-----Original Message-----
From: sgunz <[log in to unmask]>


>I have been asked to summarise the arguments against business law as a
>fundamental part of the business curriculum by one of the members of
>alsbtalk. I guess he, like the rest of us, can't understand why anyone
>would suggest that it is not essential. I must say I have difficulty
>doing this because I suspect no one has ever really given it a lot of
>thought -- the arguments are all based on the fact that it never was
>considered to be fundamental

      I do think that it has been considered fundamental.....

        Accreditation with the ACBSP means having a business
        law course as a core course and while the
        AACSB does not list it as a core course per se,
        graduates must cover  "the influence of political, social,
        legal and regulatory, environmental and technological issues"
        so coverage in accredited business schools is not
        elective although the topics in an AACSB school could be
        covered in other courses rather than a free standing course.

        I think that making sure that accrediting agencies continue
        to require legal studies is the key to our survival.
        Programs may want to downgrade or eliminate business
        law but they can't very well do that if they need the courses
        to maintain accreditation.

            cheers
              marshall


(where it was not) and so never should be.
>Indeed, I don't think I have ever heard any clearly presented arguments
>for the case of removing law. It is far more likely that where law is
>delegated to adjuncts only or becomes an elective, it is because there
>is no one arguing for it and schools would rather fill positions an time
>slots with something else whose defenders are noisier. In other words,
>business law gets eased out by default rather than for sound pedagogical
>reasons.
>
>It is precisely because there are no clearly presented positions here
>that it makes defending law a bit of a moving target and a highly
>political one at that. I have found that when you ask someone "why
>accounting and why not law", they are absolutely stunned. It is such an
>off the wall observation to them that they simply cannot address it and
>therefore don't.
>
>If anyone can provide some better explanation than I can, please join
>it. It is essential to know the case against here, and I confess I just
>can't seem to identify it beyond above.
>
>Sally
>