The appropriate MBA curriculum has been debated for nearly a half century. More recently, critics contend that the emphasis on functional fields in MBA education has incorrectly elevated the importance of shareholder value resulting in unethical behavior. Although some criticism of MBA programs has merit, shareholder wealth maximization should remain the dominant management objective because it is relatively easy to implement and generally consistent with the interests of stakeholders.

In this article we assert that much of the public good associated with teaching and research in higher education is gradually being displaced. This privatization of higher education is reflected in increased licensing of research and in the fragmentation of the traditional general education core. Taxpayer de-funding and institutional substitution are economic consequences of public good displacement.

Justification for public funding of academic research is based on the linear model of technological advance first proposed by Francis Bacon. The model hypothesizes that government subsidized science generates new technology which creates new wealth. Mainstream economics supports Bacons model by arguing that academic research is a public good. The Bayh–Dole Act allows universities to privatize federally funded research and development (R&D) which is in direct conflict with the public good argument. Diminishing returns to university R&D, challenges to Bacons linear (...) model and the labor exploitation of young scientists by research universities suggest that policy makers may want to reconsider the system for allocating federal R&D to universities and colleges. (shrink)