Identifying "Globe"

I would say this is the single most important takeaway I have had at this place. :)

"Putting globe" refers to making global statements i.e. putting together a stream of jargons which do not make any sense.

In MBA courses, there are usually CP components. CP refers to class participation and usually the weightage is 10% though sometimes it is as high as 40% in select courses. I strongly believe that 10% is the ideal weightage since at that %age, the incentive to put CPs is less and hence only genuine CPs are made in class. Moderating CPs in class is a very important skill the prof must have. The following simple formula holds true:

High CP component + Bad prof/Non moderating prof = Class discussions suck!

The more the weightage given to CP, the more Arbit CPs are made. If the prof is good or shrewed he can cut the crap. There are some profs who rip a student apart if an arbit CP is made. :p

Now coming to the point, most students here would have come to the point where they can differentiate between an Arbit CP (tangential to the topic being discussed), Globe CP (jargons put together) and a Good analytical CP. This is an extremely important skill according to me. Many senior people get away by making global statements with no information content. Initially I used to think I am the one who is unable to understand what these people are speaking. But now I feel there are many who speak without knowing what they are actually speaking. Unfortunately doing an MBA also contributes to the ability to put globe and many a times this ability develops more than the ability to identify globe and hence eventually the end result is disastrous. :)

However, these days the moment a student puts a Globe CP, the whole class starts murmering "Globbbeeeeeeee" and its fun. :)

There are also many authors who put major globe in their writings and it does sound good while reading and its even more difficult to identify them in writings.

Sidenote:
Among the many authors I have read, someone who actually has been able to write sense in his articles in an area which can be considered "globest" is Michael Porter. His writings on "Strategy" are very good to read. I was really surprised to figure out what "Strategy" actually was through one of his most famous HBS articles, "What is strategy". This article was way focussed when compared to many other crap we read as strategy. I am not sure whether any background reading is needed before reading the article.