New AACSB Standards

I was just browsing the AACSB website, when I came upon their new accreditation standards (April, 2003). A quick review suggests that DL schools will have a tough time becoming AACSB accredited. I've seen traditional schools that are AACSB get into the DL mode - but I haven't seen a DL only school achieve AACSB accreditation. After reading this - I doubt this will change any time soon.

For details go to:

http://www.aacsb.edu/accreditation/brc/proposedstandards.pdf

Further, as I review these requirements - I am very much in tune with what AACSB is after. The issue isn't supporting lazy, full-time, tenured faculty - the point is requiring faculty to be actively involved in more than just delivering classes. Faculty have non-teaching roles - such as academic governance, advising, research, etc. that must be done for the institution to "live".

What makes it tough? Consider the following:

1. AACSB has come up with the concept of "Participating" and "supporting" faculty. "Participating" faculty must be long term employees that are actively involved in non-teaching roles - curriculum design, advising, etc. They can be part-time or full-time, tenured or not tenured - but they have be involved in the life of the institution outside of the classroom.

"Supporting faculty Supporting faculty members do not have deliberative or voting rights on faculty issues. They do not have membership on faculty committees, nor are they assigned responsibilities beyond their direct teaching function (i.e., classroom and office hours). Their contractual arrangement
with the school is ad hoc appointment, normally for one term or one academic year at a time."

The killer for DL programs in all this comes next:

"Normally, Participating faculty members will deliver at least 75 percent of the school's annual teaching (whether measured by credit hours, contact hours, or other metric appropriate to the school). Normally, Participating faculty members will deliver at least 60 percent of the teaching in each degree program
AND in each academic discipline."

2. Faculty requirements are going to be another tough area:

"At least 90 percent of faculty resources are either academically or professionally qualified."

"At least 50 percent of faculty resources are academically qualified." This means having an earned doctorate - and folks with doctorates earned out of field have to show preparation for the area they are teaching in. AACSB will allow a limited number of folks with specialized master degrees (such as accounting) to count as "academically qualified", but schools are warned to keep this number down.

"Maintenance of knowledge and expertise supports faculty performance through an appropriate balance, given the school’s mission, through contributions over the past five years in all of the following areas:
- Learning and pedagogical research
- Contributions to practice
- Discipline-based scholarship"

That's right - "all" of these areas. No research = no accreditation.

"The academically qualified portion of the faculty (as defined in the interpretative material above) should not fall below 50 percent of the total faculty resources."

Bottom line - I don't see any of the virtual schools meeting this standard any time soon.

Regards - Andy

 

Not every online school is like University of Phoenix - Online where most of the faculty consists of part-time employees. For example, Touro University International has nearly 100% full-time, dedicated faculty. Nearly all hold terminal degrees. I have to believe that there are other online-only schools like that. (Right?)

As for the research requirement, I think there are many opportunities for research at schools with a lot of full-time faculty guiding a sizable number of doctoral students. I would expect a fair amount of collaborative opportunities for both the students and the professors. While my experience is limited to TUI’s Health Science Ph.D. program, I know the dean is very interested in the research conducted by the graduate students. I am always hearing about the publications of fellow students in the program. I assume the same emphasis exists on the faculty.

How about other people’s experiences? This isn’t unique to this program, is it?

 

"Bottom line - I don't see any of the virtual schools meeting this standard any time soon. "

Andy,

And WHAT will you say WHEN it does happen?

Will leave your position in education and return
to industry then?

You continue to look at the glass as being only
half-empty and leaking. While others see it as
being half-full and slowly filling up to the brim.

Things ARE changing in academics ... slower than
the pace of other things perhaps, but CHANGE is
a constant in this setting also.

BTW, you tend to lump Touro as a 'for-profit'
school, it is NOT ... check your references ...

Have a great weekend there!

Billy

 

I think that an opposite argument can also be made.

The AACSB requirements, despite paying lip service to "requiring faculty to be actively involved in more than just delivering classes", seems to essentially be prohibiting them from doing precisely that. It's a requirement that business be taught by professional academics and not by businessmen.

Notice that things like serving on a curriculum committee count as "active involvement", but performing a responsible function in an actual business enterprise doesn't. It's like telling physicists to stay out of the lab.

It's slightly appalling that a business-school might be in danger of having its accreditation yanked if it dared to hire Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, or anyone else that's actively engaged in running an off-campus enterprise. But the school would be fine if it hired a hack with a doctorate who periodically published irrelevant journal articles that nobody reads.

I think that this might be a valid reason why some students might want to avoid AACSB departments and seek out programs that maintain a closer relationship with the actual practice of their subject than with its theory.

 

In their last conference, they had an entire section on distance learning and how they will accomidate them in the future. Many members participated (not accredited groups, but members), and they have said in the future some of their standards may change.

TUI is going for AACSB accreditation, and I see them getting it in the future, and this will start the ball rolling for strictly DL schools(my best guess, about 4 years).

I think we have seen many B&M schools with AACSB accreditation offering programs strictly DL or with very little residency. There was one, then another, and now there is a large selection (I think about 15 programs AACSB and less than a week's residency for MBA's, and a couple of Doctorates with limited residency).

10 years ago everyone said that AACSB would never aloow it, but gosh darn it, it happened.

I think that TUI will be the pioneer, they are acticely working with the accreditation group to get AACSB accredited, then the rest will follow, though I think again it will take some time.

 

Quite the opposite - I'd be quite happy to see a DL school achieve AACSB. If one did - I'd certainly be interested in the school and how they did it. I'd push the schools I've attended or work for to do the same. Achieving AACSB would be a great step forward for the DL world. The steps schools will have to take to do this will be a big improvement, IMHO.

I don't believe I've ever said Touro was 'for-profit'. If I have - please correct me. Actually, I know very little about Touro, but I'm curious about the school. They appear to be a very interesting entrant into the market.

You too.
[/QUOTE]

 

AACSB does seem to be accepting the concept of DL - but in their standards they are pushing for a modified approach. Rather than allow schools to operate with lots of "supporting" faculty, they are pushing for "participating" faculty. The question is - will this approach fit the business models of DL schools?

Regards - Andy

 

i]Originally posted by kristie7 [/i]


TUI is going for AACSB accreditation, and I see them getting it in the future, and this will start the ball rolling for strictly DL schools(my best guess, about 4 years).


How?


I think that TUI will be the pioneer, they are acticely working with the accreditation group to get AACSB accredited, then the rest will follow, though I think again it will take some time.

Are you a TUI insider? Or AACSB insider?

Achieving AACSB accreditation is not as difficult as traveling to the moon but it is not as easy as you think. What has TUI done so far that convinces you that they will achieve AACSB accreditation in a record time?

 

Deleted massage

It has been deleted.

 

I posted this before, but it was lost.

I have been in contact with both TUI and AACSB. They are actively working getting accredited. It takes from 1-5 years for accreditation, some never get it.

They will not make lightening speed, but I think they have done enough pre-work that it should go smoothly. As from the coorespondence, "They see no major road blocks for accreditation".

 

Has anyone run into a situation where students prefer working adjuncts to full time faculty with doctorates?

I was surprised by how many of my students prefer working adjuncts vs fulltime. My students are working adults that attend at night. I assume their expectations differ from the traditional younger day student.

 

I think it depends on two things: 1) the program of study and 2) the individual professor. When you're talking about management, business, and leadership programs, it's hard to say that Professor So-and-so proved her leadership skills in the faculty break room. For some programs it makes a lot more sense to have faculty who have actually accomplished something off campus. For other fields of study, this makes much less sense. For example, everything else being equal, I would not want to learn quantum physics from someone who couldn't perform in the lab and is working as a computer programmer.

The second part is the professor, adjunct or full-time. The real issue is the amount of time the instructor has. Some part-time faculty members are too busy with their "real" job that they neglect the students. Likewise, some full-time faculty are too busy doing research to bother with students who are not involved in their particular research project (especially undergrads). So there are advantages and disadvantages to both full-time professors and part-time instructors.

Steve

 

Very good response, Steve.

I agree with on your two comments.

Some trend that I have seen increasing (especially in traditional insitutions) is the use of teacher assistants who are themselves graduate students. Great chunk of my undergrad was taught by them, with some coordination from the full time faculty.
NOthing bad about this, since I found some TAs more interested in the students than the actual professors.

But your right that the preference over adjuncts, full time and TAs has more to do with individual expertise, accesability and dedication to the student among other factors. Unfortunately, there will always be adjuncts too busy with their other jobs, full time professors too distracted with their research, and some TAs too focused on their own classes/tests.

-S

 

Missing posting?

Andy
I thought I had posted a serious message here about this "accrediting" agency but it seesm to have disapeared! Can anyone point me in the right direction to find what happened to it. My message could not have been disrespectful as its details referred to EBS. Is this something to do with the new board layout?

 

Re: Missing posting?

Yes my comment about AACSB was also lost. I believe that several other messages that were posted on Sunday and earlier this week were lost. It appeared that the system experienced instability after it was upgraded.

 

My response was posted on Sunday but was lost due the problem that degreeinfo.com encountered after it was upgraded.

Kristie,
What made you think that the decision-makers (those that vote to award/revoke accreditation) at AACSB are not bias against DL? Achieving AACSB will be an uphill task for TUI. In fact, it will be easier for the B&M business school of Touro University in New York to achieve AACSB accreditation. TUI business school and the B&M business school in New York are two separate schools of the same university. If AACSB accreditation is awarded to the B&M business school, the TUI business school will not be included in the accreditation. Similarly, if TUI secures AACSB accreditation, the B&M business school will not be covered. AACSB accreditation does not usually include extension schools. The two schools have to pursue it independently.

 

We seem to be gretting back to the discussion after the missing posts, so here goes.....

I think that the entire world is biased against DL (with some exceptions), but I think that AACSB is seeing that it is not going away. They had an entire panel on it at their last conference. Not that this would change a school totally DL in getting accreditation.

You bring up some good points with New York, but the school I talked to is in Southern California, so I think that they are trying for seperate accreditation, but not sure. I will e-mail them and ask for accreditation.

I think we will see some changes from TUI if they get acreditation, like an increase in tuition maybe, more strict admission standards maybe. Only time will tell.

As I get more infomation, I will post it. With all that being said, I am not marking it on the calander, but think it will happen, before - 2010. And if I am wrong, oh well, but here is to hoping!

 

I agree completely.

 

Kristie - It will be interesting to see if TUI is succesful. If they are, other schools - such as NSU - may have to step up to the challenge. I'd like to see this happen - but I have my doubts that many of the DL schools will spend the money required.

If the entire world is against DL, there may be a reason. Far too many schools look at DL as a "pot of gold" to make a profit margin on. Too few school deploy the resources (including faculty and library) that quality graduate business education requires.

What I like about the AACSB approach is that it does allow a DL school to earn accreditation - but only if it does a quality job. No longer do schools have to employ 50% full-time, traditional (and often tenured) faculty. Instead, the issue is the level of involvement of the faculty with the school. Hiring a bunch of "term at a time" adjuncts that aren't involved in the school other than teaching won't fly with the new standards. Further, AACSB's expectations about faculty qualifications is certainly good.

With TUI's approach - I have to wonder if their use of teaching assistants (and corresponding high student to full-time faculty ratio) will fly. Will AACSB consider teaching assistants to be "participating faculty"? I wouldn't think so. Only time will tell.

Regards - Andy

 

I think if TUI does get accredited, that AACSB standards will have to have changed, and TUI will have to make some changes as well.