College of Business is in Big AACSB trouble! - USM Forum -- Message Board

Date: Feb 3, 2005

RE: RE: College of Business is in Big AACSB trouble!

Date: Feb 3, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: robert
"nlp is correct, stats belongs to all. Academic council error, I would say you have a point. I wouldn't think psychology could be taught all over the place. An investigation may be in order. How do psych agencies see this?"

Robert, I doubt that a psych accrediting body would even blink an eye. But I think that academic council could have been a little more careful as it reviewed new course proposals.

Date: Feb 3, 2005

to clarify my response to robert--i'm referring to the economics degree in COAL.

Date: Feb 3, 2005

robert--yep. for years. why doesn't it threaten (or has had no impact on) AACSB accreditation?

Date: Feb 3, 2005

Economics is not a business discipline.!!!!! Business majors have to take it just like they do biology. (Everything is cool with AACSB as long as econ PhDs teach it.)

Let's look at this another way. What if Harold Doty replaced all retiring accounting profs with PhDs in chemistry? AACSB would have a problem, right? Yes. MBA students would be studying their accounting courses under chemists, not accountants. Malone is offering an pseudo MBA (thru the MS in ED) using chemists to teach the accounting courses.

[Back to the location of econ. Many places have in their COAL. Alot of people thought SFT would move it there with the reorganization. It was in business here, and it's in business at Tennessee --- the only 2 places he knows anything about. I doubt he knows economics is outside of business anywhere. If he knew that, and could amend the reorg, I guarantee he would take it out of CoB and move it to COAL to spite HD.]

Date: Feb 3, 2005

Because econ is not a purely business discipline!!!!! This has been stated before ON THIS THREAD! Econ and stats are exceptions; they may be in COAL and COB at the same time!! What I'm talking about here is the "finance" course. The other business courses may well be taken through the COB, but the ED Finance course is akin to the COB offering "Great World Literature for Management" -- It would be a cheap rip-off of a COAL course/sequence that may appear to have some academic merit but is really just another way for non-business majors to sell themselves as business majors.

Date: Feb 3, 2005

folks--this is the issue i'm pointing out and having difficulty with. what constitutes a business discipline and what does not? in some CoB's and schools of business, economics is a business discipline (and i'm referring to AACSB institutions), and in others (like USM) it isn't. it seems to depend on the institution. as others have said, it appears to be a jurisdictional issue.

the analogy with doty and using phds in chemistry (and i know what malone's phd is in) is confusing, because doty is not going to replace accounting profs with chemistry folks. why? AACSB. but the ED program is not under Doty's jurisdiction (as economics is not at Wisconsin, and advertising in JMC is not at USM), but it may not impact AACSB accredidation.

Date: Feb 3, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: stinky cheese man
"folks--this is the issue i'm pointing out and having difficulty with. what constitutes a business discipline and what does not? in some CoB's and schools of business, economics is a business discipline (and i'm referring to AACSB institutions), and in others (like USM) it isn't. it seems to depend on the institution. as others have said, it appears to be a jurisdictional issue. the analogy with doty and using phds in chemistry (and i know what malone's phd is in) is confusing, because doty is not going to replace accounting profs with chemistry folks. why? AACSB. but the ED program is not under Doty's jurisdiction (as economics is not at Wisconsin, and advertising in JMC is not at USM), but it may not impact AACSB accredidation. "

Why I say "economics" is not a "business discipline" I am speaking in the sense that economics, like history (literature), is not a "business discipline." Now, having said that, where do you put it. Some universities put in liberal arts (arts and letters, arts and sciences, etc.). Others put it in business. Putting it in business, however, does not then make it "a business discipline," just like putting history (literature) is business would not make history (literature) a "business discipline."

Management is a business discipline, and would still be so if you moved it to the College of Music. It wouldn't become music just because that's the college it's in.

This is all I'm saying.

Let's go with this phrase: "Economics is a social science that some universities place in the liberal arts college while others locate it in the business college."

Date: Feb 3, 2005

It's like buying a knock off Polo shirt made in Bangkok or somewhere...Ralph Lauren doesn't want others marketing a cheap, low quality shirt with their logo on it.

Date: Feb 3, 2005

One more thing, some well known universities put all or parts of a political science department in their business colleges, and some universities put parts of their econ departments in The School of Law.

Date: Feb 3, 2005

robert--i understand your point. resolve the jurisdictional issue. just because ED is in another area, why does it jeopardize AACSB accreditation? there are a number of courses that are currently taught in CoB that are taught in other areas (e.g., Journalism & Mass Communication) that don't jeopardize CoB's accreditation. why do ED courses seem to uniquely jeopardize CoB's accreditation?

Date: Feb 3, 2005

http://www.aacsb.edu/accreditation/standards.asp

Go there and read the pdf file regarding the new standards.

Date: Feb 3, 2005

This might be a good way to look at it. Look at Malone's vita --- he lists several "business" courses on his resume that he says he took at USM. These are there to (somewhat) justify him teaching finance, etc., over in the ED department. The truth. The courses he lists on his vita don't exist in USM's CoB. Two conclusions: he's telling a bald-faced lie or he took those "business looking" classes in another college (taught possibly by biologists). Let's give him the benefit and say it's the latter. Well, now he looks alot less like a qualified person to teach finance, management et al. than he did when you assumed those courses were taken by him in the CoB.

That's what CoB is dealing with here. Malone is telling prospective students who are thinking MBA that his ED masters is really an MBA --- "look at all these business courses in our curriculum. This is a business masters degree. Look at my resume, these courses, I'm qualified to teach 'em....." Student walks away from the encounter thinking USM has, essentially, two avenues to an MBA.

The end of the story, AACSB not happy.

The Ralph Lauren analogy is pretty good here actually.

Date: Feb 3, 2005

robert & just read it--i've read the standards. neither of you want to deal with the jurisdictional issue. other institutions offer similar programs in non-CoB units and do not threaten AACSB accreditation. malone's paltry economic development credentials are well-known. it's clear you don't like malone's credentials (neither do i). but you merely assert that AACSB will be bothered, but if the ED program is in another unit they don't appear to have jurisdiction. (and on this thread i've given enough examples to prove my point--provide counterexamples).

Date: Feb 3, 2005

stinky cheese man,

Are you obtuse, or are you trying to **** people off? You have brought up many other examples, none of which is germane to AACSB. AACSB is fairly territorial in its approach to pseudo-business programs, and the document I linked above will prove that. Economics exists in both liberal arts colleges and business schools. The BA in Economics (COAL) requires little or none of the other "business" courses, while the BSBA in Economics (COB) requires all of the business core curriculum, just as Marketing, Management, etc., do. The BA and the BSBA are two very different animals.

AACSB is very particular in its examination of business-related or pseudo-business degree programs, and this ED garbage will cause problems, especially since the COB has already had to ask AACSB to exclude some programs.

Your example of advertising and marketing is not germane, as you obviously know nothing about the two disciplines. Tell an advertising prof that she's just a marketer or a marketing prof that all she does is advertise, and you'll probably get an earful.

Date: Feb 3, 2005

to all who care--i'm not in CoB or ED. i have no dog in the hunt, i'm just trying to be a critical thinker.

Date: Feb 3, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: stinky cheese man
"robert & just read it--i've read the standards. neither of you want to deal with the jurisdictional issue. other institutions offer similar programs in non-CoB units and do not threaten AACSB accreditation. malone's paltry economic development credentials are well-known. it's clear you don't like malone's credentials (neither do i). but you merely assert that AACSB will be bothered, but if the ED program is in another unit they don't appear to have jurisdiction. (and on this thread i've given enough examples to prove my point--provide counterexamples)."

Just Read It helped alot. SCM, look at P.2.a -- all business degree programs at the University will be examined. It then says something about giving the university the discretion as to where to house the programs.

AACSB will look at the ED program and say it looks enough like a business program. No problem so far. Within 5 minutes it will see the professors there have english and chemistry degrees and it will be "game over, dude." In fact, if the AACSB starts with this program, they won't even have to walk inside of Greene Hall. They can head for the airport.

Date: Feb 3, 2005

So you say you've read it? How about page 3, "Defining the Scope of Accreditation?" On that page it outlines that there is no jurisdictional issue -- ANY program within the INSTITUTION (including all branches/extensions/sites/etc.) is subject to review.

Also on page 3: Traditional business subjects are defined as accounting, business law, decision sciences, finance (including insurance, real estate, and banking), human resources, management, management information systems, management science, marketing, operations management, organizational behavior, organizational development, strategic management, supply chain management (including transportation and logistics), and technology management.

On page 4, if AACSB cannot distinguish between programs for review or if the branding is too similar, then the programs that are confusing will be under AACSB review.

From the Workforce Training Master's link:
"The emphasis of the program is to define and design training and non-instructional interventions that can improve performance at the worker, the work process, and the organizational level. Human performance improvement in organizations requires more than an understanding of training design and delivery. The WTD master's program provides students with the tools they need to better understand factors that affect job performance such as job expectations, task design, incentive systems, feedback systems, performance strategies and tools, job aids, and resources. "
Sounds like organizational behavior, doesn't it?

Also, since economics is a part of the BSBA program in business, page 5 explains that economics is not excludable from AACSB review.

If AACSB takes a look at the ED programs and sees that 4 of the suggested courses are directly business-related and that others (e.g. public policy and the ED Theory courses) may be business-related, then the AACSB accreditation is toast.

If there is a chance AACSB will ignore it, then I'll write a letter to AACSB and every major newspaper in the state of Mississippi to make sure it's public knowledge.

ED is just a poor excuse to use the veil of a business program to sell snake oil.

Date: Feb 3, 2005

RE: RE: College of Business is in Big AACSB troubl

Date: Feb 3, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: stinky cheese man
"jeez folks--i challenge your thinking and your get nasty. no problem. every example i have given has an AACSB element. i have shown multiple programs that have what some think will be problematic with AACSB and they aren't. Again, and neither of you address this--if the program is not in CoB, where's the issue with AACSB? P.2.a--clear to a point. refers to business programs. is economics a business program? or advertising. doesn't address the jurisdictional issue. and as to my knowledge of advertising and marketing. why is one of the Babin's teaching graduate classes (or chairing committees) in journalism and mass communication? they're that different? i've mentioned that before and you ignore it. sorry, i need more proof about your position about AACSB and ED. I've googled enough to know it ain't that simple. i'm not obtuse, but i've got facts. you've got opinions. "

I love it. We're throwing manuals at you. Testimony from business faculty. And all we have is opinions.

Good night, iddad.

Date: Feb 3, 2005

RE: College of Business is in Big AACSB trouble!

Date: Feb 3, 2005

robert--throw undigested manuals at me. i know accreditation well enough to know that the manuals have interpretation in them. i look at other universities that have different ways of organizing programs than USM does and they don't have a problem. look at my examples at other universities earlier in the thread--like the University of San Francisco. a google search is illuminating. "iddad" who the h*ll is that.

Date: Feb 3, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: Robert
"all business degree programs at the University will be examined. It then says something about giving the university the discretion as to where to house the programs. AACSB will look at the ED program and say it looks enough like a business program. No problem so far. Within 5 minutes it will see the professors there have english and chemistry degrees and it will be "game over, dude." In fact, if the AACSB starts with this program, they won't even have to walk inside of Greene Hall. They can head for the airport."

This is the "duck rule" in AACSB standards. If it looks like a duck and quack likes a duck...

Date: Feb 3, 2005

accreditation R'Us--so true. without SACS all subordinate accreditation issues are moot.

Date: Feb 3, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: stinky cheese man
"iddad" who the h*ll is that."

I wondered about that too, stinky. I guess you da man, huh?

Date: Feb 3, 2005

i have no idea of who you folk are talking about.

Date: Feb 3, 2005

scm, let me try since those others are being nasty about it. Let's say you took accounting and took it out of Greene Hall and put it in Thames Hall. AACSB would be okay with that. After going over everything in CoB, they would walk over to COST and look at accounting. They would find that all the accounting profs were accountants and the hiring (admin.) process fell under the eye of Doty. Everything would be fine.

Let's say, as an alternative, that Malone got hold of accounting and had himself, Angie Dvorak and David Butler teaching accounting classes. And, he took Doty out of the hiring (admin.) loop. When AACSB got over there it would have a problem and yank the AACSB accreditation from CoB since accounting degrees are business degrees and this one had gotten out from under Doty's watch.

The issue is not where the accounting department is located, but that the accounting degree has fallen apart in terms of standards, etc.

Now, back to ED. It looks an awful lot like a business degree. AACSB will classify it as such. They will ask Doty how much control over it he has. He will say "none." They will go over and see who's teaching in it and not like what they see. They will go back and take Doty's accreditation and tell him to take over the program or have the business course titles removed from it.

I know the others used the Ralph Lauren analogy. I would use an NCAA analogy. When boosters --- who might not even live in the same city as their alma mater --- pay football players at their alma mater, the NCAA punishes the alma mater and cites it with a "lack of institutional control." In a sense, AACSB will have to cite Doty/CoB with a lack of institutional control if it deems the ED program to be a business program.

The real key will be what the AACSB classifies the ED program as. That is where the battle is fought. Once that is determined, the outcome is a forgone conclusion I suspect.

Date: Feb 3, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: stinky cheese man
"i have no idea of who you folk are talking about. "

Don't worry about it. The points you made were well presented. But I'd also like to know what iddad means. Must be some sort of business term we've never encountered.

Date: Feb 3, 2005

as i've said from the first--i got no dog in the hunt. i understand why folks have troubles with the ED program. i think the troubles get "dressed up" with an AACSB issue, rather than simply saying it looks "lame." i know you can make the AACSB case, but i'm not sure the case has been made. i think SACS credentialling will make mincemeat of the faculty in the ED program well before AACSB does. and don't forget SACS trumps AACSB.

Date: Feb 3, 2005

RE: RE: RE: RE: College of Business is in Big AACSB troubl