University Entrepreneurship Education in Argentina: A decade of analysis Sergio Postigo, Karel Steuer Chair in Entrepreneurship, Universidad de San Andrés E-mail: [email protected] Fernanda Tamborini, Karel Steuer Chair in Entrepreneurship, Universidad de San Andrés E-mail: [email protected] Vito Dumas 284, (1644) Victoria, Argentina Phone: +54 11 4725-7057 / Fax: +54 11 4725-7010 http://www.udesa.edu.ar/entrepreneurship

ABSTRACT Traditionally, the Argentinean educational system was not characterized to promote nor incentive the necessary skills to develop entrepreneurs. The society was not educated with an entrepreneurial attitude given that education and social aspiration were oriented to work mainly in large corporations. In the last decade, this trend started to reverse showing changes in the university education system. A sign is the increased interest in entrepreneurship within the educational system and the society in general. Also there is a progressive increase of courses, chairs, incubators and other activities oriented to promote the area of entrepreneurship. This phenomenon happens in both public and private universities. Basically, there is an increase in academic supply and in the transformation of the traditional role of the university as the generator of qualified labor that can contribute to environmental changes.

This paper has the objective of being the first formal study to analyze the evolution of the university entrepreneurship education in Argentina during the past decade. Also there are explanations of the reasons and factor that contribute to the development and consolidation of this phenomenon.

INTRODUCTION The relationship between education and business creation has been studied by the international literature from different perspectives and approaches (Clark et.al, 1984; Lafuente and Salas, 1989;

1

Robinson and Sexton, 1994; Upton et al, 1995; Kolvereid and Moen, 1997; Delmar and Davidsson, 2000; Charney and Libecap, 2000; Cowling and Taylor, 2001; Levie et.al, 2001; Lüthje and Franke, 2002). Likewise, many authors mentioned the extraordinary increase in the quantity and quality of entrepreneurship programs in the last 25 years, as well as the foundation of research centers, conferences and publications in this area responding to universities initiatives and the increasing demand for this type of courses (Fayolle, 1998; Kolvereid y Moen, 1997; Vesper and Gartner, 1997). The research in the area of entrepreneurship in Latin American countries is limited. In addition, there is another barrier which is given by low level of systematic information (Kantis et al, 2002). This issue is even more acute in the area of entrepreneurship education. However, it was found a study concerning entrepreneurship education in Latin America in which Varela (1997) points out that there are many different factors that explain its underdevelopment of the region. Among them, he stresses that Latin American culture does not promote the entrepreneurial spirit or the entrepreneurial attitudes. Meanwhile, given the difficult circumstances these countries have to face, he argues that new ways of promoting social and economic development have to be found. He emphasizes the need for significant changes in the education system in Latin America, aiming to produce a transformation in culture and values necessary to stimulate entrepreneurial spirit. But the academic programs of most universities of the region have a tendency to focus the education of their students towards a professional career as employees, and rarely consider the opportunity of developing competencies that will allow alumni to start their own projects. The case of Argentina is not an exception. Argentine society does not promote nor value an entrepreneurial career. The educational system does not generate skills or competencies for entrepreneurs. Graduates lack of entrepreneurial attitude, given that the education they receive, as well as social expectations, are oriented to working and being promoted within large corporations. Nevertheless, throughout the last decade, this trend has begun to change. Several universities, both public and private, started introducing entrepreneurship courses and business plan contests. It is worth mentioning that the course offerings are not homogeneous in terms of the target, the objectives, the depth and the professors’ background. 2

Like in other countries, in Latin America in general and Argentina in particular, it can be seen a strong commitment in the development of entrepreneurial skills of the students and alumni (Ussman and Postigo, 2000; Braidot, 2001; Postigo and Tamborini, 2002). Therefore, studies that demonstrate the evolution of entrepreneurship education and analyze the reasons that contribute for its evolution are relevant to understand the phenomenon and develop action plans to promote its initiatives.

LITERATURE REVIEW Entrepreneurship education started its development almost twenty-five years ago. During the last decade appeared clear signs showing the importance of this young field of research. With reference to the analysis of the evolution of the entrepreneurship education at the university level, it is possible to find the background information in the first análisis made by Vesper (1974) that demonstrate that entrepreneurship education was going to be one of the areas that will develop relevant knowledge in years to come. In fact, the literature developed in the last decade increased in quantity and quality. Several studies describe in details this phenomenon in different countries. After a review and analysis of all these studies it is possible to distinguish at least four lines of research: 

The first one is related to the impact that entrepreneurship education at the university level has over the economy (Clark, Davis and Harnish, 1984; Price and Monroe, 1993; Charney and Libecap, 2002; among others),



the second line of research focuses the analysis over the pedagogic instruments and methodologies used to teach entrepreneurship (Carrol, 1993; Gartnet and Vesper; 1994; Mitchell and Chesteen, 1995; Plaschka and Welsch, 1990; Sexton and Upton-Upton, 1987; Solomon, Weaver and Fernald, 1994; Van Clouse, 1990; Laukannen, 2000; among others),



the third group compiles the research related to the state-of-the-art entrepreneurship education (McMullan and Long, 1987; Gorman, Block and Stumpf, 1992; Hanlon and King, 1997; Vesper and Gartner, 1997; among others), and,

3



finally, the fourth group reports practical experiences at different educational level (McMullan, Long and Wilson, 1985; Zeithaml and Rice 1987; Vesper and McMullan, 1988; Robinson and Hayes, 1991; Fleming, 1996; Williams and Turnbull, 1997; Levie, 1999; Obrecht, 1999; Louksm, Menzies and Gasse, 2000; Mason, 2000; Solomon, Duffy, and Tarabishy, 2002; among others).

Given the characteristics of this research, the topics related to the last group is the one that coincides the most to that of the theoretical framework. There is no background of similar research made in Argentina. It is necessary to describe some definitions and concepts used in this study. The concept of entrepreneurship courses used in this study was defined as a series of classes focus on entrepreneurship, new venture management or starting a new business. That is, they concentrate on new rather than existent business activity. According to focal point of entrepreneurship education, we consider that entrepreneurship education can be divided into two different areas, according to the distinction made by Laukannen (2000): Education about entrepreneurship: Develops, constructs and studies the theories referred to the entrepreneurs, the creation of firms, the contribution to economic development, the entrepreneurial process and the small and middles size firms. It addresses both graduate and undergraduate students, masters, PhDs, policy makers, and researchers. In other words, everyone interested in entrepreneurship as a social phenomenon. Education for entrepreneurship: This area addresses current and potential entrepreneurs. The objective is to develop and stimulate the entrepreneurial process, providing all the necessary tools for the start-up of a new venture both inside and outside existing organizations. According to Mason’s (2000) definition, “it is proposed to develop the core skills and attributes necessary to roll out a new venture and to identify pre-start-up needs”. There is a fundamental difference between the above definitions. The first definition is based on the construction and transfer of knowledge about the field, while the second one focuses on the learning experience and the development of competencies, skills, aptitudes and values (Ussman and Postigo, 2000). Therefore, the teaching methods used in each of these areas are not the same.

4

Finally, to group and analyze the program types and contents of the courses given in the Argentinean university system, it was used the typology of entrepreneurship development programs defined by the Interman (1992).

DATA AND METHODS For this research all of the approximately 70 academic units of the Argentinean university system were analyzed. Only were selected the ones that have courses, programs, centers or academic units focused on teaching entrepreneurship, both at the undergraduate and graduate levels. A detailed questionnaire was developed specifically for this purpose. The instruments of data and information collection were of two kinds: 1) Self-conducted surveys to program directors and 2) indepth interviews with key informants and the founders of each of the university unit. The procedure used to determine the sample started with the detailed inventory of all the educational institutions in the country. Afterwards there were identified those academic units that had an ongoing program or an area of research in entrepreneurship. Finally, a personal contact was established with each program responsible/director. The variables collected included: a) information about the type of activities developed (i.e. courses, seminars, business plan competitions, and so on), b) quantity of courses taught, c) mandatory status and scope of course content, d) academic year they were taught, e) average size classes, f) type of course (entrepreneurship orientation and awareness programs, new enterprise creation programs, small business development, training for trainers and others), g) teaching methods used, h) entrepreneurs participation, i) position within the institutional structure, and j) staff composition. Interviewees were also questioned about the main obstacles to develop entrepreneurship education as well as the factors that promote it.

RESULTS Throughout the study it was confirmed that before 1996 the Argentinean universities did not have academic units dedicated to teach and develop entrepreneurial skills. The result of this study clearly 5

marks 1996 as a key date for Argentina with the inclusion of topics of entrepreneurship in the educational system. In this year, only 4% of the all universities had programs somehow related to entrepreneurship. Nevertheless, at the beginning of 2003 that percentage had increased to 31% which reflected an increase from 3 to 21 universities with initiatives in this area. This growth shows an important change in the trend of the university educational system in Argentina and an increasing interest of the academic community in the phenomenon of business creation. The interesting point is that the beginning of these programs were not promoted by government policies like other cases which include Canada and the United Kingdom. In Argentina a phenomenon was born from a mix of cultural factors (marked by immigration roots and the high levels of population alphabetization), socioeconomic factors (like the increasing number of entrepreneurs and venture capitalists that arrived to the country) and finally, but one of the most important factors, the interest of entrepreneurship academics.

Level of provision of entrepreneurship education In this section is presented the report of the different types and course levels developed by all the universities in Argentina (around 70 considering both public and private). It does not exist postgraduate nor graduate degrees in entrepreneurship, therefore, the range from postgraduate through undergraduate courses (class series, core courses, modules or electives), parts of courses which focus mainly on other subjects, occasional seminars, to nothing at all. 

Only 7% of the postgraduate programs developed by Argentinean universities have one course of entrepreneurship in its program. All of the courses (100%) are focused on the development of a Business Plan.



21% of the universities have distinct courses (i.e. a series of classes such as a module, core course or elective) in entrepreneurship. About 75% of these offered a course whose primary aim was to prepare students for entrepreneurship, as opposed to teaching about entrepreneurs and their role in economic development.

6



16% of the universities have entrepreneurship only within other courses that focused on other subjects.



6% of the universities have only occasional seminars in entrepreneurship for students. However, 29% of the universities reported occasional seminars in entrepreneurship. This tends to be seen as a supplement rather than as a replacement for courses in the subject.



57% of the universities do not have any action plan in the area of entrepreneurship education.



Finally, of all the universities, only 9% have formal lines of research in the area of entrepreneurship.

Other activity related to the educational system are the annual contests that a little more than 35% of the universities organize where almost 1000 participants develop and present business plans.

Geographic distribution of entrepreneurship education The analysis of the geographical distribution of entrepreneurship education reveals that 85% of the available courses are concentrated in the country’s capital and its principal province, Buenos Aires, where resides almost a third of the total population of the country. However, many other cities in countryside are making considerable efforts resulting in important achievements in this subject.

Undergraduate course - Characteristics This is the segment that, compared to the graduate course, shows major growth and consolidation in the area of entrepreneurship education. Almost 21% of the universities offer entrepreneurship courses in the latest years of the career. It is interesting to point out that only one of those universities has reliable experience in developing mandatory Entrepreneurship courses during the first years of the career. Like the experiences of other countries, the main providers of Entrepreneurship courses are the universities with management and economics orientations followed by very few with engineering orientation and only some isolated cases of universities that teach architecture, veterinary medicine and biotechnology. 7

With regard to the quantity of students that attend the courses, the number is very uneven, it goes from 80 students to 10 or less. Therefore, it is possible to establish that the average number of students per course is around 35 for the undergraduate level and 25 for the graduate level. In line with the teaching methodology in business administration and under the influence of Harvard Business School, the education in Entrepreneurship was traditionally focused on the case study (McIntyre and Roche, 1999). This trend continues in Argentina. The main topic in all these courses is the development of a Business Plan (for 95% of the analyzed cases). Subjects related to the general information about Entrepreneurship and its process is taught in 8% of the courses. 50% of the courses provide information related to small and medium companies. Only 10% develop theoretical units around the origin and background of Entrepreneurship. This general overview confirms some of the observations presented previously about the trend to design programs focused in teaching “for entrepreneurship” instead of “about entrepreneurship”. The profile and background of the professors of Entrepreneurship courses are characterized by a high percentage of them with university education (95%), half of them with real life experience in business creation and only 10% with specialized training in the area of Entrepreneurship. The percentage of entrepreneurs, all at senior level, without academic background that participate in courses is 5%. Of all the courses, 20% invite foreign professors to participate in the courses that are given and their average participation is of around two weeks.

Teaching methodology During this research there were seventeen different pedagogic methods used, as follows: reading, lectures, guest speakers, testimonial videos, tutorship in companies, development of business plans, simulaciones, case development, business visits, role play, work with entrepreneurs, thesis, workshops, consulting work, research, entrepreneur associations and analysis of case studies. Of all these it is interesting to point out that the one mostly used (in 93% of the cases) were the lectures, the guest speakers, the work performed together with entrepreneurs and the development of business plans. On the other hand, the least used methods were case development and testimonial videos. 8

It is important to emphasize that only 60% of the interviewees use reading material as a teaching method in their courses and that almost 70% make the students develop a field case study. Finally, only 24% registered visits to companies and 42% use case studies as a teaching tool. As we mentioned above and according to international experience, the presence of the entrepreneur in the classes is very relevant given that one of the main objective is to take “the experience to create a company to the class”. Even though the participation in class is low, it is equally interesting to know the different types of participation that the entrepreneurs have within the courses in the Argentinean universities. Almost 30% of the entrepreneurs participate in the classes telling their experiences to the students orally, 25% participate as part of a programmed activity previously coordinated by the professor, in 22% of the cases the entrepreneurs act as counselors in business projects together with the students and finally, in 23% of the cases they participate in the development of local cases or as potential investment projects.

Information about the academic unit that develop the program Out of all the universities interviewed it was not possible to observe a common denominator related to the institutional independence of these academic units or programs. As it will be seen later, fund raising activities to sustain the academic unit is one of the most pressing goal in all the programs (only one academic unit receives financial support from an entrepreneur in the form of a donation). The team leader is usually a professor with full time dedication to the project. To this it can be added a team of professors (no more than two or three) and a team of assistant instructors (no more than six). The network with the business community, entrepreneurs, alumni and organizations linked to entrepreneurship is stronger in the academic units that demonstrate more academic production, advanced pedagogic models or start up businesses that are successfully implemented by students. In this group only are four universities out of the total sample.

9

Main obstacles and factors that determine the future development of entrepreneurship education in Argentinean universities Throughout this study, it is possible to observe an explosive growth in the area of entrepreneurship and the process to include this subject in universities and curriculum in Argentina. There are obstacles in Argentina for the development of entrepreneurship, among them five are clearly important to describe, as follows: 1. Strong resistance of the formal educational system and the established academic programs by authorities in the area of education. There are no governmental educational policies that support the development of entrepreneurship education. This can be seen by the simple fact that there is no formal study of the universities that teach entrepreneurship, like the present one study. This leads to the conclusion that for the time being topics of entrepreneurship are not in the working agenda of the policy makers in the area of education. 2. There is a clear dissociation between the interest of the academic authorities of the universities and the students´ needs. The universities do not consider that “being entrepreneur” as a legitimate career option. In all the cases the interviewees reported that the student acceptance of Entrepreneurship courses was higher than the one perceived by the authorities, even in those universities rated top in this subject. 3. A traditional culture of university teaching based on the development of professionals to offer labor instead of demanding labor. Traditionally, the university system was focused in developing “good and efficient employees” instead of prominent independent business people without developing the specific subject of entrepreneurship. In conclusion, the change will be more difficult if the development of entrepreneurial capacities is focused only in one course instead of distributing the knowledge throughout all the courses of the career. 4. The lack of funding and mainly specialized professors in the area is other of the important barriers at the time of including Entrepreneurship in the university academic offering. The 10

same phenomenon can be found in the American University system where the departments that are opened each year generate a demand for specialized professors that can not be met by the existing supply. 5. The limited match of the university supply to the needs of the labor market. The unemployment is an international phenomenon, currently there is no company that has the capacity to generate the absorption of the available labor like it had a decade ago. In this context, to be an entrepreneur is a legitimate career alternative for the young professionals and not noticing this need the universities continue to provide traditional programs. In spite of the above mentioned barriers, it is important to rescue a group of factors that help and will help the development of this area within the university context. Among the five most important points revealed in this study are: 1. The incipient but permanent production of academic research in this area. For Latin America this is a recent phenomenon but fortunately there is an increasing number of researchers and academics interested in the evolution of Entrepreneurship at the regional level. This generates the interest of international organizations that finance this type of research and the results help generate a favorable environment to develop Entrepreneurship in the educational field. 2. The strong partnership of institutions related to the area. During the current research, it was very interesting to observe the high degree of partnership existing among all the institutions related to entrepreneurship. Very close to the universities it is possible to see foundations and business associations supporting the growth of this area. The academic group is well known among themselves and their network contacts have many areas in common where it can be seen actions focused in promoting Entrepreneurship education even among competing universities. 3. The progress and impact that entrepreneurship has over the economies from an international context increases the interest for research of this phenomenon and constitute

11

a fundamental factor at the moment of defining the research areas. Seeing that, the results of these studies contribute to the process of developing this initiatives. 4. The increasing interest from the university students and the public in general about business creation. This contributes to the development of programs specialized in entrepreneurship. 5. Finally, the rupture of the traditional labor system and the particular economic crisis of the country focus us in new teaching methods that allow the generation of a great number of companies with rapid growth and that can contribute to the development of a new leadership model with entrepreneurs with a sense of social responsibility.

CONCLUTIONS Like other research in the area (Fleming, 1996; Williams and Turnbull, 1997; Levie, 1999; Louksm et al, 2000; Solomon et al, 2002; Obretch, 1999; Findle and Deeds, 2001) the results of this study show a growing awareness and a favorable development of university education in entrepreneurship. However, in the case of Argentina, there are other reasons that stimulated its beginning. The results show a growing awareness in entrepreneurship education. Around 33% of the public institutions and 25% of the privates ones are engaged in some kind of activity but still are geographically concentrated. The major obstacles are the rigid curriculum, the programs funding and the lack of professors with specialization in the field. The peculiar characteristic of this case is that the emergence of entrepreneurship at university level does not answer to governmental policy. The unemployment rate, the economic crisis and the changes in the labor market play a key role in this trend. There is no doubt about the potential progress and future development of this discipline at every level in Argentina. However, there is a need to face issues as the institutional academic legitimacy, the chairs funding, the training for specialists and the local case development applied to the teaching environment. According to this, in Argentina and in Latin America is necessary more research to report experiences around entrepreneurship education. 12

REFERENCES Block, Z. and Stumpf, S. (1992). “Entrepreneurship education research: Experience and challenge.” In D. L. Sexton and J. Kasarda, (Eds.) The state of the art of entrepreneurship, Boston, MA: PWS-Kent Publishing Braidot, N. (2001). “Educación para la Empresarialidad en el contexto Universitario Argentino: ¿Opción o necesidad?”, Universidad Argentina de la empresa (mimeograph). Carroll, J. J. (1993). “Course and curriculum design in developing and changing nations: Problems following the U.S. model.” Proceedings of the ICSB, Las Vegas, NV, 254-263. Charney, A. and Libecap, G. (2000). “Impact of Entrepreneurship education”. Kauffman Center for Entrepreneurial Leadership. Charney, A. and Libecap, G. (2002). “Impact of entrepreneurship education.” Insigths: A Kauffman Research Series. Kauffman Center for Entrepreneurship Leadership. Clark, B., Davis, C. and Harnish, V. (1984). “Do courses in entrepreneurship aid in new venture creation?”. Journal of Small Business Management, 2. Cowling , M. and Taylor, M. (2001). “Entrepreneurial Women and Men: Two Different Species?”, Small Business Economics, Vol. 16, Nro 3, pp.167-175. Delmar , F. and Davidsson, P. (2000). “Where do they come from? Prevalence and characteristics of nascent entrepreneurs”, Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 123. Fayolle, A. (1998) “Teaching of Entrepreneurship : Outcomes from an innovative experience”, Proceedings of the IntEnt, Oestrich-Winkel, Germany. Finkle, T. and Deeds, D. (2001). “Trends in the market for entrepreneurship faculty, 1989-1998.” Journal of Business Venturing, 16. Fleming, P.(1996). “Entrepreneurship Education in Ireland: A Longitudinal Study.” Academy of Entreprenurship Journal, European Edition, Volume 2, Number 1. Gartner, W. B. and Vesper , K.H. (1994). “Executive Forum: Experiments in entrepreneurship education : Successes and failures.” Journal of Business Venturing, 9, 179-187. Gorman, G. Hanlon, D. and King, W. (1997). “Some research perspectives on entrepreneurshipeducation, enterprise education, and education for small business management: A ten year literature review.” International Small Business, April/June. Interman, International Management Development Network in Cooperation with the United Nations Development Program (UNDP) and the International Labor Office (ILO). 1992. Networking for Entrepreneurship Development, Geneva: International Labor Office. Kantis, H. and Postigo, S. et al, (2002). “The emergence of university graduates entrepreneurs: what makes the difference? Empirical evidences from a research in Argentina.” Proceedings RENT XVI, Barcelona, Spain. Klandt, H (1993). “Methods of teaching: What is useful for entrepreneurship education?”. Proceedings of the IntEnt. Viena, Austria. Kolvereid, L. and Moen, O. (1997); “Entrepreneurship among business graduates: does a major in entrepreneurship make a difference?”, Journal of European Industrial Training, Vol. 21, No. 4-5, pp. 154-157.

13

Korurilsky, M. (1995). “Entrepreneurship Education: Opportunity in search of curriculum.” Business Education Forum. Lafuente , A. and Salas, V.(1989) “Types of entrepreneurs and firms: The case of new Spanish firms”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 10, pp. 17-30. Laukannen, M (2000). “Exploring alternative approaches in high-level entrepreneurship education: creating micro mechanisms for endogenous regional growth.” Journal of Entrepreneurship and Regional Development; 12. Levie, J. (1999). “Entrepreneurship education in higher education in England.” London Business School. Levie, J., Brown, W. and Steele, L. (2001). “How entrepreneurial are Strathclyde Alumni?”, Journal of International Entrepreneurship, University of Strathclyde, UK. Louksm K., Menzies, T. and Gasse, Y. (2000). “The evolution of Canadian University entrepreneurship education curriculum over two decades.” Proceedings of the IntEnt, Tampere, Finland. Lüthje, C. and Franke, N. (2002). “Fostering entrepreneurship through university education and training: Lessons from Massachusetts Institute of Technology”, Proceedings of the European AoM, Sweden. Mason, C. (2000). “Teaching entrepreneurship to undergraduate: lessons from leading centers of entrepreneurship education.” University of Southampton. Department of Geography. McIntyre, J. and Roche, M. (1999). “University education for entrepreneurs in the United States: A critical and retrospective analysis of trends in the 1999s.” Georgia Institute of Technology. Atlanta, USA. McMullan, W. and Long, W. (1987). “Entrepreneurship education in the nineties.” Journal of Business Venturing, 2. McMullan, W., Long, W. and Wilson, A. (1984). “MBA concentration on entrepreneurship.” Journal of Small Business and Entrepreneurship, 3(1) McMullan, W. and Long, W. A. And Wilson, A. (1985). MBA concentration on entrepreneurship. Journal of Small Business and entrepreneurship, 3(1), 18-22. Mitchell, R. K. and Chesteen, S.A. (1995). “Enhancing entrepreneurial expertise: Experiential pedagogy and the new venture expert script.” Simulation and gaming, 26(3), 288-306. Obrecht, J. (1999). “Entrepreneurship education and training in France: A new challenge to the Universities.” University Robert Schuman. Strasbourg, France. Plaschka, G.R. and Welsch, H.P. (1990). “Emerging structures in entrepreneurship education: Curricula designs and strategies”. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 14(3), 55-71. Postigo, S. and Tamborini, F. (2002). “Entrepreneurship education in Argentina: the case of university of San Andrés.” Proceedings of the IntEnt, Malaysia. Postigo, S. and Tamborini, F. (2003). “Entrepreneurship education in Argentina: lessons from the experience of University of San Andrés.” Proceedings of the USASBE, Hilton Heads, U.S.A. Postigo, S. and Ussman, A. (2000). “O Papel da Universidade no Fomento da Funçao Empresarial”, Anais universitarios. Ciencias Sociais e Humanas. 1990-2000 Yearbook Special Issue, pp. 219-233. Price, C. and Monroe, S. (1993). “Educational training for woman and minority entrepreneurs positively impacts venture growth and economics development.” Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research, Babson College 14

Robinson, P. and Hayes, M. (1991). “Entrepreneurship education in American´s major universities.” Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 15 (3) Robinson, P. and Sexton, E. (1994), “The effect of education and experience self-employment success”, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 9, No. 2, pp. 141-157. Sexton, D.L. and Upton-Upton, N. (1987). “Evaluation of innovative approach to teaching entrepreneurship”. Journal of Small Business Managment, 25(1) 35-43. Solomon, G., Duffy, S. and Tarabishy, A. (2002). “The state of entrepreneurship education in the United States: A nationwide survey and analysis.” International Journal of Entrepreneurship education 1 (1). Solomon, g. T. Weaver, K., M. and Fernald, L. W., Jr. (1994) “Pedagogical Methods of Teaching Entrepreneurship: An Historical Perspective.” Gaming and Simulation, vol. 25, number 3, 1993. Upton, N., Sexton, D. and Moore, C. (1995): “Have we made a difference? An examination of career activity of entrepreneurship majors since 1981”, paper presented at the Entrepreneurship Research Conference, Babson College, USA. Van Clouse, G. H. (1990). “A controlled experiment relating entrepreneurial education to student’s start-up decisions”. Journal of Small Business Managment, 28(2), 45-53. Varela, R. (1997). “Entrepreneurial Education in Latin America.” Center for Entrepreneurship Development. Veciana, J M. (1998). “Entrepreneurship Education at the University Level: A Challenge and a Response.” Paper presented at the Rencontres de St. Gall. Vesper, K. (1974). “Entrepreneurship education 1974”. Society for Entrepreneurship and Application. Milwakee, U.S.A. Vesper, K. and Gartner, W. (1997). “Measuring progress in entrepreneurship education.” Journal of Business Venturing 12 (5) Vesper, K. and McMullan, W. (1988). “Entrepreneurship: Today courses, tomorrow degrees?” Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 13 (1) Williams, S. and Turnbull, A. (1997). “First moves into entrepreneurship teaching in Scottish Universities: A consortium approach.”, The Robert Gordon University Zeithaml, C. and Rice, G. (1987). “Entrepreneurship/small business education in American universities.” Journal of Small Business Management, 25 (1)

15