AACSB and IACBE Accreditation

I never understood why a young person that graduated from a quality school with a business degree and a GPA >= 3.0 would need to take the GMAT. Does the graduate school feel that the GPA was not achieved honestly, or the person would not be able to do well on the GMAT if he or she used the same study skills that earned them their undergraduate GPA?

My undergraduate background is purely technical and I would agree to take perquisite or foundation courses to enter into a graduate business program. My ability to study for and pass a test is reflected in my GPA.

 

Rationale for GMAT (and other standardized tests)

Well, the GMAT may help to differentiate that person from some other applicant who has an equally high, but artificially inflated, GPA from a substandard school.

US schools vary tremendously in quality, from world leaders to jokes. Degree standards and grading standards vary widely as well. Standardized testing allows all applicants to be compared on an equal footing in at least one respect.

 

Re: Rationale for GMAT (and other standardized tests)

It may also differentiate between those that can afford test prep like Kaplan and those that cannot.

Just my opinion

 

Re: Re: Rationale for GMAT (and other standardized tests)

It also helps institutions differentiate between those that are good standardized test takers versus those that are not.

 

Re: Rationale for GMAT (and other standardized tests)

If the undergraduates alma mata was AACSB accredited should the applicant still be required to take a GMAT to enter into the graduate program of another AACSB accredited school?

If the GPA varies by such a large degree and is artificially inflated why not require only standardized testing and delete GPA's from the equation completely?

 

Re: Rationale for GMAT (and other standardized tests)

You of course are assuming that the test then is an accurate measure of actual aptitude then. I have no hard data on the GMAT, but in general terms this is not the case. What good is a standardized test that puts everyone on equal footing if it does not give you an accurate measure of the student entering the program? As a matter of fact if there was such a strong correlation between graduate business school success and the GMAT, there wouldn't be such a fluctuation in the minimum score required for admission which is between 400-700(not including the programs that require but waive it).

 

Re: Re: Rationale for GMAT (and other standardized tests)

Ahh..now technically Kaplan and all those test prep places cheat the system do they not because they teach the test. Shouldn't it be more important to learn the skills required to pass the test then to learn how to take the test itself?

I believe that statement is both 100% correct and 100% false!

How can it be both?

The answer is simple you should know the concepts needed to take the test. It would be great to be able to understand the test throughly through that perspective, but come test day you still could not get as high or as an effective score as someone who plain learns the test.
The person who learns the test is by far better off and is highly more efficent (at test taking) then his counterpart who studied the concepts.This person will more likely score higher. This has been proven time and time again!

 

Re: Re: CHEA

Keio University has AACSB accreditation in their business program.

 

Re: Re: Re: CHEA

And 4 others going through the process of getting accreditation.

 

Re: Re: Rationale for GMAT (and other standardized tests)

I get the sense that some people in this forum are not big fans of standardized tests in general, or the GMAT in particular.

Standardized tests certainly aren't perfect. Test scores can be influenced by practice, coaching, innate test-taking skills, or just bad luck (a headache on test day, for example). And yes, sometimes the material on the tests is of questionable real-world significance.

But GPAs aren't perfect either. This may shock those of you that are still in school, but sometimes the material taught in college is also of questionable real-world significance. And class grades can be influenced too, by professors, classmates, or even scheduling (some people don't do well in 8 am classes, for example). The same student could take the same class at the same school from two different professors, yet wind up with two different grades. And it's even worse when you start comparing different schools. Here in California, for example, there is no way that a 3.5 GPA from Cal State University San Bernardino is comparable to a 3.5 GPA from Stanford. Yes, CSUSB is a perfectly legitimate RA- and AACSB-accredited school, but no, it's not Stanford.

Some schools don't require standardized test scores, but that still doesn't mean that they accept raw GPAs at face value. Admissions officers routinely "adjust" GPAs depending on the perceived rigor of the degree program: for example, they might adjust a Stanford GPA upwards and a CSUSB GPA downwards. It's questionable whether such adjustments are fairer to the CSUSB applicant than the opportunity to compete directly with Stanford applicants on the same test.

Well, most professionals (other than MBAs) face *exactly* that situation after they graduate. Accountants have to pass the CPA exam, lawyers have to pass the bar exam, doctors have to pass medical license exams, engineers have to pass the PE exam, etc. In such cases, GPA is meaningless, as long as it was high enough to graduate. The right to practice professionally -- which is the ultimate goal of the whole educational process -- is determined on the basis of standardized testing; GPA is ignored.

 

Re: Re: Re: CHEA

Guess someone should tell Nagoya University of Commerce and Business that.

Surprising that such an advanced nation as Japan has ONLY 1 AACSB accredited school and four going for it. They have a population of approx 125,000,000 and one AACSB school?

Interesting!

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: CHEA

With only one accredited and 4 getting it there must not be much demand in Japan for it.

Anyway, did you see the link I posted for you:

http://www.bsu.edu/distinguished/ar...18674--,00.html

The Stoops Distinguished Professor of Entrepreneurship from Nova Southeastern University? The Professor that:

Now someone please explain to me how an AACSB-only hiring policy that would disqualify this outstanding professor benefits the students of such a school.

Thanks

 

Re: Re: Re: Rationale for GMAT (and other standardized tests)

But there is a difference vs the GMAT. When I passed my Florida real estate sales and broker exams (no AACSB degree required) you either passed or failed. Nobody cared if I scored high or not. Same with the mortgage brokers exam (no AACSB degree required). I believe that the Florida CPA exam (no AACSB degree required) is the same. With the GMAT a passing score often isn't good enough. You need 550, 600 or even higher.

I have the resources to purchase any GMAT prep course I could possibly want. Yet many of my fellow students in undergrad could barely afford to purchase books after borrowing. Not exactly a level playing field!

Just my opinion

 

As someone who got into my first grad school program with a miserable GPA but very high GRE, I have to defend standardized testing. Neither GPA nor standardized tests are a reliable indicator of future success. But when you put them together, they become slightly better! A good selective admissions policy will require a lot of information from the applicant and look at many qualitative and quantitative factors, not only GPA and GRE/GMAT.

Also, I don't think that there are really serious non-psychological barriers to preparing for standardized tests. I've never taken any test prep courses... always self-studied. The Kaplan 2004 GMAT guide with CD-ROM starts at $5 used on Amazon.

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: CHEA

I think the AACSB is finally spreading internationally. For example, Grenoble hosted their conference last year. Many international schools were not interested in AACSB, as it was "American". AACSB has even changed their name in the past year to accomidate the international market. Japan is a great example - for the past 80 years, no schools, then one received accreditation, and now 4 more going for it. This shows me that they have penetrated the international market and I see the international base contonue to grow.

I just looked back, I did miss your thread - thank you for finding and posting it. I think it is the exception though, but it is good to see that a school is looking outside the box. I think you are assuming that some of us that say that AACSB degrees are needed for an AACSB teaching school that we agree with it. I don't necessarily agree with it (much like standardize testing), I just know it is a reality.

 

Rationale for GMAT (and other standardized tests)

OK, the GMAT differs from professional licensing exams in the way that it is scored. With the GMAT, higher scores are better. With licensing exams, higher scores don't matter, as long as you exceed a minimum passing level.

But the details of the scoring system don't really matter. Yes, professional licensing exams are typically pass/fail -- but passing is difficult. There are *plenty* of expensive test prep courses and study materials that can improve your chances of passing the CPA exam, the bar exam, the PE exam, etc., just as there are similar courses and materials that can improve your score on the GMAT. And yes, people who invest money and time in such courses and materials may pass the tests at higher rates than those who don't.

But let's face it: GPAs reflect inequities too. Some students can afford private tutors outside of class; others can't. Some students have their own laptops; others wait in line for access to a public computer. Some students have to work while they are in school; others don't. A student that has to work part-time to get through school may lose 20 hours per week (or more) of study time relative to one who doesn't. Not exactly a level playing field either.

 

Re: Re: Re: Rationale for GMAT (and other standardized tests)

CalDog - I know a lot of folks aren't standardized test fans here. Unfortunately, if any of us worked as an admissions director at a top business school (or med school or law school), you'd see the problem. There are lots of applicants and you can't say "yes" to everyone. Med schools are the worse - 7,000 applicants for 150 spots at one well known school - and 3,000 applicants may have 4.0s. You can't say "yes" or "no" on the basis of one's hair color. You need a statistically valid measurement.

GMATs aren't perfect in predicting MBA grades - but they are statistically valid. At a gross level I think they make some sense. Folks with 400 GMATs are unlikely to be successful at Harvard. Folks with 700 GMATs are more likely, but not certain, to be successful.

The former director of the DBA program at NSU told me that he had identified a direct relationship between GMAT and dissertation completion. Folks with low GMATs may be able to complete coursework, but when it came to dissertations - folks with low GMATs tended to struggle in the dissertation phase.

In general I think schools should be encoruaged to require the GMAT for MBA and DBA programs - at the very least as a piece of data that can be used to evaluate their programs over time. GMAT scores can be used to identify trends in their incoming students that may help the school improve their programs. I suspect that using a GMAT "floor" may also make sense, but this can only be established over time.

The bottom line is that the GMAT isn't used to admit folks to top schools. Instead, it is used to deny admission to folks that can't be accomodated.

Regards - Andy

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Rationale for GMAT (and other standardized tests)

Remember George W. Bush Graduated from Yale with a C average! He also went and completed Harvard Business Schools MBA program!

John F. Kerry graduated from Yale with a C average(see a trend )! He completed Boston College Law School.

I realize these are anomalies and their parents had a lot to do with admission but still they are very public proof of exactly the opposite. They both completed a courses that behind that theory they shouldn't have.

I agree, esspecially at the top tier schools GMAT is only used to deny admission(interesting historical fact..HBS did not require the GMAT until 1997..well it had been on an 11 year hiatus to be accurate)
I must disagree on the second half of the paragraph though. It is used to deny admission to those they don't WANT to accomodate (who may otherwise be successful..or they could drop out..then again so could some with a 700 gmat score).

 

SLOWLY

Did this quickly so might have missed something but these are selected countries with the number of AACSB accredited business schools:

Australia - 3

China - 3

France - 9

Germany - 3

Japan - 1

Mexico - 3

UK - 9

Venezuela - 1

Brazil - 1

Outside of North America I would call this very SLOW spreading!

Just my opinion

 

Not to jump on you at all, Rivers, but an exception to the rule never proves the rule (or its corollary/converse). Also, one needs beware to not commit the subjectivist (relativist) logical fallacy.