Perhaps it is, I've become a bit jaded throughout my college career taking so many international relations courses at a pretty liberal university (;
Given time constraints, among many other factors, there are limits to what can be covered in college courses. The long-term trend has been toward a narrowing of content and specialization (benefits and drawbacks exist) to the extent that there is a genuine risk of oversimplification. One sees that not just at liberal institutions, but generally across higher education. IMO, the development of critical thinking skills, ability to find relevant information (important in business, if one goes that route), receptiveness to examining ideas objectively, and desire to keep learning can more than compensate for the narrowing/specialization trend.
To be sure, there is little doubt that some firms have less than ideal motives when expanding into developing countries. Some firms do try to take "short cuts" to economic profits and widely-reported scandals (Enron, Countrywide Mortgage, etc.) bear this out. However, it is those firms that create long-term disadvantages in pursuing short cuts. They fail to develop a sustainable operation in their host country and their credibility erodes. In contrast, firms that demonstrate reliability, take into consideration the unique needs of their host countries and people, etc., build strong reputations. Strong reputations can be a source of sustainable competitive advantage in branding, capital access, and recruiting/retention, among other areas. It is not easy for rivals to imitate those reputations and it requires significant investment (financial/time) to cultivate such reputations. As a result, that source of differentiation can lead to higher economic profits.
Liberalized trade does not have an equal impact on every country. Those that have bad factor conditions (lack of natural resources, lack of sufficiently skilled workers, etc.), suboptimal demand conditions, weak firm rivalry, and an absence of supporting industries can find such trade very disadvantageous. That's why many developing countries protect "infant industries" until those industries gain the ability to compete with international peers. At the same time, if a country is strong in at least one of those four areas, it can leverage trade to improve its relative competitive position. In short, just as with most other human activities, "one-size-fits-all" perspectives do not apply to trade. Instead, nuance, balance, proportion, probabilities, and trade-offs apply. In the longer-term trade can be mutually beneficial with net benefits, but some drawbacks will always exist.
