Ranked School but no AACSB, or Unranked with AACSB

Are you caring about any particular group? HR for industry? Schools for teaching? Just anybody? The answer will differ, so a distinction needs to be made.

 

The truth is I just don't know. I'd like the option to teach in the future, but I don't know for sure that I ever will. I'd also like to have an impressive MBA for industry, but I'm not sure how much it would actually help me, if at all. I have 20 years of business experience and have been a VP for nearly 10 of those years, so the MBA isn't going to advance me within my current organization. I would however, like to be adequately credentialed for future flexibility (downsizing, changing organizations, career change).

Pug

 

I am rather skeptical on whether AACSB is really that important factor, especially for a well-established school. I think the bottom line is accreditation by "Middle States Association of Colleges and Universities" and stated in JHU.

The lack of AACSB is more likely because of the lack of research element in the school. They offer no PhD programmes at the moment. Quite many of the faculty are shared among other academic departments in JHU. So I believe their research ability should be good enough.

Reputation matters, for an MBA degree.

My $0.02.

 

When you say you'd like to have the option to teach in the future, you need to address the question of where. Are you thinking of leaving the corporate world for a full-time tenure-track position at an AACSB school? Or are you thinking of doing a little adjuncting, either now or in retirement?

 

This person has a interesting opinion on the subject:

http://www.dba-oracle.com/t_poor_quality_diploma_mill_mba_schools.htm

Wonder how many others in industry share his views?

 

Actually, the question is, do people who hire MBA's perceive it that way? And for any job where an MBA is a "bona-fide occupational requirement", the answer is that rankings like Businessweek's and AACSB accreditation matter much more than the overall reputation of the school. An MBA from a non-AACSB school might help you get the edge in landing a job where most applicants don't have graduate or professional degrees, assuming it didn't cause the HR manager to assume you were overqualified. But if you were a recent JHU MBA graduate applying to management consulting firms or investment banks, you wouldn't even get an interview.

People in general might not perceive a difference between programs, but the people who make the hiring decisions do. Accreditation is the source of a lot of wailing and gnashing of teeth on this board, but my opinion (which is worth what you pay for it, of course) is that when it comes to your MBA, you should strive to complete the highest-ranked program (not school) with the best accreditation that you can get into that meets your budget. (And, as long as I'm rambling, that means that you should prepare for and take the GMAT. If you're going to invest 2 or more years of your life and thousands of dollars pursuing a degree, you can invest 2-3 months and a few hundred bucks preparing for and taking a standardized test that is a darn good predictor of your b-school performance. I'm talking to you, GMAT-haters!) You only get to do the MBA once (for the most part), and you should strive to get as much utility out of your investment as possible.

 

Apparently, any non-AACSB MBA is inferior and the institution from which it is earned must be a diploma mill according to the author. He even goes so far as to claim accreditation of any degree by North Central Association of Schools and Colleges should be suspect because it is <i>the same accrediting body used by kindergartens.</i>

 

The author is unduly harsh, but you must acknowledge that many of the non-AACSB MBA programs out there aren't much more than cash cows for their parent schools.

 

Obviously the author is an idiot. If he actually knew what he was talking about, he would realize that all of the regionals accredit primary and secondary education as well as postsecondary education.

 

This author also makes the specious claim that AACSB is the only accreditation for business schools. As we all know here, ACBSP is also recognizesd professional accreditation for business schools.

 

While MBAs have become cash cows for many schools, both brick-and-mortar and strictly online, calling non-AACSB MBA programmes worthless is over the top on the part of the author of the article.

 

You are correct about ACBSP but unfortunately some rankings act as if they do not even exist.

US News and WR only ranks AACSB MBA programs:

http://www.usnews.com/articles/education/best-graduate-schools/2008/03/26/business-methodology.html

 

BusinessWeek has an online form you can use to nominate your school. Guess the ACBSP falls in the Other category:


http://polls.businessweek.com/polls/surveys/08/nominate.htm

The business program is accredited by:

-AACSB
-Not Accredited
-Other (Please specify

 

At this point in your career, future employers won't care as much where you did your MBA. They will care more about your experience and accomplishments in business. An elite MBA is much more important for a young student. It helps offset the lack of experience. I think most employers will almost always prefer someone with a proven history of success vs a newly minted MBA from a top school with little work history. I don't think you can go wrong with any of the schools you list. However, if you want to teach, it would be better to go to an AACSB school to cover your bases.

 

If I taught anytime soon it be as an adjunct, but I wouldn't want to rule out a full-time position down the road, either later in my career or in retirement.

Pug

 

That's what I'm thinking as well.

Pug

 

I have to make a correction on Loyola's literature. It does claim to have placed thousands in Fortune 500 companies. It says, "the school has graduated more than 13,000 MBAs, EMBAs, MBA Fellows, and MSFs who now hold leadership positions in hundreds of Fortune 500 companies across
the region and nationwide. No other school in Baltimore has a longer track record of success."

It is still the only school in Maryland, other than the University of Maryland, to make such a claim.

Pug

 

My thought was that if you hope for the full-time tenure track position, the AACSB MBA (and probably AACSB PhD) is going to be all-important. If you're thinking about occasional adjuncting gigs, then the MBA plus experience is going to be more important.

 

I believe the research element of the school is much more important than obtaining AACSB. Of course AACSB does have requirements on research elements. But that seemed too little for a full-time tenure track position.

Going back to the basics, looking at how well the school does in research, their research output, quality of the output, area of strength, is better than the AACSB label.