Michael Ryall, associate professor at the Rotman School of Management, University of Toronto, and a member of the "research-based MBA-granting community" writes ("The Business School Tuition Bubble"):
The essential question, therefore, is: What is the logic for having world-class academic researchers (who, for the most part, have never managed a business themselves) teach business classes to MBA students? The topics covered in many first-year microeconomics MBA courses, for instance, are a subset of those contained in Section III of Economics for Dummies. There may be good reasons for someone to pay $3,000 for a class taught by a researcher that covers the same topics in this $12 book — greater clarity and/or depth, for instance — but still, at a 250:1 cost ratio, students had better be getting something more for their money. It's not clear that they are.
Pretty tough question.
Here's part of my answer: an experienced senior manager recently commented here: "I always tell people that I learned four things in business school (U of Chicago): 1) time value of money, 2) sunk costs are sunk, 3) there's a tradeoff between risk and return, 4) markets are the most efficient way to allocate scarce resources."
I cover three of those four topics, in detail, in my MBA economics course. So my course is worth not just $3000, it's worth 75% of the entire degree.