Dr. Dan Ariely wrote a very interesting post yesterday about business education, its value, and how he proposes to increase its value and utility. I especially like the epigraph by Derek Bok.

David Brooks published an interesting column in today's New York Times about the qualities that make a good C.E.O. His conclusions, however, were different than Dr. Ariely's. He wrote, based upon his review of some of the literature, that:

"These sorts of dogged but diffident traits [which make the best C.E.O.'s, according to Brooks- DR] do not correlate well with education levels. C.E.O.'s with law or M.B.A. degrees do not perform better than C.E.O.'s with college degrees. These traits do not correlate with salary or compensation packages. Nor do they correlate with fame and recognition. On the contrary, a study by Ulrike Malmendier and Geoffrey Tate found that C.E.O.'s get less effective as they become more famous and receive more awards".

This is certainly food for thought. It may be, as Dr. Ariely suggests, because business education is outdated and unsuited to the complexities of running a successful enterprise in the twenty first century. It may also be because success in doing so is predicated upon inherent characteristics which ultimately prove more important than external influences such as MBA programs, nature versus nurture, if you will. The answer is likely a composite of these and other reasons. Whatever it is, it seems clear, in light of the unraveling we've all witnessed over the last year, that something needs to change.