Jay:
My comments (and Frank's talk) were geared towards the introductory course. This is the great melting pot, with students of all abilities. Using the narrow but deep approach properly actually makes it pretty likely that the weaker students will learn the material. As a added benefit, the best students will have a MUCH stronger grasp of the material than they would have under the broad/shallow approach.
Remember that in Frank's talk, he noted that even the best students (Ph.D.s at the presticious national meeting) didn't get it.
That's amazing to me, and is a pretty telling indictment of the current approach.
The argument ignores the large issue regarding the differential ability of students. The best students in your undergraduate class will learn A-M thoroughly. The worst students would not manage to learn even A (if it was taught repeatedly for 16 weeks).
Shouldn't we spend our time teaching the smart students who want to learn rather than slowing down for the dumb students who are too lazy to try?
Friedrich:
I agree with what you said. In fact, it's consistent with the "narrow but deep" approach. You don't have students learning calculus until they've mastered algebra.
Richard:
I think the "narrow but deep" approach actually serves the non-finance majors BETTER than the "broad but shallow" one. If it's structured correctly (and I agree with your list, BTW), I think the the non-finance majors get more out of the material. This is because all a non-finance major needs to know are the subjects you listed - they really don't need (for example) anything on dividend policy or capital structure. But they DO need to understand project evaluation (as an application of Time value).
I respectively disagree. Although you are correct that knowledge is often lost after the class is completed, that is not because of the amount of information but the method, and relevance this information is taught as well as the curriculum. To address your problem, the curriculum must be developed in the same way you would build a house. That does not mean following a text. The foundation concepts first, and then each additional concept must be relevant to the foundation. One of the only curriculum that is developed in that manner ( yes, there are exceptions although most attempt to perform this and fail) is mathematics. It is necessary to understand how much 4 times 4 is no matter what level of math you take.
I think you make a good point. It is frustrating to be teaching say Black Scholes and have students befuddled by the concept of present value.
I think that the intro finance course should just teach TVM, basic risk a return, and financial statements - such as cash flow computations. That way the advanced courses can tackle more meaty subjects. The problem at my school, and many others is that many non-finance students take the intro course, so we have to give a broad range of material. In the end neither group is well served.
I found my undergraduate finance classes incredibly simple and boring. I really didn't learn anything in them until I took graduate ones. I have an economics background so I knew TVM like the back of my hand before I even took a finance class. Cover complicated topics in depth, but a topic that easy doesn't need a lot of time. I hate it when teachers spend a little amount of time on a difficult, yet very interesting topic.
-John
Commenting by HaloScan
