CoB's AACSB Accreditation in Jeopardy? - USM Forum -- Message Board

Date: Jun 16, 2006

CoB's AACSB Accreditation in Jeopardy?

Date: Jun 16, 2006

CoBster in Residence wrote:

Administrators and high-ranking CoB committee members were summoned to Doty's conference room for a meeting this morning. Rumor has it that Doty is worried about the very real possibility that AACSB accreditation for USM could be lost on his watch. Sources close to the dean's office indicate that what were contingency plans are now being considered best case scenarios. From www.aacsb.edu: "The Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business [AACSB] is the professional association for college and university management education and the premier accrediting agency for bachelor’s, master’s, and doctoral degree programs in business administration and accounting. "

Not another rumor!! Can you supply some evidence or have others back this up?

Date: Jun 16, 2006

I thought the dean was out of town.

Date: Jun 16, 2006

Why are so many CoBs threads full of B.S., poor reasoning and rumors? So many are full of bad jokers.

Date: Jun 16, 2006

Joker wrote:

Why are so many CoBs threads full of B.S., poor reasoning and rumors? So many are full of bad jokers.

It is not a rumor that the accreditation team was scheduled to meet this morning.

It is not a rumor that AACSB accreditation, like NCATE and other discipline-specific accreditations, has been jeopardized by administrative mismanagement.

I cannot verify the level to which Doty is worried about these things, though most of us long-time CoBers can remember our last AACSB visit and are wondering how in the world we could possibly pass muster this go around.

I could give you the name and position of the individual who passed along the part about "contingency plans are now being considered best case scenarios," but then I'd be damaging an innocent bystander's career.

Date: Jun 16, 2006

By the way, today is the first major meeting of the accreditation-related committee heads and administrators. The AACSB consultant comes in two months. The visit is next spring.

The usual documentation of assessment of learning outcomes, etc., that all accrediting bodies want to see haven't really been conducted for the AACSB folks, who want different stuff than SACS wanted.

Date: Jun 16, 2006

actually, the main committee members for AACSB are all new (as of end of spring), and many are young, untenured folk. Good luck with that. These people are probably freaking out about now.

Date: Jun 16, 2006

As it was related to me, those with major responsibilities for various portions of the accreditation standards are all mature, long time faculty members, many of whom were very involved in the decade ago review. That doesn't sound like "young, untenured" to me.

Date: Jun 16, 2006

astonished wrote:

As it was related to me, those with major responsibilities for various portions of the accreditation standards are all mature, long time faculty members, many of whom were very involved in the decade ago review. That doesn't sound like "young, untenured" to me.

But we have from "joycelyn":
:

"actually, the main committee members for AACSB are all new (as of end of spring), and many are young, untenured folk. Good luck with that. These people are probably freaking out about now."

Isn't it funny how these CoB threads are full of contradictions and poor reasoning? I hope these posters are not faculty who use these techniques with students.

Date: Jun 16, 2006

It's easy to tell when Doty is in town.

Date: Jun 16, 2006

Joker wrote:

Isn't it funny how these CoB threads are full of contradictions and poor reasoning? I hope these posters are not faculty who use these techniques with students.

Nothing poor about the reasoning here, Joker. You're just unable to distinguish lies from truth.

Committee chairs are old hands. Committee membership is heavily untenured and inexperienced with AACSB.

Thge only poor reasoning around here is the reasoning behind anybody's support of Duane Harold Doty. Of course, most of that can be chalked up to ignorance and greed.

Date: Jun 16, 2006

It is always difficult to predict what accrediting bodies will do whether it is SACS, NCATE, or AACSB. However, I am of the opinion that COB is less prepared for the upcoming accreditation visit than it was for the previous accreditation round. Preparing for accreditation visits requires a great deal of discretionary effort by faculty and staff working together. Under the SFT regime, and the current COB dean's regime, there is not much enthusiasm among faculty for spending their time and energy preparing for accreditation visits. A preponderance of faculty are working diligently to improve their resumes in order to leave USM. Whatever accreditation work gets done will be done mostly by the faculty trapped by PERS retirement situation, and those beholden to administrators for past and future favors. It will be interesting to be an observer as the process plays out, and there will many observers.

Date: Jun 16, 2006

Cossack,

There you go again, making sense.

What happens when dean comes into a new situation, buys off 1/4 of the faculty, ignores 1/2 of the faculty, and pi$$es on the remaining 1/4 of the faculty's heads?

You're about to find out.

Bellman, get my luggage, 'cause I've checked out!

Date: Jun 17, 2006

One of the CoB chairs is working with Doty and backstabbing the associate dean. It's not the chair you would guess it is, and I don't think he knows.

Date: Jun 19, 2006

Is there anything of substance to report on from this meeting? This thread died out before any news came out.

Date: Jun 19, 2006

sensor wrote:

Is there anything of substance to report on from this meeting? This thread died out before any news came out.

I was hoping to have some info, but my source didn't attend the meeting. I'll have to check other avenues.