Commentary: B-Schools Need A Structural Reset: Why Career Services Should Sit Above Academic Programs

Every year, thousands of business graduates walk into interviews believing they are ready for the workforce. And every year, recruiters quietly say the same thing: “Your students are smart, but they’re not job-ready in the areas that matter most.” The gap between what business schools teach and what employers need has widened to a point that can no longer be fixed with elective tweaks or curriculum refreshes. The structure itself is the problem.

For decades, business schools have operated on a hierarchy in which academic programs sit at the top and career services operate several rungs below. This structure is rooted in tradition rather than in market reality. If schools want to remain relevant, this hierarchy needs to be reversed. The head of career services should sit above the head of programs, guiding the academic engine with real-time employer intelligence rather than inherited assumptions.

This is not a cosmetic change. It is a necessary redesign that aligns business education with the demands of the world it claims to serve.

CAREER SHOULD LEAD, NOT FOLLOW

In the current structure, program directors set the academic vision and career teams react to it. Yet no department has closer proximity to the job market than career services. They speak with leaders in consulting, finance, tech, retail, sustainability, and emerging industries every day. They hear the hiring objections, the new competencies required, the roles emerging, and the expectations employers now take for granted.

Programs design learning objectives.

Careers hear the market’s verdict.

When career leadership sits lower in the hierarchy, schools silence the people with the clearest understanding of employer expectations.

THE MARKET HAS CHANGED. BUSINESS SCHOOLS HAVE NOT.

Recruiters have evolved. Many schools have not.

Employers now hire based on competencies, not on course titles. They want graduates who show digital intuition, cross-functional adaptability, data storytelling, stakeholder diplomacy, and leadership in ambiguity. They need people who can operate AI-enabled workflows, navigate complex organizational systems, and manage real-world challenges with speed and judgment.

These needs evolve too quickly for the traditional academic cycle, which often resembles book publishing rather than real-time problem-solving. Programs update slowly. Markets shift rapidly. The result is a widening skills gap that affects student outcomes and institutional relevance.

THE SYLLABUS PROBLEM NO ONE WANTS TO ADMIT

How many faculty members have designed a syllabus without asking employers what competencies they expect from graduates?

It happens more frequently than anyone acknowledges. Professors create courses that are intellectually rigorous and theoretically elegant, but those outcomes do not always align with the realities of the job market. This disconnect is rarely intentional. It is the result of separate rhythms: faculty innovate within an academic calendar, while employers adapt at market speed.

Students may graduate inspired, but not always equipped with the competencies employers expect on day one.

A CAREER-LED STRUCTURE CREATES A MARKET-RESPONSIVE SCHOOL

Reversing the internal hierarchy elevates the head of career services into the role of Chief Market Officer: the institution’s primary translator of employer needs into curriculum design.

In such a model:

• Curriculum evolves dynamically based on employer intelligence, not historical habits.
• Programs become co-designers of content rather than guardians of fixed academic frameworks.
• Students develop competencies aligned with real hiring criteria instead of hypothetical assumptions.
• Corporate partnerships deepen because employers see that the school listens and adapts.

The result is a school that operates like the organizations it aims to serve: agile, market-aware, and responsive.

WHO COULD LEAD SUCH A STRUCTURE?

The ideal leader is not a traditional academic and not a pure corporate executive. The right person is a hybrid professional who understands the speed of business and the inner dynamics of higher education. This new Chief Market Officer or Chief Employability Officer must understand talent trends, employer relations, corporate strategy, and curriculum design. They must have the authority to translate market data into academic decisions and the trust of both CEOs and faculty.

But this profile is only one condition for success.

A true transformation requires much more than appointing the right person. This organizational shift must be managed with precision and strategic depth. It is not a gimmick or a symbolic restructuring. It is nothing less than a Copernican reversal of how business schools operate. It requires new collaboration systems, adapted information systems, shared governance mechanisms, and a working rhythm that allows programs to evolve continuously rather than in multi-year cycles. Without these structural foundations, even the best leader would be set up to fail.

WILL FACULTY PUSH BACK?

Possibly. Reversing decades of academic hierarchy challenges long-standing assumptions around autonomy and identity. But the mission of business education has always been to prepare leaders for the real world. When that world changes, programs must evolve accordingly.

Faculty expertise remains essential. Relevance requires alignment. Career intelligence is what ensures that alignment.

THE SHIFT HAS ALREADY BEGUN

Some schools have started to evolve. A few are embedding employer engagement teams into program committees. Others are creating hybrid roles that merge career strategy with curriculum development. A handful have elevated career leadership to the dean’s cabinet.

These are promising signals, but still incremental. The moment calls for something more decisive.

THE FUTURE OF BUSINESS SCHOOL IS MARKET-LED, NOT FACULTY-LED

Imagine an MBA experience where:

• Curriculum updates occur as frequently as product updates in tech
• Career data guides program design
• Corporate partners co-create learning experiences
• Students graduate with competencies validated by employers

This is not a utopian vision. It is the natural evolution of business education.

A CLOSING THOUGHT

If business schools want to remain indispensable, they must demonstrate the same agility they expect from the leaders they train. Elevating career services above academic programs is not about internal politics. It is about reconnecting business education with its purpose.

In a world where the job market determines the value of a degree, the people closest to that market must guide the institution.

It is time to rebuild the house from the top down.

---

Benjamin Stevenin is special adviser to Poets&Quants and former Director of Business School Solutions and Partnerships at Times Higher Education. Sebastien Vivier Lirimont is the founder and CEO of HEADway Advisory, a top French consulting firm for higher education and research institutions. 

© Copyright 2025 Poets & Quants. All rights reserved. This article may not be republished, rewritten or otherwise distributed without written permission. To reprint or license this article or any content from Poets & Quants, please submit your request HERE.