MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W78469254

Career Expectations and Perceptions of Part-Time MBA Students

2010· article· en· W78469254 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Lynn A. Fish, Lauren A. Fish

Bibliographic record

VenueCollege student journal · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicManagement and Marketing Education
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSalaryPsychologyJob securityPromotion (chess)Graduation (instrument)Job satisfactionPublic relationsCompensation (psychology)Social psychologyWork (physics)MarketingBusinessPolitical science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the U.S., part-time MBA students regard work/life balance as the critical factor that drives career expectations and perceptions. Job aspects and benefits/compensation closely follow in importance, while employee relations are valued less. Within work/life balance, students value job location, travel time, and telecommuting. Promotional opportunities and annual salary are critical factors in job aspects and benefits/compensation, respectively. Students expect to remain in their next position 2-4 years, and most will not take a job outside of their specialty. The majority expect at least semi-annual evaluations through conversations with their superiors, evaluations based upon their work's end product, and performance as the primary criteria for rewards and promotions. These results have important implications for recruiters, professors, and advisors. Literature Review Over the past few decades, several studies note a shift in students' work values and expectations compared to the generations before them (Loughlin & Barling, 2001; Ng & Burke, 2006; Smola & Sutton, 2002). For example, in the 1950's, American graduates focused on promotional opportunities, high salaries, and job security, while students in the 1960's focused on the meaning of life, and students of the 1970's and 1980's directed their careers towards individual achievement and reward. In the 1980's, students indicated their primary concerns for choosing a career path were future earning potential, promotional opportunities and employer location (Parmley, Parmley & Wooton, 1987). In the 1990's, students' primary concerns for choosing a particular career path focused on promotion, challenge and responsibility, working conditions and the type of work (Devlin & Petersen, 1994). Students at the turn of the century appear to be following in the footsteps of their parents--or are they? With the changing global landscape, as well as changes in the traditional family norms in Western culture, future research is necessary to understand the career expectations of current students and the implications these student expectations have for organizations, recruiters and managers (Jarlstrom, 2000; Kirrane & Ryan, 2000; Rose, 2001; Ng & Burke, 2006). Several studies exist on student career expectations in relation to (1) choosing a career and company, (2) global and cultural issues, (3) gender issues, (4) differences for specific business functions, (5) recruitment, and (6) promotion, length of employment, ideal job acceptance, and the job search process. In the early 1990's in both the United States and New Zealand, with respect to their first position following college, students placed high priority on long-term career oriented attributes, such as promotion and self-development (Devlin & Peterson, 1994). Do today's students still place high value on long-term career oriented attributes? What are the current perceptions? As recently as 2008, in a study of first semester MBA students in a western U.S. University, students' primary attribute for choosing a career was an individual emphasis on self-development, specifically favoring career benefits and wealth as leading factors (Ng, Burke, and Fidsenbaum, 2008). Family and non-family issues in career selection were not predictors of career decisions. Similarly, in a large study of Canadian undergraduate business students, students who participated in a cooperative exchange with a business had more realistic work expectations and a better understanding of their own abilities (Ng & Burke, 2006). Cooperative students placed a greater emphasis on 'work' and 'people' dimensions of a firm and less on the firm's reputation and benefits. For Canadian business students, good people to work with, reputation of the firm in the form of commitment to social responsibility, challenging work, and job security were critical factors of importance to students in obtaining their desired job and organizational attributes (Ng & Burke, 2006). …

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.009
GPT teacher head0.266
Teacher spread0.257 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations8
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCollege student journalSame topicManagement and Marketing EducationFrench-language works237,207