probing mindset, which is normally forgotten but indeed serves important factor to field the problem in business-circle.

When being questioned on the leverage over regulator, interviewees hold their opinion positively. As MR.Dsnos illustrates, group in Tuck is already voicing their mind on regulation.

At last, they pinpoint the fact that leadership has shifted to team-work based, and a qualified regulator is rather a sensitive person to situation.

kulewy531UID: 2603031

The role of the business school
Deans debate
Dec 1st 2009
From Economist.com
http://www.economist.com/business-education/displayStory.cfm?story_id=15006681

How do business schools remain relevant in today’s changing world? AS THE clamour grows for more regulation to address （deal with） the corporate failings that led the world into a two-year recession, business schools sense a chance to drive the agenda. By producing academic research that can inform the debates within Washington and Brussels, there is a chance to become relevant once again. But business is also changing its mind about it wants from MBA students. The super-confident, gung-ho（extremely enthusiastic） leader, that(应该用which) was once their calling card(名片), has fallen out of fashion. So can schools adapt to a changing world?
To find out, The Economist spoke to two prominent business deans from either side of the Atlantic: Santiago Iñiguez de Ozoño, dean of Spain’s IE Business school, and Paul Danos, dean of Dartmouth College’s Tuck School of Business in America.

Has the role of the business school changed as a result of the economic crisis?
Santiago Iñiguez de Ozoño: Actually management is very much demanded these days. Management is everywhere. All our universities are demanding programmes in management from many different quarters: for engineers, for doctors, for architects.
But some things have changed. The presence of the visible hand [of regulation] is now more explicit. This means that business schools may have a role in preparing members of governments and the administration. The collaboration between the public and private is becoming one of the fastest growing areas of business schools.
We also see more demand for entrepreneurship courses. In times of crisis managers need to reinvent their existing businesses, launch new products and diversify. But also there are many opportunities for the creation of new business—start-ups in fields like technologies, biotechnology, in energy, even in education.
Then we also see some things changing at business schools. We field the demand from the real world to develop research which can actually address the real problems of business. This will probably affect the profile（character） of professors. Not only must they be solid in terms of their research skills and teaching skills, they should also be able to interface with the top management.

Have you seen a change in what professors are researching over the last two years?
Paul Danos: Research grinds slowly. Let's take a marketing professor who's an expert on internet marketing. Well that hasn't changed because of this crisis. Some people say "everything has changed," well it's not true. Most of the courses that we teach MBAs have not changed because of the crisis.
I think the change has come at a higher level. It's the level of: can leaders be made to be both responsible and analytical enough to understand the complexity of the world? And why did the leaders, the regulators, the CEOs and the board members miss these risk factors? Well you can debate that but it doesn't change everything. It doesn’t even change everything in finance. Finance is primarily the same as it was before the crisis. When you get to a higher level though, when you start asking CEOs and board members(董事) to contemplate their responsibilities, then you have to think about it in a different way. So it's subtle, nuanced.
Santiago Iñiguez de Ozoño: This brings me to another thing that many of our schools are currently contemplating: that all the areas evolve over time. So in finance, as Paul was saying, the golden rules are still valid. But the institutions, the concepts of risk, the ways of assessing risk have evolved in the past years. We need people to come back to school. Managers cannot just rely on what they learned 30 years ago in their MBA programmes. This is a clinical profession like medicine, like architecture, where you need to update your knowledge. So something that may come out from this crisis is the need of managers to come back to school and update their knowledge and validate what they do in the real world.
Paul Danos: I think one thing I've walked away from the crisis with is that no-one can know it all. You need the right kind of probing mindset when you attack problems of such complexity because no one could have ever seen the combination of factors before. So it's not the understanding of every eventuality—which is impossible—it's the right mindset.
So at Tuck we have instituted a whole series of small scale, deep courses where students are forced into that sceptical mindset of truly questioning the foundation of theories. Now that sounds esoteric, but it's really practical.
My main takeaway was not that it was an ethics problem, not that people were cheating overtly, it is that people were using the wrong mental attitude when they approached extremely complex problems that they hadn't seen before. Practice can hypnotise you into using old models and old ways of thinking. When you talk to people about the risk management systems in the big banks and at the Fed and at the regulators, it's amazing how they put together old models and old ways of thinking and tried to lay it on top of a new system.
So it proved that they weren't doing it right; they just didn't have the right mental attitude about the models and how they worked and how they hooked up. So we're trying to reinvestigate that.

Does that imply that schools have historically failed to inculcate that attitude in their students?
Paul Danos: The crisis was not caused by the broad 90% of our students who went into businesses. It was caused by the dynamics of the interplay between big banks and the regulators. Now you might say [that] those are business people too and they were trained at business schools. True, but ordinary corporations didn't do what banks did. I'm on boards of corporations and we weren't blinded, we weren't 40-to-1 leveraged. So this particular virus was in the banking system, and I think it can be analysed. I really think, at the end of the day, even though the banks themselves were irresponsible, the real irresponsibility was with the regulators because when everything else fails, the regulators are supposed to keep things safe and keep people from doing unsafe things and they didn't do it.

Can business schools exert any leverage over regulators?
Paul Danos: I think so. We have a group at Tuck right now that is made up of several schools—finance professors and economists—and they are writing white papers on many aspects of regulation. So they, as an independent party, are trying to get their voice into Washington and into Europe about the future of regulation and the future regime. They are able to get into congressional and other hearings, but it's just one voice. You know how politics is: there are many voices and lobby groups trying to influence the future of regulation.

Santiago Iñiguez de Ozoño: My impression is that we still need to develop many new things in financial theory and the way we assess risk. Again, we are attending the early stages of these sciences. If you look at medicine 200 years ago and the remedies that were applied to some illnesses we get horrified now. So we will probably see some changes and here academics are actually paying the best possible service to society. Again, now we need good management. We need to recover the golden rules of what is good management, what is establishing the mission for a company. And from business schools I think we can train regulators because they need a very solid technical preparation that they lack. If you look at public administrations, people in both national, local and federal administrations, they need more preparation in finance, in management in order to take better decisions.
Paul Danos: For instance, we're doing a lot of work with healthcare delivery which is a big, important topic. If you talk to people who try to deliver healthcare, one of the biggest problems is that there's very little management education. I'm not talking about high-level finance, I'm talking about the basics of budgets, of cost containment, of deficiency. Very little of that is part of the medical-school training.
I think that in every aspect of society some amount of management education is necessary in order for those institutions to deliver the services that they intend to deliver at a reasonable cost.

Is the nature of leadership changing?
Paul Danos: If you looked at the top-level demand from executives for our programmes, it's almost all about leadership. And it's really interesting how it has evolved. So much is now focused on a teamwork-based leadership model that really emphasises self-awareness. It's a very humanistic philosophy. It's not the person that charges ahead and rallies the troops. It's more of a person that is sensitive to the situation and to themselves.
Santiago Iñiguez de Ozoño: It is a different sort of leadership than the one which has grown in the past decade. It is not charismatic leadership, but teamwork. We will also see in the future many institutions getting rid of this spirit of elitism or arrogance which has contributed to create this atmosphere of overconfidence. They [believed that they] were actually beyond any controls or rules—that Nietzschean moral of the super-masters. We will get back to more controls, the golden rules, more supervision, getting rid of superficial things. History is very recurrent and we are attending again a move of the pendulum.
Comments:
The financial crisis has long been a hot topic; however, I had limited knowledge about that. According to the deans, the economical recession results from the regulators’ lack of updated training and right mindset towards the complexity of problems. The deans put it that, Generally speaking, the basic knowledge that the business schools taught is right, though it should be reformed at a higher level. So, the academies might provide a place for the reforming of the regulators.
I agree with the opinion that universities play an important role in helping contemplating the failings. But the universities itself are to be blame. It’s undeniable that the economical falling could be avoided if the universities have taught their students to keep aware of the risk, which was not impossible at that time.