COMM 4660

Mostly go over stuff we did in ICE. Would have liked to work on more cases problem solving. The class was a lot about client relationships and different frameworks but you work with a real client on a project which was cool. Sadly he doesn't use many cases or real life examples. He said there arent many consulting cases but honestly all business cases where you are solving a problem are like a consulting problem. I do not know why he does not use cases. I think he takes it more like a what is consulting class (like career services) rather than here is how to actually consult. Considering McIntire is a case based school it bothers me he doesn't use them.

This is a review of Seaborn's MSC elective,"GCOM 7560: Emerging Topics in Commerce - Consultants and other Advisors". There is no page for that class but this class was so terrible I want to warn future MSC classes against choosing this elective.

This class is one of the worst I have ever taken and is an embarrassment to UVA. It makes me sick to my stomach to know I wasted money on this class. This class is more of a summary of the two books we read than an actual class on consulting. There is no casework and absolutely no information on recruiting consulting whatsoever. It is geared for people who already have a consulting job.

First, this elective is so much more work than the other electives it is laughable that the program tried to tell us they would be similar (the entrepreneurship elective is comparably a joke). We had an insane amount of assignments and reading, far outweighing the time demanded in the other electives and even some of our regular classes. We met much more often than the other electives did (not sure on the exact numbers but I believe 12 times for us vs 8-10 in the other classes and 4-6 for entrepreneurship). This is not a matter of double sessions either as I compared syllabi with several other students. Despite this Seaborn still managed to consistently drag class 10 or even 15 minutes over time. Our grading scale was even harder as we needed a 95 for an A. Why would he would punish students like this is a mystery.

Second, the content offering in this class was terrible and not even close to what students expected. I did not learn anything useful at all in this class. Professor Seaborn was always grading our slides very harshly but when we asked him to do a class on slide designing, he never did. That would have been much more helpful than anything we "learned" in this class. I could have learned the entire class from the 2 books he provided. These books are useless anyways as one is a decade old on an industry that focuses on technology and innovation. Amazingly, this class featured no case studies or even talk of recruiting at all. Why would any of us be in this class if it were not for trying to get a job in the industry? People with consulting jobs have on-the-job training.

Third, most importantly this class should be in the Fall when the MSC previously offered the course. It is asinine to move a class so important for recruiting to after recruiting happens. This is evident as not a single MSC student this year went to an MBB firm.

Fourth, assignments in this class were needless, too difficult, too convoluted, too time-consuming, graded poorly and lacked sufficient instruction. It seems like Professor Seaborn tried to cram a three credit class into a 1.5 credit class and it shows. The interview stream assignment was pointless as was the midterm (especially considering we were the only elective with a midterm). The number of assignments needs to be scaled down. This class featured 4 presentations in a 1.5 credit class. The absurdity of that statement speaks for itself. Assignments were too convoluted causing them to be too time-consuming. Professor Seaborn assigned us to write a 3 page single-spaced reflection paper. I fail to see why this needs to be so long or why this should be an assignment at all. The final project is another example of an assignment that was just way too long. It had 2 personal meetings, a handout, a class presentation, a proposal presentation and a final presentation deck just for one project in a 1.5 credit class. Assignments were also too difficult. The test was insanely difficult and graded very oddly. One part of the exam asked us to summarize half of a book onto slides we drew on the test and graded based on design. This is an extremely unnecessary way to ask students to display knowledge. The grading was very inconsistent. On some assignments it was extremely harsh and often included no feedback at all. Assignments never included enough instruction and students were always confused on what to do.

Overall, please DO NOT TAKE THIS CLASS.

This course definitely accomplished its objectives. My understanding of the consulting industry/process and steps for structured problem solving have increased greatly. I feel much more confident pursuing a career in consulting. Focus was not on recruiting or case interviews, but your experience in the class could be helpful for recruiting. Good for Comm or non-Comm students.

Work- weekly readings don't take too long and the occasional homework assignment. One presentation on a specific consulting firm, and another on a consulting industry sector. Most work is on the final project towards the end of the semester, where you consult for a real business or student org. It was a great way to apply our learnings. Whether you get a good group (they are assigned randomly) can be make-or-break.

Do not take this class. I was initially going to say do not take this class if you are in COMM, but honestly don't take it if you aren't in COMM either.

Don't take this class if you are in COMM, and especially if you have already done ICE. This class is ICE, where you learn how to be a consultant, except, unlike ICE, it's not the professor teaching you, it's the students in your group who have already taken ICE teaching you.

And don't take this class if you're not in COMM because you will likely be working with COMM students who expect you to act like a COMM student, which is honestly pretty impossible to live up to if you haven't been trained in powerpoint and SAS headings through ICE.

The problem with this class isn't Seaborn, he's honestly pretty chill. It's not even a super hard class, it's really a lighter load. The problem with this class is that it's such a terrible mix of experience levels that is exhausting for students from all sides. There are 3rd-year econ majors who still pull slide templates from SlidesGo, and there are 4th-year ICE-trained COMM students who just spent the summer interning at MBB. It's just a frustrating mess. And in the end, you're really not learning that much about consulting that wouldn't be better learned in an actual internship.

Please, don't waste your personal peace by taking this class. Even if it seems like an easy A, it is a frustrating A.

Seaborn's funny though I like him.

I would not recommend taking this class. It ended up being a poor use of both time and money. Unless you are in the Management concentration, the material offers very little practical value. While the professor is genuinely funny and personable, the class is not an easy A—grades are not curved, and many students will likely end up with an A-.

As other reviews have mentioned, this course felt like “Fall ICE 2.0.” If your main goal is simply to add another line to your resume, it may be worth considering, but personally I regret taking it. I also noticed what felt like favoritism, which may have impacted participation grades for some students.

The workload itself was not heavy—weekly readings from two books—but much of it felt pointless. Many class sessions resembled group therapy rather than a business or consulting course, focusing on basic interpersonal skills (e.g., sharing feelings, validating others’ emotions) that most students learned long before college. One entire class was centered on discussing personal feelings and encouraging clients to do the same.

The course started strong with two consulting cases, which were engaging and useful. Unfortunately, those same cases were reused repeatedly instead of introducing new ones. I wish the class had included more casework and hands-on consulting practice rather than recurring discussion-based “therapy” sessions.