长江中欧教授大比拼: 小结

ck8888

I am from ck.

First of all, I think google.com is a reasonable source of information to compare the research impact of faculty among publically availabe information source. When FT or WSJ do these comparisons, they use google.com as well. Please check with FT and WSJ for that. A more constructive argument is to come up with your own comparison method rather than attacking others' method. It's a cheap shot.

Second, while faculty research may not be important to some MBA students direclty but it raises the school's repuation internationally, gains respect in the profession, helps the school to conduct exchanges with foreign peer schools, and makes credit swap across school exchanges easier. Moreover, if it is not that important, why do you worry so much? By the way, how many top 20 schools are bad in research?

Third, I completely support the argument that different people should have different preferences. For example, I prefer the faculty who do no research but is an excellent teacher. However, it does not mean that I should ask people to think like me or stop people from making comparison of research impact using publically available information. We should respect transparent information flow and freedom of speech. Please continue providing us with more information.

After one or two years, CK should be eligible to those international rankings. I am willing to see how CK performs under those rankings and how fast it has been improving. Meanwhile, please provide us with more information and make more comparisons in whatever ways you want as long as it is objective and verifiable. We encourage independent and innovative thinking. The more, the better. Please don't be afraid of information. Let information be your friend, not enemy.

[此贴子已经被作者于2006-11-26 13:48:05编辑过]

MLG

楼主做了辛苦的工作,贴在这里跟大家分享,谢谢.

但是根据这些信息作出什么样的判断,那是仁者见仁智者见智,如果连这一点基本的判断能力都没有,那真是不适合读MBA.

我是长江的,我说说我看了楼主贴子的感受--

首先感谢长江,给了我全球视野和全局观念.

在面对日本,美国,德国,法国甚至韩国汽车工业的冲击的时候,奇瑞和吉利的比较是很无力的,很微不足道的.

外资商业银行大规模进军国内业务的时候,国内传统银行考虑更多的应该是如何面对外来的挑战,而不是互相挤踏.

国内的MBA教育也是一样,本土的MBA们应该考虑的是如何提高自身的素质和视野,共同努力提高国内MBA教育和MBA们的整体水平,面对国外MBA的竞争和挑战.

长江人曾经喊出"感谢中欧"的心声(见liuweiyu的贴子),说得很好.

中欧冲上了世界排行榜的前列,让全世界开始关注中国的MBA教育,好!

让我们祝愿更多的中国商学院--北大,清华,复旦,长江等等能挤进世界级的行列.如果10年,20年过去,还是只有中欧在唱独角戏,那真是我们中国人的悲哀.相信如果真的这样,zhenhaowu同学的心情不是幸灾乐祸,而是酸楚吧(作为一个中国人).

一枝独秀不是春,百花齐放春满园!

[此贴子已经被作者于2006-11-26 10:18:29编辑过]

outsider

我的感觉是长江中欧研究各有所长,并不是说哪一个绝对的好.另外,外国教授研究可能是差一点,但想想看,人家研究好的也不会来啊.老外英文普遍要强一些,而且教课比中国教授更受欢迎.多一点国际化总没错.长江应当向中欧学习,多找一些外国教授,不要太拘泥于研究的强弱.其实长江教授研究的平均水平在美国也进不了最前沿.

mba3000

信息共享,何罪之有?畅所欲言,不亦乐乎?

[此贴子已经被作者于2006-11-26 11:41:52编辑过]

wxcder

以下是引用outsider在2006-11-26 10:42:00的发言：
我的感觉是长江中欧研究各有所长,并不是说哪一个绝对的好.另外,外国教授研究可能是差一点,但想想看,人家研究好的也不会来啊.老外英文普遍要强一些,而且教课比中国教授更受欢迎.多一点国际化总没错.长江应当向中欧学习,多找一些外国教授,不要太拘泥于研究的强弱.其实长江教授研究的平均水平在美国也进不了最前沿.

“老马识途”！

foever

以下是引用outsider在2006-11-26 10:42:00的发言：
长江应当向中欧学习,多找一些外国教授,不要太拘泥于研究的强弱.其实长江教授研究的平均水平在美国也进不了最前沿.

长江的外国教授大概能占到1/3的样子，只是基本上是访问教授，没有在网上，今年感觉更多了，比如讲LEADERSHIP和MARKETING RESEARCH的两位来自沃顿，BUSINESS SIMULATION和VALUATION也是老外，听说明年从哈佛和斯坦福要来两三个可能是常驻教授。长江教授研究强，其实讲课同样也很优秀，这并不矛盾，他们在国外顶级商学院也是给MBA学生讲课的。

大棒锤

引发这种争论好cheap，温州商人的作风发生到商学院的身上，让人心痛。这种比较没第二个人有时间跟兴趣再作一次去验证，所以楼主的精神很让人钦佩。如果真得要比，一切还是看第三方的结果吧。只是奉劝大家眼光向外；另外，宣传中欧也好，吹棒长江也罢，说得话要准确，因为你们是内部人，大家都信任你们。作为报考者来说，“发现自己被商学院误导”的感觉真得很糟糕。

DongFeng

强烈建议发帖时不要穿新马甲。。。这样很容易让人起疑的。。。

zhenhaowu

以下是引用ck8888在2006-11-26 9:41:00的发言：

I am from ck.

First of all, I think google.com is a reasonable source of information to compare the research impact of faculty among publically availabe information source. When FT or WSJ do these comparisons, they use google.com as well. Please check with FT and WSJ for that. A more constructive argument is to come up with your own comparison method rather than attacking others' method. It's a cheap shot.

Second, while faculty research may not be important to some MBA students direclty but it raises the school's repuation internationally, gains respect in the profession, helps the school to conduct exchanges with foreign peer schools, and makes credit swap across school exchanges easier. Moreover, if it is not that important, why do you worry so much? By the way, how many top 20 schools are bad in research?

Third, I completely support the argument that different people should have different preferences. For example, I prefer the faculty who do no research but is an excellent teacher. However, it does not mean that I should ask people to think like me or stop people from making comparison of research impact using publically available information. We should respect transparent information flow and freedom of speech. Please continue providing us with more information.

After one or two years, CK should be eligible to those international rankings. I am willing to see how CK performs under those rankings and how fast it has been improving. Meanwhile, please provide us with more information and make more comparisons in whatever ways you want as long as it is objective and verifiable. We encourage independent and innovative thinking. The more, the better. Please don't be afraid of information. Let information be your friend, not enemy.

I'm not a marketing person of ceibs and i have no interests in doing my own comparison. I trust more on those third-parties figures because I think they are professional. Individuals can do their own research and reach their own conclusion. But since this is a public place, I have to point out that your reasoning is baised and not convincing, at least at this moment.

I'm not worrying about anything. I just wanted to point out that your research info cannot lead to your conclusion directly.

Since you're from ck and i'm from ceibs, there is not point of talking about independency. You might be innovative, though, but in a wrong place. I only want to be friend of valuable info and stay away from manipulated info.

BTW, i'm not against ck anyway. But I am against any method of manipulating info to gain your advantage, especially by playing down ceibs or other schools in the same market.

zhenhaowu

以下是引用MLG在2006-11-26 10:05:00的发言：

楼主做了辛苦的工作,贴在这里跟大家分享,谢谢.

但是根据这些信息作出什么样的判断,那是仁者见仁智者见智,如果连这一点基本的判断能力都没有,那真是不适合读MBA.

我是长江的,我说说我看了楼主贴子的感受--

首先感谢长江,给了我全球视野和全局观念.

在面对日本,美国,德国,法国甚至韩国汽车工业的冲击的时候,奇瑞和吉利的比较是很无力的,很微不足道的.

外资商业银行大规模进军国内业务的时候,国内传统银行考虑更多的应该是如何面对外来的挑战,而不是互相挤踏.

国内的MBA教育也是一样,本土的MBA们应该考虑的是如何提高自身的素质和视野,共同努力提高国内MBA教育和MBA们的整体水平,面对国外MBA的竞争和挑战.

长江人曾经喊出"感谢中欧"的心声(见liuweiyu的贴子),说得很好.

中欧冲上了世界排行榜的前列,让全世界开始关注中国的MBA教育,好!

让我们祝愿更多的中国商学院--北大,清华,复旦,长江等等能挤进世界级的行列.如果10年,20年过去,还是只有中欧在唱独角戏,那真是我们中国人的悲哀.相信如果真的这样,zhenhaowu同学的心情不是幸灾乐祸,而是酸楚吧(作为一个中国人).

一枝独秀不是春,百花齐放春满园!

我是一个中国人，但这和我的观点无关。

如果若干年后只有中欧在唱独角戏，那就更证明中欧选择了一条正确的道路而其他学校并没有。

适者生存，能够在激烈的环境下生存下来的个体才更具有生命力和潜力。好的经营方式自然会慢慢渗透到整个行业，不具备竞争力的个体也自然会慢慢消亡。会什么将来中国的商学院就一定要从北大，清华等学校出来？

再次申明，本人对长江并无偏见。但是某些个人，不知道是否出于长江，在这里提供一些信息，涉及到了中欧，那我自然要和大家说说清楚，以免旁观者被误导。

另外，我特别反对那些所谓“适不适合读MBA”的论调。每个人适不适合读MBA，只有他/她自己最清楚。会不会玩文字逻辑游戏，和是否适合读MBA完全是两回事！