The Trilateral MBA: An Approach to International Exchange of Students
Bibliographic record
Abstract
CASE DESCRIPTION The primary subject matter of this case is the development and implementation of a joint graduate program involving schools from multiple countries. Secondary issues examined include funding, business models, and evaluation of joint international programs. An innovative MBA program involving students and universities from three North American countries is presented. Other issues include the adapting of curriculum and using funding sources for these types of programs. Students reading the case are faced with a critical decision at the end of the case including whether the joint international program can continue and in what format. The case has a difficulty level of five, appropriate for first year graduate level or above. The case is designed to be taught in one hour following appropriate introduction of the key issues involved. The case is expected to involve one hour of student preparation. CASE SYNOPSIS The face of internationalization of universities is changing. Students are opting for more programs where they earn a degree at an international institution. Universities are adopting new and innovative programs to retain high achieving students who have the ambition and drive to study outside of the U.S. While universities understand the importance of increasing the internationalization of their students, they also understand the importance of doing so at a cost neutral or relatively low cost method. This case examines the experiences of a U.S. institution, a Canadian institution, and a Mexican institution as they design and implement a joint program using the twinning approach. It examines some of the internal and external challenges that arise in internationalization efforts today. While this case centers on the experiences involving an MBA program, the issues involved are easily adapted to other international and/or joint programs. This case can be centered on many different facets--curricular design, financing, development and balance of exchange programs, benefits and costs to students and a university of exporting and importing students, the role of grants in internationalization efforts, student recruiting, and selecting the appropriate exchange model. INTRODUCTION Higher education professionals are constantly looking for ways to improve the learning opportunities for students. One objective, especially in business education, is to provide additional opportunities for global learning. This can be done in numerous ways, including short term study abroad opportunities, semester long exchange opportunities, recruiting international students to be integrated into the domestic classrooms, and modification of the curriculum to include more global issues. When dealing with graduate management education, the opportunities are more limited than with undergraduate programs, primarily due to the shorter time frame for these programs. In addition, students in the US are much less likely than students from other countries to take part international study programs. As leaders of graduate programs in higher education, you are faced with the task of providing international education for your students while maintaining budget and curricular priorities. This exercise presents a relatively novel way of providing the opportunity, especially for US students, by developing a three-country cohort program for an MBA. In 2002 you and the program directors from several schools from Mexico, Canada, and the U.S. met to discuss ways to expand the international efforts of their schools. The goals were to expand student opportunities for postgraduate education, strengthen their ties at the undergraduate level, expose their students to different cultures, increase language training and proficiency, and expand collaboration between the members of the faculty at their institutions. Since the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) was born only eight years before to lessen the economic barriers between these three countries it seemed natural for Mexico, Canada, and the U. …
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".