FAU dismisses 28 business instructors

Please find the entire article at

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/palmbeach/sfl-ppfau10apr10,0,7393218.story?coll=sfla-news-palm

FAU = Florida Atlantic University, a state run aacsb accredited school

SACS = The Southern Association of Colleges and Schools.

Here is some information from article

Under pressure from accreditors (SACS), Florida Atlantic University is dismissing 28 business instructors whose qualifications were questioned.


Administrators also note that a business-specific accrediting group, the Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business, has approved FAU's program.

It also leaves FAU hustling to find replacements for this fall and still waiting for an all-clear from its accreditor, the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools. FAU now has about six months to appease the group or face questioning that eventually could jeopardize FAU's accreditation, a crucial seal of approval tied to eligibility for student aid, professional licenses and transferring course credits.

 

Based on just what I read in the article, it seems like SACS is splitting hairs to the extreme.

 

I have always wondered how most MBA degrees can fit the "18 credit in one field" rule for teaching purposes. Apparently, so does SACS.

 

Maybe I'm not following you, but is this because the MBA is too general and not specific enough? One of the strong selling points of many MBAs is its course breadth is it not? Does this mean Universities should start offering more specialized degrees like MS in Management, Finance, Accounting, Marketing or other areas for people who may want to teach?

 

Good for SACS

Unlike others who may want to defend FAU, as a potential future student of FAU let me just say hooray!!! Anything that can be done to promote more qualified instructors is a good thing. I'm sure many of the instructors who were let go will now take a few courses in the subject they teach and then be reinstituted into their former positions. How can THAT be bad for students?

 

I'm not sure I understand the details of this FAU case.

But I do distrust the trend towards 'academicizing' business education. Business is a practice performed by non-academics, it isn't just a theoretical subject contemplated by Ph.D.s from ivory towers.

I have the same misgivings about the advent of Doctor of Fine Arts degrees that might end up pushing the practicing MFA-level artists out of studio art colleges. And your own field of criminal justice can benefit from input from some actual cops, not just trendy postmodern critiques from Ph.D.s.

I guess the bottom line is practice vs. scholarship. I see a real danger in pushing those things too far apart.

 

JoAnn,

Most MBAs, even with a concentration do not provide 18 hours in a specific subject. mine covered 15 so I still have to complete additional classes to meet accreditors standards. Further, in most instances they require these from a RA school. Exceptions are made but you need a substantial resume, I do not know if SACS grants exceptions. While the breadth in most MBAs is good for the individual it is not for Academia. The best recommendation I can make, having experienced this first hand, is that if you plan to teach and to use your MBA, get a concentration and add some additional graduate classes in the subject. With the resources on this board a good DL class or two would suffice and if you plan ahead you can complete these at the same time as your MBA.

I would argue that having 18 graduate hours in a subject does not necessarily make you a better or more knowledgeable instructor than real-world experience as a professional but since it is a requirement it is easier to get the classes and to move on than wait on the exception.

Kevin

 

Bill,

you have hit the point.

Kevin

 

My brother has never worked a lick in the real business world, yet he is a business professor. He went straight from high school to college and then into the university as a professor, where he has taught business for the last 10 years. He has no real world experience, but he has the academics down pat. I've always wondered how someone who has never been in the business world can give advice to business students.

 

Does he teach at an AACSB accredited school? The AACSB seems to prefer full time instructors with Ph Ds even if they have limited real world experience.

 

Yes, it is AACSB accredited.

 

Isn't that true of every graduate major?

Suppose I earn a graduate degree in Philosophy. If I'm hired somewhere (yeah, right), particularly in a smaller department that doesn't employ specialists, I might find myself teaching an introduction class here, a philosophy of religion class there, and next semester philosophy of science and a course on Aristotle.

Do I have 18 graduate semester hours in the topic of each course I teach: the philosophy of religion, science or Aristotle? That's probably unlikely.

So what's up with the tendency for departments and subjects to fray, with each subspecialty going its own way and becoming a department that demands its own graduate major?

I see business departments expanding into business colleges within their universities, and things like finance and marketing turning into separate subjects. Is this trend driven by academic need, or by massive business student enrollments and by academic politics?

But if the accreditors apply their 18 unit rule in these cases, then we will probably be seeing some pretty dramatic changes in how the whole discipline of business is defined. That's going to impact both the universities and the economy.

I'm not convinced that this is entirely a good thing.

 

Steve,

you make a good point about the course code. However, keep the syllabus of the courses and one can make a good argument as to applicability.


Bill,

I don't have a clue where the 18 hour rule comes from but it seems pretty standard across all the accreditors. On a counterpoint; my current PhD program has a concentration that is 18 hours. So my assumption is that the accreditors are pushing folks towards the PhD route. Not sure if this is a good thing or a bad thing. I agree with others that the PhD effort may be so narrowly focused that without practical application where is the real world value. I'm like others on this forum and am back in school after plying my trade for a significant period and doing so for me rather than career enhancement. I don't think you would need 18 hours in each subject but rather in a specific range of subjects that were closely related. But I'm not SACS so who knows what their thoughts are regarding your question.

Regards,

Kevin

 

Steve,

I don't have a problem with learning the depth of a subject but I would think that showing correlation to other functional areas and how the particular subject has real world application would be a benefit from breadth. More importantly, at what point does taking the same subject as a class become redundant. In your example It would seem the push is again towards the PhD.

I am fortunate that teaching is not my career. I tried it at the lower levels but was disappointed in the secondary schools. I would hate to have to deal with the full-time issues you face related to a career. It seems to me that this specificity would pigeon hole you to teaching only one subject until you acquired another 18 hours.

Regards,

Kevin

 

I am not surprised. I am researching masters in business programs and want instructors that are successful in the real world. I cannot understand why someone would go to school for many years just to teach business full time at $65,000 per year unless that is all they can find. To each their own I guess.

 

Something similar to the FAU event happened at a North Carolina school where I do some adjunct work over a year ago. Many of the adjunct professors had good experience in their field and accredited degrees of masters and higher but did not have the specialized graduate coursework to meet the SACS requirements for the courses they were teaching. There was a considerable reshuffling of professors and a few were not renewed.

John

 

Re: What, Where, and Why

Sounds like a good idea to me. I was referring to those that get PhDs and then teach full time. Not knocking it but couldn't you make much more money in the private sector? The educational process makes little sense to me