Attracting undergraduates to an entrepreneurship program.

ABSTRACT

This paper examines the positioning of typical undergraduate entrepreneurship programs currently offered by American business schools and suggests a comprehensive approach to strengthen the values associated with these programs. A model is presented which focuses on developing an enterprise culture within the school, supplemented by an innovative curriculum and an effective training program. The model emphasizes the view that the need to integrate practical business experiences with teaching serves to elevate an entrepreneurship program along side the traditional business school career majors.

INTRODUCTION

The state of the economy is the linchpin that often drives undergraduate business school offerings. The cyclical nature of our economic environment often creates new business start-up opportunities that affect the thinking of the entire business community. In the 1996-98 timeframe, investors risked early stage financing, and entrepreneurs tossed their hat in the ring to start new businesses. This atmosphere encouraged business schools to develop and enhance entrepreneurial courses and programs with the goal of increasing enrollment of more undergraduate students who could choose entrepreneurship as an alternative to the traditional courses of instruction. In these economically prosperous times, students are offered the choice of a high success probability, whether entering traditional employment sectors or starting their own venture.

Indeed, the growth of entrepreneurial education has been phenomenal. The surging interest of many business schools in entrepreneurial education has been to the delight of the pro-entrepreneurship public, government, and the media. In 1970, only sixteen universities nationwide offered entrepreneurship courses, but by 1989 that number had risen to nearly 300 (Katz, 1985). Today, more than 1,500 colleges and universities offer some form of entrepreneurship and small business training (Charney & Libecap, 2000), with Business Week reporting than more than one-third of the top business schools have created entrepreneurial programs since 1973 (Reynolds, 1999). Katz also reported on a significant increase, in recent years, in institutional and infrastructural support for entrepreneurship education in the form of endowed chairs and/or professorships in entrepreneurship and free enterprise, a substantial increase in the number of professional associations serving the discipline, an increase in funding for research in entrepreneurship, elaborate ties with local industry, and an increase in the number of journals in the field.

Entering the 21st century, however, we are faced with a weakened economy that limits career opportunities, and offers a diminished success probability. While global campus entrepreneurship organizations such as SIFE (Students in Free Enterprise) continue to be one of the few bright spots in uncovering career opportunities, offering career fairs at the national and regional level as well as an on-line recruitment database, there appears to be a significant shortfall in the success of individual campus recruiters. In our current economy, where dot.coms are failing and venture money has dried up, the economic doldrums we are currently experiencing has caused downsizing and widespread layoffs and has created a very narrow job market. This has led to a drop in traditional on-campus recruiting, and this increased job uncertainty has made the traditional route into the marketplace less attractive for many students.

To undergraduates majoring in the traditional disciplines, this poses a real dilemma. How can they enhance their chances of securing a career job opportunity upon graduation if there are only a few intern positions and very little on-campus recruiting? Should they examine the self-employment route, and, if so, should they take entrepreneurial and/or small business management courses to prepare for this endeavor?

BARRIERS TO AN EFFECTIVE UNDERGRADUATE ENTREPRENEURIAL PROGRAM

The effectiveness of Undergraduate Entrepreneurial Programs (UEPs) is challenged by the inability of today's education institutions to structure a program that will attract and hold student interest and academic pursuit of entrepreneurship courses. The current situation is caused by a combination of administrative shortfalls, student apathy, and a lack of financial incentives. These indicators can be illustrated by outlining four major reasons why schools are failing to capitalize on developing and growing a predictable undergraduate enrollment in UEPs:

1. The first area of contention is the lack of a comprehensive support infrastructure for UEPs.

Most undergraduate business schools have established robust career programs for their traditional majors such as accounting, finance, and pre-law. These programs include links to graduate degrees, formal internships, on-campus interviewing and recruiting, exchange programs, and alumni mentoring and assistance. Even specialized business majors such as retailing, insurance, and real estate often have similar incentives.

Contrast this with entrepreneurship and small business management courses that lack all the formal career preparation steps that the traditional majors offer. While in college, few future entrepreneurs decide that they will pursue entrepreneurship as their major life goal. Since career aspirations likely involve forming a new venture, there is obviously no established organization to offer recruiting support activities, nor do we expect venture capitalists to approach college students with money to invest. The absence of career initiatives in UEPs, in contrast to the career programs that traditional majors offer, still is not enough to impede the increasing numbers of students looking at the prospects of self-employment and the associated interest in enrolling in entrepreneurial courses. Schools must capitalize on this student interest by improving their UEPs to allow their entrepreneurship undergraduates to supplement their academic preparation with meaningful and practical UEP support components.

2. The second area of contention argues that entrepreneurial courses are conveniently nested into a traditional management degree-track program

The second area of contention argues that entrepreneurial courses are conveniently nested into a traditional management degree-track program despite literature that argues that entrepreneurship and management should be treated as very distinct disciplines (Garavan & O'Cinneide, 1994; Gartner, 1988). Despite the economic slowdown, the primary focus of collegiate business education continues to be on traditional majors for our undergraduate students (Zeithaml & Rice, 1987). The majority of American universities do not offer a stand-alone entrepreneurship program resulting in an associated baccalaureate degree. Plaschka & Welsch (1990) attributed the corporate focus to the fact that business schools follow a 'product' approach rather than a 'customer' approach to education. All too often, schools like to pump out whatever they have rather than what is needed. From the recipient's viewpoint, there does not seem to be any documented research on attitudes and feelings of business students toward entrepreneurial courses. Yet Hatten and Ruhland (1995) suggested that identifying and nurturing potential entrepreneurs throughout the educational process could produce more successful entrepreneurs.

The driving forces behind integration of entrepreneurship courses into a traditional management curriculum stems from the convenience of administrating such a program. There is a readily available supply of academically qualified management faculty who can teach entrepreneurship and small business management by incorporating traditional management, marketing, finance, and operations components into the course curriculum. However, when it comes to recruiting experienced entrepreneurs and business world operatives with academic qualifications, the supply dwindles.

It can be argued that it is also more convenient to utilize well-established department organizations such as management that have years of experience in handling tenure-track and other faculty development issues, as well as curriculum, budgets, and facilities planning. Educational publishers offer a vast array of educational resources to support their traditional textbook and course support material. It is also difficult to measure the results of a UEP in terms of employment and career success. School career placement offices can readily track graduating students placed into traditional disciplines (i.e., accounting and management), but how do they track an entrepreneurial career?

3. The implications of the lack of a separate undergraduate entrepreneurship degree program, or at least its offering as an "area of emphasis" within another business related degree program (i.e., general management) or as a minor is another formidable barrier to enhancing UEPs.

The implications of the lack of a separate undergraduate entrepreneurship degree program, or at least its offering as an "area of emphasis" within another business related degree program (i.e., general management) or as a minor is another formidable barrier to enhancing UEPs.

If students do not believe that the inclusion of entrepreneurial courses on their resume will enhance their career opportunities, they will not enroll in such courses and business schools will continue to focus their efforts on traditional majors such as management, no matter what the employment prospects are. On the other hand, if students of the creative arts can take portfolios of their creations with them (Vesper, 1987), why shouldn't entrepreneurship students take with them portfolios of their business creation efforts, including business plans, and case histories with financial statements of ventures undertaken during their academic studies?

There are pros and cons to either offering a UEP as a degree program or as an "area of emphasis" or a minor. Students may experience difficulty in securing traditional employment especially if the UEP is their degree program and they encounter difficulty in developing an entrepreneurial venture upon graduation. The "area of emphasis" or the minor concentration approach, while preparing the student for an entrepreneurial career, may make it easier for them to secure alternative temporary or permanent employment with more traditional employers. The decision tradeoffs may focus on the adequacy of the infrastructural support for the UEP.

4. A fourth area of concern is the potential failure on the part of the university to recognize the financial upside associated with offering an attractive UEP.

A fourth area of concern is the potential failure on the part of the university to recognize the financial upside associated with offering an attractive UEP Of 76 school responses from a survey of entrepreneurial education conducted by Zeithaml & Rice (1987), almost fifty percent reported that their entrepreneurship courses have been responsible for generating additional funds for the college or faculty. Of these, 23 mentioned Small Business Institute (SBI) contracts or Small Business Development Center (SBDC) programs sponsored by the U.S. Small Business Administration. However, these SBA-originated grants will only flow to an institution participating in SBI or SBDC activity.

The majority of traditional school endowments today originate from successful executives and alumni. An aggressive school business development office will target these individuals and their organizations by devising programs such as endowed chairs, school sponsorship events, and scholarship and achievement awards. However, there are many potential contributors who founded their own organizations and are very much interested in encouraging entrepreneurial initiatives by graduating collegiates. Failure to attract successful entrepreneurs with a tailored entrepreneurial program may cost the institution millions of dollars of lost financial opportunity.

Schools who have pursued these individuals have secured substantial funds for establishment of entrepreneurial institutes, work-study programs, course and seminar development, and business plan competitions. The Rennert Entrepreneurship Institute at Yeshiva University, the Lloyd Greif Center for Entrepreneurial Studies at USC, the Baugh Center for Entrepreneurship at Baylor University, the Rothman Institute of Entrepreneurial Studies at Farleigh Dickinson University, and the Institute for Entrepreneurial Education at LSU are examples of such initiatives. However, the majority of schools offering entrepreneurship courses have not specifically secured private endowments to enhance the attractiveness of their UEP.

This paper suggests a model for a successful UEP program in which the execution of key model components can significantly contribute to enhancing the UEP. The paper discusses what will likely happen to the barriers for a successful UEP if this proposed UEP agenda is pursued and how can negative resistors be counteracted.

AN UNDERGRADUATE ENTREPRENEURIAL PROGRAM MODEL

Although research on entrepreneurship is widespread and seems to be on the rise, very little empirical research has been directed toward evaluating the content, pedagogy, and effectiveness of entrepreneurial teaching programs (Block and Stump, 1992; Borycki, 1989; Ghosh & Block, 1993; McMullan & Long, 1987; Sexton & Bowman-Upton, 1988; Vesper, 1985). Moreover, there is little uniformity among the courses offered (Henderson & Robertson, 2000).

Business schools have a responsibility to instill in their students the feeling that they must be more responsible for their own destiny. For many students this means starting their own company. Translating this need into the entrepreneurial classroom means that educators must emphasize learning by doing, experience-based learning, the making of judgments under pressure, and the use of practitioners.

The model shown in figure 1 is based upon a paper written by Garavan & O'Cinneide (1994). They argue that the three basic criteria shown in the model represent the key initiatives of a successful entrepreneurial program at the undergraduate business school level. How do you identify and measure a successful UEP, using these criteria? The author contends that the outcomes shown in the model will provide critical measurement criteria for a successful UEP. The following is a discussion of each of these components shown in the model and its relevance to an effective entrepreneurial undergraduate program.

[FIGURE 1 OMITTED]

ENTREPRENEURIAL CURRICULUM

An important criterion for ranking effective entrepreneurship programs as reported by Vesper & Gartner (1997) was courses offered. McMullan & Long (1987), Vesper & McMullan (1988) and Plaschka & Welsch (1990), in discussing curriculum, emphasized that curricula of entrepreneurship programs have to be differentiated from traditional management education programs. The issues concerned with venture development by itself should form the basis for this distinction. McMullan & Long (1987) argue that entrepreneurship education should include skill-building courses such as negotiation, leadership and creative thinking, and exposure to technological innovation and new product development.

The entrepreneurship ranking survey conducted by Vesper & Gartner (1997) discovered that the most frequently offered undergraduate entrepreneurship courses were Entrepreneurship or Starting New Firms, Small Business Management, Field Projects/Venture Consulting, Starting and Running a Firm, Venture Plan Writing, and Venture Finance. Table 1, a representative survey of 78 AACSB (The Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business) institutions, closely parallels this finding. Results indicate the majority of schools surveyed offer the more traditional entrepreneurial courses. Specialized entrepreneurship courses offered by the institutions surveyed include Feasibility Analysis, High Technology Entrepreneurship, Skills and Behavior of the Entrepreneur, Franchising, Licensing and Distributorship, Negotiation, and International Entrepreneurship.

To help students develop goals and objectives they wish to focus on in their entrepreneurial courses, some institutions administer tests that attempt to predict the student's entrepreneurial aptitude versus managerial talents. The tests can be very useful for both the instructor and the student if it is administered at the beginning of a basic entrepreneurship course.

Wonderlic (Wonderlic Personnel Test, Inc., 1509 N. Milwaukee Avenue, Libertyville, IL 60048) publishes an Entrepreneurial Quotient test that assesses entrepreneurial traits and provides both detail and summary information, comparing the test taker to several thousand successful entrepreneurs and corporate executives. Test results not only indicate overall entrepreneurial aptitude but highlight managerial and personality skills. The results allow the students to evaluate their own strengths and weaknesses. It also dovetails nicely into a discussion on desirable entrepreneurial personal criteria.

Critics may feel that these tests do not truly represent a student's ability to become an entrepreneur. Scoring high in managerial aptitude and low in entrepreneurial traits may be an indicator that is critical to the student's future acquisition of an existing business or franchise, but not so for a new business start-up. While this is certainly a consideration, it can be argued that strong managerial talents creates a foundation for becoming an effective intrapreneur in a corporation and subsequently combining this strength with years of experience in which to pursue all types of entrepreneurial opportunities.

Critical to the entrepreneurial learning process should be classroom practice in the preparation and use of effective business plans. Whether this component is incorporated into one of the core entrepreneurial courses or offered as a separate course in business plan development, educators can prepare students for early entrepreneurial efforts by challenging them to conceptualize a business opportunity.

This effort may address a new start-up or acquisition of an existing business or franchise. The March 27, 2002 edition of The Wall Street Journal reports that many schools now feel that "entrepreneurial" does not only equate with "start-up," but should also mean finding new business opportunities and expansion of existing companies. According to the article, officials at the Tuck School of Business at Dartmouth College stated that there has been a noticeable shift in business plan topics from projects for an online retail start-up for tall people, to devising a new-product launch for ice-cream maker Ben & Jerry's Homemade, Burlington, Vt.

It is essential in evaluating a class business plan project not to judge the plan's effectiveness by the product or service suggested but rather the form and organization of the plan itself. The undergraduate's idea may not be feasible for practical implementation but the mechanics of presenting an effective and comprehensive plan will provide a solid basis for future plan development "when it counts."

The University of Washington offers a unique program that results in the student earning a PEI Certificate (Program in Entrepreneurship and Innovation) in addition to a degree. The PEI curriculum fulfills students' BA core requirements with a minimum 12-credit concentration in accounting, marketing, and the like, in addition to their entrepreneurship option. The 12-credit core requirement for the entrepreneurial option includes basic entrepreneurship, business planning, creating a company, and marketing issues for new ventures. Electives include such courses as principles of selling, software entrepreneurship, new venture planning, and Internet marketing.

This approach addresses the issue of the lack of a separate baccalaureate degree in entrepreneurship by providing the student with proof of academic accomplishment that could be utilized to overcome some of the concerns that stakeholders may have in the student's probability of succeeding in a future entrepreneurial endeavor.

The final selection of courses included in the entrepreneurial curriculum should, according to Sexton et al (1997), be based on content-orientation, not process-orientation; offer specific knowledge, not general information; and focus on learning from those who have experienced the situation, e.g., other entrepreneurs. Their study identified the 10 most desired topics of fast-growth entrepreneurs as (1) using cash flow to make operational/financial decisions; (2) financing growth; (3) increasing the value of the business; (4) compensation for self and associates; (5) hiring, training, and motivating for growth; (6) succeeding in a rapidly changing world; (7) successful selling via helping the customer buy; (8) sales force management; (9) management succession; and (10) problems and pitfalls of growth.

McMullan & Boberg (1991) argue that students perceived the case method as more effective min developing sills of analysis and synthesis. Incorporating real-world cases into entrepreneurship courses offers the undergraduate the challenge of researching and analyzing ventures that succeed and fail. Uncovering the underlying reasons for firm success or failure along with student observations and recommendations provides a sound basis for developing venture decision-making. There is a wide availability of existing cases in entrepreneurship textbooks and literature, as well as specific sources such as the Harvard Business School and Babson College. The instructor can assign a case to a group with a case leader, or make individual assignments. These cases usually have three to five questions about the case that the student must answer.

Critics may argue that many entrepreneurial cases are written for the graduate student level, but it has been the author's experience in teaching entrepreneurship undergraduate courses for the past five years that undergraduates are motivated by the case approach and, for the most part, present an effective analysis of case components. What they are lacking is inexperience in developing business alternatives, but this can provide a good foundation for a meaningful classroom learning experience. Recruiting either business school board of trustee members or alumni to act as case mediators may enhance the use of case studies as an effective teaching tool.

Incorporating a business plan class exercise can be another effective teaching tool. The class can be divided into four groups; typically marketing, management, operations, and finance. The chosen business plan can either be a previously submitted student plan (with prior permission) or an outside plan. The instructor can either distribute fact sheets or key questions to each group. The groups would then present to the class the issues, questions, and recommendations for the plan in their assigned specialty as if they were potential venture investors. This kind of classroom training builds an awareness of evaluative factors scrutinized by venture stakeholders and helps train the students to consider these factors when developing their own venture plan.

There is often reluctance on the part of institutional administrations to invite outsiders into the classroom environment, preferring to utilize them in a formalized lecture series or seminar. This reluctance could stem from a fear of requested speaker stipends, or a fear of course curricula inconsistency.

Inviting entrepreneurs as guest speakers often has a very positive effect on the entrepreneurship undergraduate. These invitees provide practical hands-on experience to our budding entrepreneurs, discussing their successes and failures. Entrepreneurs who come to class to speak tend to be fascinating characters because the nature of start-ups lets them retain and display their individuality (Vesper, 1987).

Students will relate well to speakers who are not too far removed from the student age range; preferably between the ages of 25 to 40. A speaker in this age range can narrate career progression that students can relate to. The speaker should be asked to address his/her actual experience in developing a business concept, writing a business plan, applying for funding, and staffing and launching the venture. It is important that the speaker discuss his/her management team and how the team's balance and capabilities aided in securing funds and handling the start-up.

Securing a venture capitalist, corporate or angel investor as a guest speaker will also enhance the learning experience by exposing the students to the other side of venture creation--finding a willing investor. This category of speaker should be asked to discuss how he/she evaluates business plans, management team credentials, business concepts, and funding criteria.

It is also quite possible for the instructor to secure a guest speaker from either the Small Business Administration (SBA), or the Service Corps of Retired Executives (SCORE), which are government organizations. Additionally, Small Business Development Centers (SBDCs), typically located at a college or university, provide speakers who can outline the assistance available to budding entrepreneurs. The author has used all three sources: SBA to present funding assistance programs; SCORE to discuss proposed business plans in the classroom and outline how their office can provide free advice in starting a business; and SBDC to offer their services in developing attractive business plans.

The speaker program can also include an individual who has either had hands-on experience in taking a venture public or providing the financial advice needed for the venture to plan an IPO or significant expansion. Typically, such an individual would be an investment banker or a senior financial officer.

One of the recommended entrepreneurial core courses suggest by Benson (1992-93) is an entrepreneurial lecture series. This course should bring leading industry executives and successful entrepreneurs to the lecture hall to discuss their backgrounds, career ups and downs, and business advice, in the form of either a formal presentation or an extensive question and answer session. The author has sponsored such a lecture series for the past five years. The series has featured distinguished speakers including the CEOs of the New York Stock Exchange, Bloomberg News, Viacom, JetBlue Airways, Paramount Pictures, Bed, Bath and Beyond, Toys R Us, Loews Corporation, Bear Stearns, and many other organizations. Additionally, the founders of many start-ups such as AOL/MovieFone, SBC Communications, Blackboard, Vaultus, and Acorda Therapeutics have been guest speakers. Recruiting sources for these speakers include the school's business development office, board of trustees, alumni, faculty, and cold prospecting. Often, the visits of these noted entrepreneurs have resulted in philanthropic benefits to the business school.

Critics may argue that solicitation efforts required to obtain this caliber of speakers is time consuming, fraught with rejection, and costly. However, it is the author's experience that successful entrepreneurs and industry leaders are flattered by an invitation to speak to a group of business undergraduates and rarely ask the institution for any compensation. Additionally, if the entrepreneurial lecture series is given every other semester, there is a four to six month planning window to develop a target list, solicit candidates, and confirm the logistics. Expenses are minimal when email, invite letters, and follow up phone calls are utilized.

ALIGNMENT WITH BUSINESS SCHOOL CURRICULUM

Evidence attributing the alignment of a successful undergraduate entrepreneurship program to the business school's curriculum can be manifested by an increase in student enrollment. This suggests an increase in the entrepreneurship interest level and also in the exposure to real world business experiences. The author has evidence of significant student demand increases in basic entrepreneurship courses as well as specialized courses such as franchising and an entrepreneurial lecture series.

Student satisfaction can be measured by faculty evaluations, development of entrepreneurial clubs, and enrollment in multiple entrepreneurship courses. If the student's performance matches his/her expectations, then confirmation of this expectation is achieved (Cadotte et al 1987). Additional measurement considerations should be pursued through the school's Office of Placement Services. These include the gathering of statistics as to the number of start-ups by graduates, the number of students employed in "new" firms, and the number of students working in positions assisting new firms (Benson, 1992-93).

Attracting qualified faculty with strong academic and entrepreneurial work experience skills is another measure of a successful UEP. There is a severe shortage of entrepreneurship faculty with impressive academic credentials strong enough to get through the tenure processes at top-ranked schools (Low, 2001). One initiative to over come this shortage is for the institution to recruit its own doctoral graduates initially as adjuncts and ultimately as full-time tenure-track professor. The elimination of refusal on the part of many universities to hire their own doctoral business graduates as instructors can create a pool of qualified faculty for the school's UEP.

Teaching executives have a major role to play in higher business education. Because of their typically long and distinguished careers in the world of business, they can complement the academic perspective with actual business experiences. This, in turn, would result in a curriculum that is more responsive to employer needs, and will provide more graduates who need minimal training (Praetzel, 1995). Additionally, by recruiting faculty with a dual academic/business background, students can benefit from classroom exposure to the many business contacts these instructors have.

Faculty productivity can be enhanced by the school's willingness to pay for the development of new entrepreneurship courses. Entrepreneurial specialty courses such as Franchising, and Business Plan Development broaden basic entrepreneurship course offerings. Expertise in specialized fields such as travel and entertainment, Internet marketing, and food and beverage markets attract more qualified faculty, expand the student's options in the entrepreneurial learning process, and exposure the institution to more community recognition.

The integration of an entrepreneurship academic program with the overall business school curriculum is a worthwhile goal of the UEP process. Creating an "area of emphasis" or an entrepreneurship minor may not only result in meeting student needs and expectations but also meeting overall program requirements. This integration would allow a student to pursue a UEP, but still have the flexibility of entering traditional business fields with a generally accepted business degree. The undergraduate business school's strategic mission should be to create an environment conducive to the successful preparation of students for entry into the business world. Aligning the UEP with the business school curriculum incorporates the dimension of business ownership as a career alternative.

From a financial viewpoint, the school enhances its fund raising opportunities by attracting contributions from successful owners as well as managers. The guest speaker component of the UEP creates another portal for successful entrepreneurs and venture capitalists to enter into relationships with the institution that could result in financial initiatives. These initiatives suggest an increase in institutional financial funding.

ENTREPRENEURIAL TRAINING

Venture development activity can either be accomplished through an on-campus entrepreneurial club, the classroom environment, or through individual student initiatives. Babson College, who many believe has the number one ranked undergraduate and graduate entrepreneurship program (Vesper & Gartner, 1997), offers a class $3,000 with which to start a business. During the first semester, students decide on a concept and write a formal business plan. They launch and develop the company during the second semester. Businesses have ranged from dorm-room food service companies to campus CD clubs. This process helps inoculate young entrepreneurs against real-world failure.

Each year, undergraduate students, as part of their course requirements, prepare thousands of business and feasibility plans. Yet, the author's experience is that only a very minute portion of these plans is actually pursued as a real-world opportunity. Several of the ideas proposed in these academic exercises have some potential for success if mentor assistance is forthcoming, and some seed capital made available. Business schools should consider supporting this type of activity.

One approach to incorporating venture development into the UEP is to assign various student teams to develop businesses that address specific market needs. The student teams must actually develop either a business plan and/or the actual business itself.

Another possible approach to teaching venture development is to hold an entrepreneurial fair in the school where competing student teams can present their business ventures and be rewarded monetarily.

One of the most innovative initiatives that an entrepreneurial program can offer its undergraduate students is a business plan competition (Gartner & Vesper, 1994). By incorporating the development of a business plan as part of various entrepreneurial course requirements, professors will have received a number of these documents over the course of the semester. An evaluation committee consisting of some combination of faculty, board, alumni, and outside experts can be utilized to select the two or three best business plans for cash awards. The program offered at Yeshiva University involves the evaluation of business plans over each two semesters and cash awards totaling $10,000 for the three best plans.

Many business plan competitions go beyond the local campus, offering both regional and national awards. The University of Maryland's and the University of Michigan's Campus Entrepreneurship Opportunities (CEO) program typify CEO college and university campuses that provide opportunities for students and alumni to compete for up to $50,000 in prize money. This business plan competition allows each new student venture to compete for funds that enable them to start businesses with the promise to boost the economic growth of the region. These monetary awards all form the basis of seed financing for potential new ventures. Global Student Entrepreneur Awards (GSEA), administered by Saint Louis University's Entrepreneurship Center, awards over $80,000 to undergraduate college students each year. Thunderbird just started an international business plan competition.

The school can take advantage of this activity to promote their entrepreneurship program by informing the business community of the competition, issuing news releases for local and regional media, and publicizing the event in alumni and school newsletters and magazines. There are also groups such as SIFE that are sponsored by major corporations, who promote the development of free enterprise educational projects that include finding the funding for team efforts, using the mass media and presenting team accomplishments at a SIFE regional competition.

STUDENT SKILLS ATTAINMENT

The experience gained by participating in school business plan competitions and venture development projects should be documented to allow the undergraduate to prepare and organize an original work portfolio that can be utilized in the pursuit of an entrepreneurial career. Inclusion in this portfolio should be case presentations and solutions, feasibility and business plan projects, work-study projects, and student written analyses of entrepreneurial reading articles. These documents can provide the basis for a graduating student's demonstration of the skills and knowledge required to contribute to the success of an entrepreneurial venture (Vesper, 1987). Coupled with a well-written resume, and enhanced by related work experience, the portfolio can be used to successfully convince venture stakeholders to participate in the venture.

Student involvement in a comprehensive UEP will expose them to a number of entrepreneurs and investors, either serving on the business school's board or through faculty contact. These individuals are usually receptive to offering counseling and advise to the budding entrepreneur. Review and assessment of student business plans, together with career advice can contribute to a student's decision to pursue an entrepreneurial career.

Obtaining qualified mentors through the UEP may provide the assistance needed for the launch of a venture by recent undergraduates who are lacking experience and funding. While most business executives and qualified faculty will not consider joining the Board of Directors for a start-up or developing business, agreement to serve on the venture's Board of Advisors in an non-paid, advisory capacity, is an avenue worth pursuing. Through their experience and industry contacts, these mentors can help uncover sources of funding, potential customers, and assistance in venture development. Participation in an advisory board capacity is non-threatening to the experienced professional because there is no legal or financial liability, nor is the time involved in this activity overbearing.

Business school sponsored internships have been traditionally limited to a few majors such as accounting and finance. Firms in these industries provide the school with a limited number of internship opportunities in these disciplines and school placement offices gear their efforts to help fill them. Little attention has been paid to internships with start-up firms and small but growing firms. Internship programs offer numerous benefits to students, employees, and the schools that serve as intermediaries (Englander et al, 2000). The student gains a better knowledge of the tasks performed by professionals and an opportunity to develop skills relevant to a particular career choice (Coco, 2000). By incorporating venture development projects, business plan competition, guest speakers, and board and industry member participation into the UEP, the opportunities for internship may be broadened through more exposure to successful entrepreneurs. Start-up firms are notoriously short of funding for development and can provide an excellent source for internships. The student gains experience in a start-up environment and the entrepreneur acquires the needed human resources to grow his/her firm.

ENTERPRISING CULTURE

Many U.S. business schools have not devoted adequate resources to develop and maintain a successful UEP. As previously discussed, the current situation is a product of financial, resource allocation, and the lack of administrative focus. From a financial viewpoint, they must compete with other institutions for student enrollment. Funds generated by tuitions and fees are typically used to cover institutional spending. Although fund raising is actively pursued, not enough concentration is placed on obtaining entrepreneurial endowments. Resources are allocated to traditional majors that result in graduate career placements that can easily be measured. Administrators recruit experienced academicians for business teaching positions and while these faculty members may have strong research skills and experience, they may have little or no practical business experience. What will likely happen in these spheres if the paper's proposed UEP agenda is pursued and how can negative resistors be counteracted?

A critical component of an effective entrepreneurship program must be solid institutional commitment and support. This commitment should be manifested through the business school deans, university administrators, advisory board members, and student representatives. Block & MacMillan (1993) suggest that a university program is unlikely to flourish without the active support of top administrators, as well as the efforts of business school deans and the school's voting faculty. A high-quality entrepreneurship program must allow incorporation of "entrepreneurship" into the mission statement of the university as a whole (Vesper & Gartner, 1997). How is entrepreneurship described in school bulletins and catalogues? Are new courses given adequate publicity? Does student recruiting efforts include an emphasis on the entrepreneurial program? Is there adequate and qualified staffing and sufficient budget to teach entrepreneurship?

The institution must introduce its entrepreneurship program at the recruiting phase by preparing and distributing well-designed written and visual program material to prospective students and their families, the business community, alumni, and other interested parties.

The forms taken for these promotional efforts can be attractive brochures, and promotional videos. Course catalogues must contain adequate course write-ups that provide the student with sufficient information. By incorporating these activities at the recruiting level, the school is signifying its overall commitment to the entrepreneurship program as well as validating its credentials to offer a comprehensive curriculum.

Institutional fund raising efforts should consider soliciting a significant donation to establish an Entrepreneurial Institute. With proper funding, the Institute can provide self-sustained funding for qualified faculty, entrepreneurial lecture series, and a host of promotional initiatives that are designed to increase student enrollment as well as attract additional outside financial support, especially from alumni. Graduates strongly identify with a school's history, culture, and mission and such feelings of fondness give rise to the desire to be recognized by the institution and hence the motive for donating (Harrison et al, 1995). The provision of new funding sources can overcome resistance to change and boost the institution's commitment to its UEP. Additionally, the Institute can provide needed resources to administer the UEP without materially impacting the school's current resource allocation.

College administrations must also be convinced that a supported UEP has an adequate payoff for students and the business community as well. Well-qualified faculty should anchor a comprehensive entrepreneurship program. Professors should bring a mixture of practical and academic experience to the classroom, and this background must include their ability to address today's technology and emerging market opportunities. Schools with strong entrepreneurship programs like the University of Michigan, Baylor University, University of California-Berkeley and others are all led by faculty with previous hands-on experience as entrepreneurs and/or successful business leadership. By recruiting qualified faculty, not only is the business school bringing needed practioner experience into the classroom, but also providing a greatly expanded source for outside contacts and potential school relationships with successful entrepreneurs and business leaders. Balancing a solid full-time faculty with qualified adjuncts, especially to teach venture development in specialized fields, can enhance the school's credentials as a leading business educational institution.

Further proof of payoff for students and the business community can be provided by the school's Entrepreneurial Institute or by campus career placement offices that can track graduates in their pursuit of entrepreneurial careers. By accumulating statistics on graduates involved in business ventures, the school can provide a meaningful alternative to traditional career-track majors, and thus enhance their attractiveness to future undergraduates.

There are a number of campus entrepreneurial organizations that effectively provide undergraduates the opportunity to develop leadership, teamwork and communication skills. SIFE is a global, non-profit organization that has representation on more than 1400 university campuses in 33 countries. SIFE provides leadership training, regional competitions and career opportunity fairs for thousands of college students, offering awards of more than $400,000 in prize money to college student teams each year. They are located at 1959 East Kerr Street, Springfield, Missouri 65803-4775 (1-800-677-SIFE).

CEO is another campus initiative, with collegiate chapters on some 500 campuses. CEO brings students together from diverse majors to learn how to start their own businesses. They are located at 601 South Morgan Street, Suite 705, Chicago, Illinois 60607-7108 (312-996-2670).

The establishment of an entrepreneurial club on a local business school campus serves to strengthen the positioning of entrepreneurship as a major program because it creates a unity of purpose among the students. Students who enroll in entrepreneurship courses typically do so without the campus camaraderie so often associated with marketing, management and finance clubs and group activities. Their entrepreneurial learning process is typically restricted to the classroom unless they work as part of a class group on a term project such as preparation of a business plan.

An entrepreneurial club affords the student the opportunity to share the learning experience with others outside of the classroom environment. The club, by exposing members to practical business experience, can achieve a continuing commitment to entrepreneurial development beyond the curriculum agenda. Local business communities have many people who are interested in starting their own business but lack the necessary preparation skills. Assisting aspiring local entrepreneurs in the preparation of their business plans and venture presentations can effectively supplement a student's learning experience as well as create a positive image in the community for the academic institution. Other business community assistance can be in the form of market research, consumer surveys, student consulting projects, and preparation of financial loan requests.

Another initiative that members of the entrepreneurial club can jointly participate in is the development of a business venture that can be operated during the school years. Non-profit ventures can include charity sales of collected goods, assistance programs for the elderly, or tutoring programs. For-profit ventures might include on-campus marketing services, web development for small businesses, or student transportation and travel arrangements.

The most significant barrier faced by student clubs is how to sustain member interest. There are several initiatives that can be used to overcome this negative resistor. The club must have institutional support and accreditation, as well as a faculty mentor to provide guidance and initiatives. Either from school or sponsoring student council funds, or from the institution's Entrepreneurial Institute, funds can be made available to the club for use in seeding a business venture or reimbursing the club for expenses. The faculty mentor should be a key entrepreneurship professor who can effectively advise club members on non-classroom activities.

The school, either through board funding or through the Institute, may be able to fund development of a business incubator for its graduating entrepreneurship alumni. The incubator can provide a greatly subsidized location for start-up office space, professional help, administrative support, conference and customer presentation facilities, and even telemarketing and other marketing services (Allen & Rahman, 1985).

Club member practice in venture presentations can significantly contribute to the budding entrepreneur's ability to convince potential stakeholders to participate in future ventures. A worthwhile exercise is practice in delivering an effective 2-3 minute "elevator pitch." The club advisor can be instrumental in handing out diverse case write-ups where the student club member is asked to deliver a brief and persuasive oral presentation to a group of peers. Effective venture presentations can be the key to seeding and start-up assistance and presentation practice can be invaluable in the entrepreneurial learning process. Other skills that can be acquired through the club include finding financial funding sources, opportunity identification, venture valuation, deal-making, and most importantly, becoming a team player.

The Board of Trustees in a business school is usually composed of prominent business leaders and successful entrepreneurs, but they are rarely approached to solicit their firm's or their own participation in the entrepreneurial program; specifically, internship programs, sponsoring new ventures, and other types of program assistance. Trustees are usually from well-established firms that have already carved out their market niche. Their direct involvement with early stage ventures is rare. Nevertheless, through their business contacts and own needs, they may be in a position to help place a student into a career field where he/she can gain valuable expertise that can be used as the basis for a future entrepreneurial venture.

Schools should develop an ongoing relationship with board members and involve them in the entrepreneurial program. Initial activities may include invitation to classroom sessions, either as speakers, case study discussants, business plan reviewers, or general observers. Relationship development can then progress to intern sponsorship and new venture assistance. If financial help is not feasible, trustees should be encouraged to act as a non-paid board advisor to new student or alumni ventures. Their business contacts, knowledge of market, legal, and financial sources, can be invaluable to the young entrepreneur.

Additionally, the school should consider establishing an Entrepreneur in Residence each year, rotating senior board members or distinguished alumni. This executive would allot time to visit with the faculty and students, addressing such issues as new venture evaluation, giving advice to entrepreneurship students, and negotiating business community involvement and commitments.

Alumni, as well as board members, can be called upon to perform similar functions. Many are already entrenched in the business community and can be called upon to secure successful entrepreneurs and corporate executives as guest speakers. Potential speaker candidates are often flattered to be given an opportunity to address a business class and the probability of them accepting your invitation to speak will be high. If their schedule conflicts with class hours, they should be asked to suggest an alternative, and they invariably will.

Vesper (1987) suggests a unique entrepreneurial classroom approach whereby entrepreneurs participate in classes with students. Alumni would be a strong resource for this endeavor, especially if they would serve as mentors to the students. Students might gain a fuller understanding of the relationships among the subjects they study, while entrepreneurs might benefit from student contributions to their ventures.

Alumni, if asked, can often arrange a plant or corporate tour for the entrepreneur class. Although some undergraduates already may have hands-on work experience as an intern, most students have not worked with a business firm. Observing the dynamics and interactions in the workplace affords the student the opportunity to absorb the realities and issues of managing people, producing goods and services, and dealing with the many problems associated with acquiring customers, growing the firm, and sustaining competitive advantage. Many times, these tours provide necessary contacts for future internship positions.

Part of the visit would include meeting with a key executive who can brief the students on the nature of the firm's business activities, their market, and perhaps their strategies to succeed. Students should be asked to prepare a few key questions that will help them understand the issues faced by the firm. Typical questions might include asking about the firm's expansion plans, if any, and the manner in which this expansion will be financed. Other areas to explore are how the firm attracts and holds key employees, make or buy decisions, protecting intellectual property, and the role of the firm's shareholders (i.e., board members) in decision-making. If possible, making other key employees available to the students may enhance the visit. The visit or tour may be more amenable than visiting the classroom because the guest speaker or entrepreneur may not have the personal time away from the workplace.

INSTITUTIONAL LEADERSHIP

Business school commitment to a successful UEP, combined with active board and alumni participation and initiatives such as entrepreneurial clubs and business plan competition can result in creating and sustaining an enterprising culture within the institution. Program components that include an enhanced entrepreneurship curriculum, an inflow of funds specifically for the UEP, and the establishment of creative initiatives such as club or class venture development, and an Entrepreneurial Institute, all suggest a potential increase in student enrollment and satisfaction with the UEP. Improvement in school placement services can materially assist the graduate in obtaining the necessary training and experience necessary to start a venture. Providing critical guidance in locating investors and other interested venture stakeholders can come out of board and alumni assistance. Recruitment and retention of qualified entrepreneurship faculty suggests an improvement in the quality of the UEP as well as creation of the proper balance between the academic and the business learning processes.

In today's economy, undergraduates are finding it more and more difficult to secure attractive first job opportunities. Campus interviewing is down as is internship positions and overall entry positions. By providing a meaningful entrepreneurship minor or "area of emphasis," the school is not only preparing the student for potential success in future ventures, but also providing an "intrapreneurial" perspective to traditional career fields that can place the graduate in a leading position in many interview processes by convincing recruiters that he/she can provide immediate return on investment if hired.

The impact on the community must also be considered. A UEP that brings the entrepreneurial student in contact with community business leaders and aspiring small business owners may serve to greatly enhance the institution's standing in that community. This may result in attracting very qualified administrative support staff and possibly lead to joint school-community business ventures. Impact on the business community is not limited to nearby school communities. The dissemination of the results of key UEP components to the business world helps the school to gain exposure as well as attract funds and business and career opportunities for its students.

IMPLICATIONS

The paper generates a number of implications for continued research and practice. A number of questions are worthy of such research: Should entrepreneurship programs in the business school differ between men and women? Should students participate in start-ups during their academic years, either on their own, or in collaboration with others? Should entrepreneurship be offered as a degree program at the undergraduate level or should it be offered as an area of emphasis or minor within another business-related B.S. or B.A. degree program? Should recruiting efforts for business school board trustees include a commitment for hands-on involvement in the school's entrepreneurship program?

These questions have a direct bearing on higher education's commitment to a successful undergraduate entrepreneurship program. To provide a framework of empirical data to answer these questions, business schools must consider the value of systematically collecting information on incoming students enrolling in entrepreneurship courses, and tracking them beyond graduation to career accomplishments in both traditional and self-employment opportunities. It would be interesting to discover how many women graduates start their own ventures rather than enter family-owned businesses, or enter the traditional job markets. If the data uncovers a healthy trend toward family businesses, the curriculum and the gender of guest speakers can be tailored to support this trend.

Increased interest in new venture launch classes can spawn institutional emphasis on more hands-on board involvement in the form of tutoring and financial assistance, and also encourage school incubator development. Additionally, it may be preferable to offer sufficient school infrastructural support for an Entrepreneurial Area of Emphasis to substantially ensure that virtually any student who wishes to entrepreneur, either simultaneous with his/her studies or immediately after graduation, can do so (Benson, 1992-93).

CONCLUSIONS

The attractiveness of an effective entrepreneurship program to undergraduates can significantly contribute to the recruiting efforts of business schools by offering students the necessary preparation for self-employment. Lacking the career placement development tools offered by traditional business disciplines, entrepreneurial programs must stimulate entrepreneurial behavior on the student's part by deeply involving the educational institution in supporting the environment, curriculum, and hands on exposure to the entrepreneurship program. This paper suggests a model undergraduate entrepreneurship program that, if successful, can offer significant assistance in enhancing the school's reputation as a learning institute as well as providing the necessary training and exposure to help graduates enter the entrepreneurial field.

There is a growing body of entrepreneurship literature and systematic theories that are necessary for recognition of entrepreneurship as an established discipline (Ivancevich, 1991; Ronstadt, 1987; McMullan & Long, 1987; and Plaschka & Welsch, 1990). Entrepreneurship programs in colleges and universities are evolving into a more formalized educational process, and there is little doubt that the field of entrepreneurship will take its place along-side other legitimate business school curriculum. The most productive entrepreneurial situation would be when all three major activities in this paper's model--enterprising culture, entrepreneurial curriculum, and entrepreneurial training--can work together in parallel and enrich each other. It is probable that an enterprising culture and a robust curriculum will influence attitudes in a positive way toward starting ventures. Training entrepreneurs can give valuable contributions to courses in the form of real life experiences in venture development and student business plan evaluation conducted by entrepreneurs and faculty.

REFERENCES

Allen, D.N. & S. Rahman (1985). Small business incubators: A positive environment for entrepreneurship. Journal of Small Business Management. July, 23,12-22.

Benson, G.L. (1992-93). Thoughts of an entrepreneurship chairholder model entrepreneurship curriculum. Journal of Applied Business Research, 9(1), 140-149.

Beresford, L. (1996, October). Young guns: A new generation of college students makes entrepreneurship its business. Entrepreneur, 24(10), 158-162.

Block, Z. & S.A. Stump (1992). Entrepreneurship education research, experience and challenge. In Sexton, D.L. & J. Kasarda (Eds.). The state of the art in entrepreneurship, 17-43, Boston, MA: PWS-Kent.

Block, Z. & I.C. MacMillan (1993). Corporate venturing: Creating new businesses with the firm. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

Borycki, C. (1989). Entrepreneurship education research, current trends and methods. Presented at 4th annual meeting of the United States Association for Small Business and Entrepreneurship, Cleveland, OH.

Cadotte, E.R., B.W. Robert & L.J. Roger (1987). Expectation of norms in models of consumer satisfaction. Journal of Marketing Research, August, 24, 305-14.

Charney, A. & G.D. Libecap (2000). Impact of entrepreneurship education. Insights, Kansas City, MO: Kauffman Research Series.

Chamard, J. (1989). Public education: Its effect on entrepreneurial characteristics. Journal of Small Business and Entrepreneurship, 6(2), 23-30.

Coco, M. (2000). Internships: A try before your buy arrangement. SAM Advanced Management Journal, 65(2), 41+.

Englander, V., R.L. Moy, T. McQuillen, & F. Englander (2000). Internships at St. John's University, College of Business Administration. Spring, 21(11), 28+.

Ettore, B. (1994). Business school, heal thyself. Management Review, February, 83(20), 5.

Garavan, T. & B. O'Cinneide (1994). Entrepreneurship education and training programmes: A review and evaluation, parts I and II. Journal of European Industrial Training, 18(8), 3-11.

Gartner, W.B. & K.H. Vesper (1994). Executive forum: Experiments in entrepreneurship education: Successes and failure. Journal of Business Venturing, 9(3), 179-187.

Gorman, G. & D. Hanlon (1997). Some research perspectives on entrepreneurship education, and education for small business management: A ten-year literature review. International Small Business Journal, April-June, 15, 56-77.

Harrison, W.B., S.K. Mitchell & S.P. Peterson (1995). Alumni donations and colleges' development expenditures: Does spending matter? The American Journal of Economics and Sociology, October, 54(4), 397-402.

Hatten, T.S. & S.K. Ruhland (1995). Student attitude toward entrepreneurship as affected by participation in an SBI program. Journal of Education for Business, March, 70(4), 224.

Henderson, R. & M. Robertson (2000). Who wants to be an entrepreneur? Young adult attitudes to entrepreneurship as a career. Career Development International, Bradford, 5(6), 279-286.

Hisrich, R.D. & M.P. Peters, (1995). Entrepreneurship: Starting, developing and managing a new enterprise. Chicago, IL: Irwin.

Ivancevich, J.M. (1991). A traditional faculty member's perspective on entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Venturing. 6(1),1-7.

Katz, J.A. (1991). The institution and infrastructure of entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice. Spring, 85.

Low, M.B. (2001). The adolescence of entrepreneurship research: Specification of purpose. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice. Summer, 25(14), 17-25.

McMullan, C.A. & A.L. Boberg (1991). The relative effectiveness of projects in teaching entrepreneurship. Journal of Small Business Enterprise. 9(1), 14-24.

McMullan, W.E. & W. Long (1987). Entrepreneurship education in the nineties. Journal of Business Venturing, 2, 261-274.

Plaschka, G.R., & H.P. Welsch (1990). Emerging structures in entrepreneurship education: curricular designs and strategies. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Spring, 55-70.

Praetzel, G.D. (1995). The business economist at work: Contributions to higher education. Business Economics. 30(1), 54-57.

Reynolds, R. (1999). Teaching entrepreneurship in educational institutions. International Advances in Economic Research, May, 5(12), 273.

Ricklefs, R. & G. Udayan (1989). Traumas of a New Entrepreneur. Wall Street Journal, May 10, B1.

Ronstadt, R. (1987). The educated entrepreneurs. A new era of entrepreneurial education is beginning. American Journal of Small Business, 11(4), 37-53.

Sexton, D.L., N.B. Upton, L.E. Wacholtz & P.P. McDougall (1997). Learning needs of growth-oriented entrepreneurs. Journal of Business Venturing, 12(1), January, 1-8.

Sexton, D.L. & N. Bowman-Upton (1988). Validation of an innovative teaching approach for entrepreneurship courses. American Journal of Small Business, Winter, 20.

Solomon, G. & L. Fernald (1991). Trends in small business management and entrepreneurship education in the United States. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Spring, 15(3), 25-38.

Sudikoff, J.P. (1994, March). Street Smarts. Inc., 23.

Vesper, K.H. & W.B.Gartner (1997). Measuring progress in entrepreneurial education. Journal of Business Venturing, September, 12(5), 403-420.

Vesper, K.H. & W.E. McMullan (1988). Entrepreneurship: Today courses, tomorrow degrees? Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 13(1), 7-12.

Vesper, K.H. (1987). Entrepreneurial academics: How can we tell when the field is getting somewhere? Journal of Small Business Management, April, 25, 1-7.

Vesper, K.H. (1985). New developments in entrepreneurship education. In J.A. Hornaday, E.B. Shils, J.A. Timmons, and K.H. Vesper (Eds), Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research (pp.489-496), Wellesley, MA: Babson College.

Vesper, K.H. (1982). Research on education for entrepreneurship, in C. Kent, D.L. Sexton and K.H. Vesper (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Entrepreneurship (321-349), Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.

Yoo, J.H. & W.B. Harrison (1989). Altruism in the market for giving and receiving: A case of higher education. Economies of Education Review, 8, 367-376.

Zeithaml, C.P. & G.H. Rice, Jr. (1987). Entrepreneurship/small business education in American universities. Journal of Small Business Management, January, 25(1), 44-49.

Zimmerer, T.W. & N.M. Scarborough (1996). Entrepreneurship and new venture formation, Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall.

Lawrence M. Bellman, Yeshiva University

Table 1: Inventory of Undergraduate Entrepreneurial Courses

Academic Course            Major Focus                       Number of
                                                              Insti-
                                                             tutions
                                                             Offering
                                                              Course

Entrepreneurship, Small    Planning new and existing            64
Business Management        businesses

Entrepreneurial Finance    Funding, accounting controls,        19
                           organization & exit strategies

New Venture Creation/      Business plan development            17
Venture Initiation

Entrepreneurial Field      Work with entrepreneurs &            15
Studies (Internships)      local businesses

Managing Growth            Management issues in growth          11
Businesses

Managing the Family        Dynamics and issues                  11
Business

The Business Plan          Creating comprehensive                9
                           business plans

Strategic and Entrepre-    Case-oriented, examine                7
neurial Management         Frameworks and models

Starting & Managing a      Starting business, concepts,          7
Business                   business plan projects

Marketing for Entrepre-    Conventional to "guerilla"            6
neurs marketing; cases

Source: College and university catalogs and home web pages