AACSB - A Challenge for Smaller Schools

AACSB is a frequent topic of disuccsion in this NG. Without a doubt the best business schools in the world are AACSB accredited. Whether AACSB accreditiation makes these schools the best or the best simply choose to be accredited by AACSB may not be clear.

Smaller schools have a real challenge with AACSB, however. In AACSB's thinking a "small" school is one with 30 or fewer faculty members. As best I can tell the smallest AACSB schools have 14 or 15 faculty members.

What about b-programs at smaller schools with fewer than 15 faculty? AACSB simply isn't viable.

First, AACSB looks for "critical mass" in the various functional areas of business. I'm told by schools going through accreditation this typically means at least 2-3 faculty per functional area (e.g. Marketing, Accounting, etc.).

Second, AACSB's requirements of 50% academically qualified (that is doctorate with active research) and 90% professionally qualified are typically applied by functional area. So, if you have two faculty members in an area - the professionally qualified requirement is effectively 100%. And if you have a senior faculty member with a PhD that isn't research active - you may have trouble with your academically qualified percentage.

These requirements are fine for larger schools, but tough for small programs. ACBSP ends up being more viable for smaller schools.

Regards - Andy

 

Good info, thanks Andy.

 

Hi Andy - Where did you reference the 50% number. I was told 75% have to be AQ, 90% either AQ/PQ. Is it possible - yes, just no feasible. Maybe becuase I am at school's not offering doctorates?

Now, the only good move is that AACSB is relaxing the requirement on what AQ means. This is paving the way for smaller schools to become accredited.

 

I just checked the webiste and saw 50%. Perhaps I missed something.

But in any event - 50% or 75% - to do this by functional area (e.g. Accounting, Marketing, etc.) is a challenge for smaller schools.

Regards - andy

 

why bother AACSB?

Actually I am wondering about why it has to be AACSB, but not other kind of accreditations like EQUIS or AMBA, or why there is even the need for accreditation for places where most universities are public and monitored by the corresponding education departments of the Government.

AACSB accredits schools based on what they think about what business school should be like.

I have even doubts on whether AACSB makes business schools better. I am more inclined to believe that large b-schools obtained AACSB (or others) only to make it look more appealing to international prospective students. Also, it is rather obvious not all the top 100 b-school obtained AACSB.

If "looking good" is the issue, then possibly other accreditations like AMBA (which only accredit programmes) could be considered. There isn't only one accreditation exist, especially for non-US business schools.

Going back to the subject matter, do you think a b-school with less than 20 faculty members is really a business school? I thought that is probably a "Department of business". (e.g. http://www.lse.ac.uk/collections/management/ maybe this is still too large). To me, having 2 or 3 teachers per functional areas seemed reasonable.

What is the requirement in ACBSP? What does ACBSP think a "business school" is like then? They allow schools missing one or two functional areas? or less requirement on their academic qualifications?

 

Clarification

I should clarify my comments - the best business schools in the US are AACSB and a growing group of international programs are becoming AACSB accredited. Certainly EQUIS and AMBA make lots of sense outside the US.

Does AACSB make a school better? I'm familiar with several schools going through the process - and I believe that on the whole AACSB standards are forcing Deans to make choices that favor quality. As for the US - state regulators are woefully incapable of the kind of quality control that AACSB provides.

As for size, ACPBSP accredits programs that often are "departments" within smaller schools, while AACSB more typically acredits "schools" or "colleges" within larger institutions.

Regards - Andy

 

Nice information.

I also observed that growing group of international programmes getting AACSB accredited.

Why not the other way around makes sense? i.e. US programmes getting EQUIS or AMBA accredited and get more international?

I am not sure if fulfilling EQUIS/AMBA is easier than getting AACSB, but, if getting AACSB is that difficult (for some schools), is EQUIS/AMBA a viable solution (in US)?

or is EQUIS / AMBA not "international" enough, compared to AACSB? (at least I didn't aware of any famous b-schools in US would like to get EQUIS/AMBA)

 

Thanks for your note. I did a quick check of AMBA - it appears to be focused on the UK.

As for AACSB - they have gone global and dropped the "A" as American and added "international" to the name.

I don't know of any US schools pursuing AMBA or EQUIS accreditation. Further, when I check CHEA, I don't see AMBA or EQUIS as being recognized as accreditors in the US.

Regards - Andy

 

Actually, that's ACBSP - Association of Collegiate Business Schools and Programs