Yes, examples are provided and located on the eligibility and application page for business accreditation.
When filling out table 2-1, may we change the intellectual contribution columns or add columns?
Editing or adding columns is not recommended. If a school wants to provide further explanation, we suggest footnoting the item in question and providing additional or breakdown information elsewhere.
Are all faculty intellectual contributions or just participating faculty ICs to be included on table 2-1?
Yes, any intellectual contributions being produced by faculty contributing to the mission of the business school should be included on table 2-1.
In tables 2-1 and 2-2 how are co-authored intellectual contributions properly reflected?
In table 2-1 co-authored intellectual contributions would be fractionally apportioned for co- authors at the same institution from business disciplines so as not to double-count the article in the table. For example, professor X in Accounting and professor Y in Finance co-author a peer-reviewed journal article. Each professor would get .5 allocation for that co-authored piece. Likewise, table 2-2 is intended to document the number of peer- and editorial-reviewed journal articles by journal name. Thus, this table should reflect an unduplicated count. In the example above, this co-authored publication would count as one publication in that journal. When considering co-authored publications between an author from a business discipline and an author outside of a business discipline, the author from the business discipline who would be included in Table 2.1 would get 1 allocation. For example, professor M in Marketing and professor N in Psychology co-author a peer-reviewed journal article. Professor M would get 1 allocation for the piece and his/her contribution would be included in Tables 2.1 and 2.2.
On table 2-1, should we include intellectual contributions from faculty that have left during the reporting period?
Intellectual contributions from faculty that left the school during the reporting period are not counted in part A of table 2-1. However, they can be reflected in part D of the table.
Should research monographs or research-based books be listed as textbooks in table 2.1?
Research monographs and research-based books should not be listed under textbooks. They should be listed under ‘Other IC Type.' If there are particular publications a school would like to highlight, that can be done in Parts B, C, and/or D of the same table.
What are examples of other teaching materials as mentioned in table 2.1?
Other Teaching Materials refers to anything distributed publicly and not solely for your school's own classes e.g., software, online courses, any materials used by other schools.
A school should add a footnote indicating that an article has coauthors from the same school. The contribution would count as two (one in each discipline) with a footnote.
In standard 2, does the "Portfolio of IC's" in sum have to be the same as the sum of the "Types of IC's"?
Yes, the sum for each overall category (Portfolio of ICs and Types of Intellectual Contributions) should equal each other. The specific types of intellectual contributions would be extracted from the Portfolio of ICs (Basic or Discovery Scholarship; Applied or Integration/Application Scholarship; and Teaching and Learning Scholarship).
Is the production of new chapters and substantial revision of chapters in new editions sufficient to classify a faculty member as scholarly practitioner?
A case could be made for this as the activities are current, sustained, and substantive. However, there is still the expectation in standard 2 that the school supports the depth and breadth of faculty participation. Classifying an unbalanced number of faculty members with activities described as SP could impact the school's ability to align with standard 2.
Concerning standard 4, what does a school need to disclose publicly?
Schools often track job placement rates (how soon after graduation the students were able to secure employment), how many graduates secure positions in prestigious companies, and examples of those companies (ex: Fortune 500 companies or local equivalents). The information provided may differ based on geographic location as well. In India, schools often track the starting salaries of their graduates. Other examples of information that could be disclosed include license or certification exam results, graduation rates, and employment advancement. AACSB asks for business unit level data rather than details at the program level, and the school may decide on the type of data they want to share. If the information disclosed is too vague, a PRT might request that they add some specificity. This information should be published and readily available on the business unit's website.
What are the AACSB standards for MBA/executive MBA candidates who have not earned a bachelor's degree?
Standard 4 (student admissions, progression, and career development) articulates a general expectation from AACSB’s view point that students admitted into graduate programs will have earned a bachelor’s degree. However, the school may choose to allow exceptions, but it needs to be prepared to demonstrate how these exceptions support quality and align with the school’s mission.
Does the overall faculty resource plan need to have a certain structure? Do we have to take special time period into account?
No, there is not a specific structure that needs to be followed. The school determines the best format to meet their needs. It is advisable to refer to the standard's basis for judgement, and the plan should project resource requirements (or targets) and define anticipated actions and an applicable timeline.
Standard 8 specifies a systematic process for assurance of learning. What do peer review teams usually expect in determining whether this standard is met?
The assurance of learning process is designed to ensure systematic continuous improvement of curriculum. Peer review teams will seek evidence that shows learning goals for each degree program are in place. Generally, some commonly observed best practices of mature AoL programs include four to eight learning goals for each degree program and assessment of the objectives related to each learning goal twice and closing the loop once during the review cycle. Closing the loop is defined as making appropriate changes in the curriculum based on assessment results. Results of the assessment should be documented and available for peer review teams upon request. The assessment processes and results should lead to documented continuous improvement in curriculum.
How often should a school review its learning goals for each program?
There is no prescribed time frame for reviewing learning goals. Schools are expected to have a systematic and sustainable way of reviewing curriculum as well as the assurance of learning process. Normally, each goal should be evaluated at least twice over a five-year AACSB review cycle.
Must all students be assessed?
Assessment data collected from valid statistical samples of student work is acceptable to support conclusions about learning outcomes and identification of areas for improvement. Sample characteristics should be established to provide a high degree of confidence that the data are representative, valid, and reliable.
What is the minimum performance standard?
AACSB does not have an absolute standard. The goal or benchmark for overall student performance on any given learning goal should be determined by each school consistent with its mission, degree programs, and student profile. This performance level provides a basis to determine if the collective student performance on any given learning goal is acceptable or unacceptable. If performance is unacceptable, curricula change should follow to address the problem.
Must all graduates meet the expected standard on all learning goals?
No, but the learning goals do represent the intentions of the faculty for every student. If students are not achieving the learning goals at acceptable levels, action must be taken to strengthen the curriculum for future students.
How many learning goals are needed?
AACSB expects schools to specify 4-10 learning goals for each degree program. There is no limit, but this is the guidance in order to keep the assessment program manageable.
The standards state that if five percent or more of annual resources come from executive education, standard 14 should be applied. Could you provide a definition of annual resources? Does this include state funds, profit centers within the college (i.e. executive ed, research bureau)?
There is some flexibility in this standard. Some schools with more than 5 percent may elect to exclude executive education and alternatively, schools with fewer than 5 percent of their resources coming from exec ed may choose to include it within their scope. The 5 percent is of the total annual resources including all sources of funding, even endowments. The expectation is that a school that includes executive education in its review presents a consolidated income statement showing the revenue sources and highlighting the percentage of revenue coming from this source.