University of Toronto Rotman Commerce Program 2006 Review

1

MEMORANDUM

Date: 12 April 2006

To: Commerce Program Staff and Students

From: Roger Martin, Dean, Rotman School of Management Pekka K. Sinervo, F.R.S.C., Dean, Faculty of Arts & Science

Cc: Wendy Rotenberg, Director, Commerce Program Peter Pauly, Vice-Dean, Rotman School of Management Arthur Hosios, Chair, Department of Economics

Re: 2006 External Review Report for the Commerce Program

We are distributing to the staff and students involved in the Commerce program the 2006 external review committee report of the program. The committee was very impressed with the quality of the program, and we thank all those who participated in the review process.

At part of their mandate, the reviewers considered a number of issues, some of them having to do with the structure and scope of the program. In their report, the reviewers have made a number of recommendations that present an opportunity to significantly strengthen Commerce. In particular, they recommend that the two Faculties develop a clearer “vision” for the program, as well as consider adjusting its focus. The reviewers make a number of other recommendations, not all of which we have to accept.

In order to most effectively address these recommendations, we propose to follow a process whereby a small working group consisting of the Commerce Director, Vice-dean, Rotman School of Management, the Chair of the Department of Economics, students, a small number of other Commerce teaching staff and us will develop a draft administrative response that will be the basis for consultation with students and staff in both the Faculty of Arts & Science and the Rotman School.

We expect to distribute a draft administrative response by early June. We encourage you to send any initial comments on the review report to the Director, Prof. Wendy Rotenberg, by 28 April 2006.

2

A Review of The Bachelor of Commerce Program

The University of Toronto

February, 2006

Visiting Team Members

Professor Sally Blount-Lyon Stern School of Business

New York University

Professor B. Curtis Eaton Faculty of Social Sciences The University of Calgary

Professor Barbara E. Kahn

The Wharton School The University of Pennsylvania

Professor Ralph Winter

Sauder School of Business The University of British Columbia

3

Executive Summary The visiting team was very impressed by the Commerce Program – most notably by the administrative and co-curricular improvements that Wendy Rotenberg and her team have made over the last several years. The program is an asset to the University and has tremendous reputational potential. It could easily become a national or even international leader in undergraduate business education. Key assets include a distinguished and rich educational history, a large and accomplished alumni body, an ideal location in the business capital of Canada, and access to strong faculty in the Rotman School and Economics Department.

To realize this potential, however, further investment is essential -- not only in terms of financial resources and administrative support, but also in terms of strategic University-level attention and program leadership. Key strategic recommendations in this regard include the need for the University to:

• Pick a strategic vision – The University needs to pick a compelling vision around which to unify key stakeholders and frame the future path for the Commerce Program.

• Brand the program – Marketplace competition has increased. The University must work aggressively to reestablish Commerce’s “market” position within Ontario and Canada. A key element of this effort will include creating a distinct marketing identity that reflects the new Commerce vision and actively communicating that brand to key external audiences.

• Restructure the governance system – With a new vision in place, the University will need to create a governance structure that can most effectively assure that strategic attention is given to the program and empower the day-to-day program administrator to implement necessary curricular and co-curricular improvements.

• Invest in implementing cultural change – The current culture among the students (and young alumni) is not as strong or cohesive as it should be, particularly given the assets of the program. This could become a liability in the marketplace. The University must actively invest in reorienting the culture over the next 3-5 years.

• Consider restructuring the program to reduce its implicit accounting focus – Fifty percent of Commerce students currently major in accounting. This situation may not meet the University’s educational or reputational objectives for the program. The University may want to consider changing the structure of the program to reduce the focus on accounting.

In addition, the team has several program-level recommendations. These include recommendations that the program be redesigned to:

• teach communication skills • achieve greater integration of interdisciplinary aspects of management and greater

customization of economics courses • emphasize community building among students and young alumni • collect data to track key performance metrics • increase student opportunities for international study

4

FULL REPORT Introduction With a history dating to 1920, the Bachelor of Commerce Program at the University of

Toronto is one of the oldest undergraduate programs of its type in Canada. It is known for

educating strong, motivated, technically proficient graduates, many of whom have come to hold

leadership positions across Canadian industry. The program has a history of successfully

preparing its graduates not only for entry-level jobs in business, but also admission to PhD and

professional school programs.

The program attracts some of the brightest high school students in Ontario, as well as

from abroad. Commerce is one of the most competitive programs at the University of Toronto,

and shares with the University at large a student body characterized by significant ethnic,

international and socio-economic diversity. The program has a strong commuter emphasis with

many students living off campus relative to its competitor schools

As currently designed, the program is a four-year interdisciplinary program of study that

spans the Faculty of Management and the Faculty of Arts and Science... Students take up to 15

full-year course equivalents in Management and Economics, with a minimum of 6 in each, with

their other courses including calculus, writing and other electives being taken in the liberal arts.

Historically students have taken 39% of overall courses in Management, 31% in Economics, and

30% elsewhere in the Faculty of Arts and Science. The average number of management courses

taken is 8.0 and the average number of economics courses is 6.3. Courses in economics are

staffed by faculty from an economics department that is among the strongest in Canada. Courses

in management are taught by faculty at the Rotman School of Management, also among the

strongest in Canada.

5

One of the program’s strengths is its energetic and committed staff, headed by Director

Wendy Rotenberg and Associate Director Lisa MacTavish. The transition to a deregulated

tuition environment has been quite successful to date. The program grew by 50%, tuition

doubled and the high quality of the student intake was maintained. The new physical space is a

great advantage for the program. It is well-designed both for pedagogy and co-curricular

activities. The staff has also grown significantly during Rotenberg’s tenure. As a group, the staff

are innovative and hard-working. They have a strong commitment to improving the Commerce

students’ co-curricular experiences. Cynthia Bishop and Bonnie Merchan-Douglas have

particularly good relations with the students. The transition has included the creation of an

attractive and welcome physical presence within Wordsworth College. Commerce has

implemented many improvements to the students’ co-curricular experience – including the

young alumni mentorship program and establishing the new career services facility. The new

physical environment, the expanded programs, the additional opportunities created by the

deregulation of tuition and the rapid rise of Rotman towards a status as one of the top business

schools in the world add up to make this an opportune time for an assessment and possible

redefinition of the Commerce Program.

The Commerce Program is distinguished by assets that, if fully exploited, would make

the program the top undergraduate program of its kind in the country. These assets include:

• a large and accomplished alumni body

• an ideal location in the business capital of Canada

• faculty in the Rotman school, beyond the accounting faculty currently with most

involvement in the program, who are the best in the country

6

• faculty in the economics department and the university as a whole who are also the best

in the country

In short, the four members of the External Review Team see much strength within the

“B. Comm.” program – we are particularly impressed by the changes that have been

implemented administratively during Wendy Rotenberg’s tenure – but we recognize even greater

potential for the program. Our concerns for the program going forward fall into three areas: the

educational philosophy of the program (specifically the vision of the program and associated

structural issues); the student culture; and academic content/delivery issues within the economics

and management curriculum. These concerns are outlined in detail below, albeit in a different

form than prescribed in the Terms of Reference.

As a final introductory point, we note that as per the Terms of Reference, we are not

commenting in any detail on the admissions process or student quality issues. We have not

received enough data to make meaningful observations in these areas. It is worth noting,

however, that it is our view that if the recommendations discussed below were implemented, the

demand for the program would increase significantly, the program could raise its admission

standards, the quality of the program would increase as a result, and the demand would then

further increase in a virtuous cycle. The Commerce Program at the University of Toronto should

follow the example of the Rotman School – not in adopting the same specific goals but in

moving rapidly and without hesitation towards its full potential.

Educational Philosophy of the Program

The program lacks a clear, consistent and shared educational vision. The Rotman

academic administrators articulate a stronger sense of direction for the program than do faculty

7

from the Department of Economics, but even that direction does not represent a consensus.

Listening to students and faculty, we heard at least four different visions of what the Commerce

Program is and what it should be. These visions include:

• The Historical Commerce Vision: Stakeholders holding this vision argue that the program, as it stands, provides a unique and valuable product in Canadian education by combining (a) the analytical strength of an economics major; (b) key management areas with an emphasis on analytic or quantitative fields such as finance and accounting; and (c) substantial exposure to the liberal arts courses that are an essential part of a university education. The requirements of 6 courses in economics and statistics, 6 in management and 1 course in math, leaves students with 7 additional courses in management or economics (to a maximum of 15 total) or liberal arts. This represents substantial flexibility relative to Canadian norms, if not the norms of a traditional liberal arts education. The structure represents as well an opportunity to achieve an education that is both valuable in the market and a true education in analytical thinking and liberal arts. The comparative advantage of a university is in teaching students to think analytically and to express themselves articulately. The unique bilateral character of the Commerce Program provides students with a marketable and valuable degree without sacrificing the more fundamental and longer term value of a university education.

• Accounting Training Vision: At the opposite extreme, a high proportion of students come

to the program because of its reputation as providing high quality training in accounting, specifically in courses that will lead to towards a C.A. or similar professional accounting designation. For these students, the number of courses that must be taken to achieve the required training in 4 years leaves very little flexibility under the current design. The feeling of students with this vision is that something has to give to allow the students the space to take such fundamental business courses such as organizational behaviour or marketing. This something should be the number of economics courses, specifically the two elective courses, since these are the courses that are least relevant to the student’s training as an accountant or business professional. Students who firmly adopt vision are interested in training that will maximize their value on the market at graduation or soon afterward.

• UG Business Vision: Stakeholders of this vision believe that the program should move

from an undergraduate commerce degree towards an undergraduate business degree, by reducing the economics requirements and adding requirements in marketing, organizational behaviour and other business disciplines. The program should move to Rotman, except for some service teaching by economics, and adopt fully the Rotman brand name. This is a vision of a business degree that would fulfill the expectations that many students bring to university and the expectations that the broader labour market carries for an undergraduate business degree.

• Commerce Plus Vision: Proponents of this vision agree with those who advocate the

Historical Vision that the program as it stands is very strong, and for the same reasons

8

(outlined above), with two exceptions: as currently constituted, (a) the program over-emphasizes accounting at the expense of marketing, organizational behavior and other core business disciplines; (b) the program over-emphasizes economics at the expense of other social sciences, philosophy, and mathematics. Advocates of this vision argue that the number of required accounting courses should be reduced (from 1½ to 1 full year course), and perhaps that the number of accounting courses that can be counted toward the degree be capped, in order to make room for additional courses in the key business disciplines, and that either one or both electives in economics should be broadened to allow these electives to be taken in other social sciences, philosophy or mathematics. The option of taking both in economics and obtaining an economics major would be retained. In this vision, the strength of the program as a mix of business and liberal arts is maintained, but the narrow focus on economics and accounting is broadened.

Related Structural Issues

Three structural issues concerning the program are closely tied to the different visions of

the program, and the proper resolution of these issues is dependent on the vision chosen.

• Governance Challenges: The lack of a unified vision across key stakeholders in many ways reflects a long-standing, but problematic, dual-governance structure. This structure relies on on-going and ad hoc collaboration across the economics and management faculties in the absence of clear organizational or economic incentives. The program seems to fall between the cracks with regard to faculty attention. We were left with the strong impression that these students were not particularly “owned” by either faculty. This type of structure will always be problematic, particularly in the absence of a strong, consistent vision or an independent champion and voice for the program that draws upon representation of both constituent faculties but is not reliant upon the faculties for resources, decisions, guidance and identity.

• Branding Initiative: The proposal by some stakeholders to brand Commerce as a Rotman

degree introduces concerns for us. Branding affects behavior and can even drive the changes in an institution. We are concerned, in particular, that adopting the Rotman brand could lead to greater “business” emphasis over time as expectations on the part of Rotman faculty, students and recruiters become more and more business-based. In the process, the program would lose its liberal arts roots. If the program were branded as Rotman, Rotman would justifiably feel the need to control its “brand quality.” As the external report of the Rotman school (7/7/04) states, Rotman needs to successfully “shape and grow its own brand image.” Thus, we want to caution the University that the branding decision is not a small one. This is a decision that should be considered deeply and should reflect the broader long-term vision that is chosen for the program. We note that our concern is not for the idea of “branding” in particular. Many successful programs are branded. For example, at Wharton the joint undergraduate program between the College of Arts and Sciences and the Wharton School has its own brand name, the Huntsmen program.

9

• The 2+2 Proposal: During our review, we encountered many participants who were for

and many who were against adopting a proposed 2+2 structure, whereby the first two years would be spent in the Faculty of Arts and the last two years in Management. We are concerned that this difference in views is, in fact, masking the fundamental underlying issues – in particular the need for a stronger vision and a resolution of the control tensions across the two faculties. Adopting such a structure could serve to further separate rather than integrate the input of the two stakeholder groups into the program. It is not clear how this structure would improve (and it may even hinder) the student experience. Prominent business schools, such as the University of Michigan, are moving away from the 2 + 2 model. The deans at Wharton/UPenn and Stern/NYU believe that the four-year (integrated) model works very successfully at their schools.

Student Culture

Student spirit has clearly improved over the last ten years. This increase in student

activity (e.g., the growth in number of student groups) has been accompanied, however, by an

increase in students’ expectations and demands arising from the recent increase in the intensity

of competition in the market for business education. Bonnie’s and Cynthia’s recent involvement

is enormously appreciated by students in the Commerce Program but expectations continue to

rise. We view the rise in students’ expectations as a positive factor, but of course it presents

challenges.

Based on our meetings with student leaders we find that the Commerce Program is

characterized by a culture of student dissatisfaction. Most telling, 12 of the 15 students with

whom we met said that they would not have come to Commerce had they known what was in

store for them. Given the structure of the university and the Commerce Program, students report

feeling very disconnected from Commerce, especially during their first year when they often find

themselves overwhelmed by the scale of the university and the general lack of counseling for

first year students at the University of Toronto. While this is not surprising given that students

do not enter the Commerce Program until the second year, the absence of a strong, cohesive

10

Commerce identity remains for all four years of the degree. Students are confused about their

social identity – are they UT students, members of their colleges, Commerce students, Rotman

students or perhaps accounting majors? Many students hope to adopt a Rotman identity (since

that is the most salient brand name available to them), but then find themselves frustrated that

they are not embraced as full members of that community. The fact that a high proportion of

students are commuters makes this issue of establishing an identity more challenging – but also

more important as an input into a rich undergraduate experience.

The student culture that has emerged in Commerce has several features:

• Self-Reinforcing and Student-Led: In the absence of a strong vision coming from their administrators or faculty, the students have developed a student-led culture where knowledge about what courses to take, which fields are hot, etc., is passed down from student to student. Myths and folklore abound about what the administration thinks, what the program really is, what it should be, and how it compares to Ivey or Queens. It has become self-generative and self-reinforcing as it is created by and passed down by students from year-to-year. Mis-information is not readily corrected.

• Negative, Social Comparison to Ivey and Queens. There appears to be a negative bias to

this culture – whereby the students feel disadvantaged relative to the other two prominent Ontario programs. Some students contribute to this schema by denigrating the school outright. Many seem to cope with this negative identity by seeing themselves as separate from it -- deriving positive utility from this perception of separateness (in contrast, of course, to the preferred outcome of deriving positive utility from seeing themselves as members of the Commerce community).

• Implicit Accounting Focus. Because 40-50% of students pursue accounting training and

the Big Four firms are highly visible on campus, students report believing that Commerce is an “accounting” school. Accounting firm-sponsored recruiting events have become salient, symbolic events in the lives of the students that further reinforce this implicit focus. Upon entering the program many students gravitate towards accounting simply because that field is emphasized, especially in the first year of the program.

• GPA- Driven. The student culture is very GPA-centric. The students believe that their

GPA will directly affect their life path and their chances for success. Many of the students that we met reported that their course selections were driven only by a desire to maximize their GPAs, not by intellectual goals. We heard quotes such as “Learning doesn’t matter. It’s all about the GPA.”

11

• The ESL Factor. It is our understanding that for many of the students, English is a second language -- both within the international and domestically admitted students. There is a sense among the student leaders that this situation hinders the classroom experience and creates divides among the students that impede community building. The language used by the students interviewed also conveyed strong implicit status differences between the non-ESL versus ESL students. Combining our views with those of student leaders, the ESL factor, as one student dubbed the phenomenon, appears to reflect: (a) a lack of commitment by the university and the program to develop students that are articulate and well-rounded; (b) a lack of commitment on the part of many students themselves to overcome language and cultural barriers, to develop leadership and communication skills, to become truly involved in the community, and to contribute to the educational experience of all students; (c) a difference in the socio-economic cross-section of Commerce students at Toronto as compared to students at Western Ontario and Queen’s (which are not commuter schools). We note that it is quite natural for some ESL students to be less confident about their own communication or leadership skills. We note also that the students who chose to express concern about the ESL factor were all visible minority students themselves.

Academic Content and Delivery

Our discussions with students and faculty led us to the conclusion that there is a need to

revamp and upgrade curricular content and delivery across both faculties.

In all courses that Commerce students take, they pay twice the amount in tuition that

other students pay. Although the pricing schedule makes this fact less transparent by charging a

program fee rather than a per course fee, Commerce students’ expectations for classroom

experience naturally reflect that premium price paid.

Economics has just begun to adapt their offerings to meet the specific needs of

Commerce students, and these changes are positive, but not sufficient, and in the

recommendations section, we make suggestions about how the economics courses can be further

customized. Generally, there is a very clear need for changes in the delivery of economics

courses with respect to:

• the size of classes • the general quality of instruction • the need for course content to contain more applied examples

12

On the management side, the class sizes are smaller, at about 50 students/section, which

is closer to (but still greater than) a size that allows intensive involvement by every student in the

classroom. We also did not hear as many comments about teaching quality (although in neither

case did we see concrete data). However, in examining the curricular requirements, we were

struck by four observations:

• an over-emphasis on accounting relative to other areas, such as marketing, operations, organizational behavior, and strategy

• under emphasis on international issues in management, both in terms of coursework and study abroad opportunities for its students

• a lack of options in the areas of ethics, corporate social responsibility, and technology • a lack of education in presentation and business writing skills

Recommendations

Against the background of these concerns, we offer the following recommendations.

RECOMMENDATION #1: Pick a Vision

The University of Toronto needs to identify an educational vision for the Commerce

Program going forward. Members of the Review Team did not agree completely on what the

optimal vision should be, but we all favoured some version of the Commerce Plus Vision. There

were some differences among us on whether the number of required economics courses should

necessarily be reduced (which would allow a broader education but remove the full economics

major component of the degree, except as an option). But all of us favoured consideration of this

option. And we all agreed that if the number of economics courses were to be reduced, the slots

opened up should remain in social sciences, philosophy or mathematics. (The choice by a

student, for example, to take a course in a language in which he or she is already fluent in order

to achieve a high grade would not be a valuable option to allow.) This change would maintain

13

the fundamental strength of the program compared to undergraduate business degrees: a true

university education grounded in the liberal arts. We also agreed on the other component of the

Commerce Plus Vision: that the 1 ½ years of required accounting be reduced to 1 year with the

open slot allocated to the required choice of a marketing, an organizational behaviour or a

strategy course.

More important than the details of our particular suggestion is our recommendation that

the various constituents of the Commerce community sit down and articulate a vision. Is the

program going to remain supported by the pillars of an analytical, liberal arts education and an

education in marketable business skills? Will it change modestly as we have suggested, or will it

change more radically?

The vision may vary depending on the overall ambitions of the program, a full

assessment of the appropriate market to target and recognition of those target market needs, and

a clear understanding of the differential advantages that the University of Toronto Commerce

Program can or does have relative to the competition. The question needs to be answered: is the

goal to be the best in Ontario, the best in Canada, or perhaps even a very strong international

competitor?

RECOMMENDATION #2: Brand the Program

Once a vision is selected, it needs to be branded, communicated to key constituents on an

on-going basis, and exploited. Ideally, that vision should encompass the university’s locational

endowment by more consciously reaching out to the business community, as well as the

government sector if the program is given a more well-rounded orientation regarding the social

and general economic issues that surround business.

14

The branding should, of course, reflect fully-articulated strategic goals for the program.

A starting point, which sounds superficial but which we think is essential, is a glossy brochure.

The Commerce Program needs its own identity. Even if the UG Business Vision is selected,

against our favoured option, the program needs identity within the Rotman school. Presenting

students with a clearly articulated summary of why they should come to the Commerce Program,

what they will experience if they do come, and who they will interact with if they come is

essential. Consider the apparently large number of students who enroll in the program currently

and then are surprised in a negative way by what they encounter. A clear outline of both a vision

and how it is implemented in the program would avoid this. And on the positive side, such a

statement would attract just the students it should. If the vision follows our suggestion, a

brochure would contain quotes from business leaders (ideally Commerce graduates) about the

value of liberal arts and analytical education and the value of the Commerce Program itself. We

have no doubt that business leaders, if asked, would recommend a broad education at the

University of Toronto and that the opportunity to obtain this broad education is the strength of

the Commerce Program in the marketplace of business education.

Establishing a strong identity (even the publication of a brochure itself) runs against the

current culture at the University of Toronto. Identities are assigned to faculties or departments,

not programs. Interdisciplinary programs are comprised of their parts and not marketed

themselves. There is some logic to this, for the Faculty of Arts as a whole. But, tellingly, the

place of the Commerce Program is currently along side a number of other programs, as in the

Faculty of Arts information book. The Commerce Program needs to break away from its identity

as simply one program within the faculty – even as it retains the strength of a liberal arts

education within the faculty.

15

Brands need to be communicated. And the specific information that is to be part of the

articulation of a vision needs to be communicated to prospective buyers of the product – the

students. Commerce needs to hold widely announced orientation sessions to first year students.

These sessions should not just present detailed information the way that we believe they now do

(inferring from the program information currently available). These sessions need to be

promotions for the program itself. We can imagine even that Commerce would search out and

contact the strongest students in departments such as economics, mathematics and even the

sciences towards the end of the first year with information about the program. The same strategy

would work in high schools. An educational program is a particular kind of network product in

that the value to any single buyer of the product depends upon the quality of the other buyers

attracted. This aspect dictates a specific marketing strategy. The Commerce Program has the

potential to improve greatly in quality, and communicating a strong brand to students who would

enhance the experience of all participants in the program is one way to achieve this

improvement. Competing openly and directly for the top students, especially against other

departments in the same university, perhaps runs counter to the Canadian way of doing things

but this should not stand in the way of a rapid increase in the quality of the Commerce Program.

The choice as to which vision makes the most sense for the program will of course affect

the ultimate decision as to how the program should be branded. If the decision is to move to a

preeminent undergraduate business program, then the Rotman name would make sense. If the

vision is something other than that, the Rotman brand may not be appropriate, for the reasons

discussed above.

Even within the Rotman School, however, a re-birth or redefinition of the Commerce

Program represents a strong fundraising naming opportunity. If this opportunity comes to

16

fruition, having a brand name will give the students a stronger sense of identity: a lesson of

experience in the market for business education is that a new name itself signals a commitment

to a stronger position in the market.

RECOMMENDATION #3: Re-Structure the Governance

We strongly encourage the university to consider alternative governance models and

directorship structures for the program, rather than maintaining the status quo. While the current

structure has worked successfully under Rotenberg’s tenure, it is our sense that it should be

modified going forward. Depending on the vision, one choice is that the director be a strong

academic, with high research legitimacy on both sides of the street, and in active communication

with the provost’s office (this is the structure used for Wharton’s successful Fisher Management

and Technology program which is a joint program between the Wharton school and the

Engineering School). An alternative is that the director be a strong administrator, who may or

may not have a PhD and reports to academic directors representing each faculty. (This structure

mirrors that used in Wharton’s successful Huntsmen program, which is a joint program between

the Wharton school and the Collage of Arts & Sciences.) Such a director’s position should

continue to have budget authority of some form if it is to be effective. The position should carry

greater authority for course design that it currently has as well as resources to implement

branding and to attract students.

RECOMMENDATION #4: Implement Cultural Change

Once the vision is agreed upon, then all communications related to the program need to

reflect this message. The materials currently provided by the program, both the brochures and

17

websites, are tactically driven and do little to develop the identity of the program. It would be

useful to identify 3-5 attributes that the new culture should reflect, and work to craft messages

that communicate those. For example the messaging could reflect a certain pride associated with

the Commerce approach to business education. It should be clear to students how the identity of

their program meets their needs better than competitors’. The message should also emphasize a

broad interdisciplinary approach and should not focus explicitly on accounting. The international

and socio-economic diversity of the program should be positioned as an advantage, a strategy

that would mesh well with our recommendation of a greater international component, discussed

below.

In addition to the development of better marketing pieces and website development, a

student “touch” strategy could also be implemented as part of the cultural change. For example,

a vision statement could be posted in the hallways. Student advisory groups could be created

whose task is to help the administration design activities and programs to communicate that

vision to the students and integrate it into on-going programming. The administration can hand

out t-shirts, key chains, backpacks, etc., at the beginning of the year or for special events that

reinforce key cultural messages of location, diversity, intellectual breadth and school spirit.

We were very surprised to learn that there are essentially no advisors helping students

chart their coursework in Commerce. This is in keeping with the philosophy of education in the

University of Toronto as a whole, where the student struggling to chart a path among hundreds

of academic options, is provided with relatively little in the way of guidance resources. The

program should consider appointing a team of academic advisers who can better counsel students

on course selection, course sequencing and assurance that the students follow the appropriate

requirements for obtaining a degree. In addition, if more structure were put into place in the

18

program, i.e., different business requirements, or the possibility of alternative “streams” then

advisors could help students successfully navigate these different paths. This navigation process,

too, could be used to reinforce key cultural messages about the importance of intellectual rigor

and intellectual breadth as students make course choices.

RECOMMENDATION # 5: Consider Restructuring the Program to Reduce the Implicit

Accounting Focus

We have already suggested that accounting should be de-emphasized within the student

culture and in terms of the required core course load for all students. Here, we take this theme

one step further to suggest that the Commerce Program could move even more aggressively to

separate out the accounting major from the broader program.

We heard that roughly 50% of students major in accounting. This presents a challenge.

The University’s philosophy behind the program is not to be an accounting program per se.

Currently, the predominance of the major among the students necessarily colours the educational

experience for all students.

This challenge could be addressed in several ways. One approach would be to create a

one-year professional masters program that offers the courses that students need to pass the

exam. This solution would mean that students would not need to major in accounting at the

undergraduate level and thereby reduce the focus on accounting within the current system. This

approach would present students with additional costs, but in our view this disadvantage would

be more than offset by the benefits of protecting the breadth of the undergraduate program. A

second approach, involving less dramatic changes to the program, would be to create a separate

stream for accounting majors. Even here, however, we would not favour a curriculum design

19

geared to the CA exam. Even narrower business degrees in other universities, such as Queen’s,

design their curriculum with some non-credit courses preparing students for the CA exam.

RECOMMENDATON # 6: Teach Communication Skills

The value of communication skills cannot be overstated. The student who can write his

or her first report clearly and who can then present the results with confidence, clarity and

enthusiasm is at an enormous advantage. And the exercise of communication itself sharpens the

student’s thinking and analytical skills. Large Canadian universities, in the view of some of the

members of the External Review Committee, have failed to provide students with this essential

component of education as resource constraints have tightened and class sizes increased. The

deregulation of tuition in Commerce presents an opportunity to reverse this trend for the students

who are fortunate enough to be accepted to the program. This is an opportunity to meet an

essential need. Even setting aside the inherent value of this education, we believe that any

potential employer would value communication skills above another course on a specific

management area. Our specific recommendation in this regard is either a not-for-credit course

on Business Communication (with a minimum of reliance on PowerPoint) or the integration of

writing into the new marketing, organizational behaviour or strategy requirement. We

understand that there are currently general writing requirements, but there is merit as well to

requiring proficiency in business communication – in part because, we understand, the general

writing requirements are often not effective.

The diversity of English language skills among the students in the Commerce Program

presents a challenge but also a source of particular value to such a course or investment in

resources. A student whose first language is not English would gain enormously from this

20

program, in both their general education and in their marketability. Students who are shy or not

confident in their presentation skills should not be allowed to hide behind the veil of a group

presentation project. The commitment to communicating clearly and confidently should be an

essential and prominent part of the education in the Commerce Program.

RECOMMENDATION #7: Seek Greater Integration Across Courses, and Greater

Customization of Economics Courses for Commerce Students

Students everywhere have difficulty in recognizing the interconnections among the

courses they are taking. This is simply a challenge in university education that professors under-

appreciate. Having advisors as suggested would help this process. In addition, some of these

connections could be made through materials on the website. It would also be very beneficial for

the director, in his or her strengthened role, to make public statements about their vision for the

program and the implementation in the courses. Rotman has adopted integration as a theme in

its MBA courses and the connections across course materials must be made easier for

undergraduate students as well – even if it is as simple as the adoption of capital budgeting

techniques in a marketing course or the development of the foundations of these techniques in a

microeconomics course. Greater integration would also mean working more explicitly to

incorporate pedagogy on international, ethical, technological, and social responsibility issues in

business into the undergraduate curriculum.

We have some specific suggestions for the teaching of economics in the Commerce

Program:

• It is our recommendation and expectation that the revenue generated by the higher commerce tuition for the economics department be directed towards even further reduction of class sizes (beyond the first year economics course, which works well at its size given the current instructors). The class sizes should be reduced in intermediate

21

micro and continue to be reduced in intermediate macro. The higher tuition paid by commerce students justifies a differential size in commerce sections.

• We heard some discussion that the quality of teaching in economics is much lower than

in management courses. This needs to be checked – not just by comparison of average ratings but by comparison of average ratings by commerce students. We recognize, at the same time, that student evaluations are not ideal measures. If the complaints that we have heard are substantiated, then efforts should be undertaken by the economics department, with guidance from the star teachers at Rotman, to improve the quality.

• Econ 100 and intermediate macroeconomics have commerce sections, with the

instructors choosing to emphasize business applications in these sections. Intermediate micro should adopt at least a modest change in emphasis in new commerce sections to include more game theory, contract theory, and organizational theory in place of some of the pure economic topics (such as income and substitution effects, to take a concrete example). This change should not be so large as to preclude the course being a prerequisite for further economics courses. Economics already offers advanced electives in competitive strategy and personnel economics, and this is a strength of the program that should be communicated to students early on and generally. The relatively minor change in the intermediate microeconomics course content would potentially bring the economics curriculum quite close to the content needed for commerce students.

RECOMMENDATION # 8: Increase Students’ International Travel Opportunities

Understanding the international marketplace is key to business education in the 21st

century. Correspondingly, Commerce students need more opportunities to take part in

international exchanges. Greater visibility of the exchange programs can be achieved through

increased information sessions, emails, and so on. The Commerce Program should work towards

enhancing the opportunities for exchange.

There appears, however, to be an underlying structural problem due to students’ needs to

meet year-long course requirements that are precluding many of them from taking advantage of a

semester-abroad type program. These problems have been circumvented in other universities

that offer semester-abroad programs and can be remedied in the Commerce Program as well.

22

RECOMMENDATION #9: Emphasize Community Building Among Students and Young

Alumni.

Continue to develop strong relationships between young alumni and current students.

Formal programs such as externships, or shadowing an executive should be developed. The

students clubs are a very important mechanism for building culture, leadership skills and loyalty

towards the University; these should be supported both financially and through staff assistance. It

is important to broaden the career services assistance. It appears now to be heavily focused on

accounting careers and this focus has the effect of creating a “herd mentality” among students.

Alumni speakers from accounting and non-accounting backgrounds should be invited.

RECOMMENDATION #10: Collect Data to Track Key Performance Metrics

The contrast between the information about undergraduate students at the fingertips of

the Wharton and Stern members of the committee and that available to the Commerce Program

(or any other Canadian program) is striking. The Wharton Dean knows the yield ratios for

applicants; the win-loss numbers for key competitors in the application process; detailed

placement data on first jobs; data on career paths over the first five years after graduation; data

on course selections and course ratings; and even cross-tabulations of these data. Imagine the

value of this information to a prospective applicant to the Commerce Program, to a student in the

program selecting among different course offerings, and to the administrators of the program in

designing enhancements to the curriculum. Data on all of these dimensions are essential. In

many of these dimensions the data are not available to the Commerce program. The Commerce

Program must enter the Information Age.

23

Information could even be enhanced with surveys of alumni and employers as to what

would improve the program. The suppliers of any other products are constantly seeking

feedback to improve their products. Universities should as well.

RECOMMENDATION # 11: Implement the Other Recommendations

Modest as this report is, we do not want to see it among the first documents to gather dust

on the new shelves of the Commerce Director’s office. The unrealized potential of the

Commerce Program at the University of Toronto is enormous. A structure must be set into place

to develop in more detail the themes that we have outlined. These are ideas that we have

gathered from the outstanding and committed participants in this review, not ideas original to us.

The energy of these participants and other members of the Commerce Program community –

students, faculty, alumni, potential employers and the University of Toronto administration –

must be channeled to design and implement a new vision for the program.