AACSB teaching revisited

Re: Re: AACSB teaching revisited

Another major AACSB school in Florida that has a marketing chair without a single AACSB accredited degree in his resume:

http://www.cob.fsu.edu/mar/display_new.asp?personID=75

Florida State University:

Dennis Cradit
Department Chairman and Professor
Department of Marketing
College of Business
Florida State University

Ph. D. University of Iowa, Psychology 1984
MA University of Iowa Psychology
BA University of Missouri Psychology/history


Must be the crazy Florida schools.


Just my opinion

 

Re: Re: Re: AACSB teaching revisited

I think this is explained through being a psychology major, all of the schools above have AACSB in their business school. Buyer Behavior, Marketing, etc. have a psychological element, and it is applicable to have a psyc major in the business school. I hope AACSB doesn't jump over to start accrediting pych departments!!!

 

There are 13 AACSB and EQUIS schools in Europe right now.

Which do you find a "better" degree holder - 4th tier AACSB or a top tier RA ?

 

Re: Re: Re: AACSB teaching revisited

One last question - do you know of any examples of Department Chairs that hold BUSINESS degrees at AACSB schoosl, that are not AACSB degrees. That would be very interesting!

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: AACSB teaching revisited

Seriously doubt the psychology depts would allow it. In my very limited research I was told by an MD friend that also holds an mba that AACSB is just a wannabe. The business schools are jealous of the true professional schools so they made up not one but THREE accrediting qroups, four if you count EQUIS. He gave me the following example (paraphrased):

If I sat at a table with all lawyers from my state I would expect they all graduated from an ABA school with a JD or equivalent degree. It would also be safe to assume that they all met the BAR requirements of my state.

If I sat at a table with all medical doctors from my state I would expect they all hold accredited MDs or DOs and be licensed in my state.

Last week I sat at a table with various members of a major company. One has an mba, three a bs in various subjects, and two with no degrees period! All high level people.

I can understand professional accreditation for areas that require certification or licensure but business? With the critical differences between the haves and haves nots being the number of full time instructors?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I liked that!

Just my opinion

 

How many AACSB ONLY schools in Europe????

I want an mba program that teaches entrepreneurship taught by successful people currently in the field of building businesses. I DO NOT WANT some full time PhD that never did anything but research what others have accomplished as an instructor. I already had that.

It can be RA only, AACSB, ACBSP, EQUIS, or whatever.

Want some face to face time along with a dl component.

 

My Entrepreneurship class during my MBA was a blast, we actually pitched our plans to local "angels", or business investors. I have heard one group got the business off the ground.

I understand your thoughts, but I have found some very very very good professor's that are full time PhDs. I have also found great part time professors, so I think it depends on the person, nbot if they are PT or FT.

I found the face to face orals / finals a great component to the MBA, but my program has gone away with it, since it it is tough to be competitive, as most students don't like to travel, time and cost reasons.

You will not see any school (that I know of) in the US only have EQUIS, and any school in Europe only have AACSB. The globalization of accreditation agencies has only happened in the last 10 years. AACSB I have heard is chagning their name, since they are accreditating more then "America". I think most schools get the accreditation of their primary market (europe is european students and US, US students), then they tangent out, based on needs.

Carlos - It sounds like accreditation is not a factor for you, so I assume you are not going into teaching at an AACSB school. If you are using it for business, I don't think AACSB matters. I do think, though, you have given an example of two of AACSB schools who have outside the business department chairs, and though there is always an exception, I would be hesitant to say that an AACSB school does not require an AACSB degree from their faculty. Are there exceptions, sure, but 99.99999% is a good rule of thumb.

I just wouldn't want anybody to read these postings and think "I don't need the AACSB, though I want to teach ast an AACSB school". It is a long shot, and in my case, your application goes in the trash, doesn't make it pass the search committee if you don't have AACSB.

Great insight though, thanks!

 

99.99999% ? Looks like 50% at the University of Chicago!

Perhaps everyone in this discussion should take a look at the AACSB website at:

http://www.aacsb.edu/Publications/dfc/default.asp

Report from the Doctoral Faculty Commission

Sustaining Scholarship in Business Schools

In part:

Recommended Actions 29
I. FACILITATE ATTRACTION OF ALTERNATIVE SOURCES
Develop ‘post-doc’ and bridge programs for Ph.D.’s in other disciplines

Doctoral faculty can be attracted from sources other than doctoral programs in business.

Almost half of the faculty at the University of Chicago's Graduate School of Business have doctoral degrees from fields
outside of business, and many other schools attract and promote faculty with training in other fields.

Nonbusiness doctorates also may benefit from special orientation to the culture of business schools. We recommend that schools develop post-doc opportunities for these non-business Ph.D.’s for one to two years, at competitive salaries below the cost of starting business faculty.

_______________________________________________

A very interesting report on the state of the business doctorate today.

Not bad research for a BS in Business

Just my opinion

 

I think you misunderstood what 99.9999% meant. Of the business degree holders, 99.999% would be from an AACSB school, if teaching from an AACSB school. (haven't seen anything otherwise, the examples of other disciplines are not applicable to the 99.999%)

I think the further and further the business school's branch out, is a good thing. Like the Business Law professor, it would be good to get a real lawyer, from a top school, rather than a business degree holder, no arguement there. (from your reference above).

This is a completely seperate discussion from the business degree holders - Were you able to find any examples of Business degree holders (from the business department) teaching at AACSB schools, that don't hold AACSB (not from other discplines, because obviously they don't hold it).

 

Interesting article:

http://citadel.edu/faculty/moore/2000articles/feb_21_2000.html

"Are there differences between AACSB-accredited and non-AACSB institutions? A number of studies have found several, the most important being the fewer number of courses faculty were required to teach at AACSB-accredited schools, leaving more time for specialization, greater faculty research productivity at these institutions, and career environments that reflected an institutional emphasis on continuing faculty intellectual activity. All of these are cost items.
The benefits of AACSB accreditation are many. Students benefit by the assurance their program of study satisfies the highest criteria established in the field of business education. Employers benefit by the assurance that graduates have completed a program where the content and quality are under continuous internal and external evaluation."

 

This is my kind of instructor and at an AACSB school!

http://www.bsu.edu/distinguished/article/0,,18674--,00.html

In part:

Donald Kuratko

Miller College of Business


Under Donald Kuratko’s leadership, the Ball State Entrepreneurship Program has received numerous national recognitions and is continually ranked as one of the top 20 programs in the nation by Business Week and Success magazines. The College of Business has also been ranked one of the top 10 business schools for entrepreneurship research.

____________________________________________________

And to think some schools would not consider this quality instructor simply because Nova is not AACSB.

Sad

Just my opinion

 

True, but I know some great "real world professionals" who can not teach their way out of a wet paper bag. For example, many engineers have great abilties, but don't have the social skills to articulate them, and the skills to teach others their skill.

It takes a great deal to be a good professor, not jus treal world expereince, but scholastic as well.

I know your point, and it is a good one though.

 

Andy Borchers wrote:

But let me ask you this. Which schools are you referring to? That is, which DL program allows you to complete a program PART TIME in three years? Assuming that you are referring to doctoral programs. No, you can't do that at Capella. 3 years full time study required with them (assuming you've got a masters along the way).


-S

 

What does "full-time" mean?

Sulla - I'm familiar with NSU, but not Capella. At NSU, the average time to complete a DBA is 60 months. I can't think of any DBA students I know that were truly "full time". Some may have been classified "full-time" by the university based on credit hours taken - but everyone I knew was employed.

I know in my own experience that I took 4.5 years at NSU, taking 1-2 courses a term. I was working full-time in industry at the time.

Are there many/any truly "full-time" (e.g. not work on anything but school) learners at Capella?

At any rate, top B&M schools are a full time proposition. When I checked out UoM and MSU, they were insistent that students be on-site and dedicated to school and research full-time. A friend who tried to pursue a doctorate in business at the University of Nebraska was told frankly that if a student tried to work full time while pursuing a program of study they would be found out and dropped from the program.

Regards - Andy

 

I looked at Nova's current DBA curriculum and spoke to an advisor and she said that the average time is between 3 to 4 years.
Looking at the curriculum, it certainly looks like it can be completed in a minimum of 3 years going full time.

In my own experience at Capella, few are able to complete their doctorate in only 3 years (things come along, delays, dissertation proposals not approved, etc) but a small minority do make it and its possible. As for me, its starting to take longer and I have had to delay my anticipated graduation date two more semesters.

If you were taking between 1 to 2 courses a term it makes sense. It would take about the same time at Capella doing this.

I've always thought of full time as dependent of courses taken.

Most of them work, and I'd say many of them alternate between part-time and full-time schedules. I know some people that are only taking 1 course per semester, and anticipating graduating in about 6-7 years time since their start at the program.

Those doctorates are designed to pursue a full time career in academics and pure research, and involve teaching and aiding professors with their research and a lot of publishing. You seem to think that all doctorate programs have to be this way, with little to no work experience while you achieve them. Certainly, Nova and Capella don't fit this mold. They seem to adhere to a more practitioner-scholar model with primary emphasis on practitioner training as opposed to the scientist-practitioner model of the traditional schools regardless of the nomenclature of the degree.

-S

 

Sulla - A reply.

Regards - Andy

I suspect that the advisor was trying to be optimistic. The 60 month figure was calculated by administrators reviewing records of students who actually completed the program. Some do finish in 3-4 years. The average could possibly be influneced by some outliers, however. Perhaps the median would be a better number to look at.

This is an interesting point. The concept of full-time that I've seen in the B&M world means "full-time working on courses or other university tasks (research, teaching, etc.)".

I have no problem with the practitioner-scholar model and people studying part-time. This is the route I took. But recall what this thread is about - teaching in AACSB schools. The point I'm trying to make is that we can't have it both ways. We can't expect to complete a part-time doctoral program taught by adjuncts and lacking an intense research focus (such as good B&M schools have), and not expect our degrees to be "just as good as traditional degrees". DL and traditional PhD programs are "different". The DL route may be fine preparation for positions in teaching institutions. But expecting to land a job at a top flight B&M school with a DL degree is in most cases dreaming.

 

Re: What does "full-time" mean?

Andy,

I am in total concurrence that most traditional doctoral students, for the reason that they dwell and work in the academia during their studies, are possibly inclined to be more involved with academic activities than their DL counterparts, but to suggest that dissertations submitted by DL graduates are generally inferior to those written by traditional doctoral graduates is absolutely a hyperbole. It is an oversimplification of the issues. You appear to suggest that traditional students focus only on their research throughout the duration of their studies but facts that support that this is a fallacious thought abound. Traditional doctoral students are usually involved with several academic activities that range from teaching college classes, tutorials, grading papers for other professors, writing journal articles for their advisors to conducting several researches for their professors that are not relevant to their dissertations. Some of them also hold adjunct teaching positions in other colleges. In fact some traditional students do not have enough time to conduct researches for their dissertations because of what is known among academes as “academic slavery”.

When I was conducting my study, I perused dissertations from MIT, University of Georgia, and Nova Southeastern University and I can confidently avouch that I did not detect any remarkable differences in standards among these three dissertations. Based on compliments that came my way from many SCIS (Nova) professors, I believe that my dissertation actually bested the aforementioned dissertations. Andy, I am willing to send you a copy of my dissertation along with those two from MIT and The University of Georgia so that you can compare and contrast among the three. Some dissertations from DL schools are certainly substandard but the same thing can be said of some dissertations from traditional B&M universities. To suggest that dissertations from DL schools are more often than not substandard vís a vís dissertations from traditional B&M schools is at best incongruent with reality. If your dissertation did not measure up, mine indeed did.

On how long doctoral programs take to complete at Nova, I completely agree with you. Most of students spend more than 5 years on the program and majority in point of fact fail to complete the program. At SCIS, three years is highly unrealistic. At Fischler Graduate School of Education (EdD program), I believe that three years is realistic because an applied dissertation, which FGSE students are required to pen in partial fulfillment for a doctorate in education, seems to be less demanding that a normal dissertation, but that would soon change.

In conclusion, most DL schools that are often discussed here are not top-notch. Nonetheless, some of them provide genuine and top quality education for their students. It will be tantamount a platitude state that DL is yet to be accepted by everybody in the society because we know that that is the case, but time will come when things will change. It took several decades for people to accept and respect graduates of “night schools”. Similarly, I believe that it will take several years for people to truly accept DL programs as equivalent to B&M programs.

 

Fair enough. business doctorates that strictly follow the practitioner model don't qualify well into AACSB schools and I don't have a problem with that.
I just wanted to clear up what you meant regarding completing a doctoral degree part time vs. full time at the doctoral level. Anyone could misinterpret what you say and think that they can take 3-6 credit hours per semester and finish in 3 years which is certainly not the case, and I doubt that NCA would approve this.

In adition, While I completed my MA degree at the University of South Florida, I did not engage in any academic activities (teaching, research). My degree strictly followed the practitioner model. And I was enrolled full time, it mean 9-10hours per semester and nothing less. I never considered myself a part-time student just because I had a full time job at the time and never engaged in any academic activities.
I guess the definition of full time or part time enrollment differs at the doctoral level.

-S

 

And the full time research Ph Ds are all great charismatic teachers?? I think not, at least at the AACSB school I attended!

I received an email from the AACSB informing me that they do NOT require a business doctorate to be accredited by them. RA only is acceptable but the final decision is the schools.

My opinion of the AACSB just went up.

I still believe, and the Ball State example proves it, that in the best interest of the students a school should consider ALL qualified candidates for instructor positions. A good mix of research and practitioner faculty is what I seek.

Any school that requires business faculty to be AACSB only is automatically off my list. That type of pompous bureaucratic thinking is not inline with my entrepreneur spirit.

Just my opinion

 

Thanks to Oxpecker for posting this link at this thread:

http://forums.degreeinfo.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=13947

Great article on the University of Phoenix:

Praising Arizona

What can the UK learn from a university where everyone pays fees and academics do little research?


Just my opinion