I can not help the urge to comment on Professor Sullivan's feelings about
the American Association Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB)
accreditation. At one point in time, AACSB took a cookie cutter approach
to accreditation in that all schools had to meet the same criteria for
accreditation. However, in recent years, AACSB changed their criteria such
that accreditation was a function of how well the school was carrying out
its mission. Thus, the standards for accrediting the University of
Michigan, a doctoral granting research university, are different that
accrediting San Francisco State University, a non-doctoral granting
teaching university.
If Professor Sullivan thinks that AACSB is keeping his university mired in
the 19th century, perhaps they have not thought through who they are, what
their mission is, and how they want to accomplish it. I know we (Texas
Tech) have recently completed a long self analysis (4 years), the result of
which is a radical change in our core MBA program (starting this summer),
as well as the begining of new programs at both the undergraduate and
graduate level (both with respect to content and delivery).
I know there are many good scholars and teachers at San Francisco State. I
am sure they are capable of providing a 21st century business education. I
do not think, AACSB accreditation is preventing them from providing a world
class education to the Bay area business community. Perhaps, to quote
Shakespear, "the fault lies not in the stars, but in ourselves."
With respect and best wishes, Kim Boal
At 05:21 PM 4/29/98 -0700, you wrote:
>IMHO, AACSB is the Jurassic Park accreditation body for some Business
>Schools. They serve as an effective mechanism for keeping business schools
>mired in the 19th century and prevent them from being leaders in the
>mainstream business world.
>
>John
>
>
>At 09:17 AM 4/30/98 +1000, you wrote:
>>It could be that my not knowing what AACSB stands for indicates that I
>>can't help - but out of curiosity, what do the initials stand for?
>>
>>Thanks
>>
>>Phil
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>At 09:08 29/04/98 EDT, you wrote:
>>>Help,
>>>
>>>The university I teach for is currently considering applying for AACSB
>>>accreditation. One of our concerns is the vagueness of the standards,
>>>especially as it pertains to faculty composition and credentials. Worse
>yet,
>>>we are told that the published standards aren't the "real" standards that
>>will
>>>be applied by the evaluation committee. In desperation I am soliciting
>>>anecdotal evidence upon which we can make estimates of what the "real"
>>>standards are.
>>>
>>>If you have recently gone through accreditation, or know of someone who
>>has, I
>>>would appreciate your insights relating to the required percentage of
>>>"academically qualified" faculty both for the undergraduate program and for
>>>the MBA program. Also, I would like to know how that percentage is
>>calculated
>>>(FTE, MFTE, contact hours, etc.). We are a teaching institution without a
>>PhD
>>>program.
>>>
>>>Please respond to me directly at "rlrosscpa@aol.com", and save everyone
else
>>>the bandwidth. Thanks in advance.
>>>
>>>Ron Ross
>>>
>>>
>>------------------------------------
>>P D Rutherford & Associates Pty Ltd
>>Competency-based systems specialists
>>61 2 6230 4823
>>
robnphil@ozemail.com.au
>>------------------------------------
>>
>>
>