Another AACSB MBA question

What is the value of an AACSB accredited MBA if you do not plan to teach at an AACSB accredited school or enter an AACSB accredited PhD / DBA program?

 

Bragging rights?

 

Some employers require it for graduate education (few, some some). most HR departments don't know enough to know what they don't know. In academia it is important, and since there is enough schools out there with the AACSB, why not, it will keep a door open, in case you ever want to go down that path.

 

From my experiences none. Nobody ever questioned if my BS in Business was AACSB or not.

In fact one person told me the AACSB stood for Association of Academians that Cannot Succeed in Business


Guess he graduated from a non AACSB school

 

My state (UT,) and some other states I have looked at, makes it more difficult to qualify for the CPA test if you didn't attend an AACSB accredited school.

Here is the UNM Anderson School of Management's response to your inquiry. Link

Here is MTU's response.
Link

Still, I don't think that the lack of AACSB accreditation is a deal breaker. Personally, I am also looking at Webster University, a school without AACSB, because of several other factors important to me.

Tony

 

As Tony stated, the other main reason for seeking a program that is AACSB is for professional licensure. But, if you are not into accounting (CPA), financail planning (CFP), or financcial management (CFM), or do not plan to go into acadamia at a AACSB program, there is not a lot of advantage to the AACSB.

But, like many things, once you have it, you have it regardless of what happens with your plans in the future.

Many people seem to shy away from AACSB programs because they almost always require the GMAT. But, as been said on other threads, the test is not that hard, and if you do blow it, you are no worse off then before.

Another reason is cost, as AACSB programs often are a little more expensive. But then look at the other programs from the same school in other disciplenes, they are also probalby more expensive. So, that program would probably be pricey even if it was not AACSB. But look at it from the point of why you are doing it (the degree) and what you hope to get out of it.

If one program is AACSB and cost 20k more than a none AACSB program, but the AACSB programs will allow you to earn $1/hr more, you break even in 10 years (20k/10yr/2000hr/yr).

 

Mike,

My plan is to go into Financial Planning and obtain CFP certification. This is the first I've heard that AACSB is required or helpful as a Financial Planner. I'd be very interested to hear more about this as that may drastically change my education plans. I was seriously looking at the MBA with a Personal Financial Planning Specialty from City University but if AACSB is required or helpful that may rule them out.

Thanks for any insight,

 

I believe that endorsement from the CFP board is the important distinction to make when researching programs. They have a list of approved programs on their website.

Tony

 

I apparently spoke out of turn, I just looked for the tie that I thought I had seen a while back and could not find. Sorry for the confusion.

 

Let me take another approach on this question. The best MBA programs in the U.S. are all AACSB accredited. Period. Take any ranking list you want (Business Week, USNews, etc.). All the top schools are AACSB.

So the benefit of going to an AACSB school may have nothing to do with AACSB iteself (although I happen to think that AACSB really does know something about excellence in business educaiton). The best schools are AACSB.

What are you looking for in an MBA? If you are mid-career and you need a credential to "keep up with the Jones'", a non-AACSB school may be the way to go. In many cases it will be less expensive, more convenient and less demanding. If you are looking for high quality education - I would go AACSB, however.

I encourage students to attend the best graduate program they can gain entrance in and reasonably complete.

That's my take.

Andy Borchers (MBA Vanderbilt, DBA NSU)

 

The College for Financial Planning is owned by the Apollo Group, the same group that owns the University of Phoenix. Since the UoPhx business school is NOT accredited by the AACSB I seriously doubt that AACSB would be required or helpful.

http://www-icdl.open.ac.uk/instResult.ihtml?inst_id=5336&p=1

 

Acbsp

phoenix is a candidate for Acbsp accreditation though, which is a reputable organization, recognized by CHEA.

 

Re: Acbsp

I am considering Phoenix for an mba. I sincerely hope that they continue to use instructors with CURRENT real world experience. If they start using too many full time I will be looking elsewhere.

 

so far they are using mostly adjuncts, I haven't had any full time teachers aside from one class that the campus business chair taught. The only reason she had to teach it was the scheduled teacher was called away on a business trip.

 

You may need AACSB school for some consulting firms or for large brokerage houses, depending on the job. I've seen some consulting firms asking for MBAs from the top 10 schools, top 20 schools.

 

most people don't have 2-3 years of their life to give up to go to school though, or the money to pay for those schools. It is very possible to find gainful employment with a degree from a school that is not AACSB. Marymount university (a very well known school in my area) is ACBSP accredited, which I have heard accredits "lesser" schools. That seems to be an elitist opinion, as are most comments of the like. Just because a school does not have x% of full time doctoral faculty (as AACSB requires) does not mean it isn't as good as another school that holds regional accredidation.

 

iquagmire is right but note...they want the top 10-20 and not just any AACSB school.

Many, many people are doing very well with non AACSB degrees. From my limited research I find the non schools I visited use basically the same books, the same credit requirements etc. AACSB wants fulltime instructors because the large schools can afford it. At one time it was 75% full time requirement! That was back when they were known as the AMERICAN ASSEMBLY OF COLLIGATE SCHOOLS OF BUSINESS. They change their name, they change their requirements but still remain a "big boy's club" for the most part IMHO.

Another level of bureaucracy that education seems to love. Guess educators like to be told what to do

As for the comments just consider the source. Some here are full time or full time wanabees at AACSB schools. Would expect them to defend their way of life.

I'll take the real world business successes as instructors anyday

Just my opinion

 

carlosb - While everyone is entitled to their opinion, I think there are some differences between AACSB and non-AACSB schools. I teach at an ACBSP school, but I honestly believe that AACSB standards are higher - and that all other things equal, the AACSB seal really does mean something. As I noted earlier - the top business schools in the U.S. are all AACSB.

First, note that AACSB has wisely gotten off the full-time hangup they used to have. Today, the goal is "participating" faculty - that is, faculty that do more than teach for one term at a time. Participating faculty do non-teaching tasks (advising, curriculum planning, research, etc) and have contracts that are longer than one term. Why should students care? Term at a time adjuncts can a great asset - but they also tend to be hit and miss. What I've seen of some non-AACSB school's staffing approaches leaves a lot to be desired. AACSB holds schools to a higher standard with respect to faculty.

As for practitioners versus academics as faculty, my observation is that the best business faculty have both experiences. I don't buy the notion that all one needs is business experience to teach business - I've seen too many managers with 20 years of experience - the same year 20 times over. Good faculty can share their experiences - and can help students understand business at a deeper, more theoretical level. This kind of instruction is education for a lifetime - not training for the moment.

Second, AACSB does have curriculum expectations and outcome assessment expectations that exceeds what you'll see at other schools. Some of the curriculum moves I've seen of late at some "student centered" schools are pretty poor. I know one school that observed that a lot of students don't like managerial accounting because it has numbers in it. So they changed their curriculum so that students could choose either managerial accounting or ethics. Of course no one takes accounting. Both topics are essential - and a school that lets students skip out of either is doing a disservice to their student body.

As I said earlier, you can find cheaper, more accessible and easier to complete MBA programs than the current crop of AACSB schools. For some, the non-AACSB route fits their needs. But if you are searching for the best in business education - I'd go AACSB.

Regards - Andy

 

Just read this at another board:

http://www.collegehints.com/boards/showthread.php?p=7180#post7180

What Motivates Accreditors?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Those of us who work for/consult to AACSB schools have just been informed that AACSB is moving its headquarters from St. Louis to Tampa after a recommendation from a consulting firm. It cites a board member saying, "St. Louis has served us well for a long time, but the location is no longer the right image and fit for the organization moving forward."

Imagine the money that has, and will be spent, on that. And, the money comes from institution dues. What benefits accrue to the AACSB members from this proposed move?

As someone has already said, nobody should be surprised when a self appointed group with monopoly powers, acts like a monopoly. One Dean stated that their experience with the AACSB seems to confirm Milton Friedman's comments on licensure – it is seldom advantageous to anyone other than the monopolist who sells the license.


Maybe this is how the RA mobs think as well?


__________________________________________________


Is this true?

Love this part:"One Dean stated that their experience with the AACSB seems to confirm Milton Friedman's comments on licensure – it is seldom advantageous to anyone other than the monopolist who sells the license. "



Just my opinion

 

Andy-

You mentioned:

"Some of the curriculum moves I've seen of late at some "student centered" schools are pretty poor"

Can you name some of those programs? Just curious...

Thanks...