Does AACSB matter if you aren't going to teach?

Come on, this is completely unfair.

If the CMBA was ridiculously easy, and all examinees passed, then people here would argue that it must be a meaningless "mill" certification on that basis.

Turns out the CMBA is actually rather difficult, and a significant number examinees flunk (according to this news article from Business 2.0, one-third of AACSB MBAs fail the test; the percentage is probably higher for other MBAs). Yet now people here are arguing that it must be a meaningless "mill" certification on that basis too.

State Bar, CPA, and Professional Engineering exams also have high flunk rates, and people routinely take them multiple times too. Does this make them less "legitimate" as well ?

 

No. Professional licensing boards (such as those that administer the Bar, CPA, or PE exams) do not attempt to offer precisely "equivalent" exams in every session. They explicitly acknowledge that different exams may be "harder" or "easier", and compensate for this variation by changing the passing score for each exam session. A "harder" exam will have a lower passing score; an "easier" exam will have a higher passing score.

The criticisms that have been leveled at the CMBA exam here are weak. In general, they reflect a poor understanding of professional licensing exams in general, rather than the CMBA exam specifically.

In my opinion, it appears to be based on a legitimate and rigourous exam process. It also appears to have virtually no recognition or value in the academic or professional communities, except at WGU.

The need for the CMBA designation is therefore questionable. On the other hand, it is entirely voluntary (again, except at WGU), so what's the problem?

 

One of the hallmarks of our educational system is that it is built on diversity. Programs like the one referenced above are horrible. They stifle innovation when implemented.

If successful--and there is absolutely no way this will succeed--the CMBA would force MBA programs to "teach to the test." This is an ugly idea at any level, but especially in graduate school where thinking is taught. This isn't "quality control." It is merely (attempted) control.

First, the AACSB won't go for it. It's member schools already have their stamp of approval; they don't need some upstart's certification. And I don't think AACSB wants any process to succeed which would allow non-AACSB degrees to be deemed comparable. That is counter-intuitive. That leaves CMBA with accredited (but not by AACSB) and unaccredited schools.

Second, why would otherwise-accredited schools get involved? That would be admitting that their programs might be otherwise deemed substandard. And I doubt they would delegate that judgment to the individual graduates' successes and failures on this test. That leaves unaccredited schools.

Third, unaccredited school might be interested in such a thing. But who would care? Which leaves the biggest question of all.

Finally, where's the demand for this? Employers? Hardly. Graduates? Why? The only demand I've ever seen is from a handful of graduates from unaccredited schools who want a stronger appearance of legitimacy for their degrees.

When employers cry out that they can't tell the chaff from the wheat regarding newly minted MBA's, maybe. But that doesn't really seem to be the case. What they say:

The CMBA can level the playing field between you and graduates who may rely on program prestige and reputation to promote their perceived difference. It can also effectively neutralize the bias of school reputation or rank in the recruiting and hiring decision.


Uh, huh. Sure. I'd like to see some data. What I see is a program playing on the insecurities of some recent graduates hoping to bolster their qualifications.

As for AACSB, I don't ever recall seeing an employer's hiring policy that dictated this accreditation, but there might be some out there. A bigger issue is the reputation of the school vis-a-vis whether or not it's accredited by AACSB. Almost all the top B-schools are AACSB-accredited. It is not clear, however, if this is because AACSB is a sign of quality, or, rather, that the criteria used in ranking is very similar to what AACSB uses to accredit. (If I ran a programmatic accreditor, I would also want to ensure I accredited the top programs in my field. D-uh.)

 

Yes, those entities do try to construct tests that measure roughly the same level of knowledge. If they don't, then they don't know what they are doing. Grading on the curve is evidence that they do understand there are nuances in constructing a test that measures roughly the same level of knowledge. Jmetro noted that the subsequent attempts at the text became progressively harder and more difficult to achieve a passing score; s/he makes no mention of whether the exam is graded on a curve.

Dave


Dave

 

I don't know that there is a problem. I ask about the value of the CMBA designation because the value might be slightly above zero once one totals the opportunity cost of the time with the exam fees.

I'm reminded of the Professional Certified Marketer (PCM) designation sponsored by the American Marketing Association (AMA). I passed this exam and was a PCM for three years. The PCM is an attempt weed out some of the charlatans from the marketing profession but it hasn't gained much traction yet. Since I teach marketing to MBAs, I passed the exam without studying.

By comparison, the PCM has some specific goals: to make certain that anyone who was practicing marketing had at least a basic knowledge of marketing theory and best practices. However, the MBA graduate possesses this level by virtue of graduating from even a (legitimate) unaccredited MBA program. Hence, I don't see the value in MBA certification; graduation is a "certification" of sorts.

Dave, PCM (inactive)

 

But in many professional fields, some level of standardization is deemed necessary, and no one has yet come up with a practical alternative to the standardized test. That's why lawyers, doctors, engineers, architects, and accountants all take them -- even though though their respective college degree programs all undergo rigorous professional accreditation as well. We can question whether business managers really need to be added to this group, but it's certainly not unusual for graduate-level professionals to take standardized tests after school.

You are correct that exams create a need to "teach to the test". However, you incorrect to suppose that graduate and professional schools change to meet this need. What has happened in other fields is that an industry of for-profit exam prep courses has emerged. The exam prep courses (which quite explicitly do "teach the test") supplement, rather than replace, the traditional school curriculum.

Ask an attorney, for example, if their law schools "taught the Bar Exam". They don't, and they don't have to, because every newly-minted JD enrolls in an intensive Bar Prep course after they graduate and leave school. Sure, the Bar Prep courses "teach the test" - that's exactly what they are intended to do - but nobody confuses them with law school.

 

Frankly, I don't see the value either. Other post-graduation professional exams (Bar, PE, CPA, etc.) provide specific legal powers, and are widely recognized. The CMBA, in contrast, provides no legal powers; it's only a title, and a poorly-recognized one at that.

I see the CMBA as legitimate, but not as valuable. If I had a MBA (I don't), I probably would not pursue it.

 

What's the big deal here?

The data seems to suggest that no one really takes this test seriously so why is anyone trying to justify its existence and merit?

I never even heard of the test while I was a student. Never heard of it as faculty until I saw something about it on this board and none of my students had ever heard of it.

As I mentioned before, I applaud WGU's efforts and model but I don't see the need for the test.

Sounds like a non event to me.

 

I'm a certified medical practice executive (CMPE). This credential is for health administration and is specific to the business of managing a group medical practice, whether private/physician owned or part of a larger health system. It requires 2 exams and other activities and continuing education.

I'm also working on an MBA. Once my degree is complete I don't think I'll need to chase a generalist certification like the CMBA. This is probably true of most businesses. HR has the PHR and SPHR, Healthcare has the FACHE and CMPE, Marketing has the PCM, IT has a slew of different certifications that you can persue.

Lawyers practice law, architects design buildings, Physicians practice medicine and accountant account. Each of those things is pretty specific. MBAs do all kinds of different things in different areas of different industries.

My point, which I may be making badly, is that a generalist credential like the CMBA seems pointless in a market that offers many more industry specific certifications from established and respected professional organizations. This is especially true when you have a generalist credential like an MBA degree to begin with.

 

On the contrary, it certainly sounds like Western Governor's University takes the test seriously, since they've made it a degree requirement. And it sounds like their students do too, since they are forced to take it repeatedly until they pass.

Because it's an interesting discussion topic. Lots of people have MBAs, and most of them have opinions (often strong ones) about the CMBA.

 

Maybe WGU takes it seriously..........

But no one else seems to.

If the " data " that you use to validate it is WGU's stance that it is an important test then you should apply the opposite "data" which is that Harvard does not require it, thus does not deem it important.

I still applaud WGU's efforts but the apparent concensus here which seems to be backed up by empirical the data of sales figures on the prep test books and cost of the exam seems to agree with my take on it.

In any event, I don't need to take it, don't need it and don't see why anyone would need it unless the rest of the world decides its important.

 

As far as I can tell, only WGU actually *requires* students to pass the CMBA exam. But other RA schools have recognized the CMBA in other ways. For example, Ashland University has offered for-credit review seminars for the CMBA exam. The University of Nevada-Reno, SUNY-New Paltz, and LSU have all publicly congratulated graduates who passed the CMBA exam, via press releases or school newsletters. In other words, these other schools also appear to be treating the CMBA as a credential worthy of respect.

No, that would be meaningless. Harvard doesn't "require" its JDs to take the Bar Exam either, yet this does not mean that Harvard Law School regards the Bar exam as unimportant. We can safely assume that virtually all Harvard Law School grads go on take the Bar exam, even though it is not "required" by the school. It would be more meaningful to note that relatively few Harvard Business School grads take the CMBA exam (the current directory shows only two CMBAs from Harvard).

Well, that's the whole point. It's up to those of us here at degreeinfo to determine, on behalf of the rest of the world, whether or not the CMBA is important. It's a heavy responsibility, but someone has to do it.

I don't see the CMBA as worthwhile myself, but I am not an MBA and am not eligible anyway.

 

I am not arguing with you

As far as I can tell, only WGU actually *requires* students to pass the CMBA exam. But other RA schools have recognized the CMBA in other ways. For example, Ashland University has offered for-credit review seminars for the CMBA exam. The University of Nevada-Reno, SUNY-New Paltz, and LSU have all publicly congratulated graduates who passed the CMBA exam, via press releases or school newsletters.

* I guess congratulatory letters are nice but until someone requires it, they are not really serious about it.

No, that would be meaningless. Harvard doesn't "require" its JDs to take the Bar Exam either, yet this does not mean that Harvard Law School regards the Bar exam as unimportant. In fact, virtually all Harvard Law School grads go on take the Bar exam, even though it is not "required" by the school. It would be more meaningful to note that relatively few Harvard Business School grads take the CMBA exam (the current directory shows only two CMBAs from Harvard).

* Problem is without the bar exam you can't practice so this theory is crazy. You CAN work without the MBA exam. And yes, I guess it is meaningful that only two Harvard MBA's have bothered with the exam but that's my point exactly.

I do like your last comment. We here at Degreeinfo have a heavy responsibility don't we? : )

 

I agree. However, they decided that it is easy to weed out the sub par programs through AACSB accreditation. HR doesn't have to research each school to decide if it is legit. Yes, they are missing many quality programs along the way, but it seems very reasonable to me. I predict it will increase in occurrence. Lucky for us there are plenty of AACSB programs to choose from.

Hey, some firms only hire from Top 50 or Top 20 or even Top 10 programs. It is their way of perusing quality graduates. You may qualify to work at one of the elite consulting firms, but unless you went to Harvard or similar, you wont get your foot in the door.

That being said, plenty will find a RA or maybe even a NA programs will meet their needs. It will just limit their options a little now, maybe more in the future – we will see.

 

ICI and the CMBA seems to be a 2 - 3 person business operated out of a single family home. ( see http://www.secretary.state.nc.us/corporations/Filings.aspx?PItemId=5384098# )

Perhaps my initial reaction of CMBA as being a "mill" was wrong. "Legitimate business venture" might be more accurate. However, the fact that these 3 or 4 individuals, regardless of their background, claim their certification is "a universal measurement of the core business fundamentals required across all accredited MBA programs by the Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB)" downright reeks of 'millness'. Since it is hard though, it must be okay.

Raising the mill-flag is also the fact that there is absolutely no oversight of this certification by the AACSB, any institution that is accredited by the AACSB, or recognized by any professional body such as the AoM. Even the lowly A+ certification has industry support. If they were offering degrees instead of certifications, we would all be yelling "mill" right now. I would argue however, that they are effectively offering MBAs, since this a certified MBA, and any graduate from any unaccredited/unlicensed school may take the exam.

 

Your comments imply that a particular certification can't be taken "seriously", unless it is formally required by an educational institution (as a degree requirement) or by state government (as a licensure requirement).

This is clearly not true for certifications in business (or other fields). There are plenty of respected business certifications that aren't "required" by degree programs or by state licensing boards, such as Certified Financial Planner (CFP), Certified Management Accountant (CMA), Chartered Financial Analyst (CFA), Chartered Asset Manager (CAM), etc. etc.

There is no reason, in theory, why the CMBA certification could not gain similar recognition and prestige, although I don't expect it to happen in practice.

 

Ok

I guess but whatever.

I'll probably be long gone when and if the test ever becomes important so it doesn't really matter to me.

And yes, I don't take any test seriously unless it's passage is what gives me a licence to perform some sort of specific professional function.

This test does not.

 

I think it's highly probable that the CMBA would have more credibility, and probably more popularity, if it had broader support.

I would argue that they are effectively offering accreditation, not degrees. The "Certified MBA" folks are putting their "seal of approval" on an MBA degree issued separately by a school. This is no different from what MBA accreditors like AACSB, ACBSP, or IACBE do.

The fact that they are willing to put their "seal of approval" on MBA degrees of questionable legality does diminish their credibility, though. In fairness, this appears to be the exception, rather than the rule, among CMBAs. I see only three obviously questionable entries (all from Ambai) among the ~ 250 names in the CMBA directory.

 

"MBA" is not a licensed profession. When the public needs to be protected by ensuring a certain baseline of competencies are met, fine. Until then, I'd rather see the diversity now available.

 

Um, is this a self-evident axiom true about absolutely everything?