Nothing's wrong with the curriculum on a nominal level. It's all well and good. The problem is that you can much more fully appreciate the material when you've

Nothing's wrong with the curriculum on a nominal level. It's all well and good. The problem is that you can much more fully appreciate the material when you've had an empirical base from which to view it. As we know, 99% of the best-laid plans in the business world come down, in the end, to politics. That's something you could imagine, but probably wouldn't really grok, until you'd been out in the wild and brushed up against the subject. Another example: the people. I learned a lot from my classmates at my MBA program, but that's probably because a lot of them had different professional backgrounds. If we were all the same -- no backgrounds yet, other than our majors in undergrad and perhaps some college internships -- then I'd question what these people would actually have to teach me, or me them. I'd love to see the graduate business program be a lot more selective on the basis of actual leadership experience or actual business results. Select for the people who've kicked some ass in the real world. Then make the program super peer-focused, and make the whole thing basically the Hogwarts of business badassery. A bunch of super-accomplished people getting together and, for lack of a better word, hacking business. The theories and frameworks are great, but to your point, I think a lot of that stuff is undergrad material. Or maybe core/primer/refrsher material in the graduate program.