How I Would Redesign College Finance Education

Is the goal of a college education in finance and accounting to help young graduates land a first job? Or is it to help them be as successful as possible in the early years of these careers?

It's a question I've thought about for the past two decades since I attended undergrad and graduate school.

What Makes a Top School a Top School

When I was in college, one of the Assistant Deans of the business school came to speak to one of my classes. He was beaming with pride at the reputation of the school, consistently ranking among the top 25 public schools in the nation.

As I often have a habit of doing, I raised my hand and posed a challenge.

I asked him why we were taking so many non-essential classes that had little to nothing to do with finance and accounting. He confidently pushed back, completely unrattled by my question. First, he noted that not every student in business knows the specialization they want to focus on. He also shared with us that the high marks had far more to do with job placement, starting salaries, and alumni ratings than it had to do with what we were learning. Finally, he said that the goal of the business school was largely to get students a well-rounded education and well-paying jobs.

Period.

I still wasn't convinced by the policy, despite his multi-decade expertise in education and administration. It made me think back to rankings in high school. At least where I grew up, government funding and rankings had mostly to do with state-administered test scores and AP exam attempts. It didn't have a direct tie-in to what we were learning per se.

But as I've gotten older, and have been in a finance and accounting career for multiple decades, I've arrived at a different understanding of higher education than I had when I was in the midst of the experience:

1) What can't be measured, can't be funded

If you can't measure a student's or graduate's success in some way, how can you determine whether education is succeeding? And if you can't determine whether education is succeeding, how do you know whether it needs to be reimagined, redesigned, or refinanced?

You have to measure somehow. And you have to measure in a way that's objective, clear, and meaningful to the stakeholders.

When I was a student, I assumed that students were the most important stakeholders. That was partially true. But there were also parents of students, donors, corporate sponsors, business partners, and so many others. I failed to realize that, and I also missed the point that...

2) Higher education is a business

Of course, a primary goal of education is to educate. But in many ways, universities are businesses, and purveying education is just one of the intended byproducts of operations.

If the business can't operate and make money, despite its not-for-profit status, it doesn't survive. And so it must serve the interests of all stakeholders, not just altruistic students like I was.

But I wonder: is higher education designed in a way that positions students for longer-term success, not just that first job, thus making them more likely to be advocates for the university later in their lives? Can this be done knowing that higher education is a business that needs financial resources to live?

That's what I'll try to answer here.

Clearly, I'm very biased.

Before I address this loaded question, I have to first acknowledge that I have survivorship bias. In other words, I've achieved milestones and successes in my career that I never would've predicted decades ago as a student in school. And because of where I stand today, I can look backward with favorable rose-tinted lenses, bias, and judgment about what was right and what wasn't. Perhaps that's unfair, yet I'm still going to offer my suggestions.

Further, my professors and advisors likely would have never predicted I'd be where I am in my career based upon my degree programs. I speculate that the Assistant Dean would say to me:

"See! We gave you a well-rounded education to help you position for that first consulting job out of school. And the rest is history."

But I'm going to pretend for a moment that experiences, both personally and through my interaction with other finance professionals, lends insight into recrafting the experiment that is financial skills development in higher education.

If I could redesign college finance education, what would it look like?

I have a 4-year undergraduate degree with a dual major of finance and economics, a 1-year graduate degree in managerial accounting, and an array of post-graduate professional certifications/credentials in public accounting, fraud examination, insolvency and restructuring, valuation, and financial modeling.

Despite the richness of these learning experiences, I believe some of it's flawed. I love learning and teaching, mentoring and challenging others to think differently. But I always wonder about the best methods for doing so.

If I could redesign my education, a 4-year undergrad degree plus a 1-year masters degree — this is what it would look like. I would slice it into 3 short parts.

• A 3-year undergraduate degree
• A 1-year master's degree
• Separated by years of work.

College Part 1 = 2 years only

Instead of pursuing an undergraduate degree with 4 consecutive years of education, I would cut it down to 2 years. These 2 years would focus on the following:

1) Core foundations like writing, math, economics, and humanities.

2) Intro-level business courses in accounting, finance, and professionalism.

3) Intermediate accounting and finance, business law, and communications.

That's it. Limited, if any, focus on generic business classes or electives.

Controversial? Maybe.

First Working Years

Begin work as a financial analyst, accounting associate, or management consultant. Get hands-on skills through the workplace and workshops from experts like you. These first working years might last for 2-5 years. For many young finance professionals, at the end of these 2-5 years, they may consider enrolling in an MBA.

But remember, their undergraduate program was only 2 years, and they had only taken intro and intermediate business classes. This means they can specialize during their reentry in school and use savings from 2-5 years of work versus taking out even more student loans. They don't need an MBA, despite many universities positioning MBAs as big money-makers.

College Part 2 = 1 year only

Instead of paying tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of dollars for an MBA, college part 2 means reentry to school and enrollment in more advanced classes versus pursuing an entirely new MBA degree program.

Specialized skills development might include: data management, financial modeling, valuation, and business writing. Since the number of classes would be limited, they could be taken at night, on weekends, or virtually. Or they could enroll full-time on a shorter timeline. This way, students wouldn't be forced to be in full-time school if it is disruptive to work or family life.

Next working years

After the third year of education, work could resume either with the same or a new company. Of course, if a student didn't leave work at all — and enrolled in classes in the evenings, on weekends, or virtually — there would be no formal hiatus from employment.

College Part 3 = 1 year Masters

At this stage, a student will have completed 2 years of undergraduate foundations and 1 year of specialized education. They will have several years of work experience under their belt and ideally minimal, if any, student loans given the earnings from work.

The final element of school would be a 1-year Masters degree on weekends or evenings focused on business cases, critical thinking, networking, and advanced skills development. Think of an Executive MBA that connects students to other finance professionals with years of experience and education behind them, networks to introduce, and expertise to share.

In summary:

• Part 1 focuses on core foundations and positioning for the first job.
• Part 2 focuses on advanced skills development.
• Part 3 focuses on domains similar to an executive MBA but at a fraction of the cost.

Most students would conclude school in their late 20s yet would have years of work experience. They would have foundational and intermediate schooling at the right time in their careers. They would participate in higher-level skills development and networking when it's most relevant and valuable.

And they would have less of a financial burden given the hybridization of school with gainful employment.

Is this structure far-fetched? Or could it work?

We'll never go back to an era where most students decide what they want to do for the rest of their lives when they're 18 years old, and commit to a single career path until retirement at 65. Although the 4-year degree is a great experience for young adults and provides well-rounded life experience, socialization, and academic exploration, I question whether this structure is best in today's rapidly changing world. The idea of a 10-year plan, that my counselors asked me to contemplate, now seems far-fetched for my kids to think about.

We have many young people being crushed under the burden of student debt. And further, so many young professionals switch jobs or even careers early and often into their working lives.

If this is the new reality for millions of people, shouldn't our education system recalibrate for a new reality, too?

Education shouldn’t just be the transfer of knowledge from a professor to students. Learning should be blended with real-world experience and skills development.

That’s how I’d redo higher education. How would you?

Until next time,

Carl