Reviewing, Revising, and Reinventing the Undergraduate Marketing Curriculum at a Public University
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The business community faces tremendous challenges in the 21st century and needs an educated workforce that can navigate the realities of empowered customers, new scientific and media technologies, growing environmental and social concerns, and global competition. Unfortunately, undergraduate business education, for the most part, continues to rely on 20th century theories and practices. Undergraduate marketing education, in particular, seems to have stagnated and continues to fall short on both relevance and rigor. This article presents the results of a two-year departmental initiative to review, revise, and reinvent the undergraduate marketing curriculum at a large public research university’s business school. After analyzing the internal and external forces that were the impetus for change, the article presents the process the marketing department used to reform the undergraduate program. Next, the articles discusses the results of six data collection projects among key constituency groups that revealed weaknesses in the undergraduate program and potential areas for improvement. The article concludes with the presentation of a transformed undergraduate marketing curriculum, along with initial assessment feedback. By engaging in continuous evaluation and improvement, the marketing faculty hope to provide undergraduate marketing students with a more rigorous and relevant academic experience that will enable them to succeed in the professional workforce of the 21st century.
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 | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".