Samford University’s Brock School of Business is changing the schedule of its evening MBA program.

The graduate program - taken often by working professionals - is being revamped into two semesters that are nine weeks each with a 10-week summer semester, the school reported Thursday.

The program used to have five, nine-week terms in a year.

Under the new schedule, each course will meet for a two-hour class each week, giving students more time to study and learn the material, school officials said.

“We have retained the flexibility and convenience for working professionals through the option of attending one evening a week,” said Larry Harper, director of Graduate and Executive Education Programs at the Brock School of Business in a news release. “In addition, students can complete the degree in as little as 12 months by attending full-time or 22 months by attending part-time.”

The new curriculum covers all business functions and is designed to offer a more complete general management experience. Students also learn to exercise ethical business practices.

“Managers need comprehensive skills and sound values in order to achieve the disparate goals of their investors, customers, employees and the public at large,” said Beck A. Taylor, dean of the Brock School of Business. “At the Brock School, our charge is to help current and aspiring managers to discover solutions that meet these goals.”

The evening MBA program is the oldest in the state of Alabama and takes applications year round. Students can enter the program in January, June and August.

More : bizjournals.com

Developing countries can jubelnd, impedes investment and competition from registration issues on the agenda of the WTO in Cancun. But it is perhaps too early to celebrate.

In an article in schools, the former Secretary General of Finance of India and WTO negotiators in the Uruguay Round, Mr. SP Shukla, reminds us, as in December 1988, at ministerial level in Montreal had the same divided on the issue of patents.

But, he said, in Montreal, “the Government of India has failed bilateral pressures, particularly from the USA, withdrew its opposition and agreed in April 1989 on the material aspects of property rights intellectual in the negotiations … The seeds of the WTO system, coercive measures, which in 1995 were sown in April 1989, ironically, soon after, and despite the success of manoeuvre at the Montreal meeting. “Mr. Shukla warns that the USA are enormous bilateral pressures on Brazil, China, India and South Africa to cancel its victory of Cancun.

Furthermore, continue to invest part of the WTO system. The study groups formed on these issues during the year in Singapore in 1997. It is only that the study groups are not yet in “negotiations”. This situation will prevail until an explicit resolution of deposit investments of the WTO is adopted.

Developing countries have been able to maintain investments of the WTO in Cancun, only because of the intransigence of developed countries on the issue of agricultural subsidies. They asked for concessions in agriculture in exchange for the inclusion of one or more of the Singapore issues at the WTO. Rich countries, particularly the USA, could not, because this compromise on the presidential elections in the USA in 2004. But it can accept this compromise in the future. This is not an advantage for poorer nations, such as the role of agriculture in the global economy has dropped dramatically. According to the World Development Report, the share of agriculture in the GDP of rich countries is 6 per cent in 1960 to less than 1 per cent in 2001. And for developing countries, it has fallen by 48 per cent to 23 per cent.

Thus, the reluctance of rich countries for agriculture is really with emotion. Economically, they have little to lose and much to gain in agriculture, in exchange for investments. Indeed, the collapse of Cancun, it is easier for the rich an internal consensus to “try” Agriculture in such an exchange.

It is necessary to change our strategy proactively so that we can end the small gains in agriculture and large losses on the Singapore issues. We must ask for cross-border trafficking of individuals instead of seeking concessions in agriculture.

In both rich and poor nations are poor towards poverty reduction. The rich say that the welcome is investment, transfer of capital in poor countries in order to facilitate and increase their wealth and reduce poverty. That can not happen because:

– World capital can no longer travel to poor countries;

– The long-term exposure to repatriate profits May débilitent economies and

– The predatory nature of multinational kill national entrepreneurship and an economy dependent. On the other hand, poor countries feel that agriculture, the opening of their open new markets, leading to higher prices for their agricultural products and improving their conditions of farmers. This should not happen again, because:

– Prices for agricultural products would decline as the growing competition between poor countries;

– There are limited opportunities for investment in agriculture, and therefore low potential to generate high incomes.

– The share of agriculture in the economy is declining.

These links doubtful on improving the prosperity must be abandoned. Eminent economist Mancur Olson showed that the increase in world income would be equally, if not more, by the free movement of natural persons as the free movement of capital. Some difficulties are noteworthy in this regard.

First, it is said that a multilateral agreement on free movement of labour allows free access to undesirable elements as terrorists. This can be processed into a right to deny access to certain people or groups. The USA, for example, can say it does not give free movement of certain groups.