Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=vjeb20
Journal of Education for Business
ISSN: 0883-2323 (Print) 1940-3356 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vjeb20
Strategic Implications of Specialized Business
School Accreditation: End of the Line for Some
Business Education Programs?
K. J. Tullis & John P. Camey
To cite this article: K. J. Tullis & John P. Camey (2007) Strategic Implications of Specialized Business School Accreditation: End of the Line for Some Business Education Programs?, Journal of Education for Business, 83:1, 45-51, DOI: 10.3200/JOEB.83.1.45-51
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.3200/JOEB.83.1.45-51
Published online: 07 Aug 2010.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 26
View related articles
remendous change has been occurring in the field of business education. In 1983, the president elect of the Association to Advance Colle-giate Schools of Business (AACSB) proposedthatformostbusinessschools, increasedcompetitionwouldbecomea fundamentalfactoflifeandthattosuc-ceed,theymustdevelopandimplement strategies to improve their competitive position (Brandenburg, 1983). More than 20 years later, the environment in which business schools find them-selves is more competitive than that president elect of the AACSB might have imagined. A 1998 report by the AACSB documented that the number of undergraduate degrees in business peakedin1992andhasdeclinedevery yearsincethen.Inadditiontofacinga shrinkingstudentdemand,manycolleg- esofbusinessfindthemselvescompet-ing for shrinkesofbusinessfindthemselvescompet-ing university resources and a limited and increasingly costly poolofqualifiedfaculty.
The wide variety of institutions that makeupthecoreoftheAmericansys-temofhighereducationvastlyenriches its texture. From large state-supported enterprisestosmallliberal-arts-oriented schools, a common theme is that indi-vidualsmayreceiveaqualityeducation in schools with a widely divergent set of characteristics and driving values. Competitive realities for institutions andforgraduatingstudentsaredictating
major changes for universities desiring to engage in such programs, in many cases calling into question even their fundamental viability. In this article, we will explore issues that influence theviabilityofbusinesseducationpro-gramsatsomeoftheseschoolsandthe conditions under which such programs mightsurviveandthrive.
CompetitiveEnvironment
A helpful preface to this discussion wouldbetheidentificationofareason-ablycleartypologyofhighereducation institutions. Such typologies exist. For example, the Carnegie Foundation for theAdvancementofTeachingprovides a number of classifications. The foun-dation described doctoral or research, masters, baccalaureate, and specialized institutions, among other categories (McCormick, 2000). Although such schemes are often useful in describing institutions, they focus more on dis-tinctionsbetweenresearchandteaching institutionsandlessonfundingsources andsupportingunderstructure.
For this discussion, we will apply a slightly different orientation. We sug- gestatypologythatcategorizesinstitu-tionsonthebasesofaffiliation,source of resources, and size. These factors significantlyaffecttheinstitutions’abil-ity and flexibilsignificantlyaffecttheinstitutions’abil-ity to adapt to the com-petitiveenvironmentinwhichtheyfind themselves.
StrategicImplicationsofSpecialized
BusinessSchoolAccreditation:
EndoftheLineforSomeBusiness
EducationPrograms?
K.J.TULLIS JOHNP.CAMEY
UNIVERSITYOFCENTRALOKLAHOMA EDMOND,OKLAHOMA
T
ABSTRACT.Inrecentyears,thecom- petitiveenvironmentforbusinesseduca-tionhasbeenrapidlychanging.Although 1st-tierschoolsandcollegesofbusiness generallyresolvedaccreditationissues longago,otherinstitutionsareincreas-inglyconsideringspecializedaccreditation asastrategictoolinthecompetitionfor studentsandinstitutionalprestige.Inthis article,theauthorsexaminetherootsofthis trendandproposepossibleimplicationsin termsofaccreditation,faculty,andfunding forregionalstateuniversitiesandsmaller institutionsmaintainingaffiliationwith churchesorotherreligiousorganizations. Theauthorssuggestseveralkeyconsider-ationsfordecisionmakers,includingthe possibilitythatsomeinstitutionswillbe unabletocontinuetoofferstudiesinbusi-nesseducation.
Keywords:AACSB,accreditation,business education,competition
Copyright©2007HeldrefPublications
VIEWPOINT
PublicStateUniversities
As the termpublic state universities
implies,stategovernmentspubliclyfund theseinstitutionstoprovideabroadbase ofthecitizenrywiththeopportunityto obtain a university education. In most states, there are at least three public universitysystems.Typicallytherewill beasystembuiltaroundaflagshipuni-versity,oftenaresearchinstitution,with thenameoraportionthereofcarriedto smaller public institutions in the state. At the largest universities, enrollments occur in the tens of thousands, often 30,000ormore.Anexampleofthistype ofuniversitysystemistheUniversityof TexassystemortheUniversityofCali-forniasystem.
In many states, there is also a pub-licly supported university system built around land-grant institutions. Gener-ally, these institutions have or had an agriculturalorengineeringfocus.Often insmallercommunities,theseuniversi-ties have become more like their flag-ship university peers. In such cases, they have a research focus and tend to bequitelarge.Examplesoftheseinsti-tutionsareTexasA&MUniversityand OklahomaStateUniversity.
A third type of institution is the regional state university. These were universities that the state legislators originally established as teachers’ col-legestoproduceteachersforthepublic school system. These institutions later matured into comprehensive universi-ties offering programs in a wide range offields.Althoughslightlysmallerthan theirflagshipandland-grantpeers,they are still relatively large, with enroll-ments of 5,000–15,000 students. They usually have a more applied approach to education. Educators often refer to them asteaching schools. Examples of these institutions are Sam Houston StateUniversity,StevenF.AustinState University, and Central Missouri State University.
Other systems and individual uni-versities of a public nature may exist. They may vary in size and focus on research or teaching. However, numer-ous similarities remain.A mix of state appropriations,tuitionandfees,endow-ments,andothergiftsprovidesfunding.
schools quite inexpensively. Educa-tionattheseschoolsisoftensomewhat generic,broad-based,andlowcostrela-tivetoeducationatprivateinstitutions.
UnaffiliatedPrivateUniversities
Unaffiliated private universities are thosethathavenostateorotherpublic support and are not affiliated to any significant degree with any sponsoring organization. Although some of these universitiesmayatonetimehavebeen affiliated with churches, foundations, or other outside entities, such affilia-tions are not currently maintained in any meaningful way. These institu-tions are often well known, exclusive, relatively large, and expensive. Even when small, they often carry an air of exclusivity and quality. Because they are not publicly supported, the most critical sources of revenue are tuition andendowment.Successfulinstitutions versities have formal affiliations with sponsoringinstitutions.Themostcom-mon is a university’s affiliation with a religious organization. Many religious institutionshaveclaimedastronginter- estinhighereducationandhaveexten-sively supported academic endeavors. Although many institutions are now more or less independent, others have maintained a strong relationship with their founding or sponsoring organi-zation. Many times these universities enjoy direct support from the sponsor-ing organization, in addition to tuition and endowment. Although underlying religious values exist in their approach tohighereducation,inacademicmatters these schools enjoy significant respect and consideration from their nonaffili-ated peers. Examples of such institu-tions are Baylor, BrighamYoung, Oral Roberts,andtheJesuituniversities.
SmallAffiliatedPrivateUniversities
Faroutnumberingthelargeraffiliated privateinstitutionsaresimilar,butmuch
private universities. Religious orders or other organizations trying to pro-mote religious training founded many of these universities. Over time, they havefollowedthepatternoftheirlarger peers and become quite broad-based in educational offerings, but they have retained strong affiliations with their sponsors. Regional accrediting bod-ies have granted accreditation to most of these institutions. Therefore, other, oftenlarger,schoolshaveacceptedthem as legitimate institutions. The funding pattern is similar to that of the larger affiliated universities, but on a smaller scale.ExamplesaremanyBaptist,Wes-become a growingly important force in business education. Schools such as the University of Phoenix, Corinthian Colleges,andDeVryofferbothgradu-ateandundergraduatebusinessdegrees. Some institutions offer some graduate or undergraduate business degrees in a traditional classroom format, whereas others offer them through a distance-learning format. Kirp estimated that as many as 10% of Master of Business Administration (MBA) candidates are currentlyenrolledinafor-profittion and that overall, for-profit institu-tion revenues in 2003 would approach $3billion.Thisgrowthinfor-profitedu-cation has accompanied a correspond-ingriseinonlineeducation.According toa2003reportbytheU.S.Department ofEducation,morethan3millionpeo-ple were enrolled in online classes in 2001,andthereportprojected6million enrollmentsfor2006(Conhaim,2003).
Traditional universities have tradi- tionallyignored—ifnotbelittled—for-profit and distance-learning programs. Traditional universities have viewed them as not providing real education, as if they were trade schools at best, diploma mills at worst. Traditional universities have not viewed doctoral
fying the holder to teach at a univer-sity.Traditionaluniversitieshaveoften not seen hours that undergraduate and graduate students have earned in for-profit and distance-learning programs as acceptable for transfer. These atti-tudes are becoming difficult to sustain because an increasing number of for-profitanddistance-learninginstitutions are achieving regional accreditation, whereas traditional universities are offeringmoreandmoredistance-learn-ingopportunities.
CompetitiveTrends
As these institutions stake out their competitive positions, four key issues directtheirdecisionmaking:(a)accred-itation, (b) curriculum, (c) faculty, and (d) resources. Increasingly, the driver among these issues is accreditation. Howinstitutionsaddresstheiraccredita-tiondecisionswillultimatelydetermine theirabilitytoremaincompetitive.
Accreditation
Relative to accreditation, business educationprogramsgenerallyfallunder two general categories: regional and specialized (Hardin & Stocks, 1995). Regionalaccreditationisaninstitution-level process in which certain regional bodies consider the entire university, ratherthanaprogram,college,orschool thatisspecifictobusinesseducation.In spiteoftheirgenerality,thesixregion-al bodies, such as the North Centrspiteoftheirgenerality,thesixregion-al Association and the SouthernAssocia-tion, have served to standardize basic institutional requirements for curricu- lum,governance,andfacultyqualifica-tions. Most universities in the United States have been accredited by one of theregionalagencies,regardlessofthe institutionalcategory.Researchersmay findasenseforthefocusoftheseagen-cies in the North Central Association mission:“Servingthecommongoodby assuring and advancing the quality of higher learning” (North Central Asso-ciation[NCA],2000,p.1).Theregional agencies continue to set a broad-based standard for most higher education activitiesintheUnitedStates.
Three agencies exist that specifical-ly accredit business colleges and pro-grams.ThefirstoftheseistheAACSB.
Founded in 1916 and formerly known as the American Association of Col-legiate Schools of Business, educators andprofessionalshavewidelyacknowl-edged the AACSB to be the premier accreditingbodyinthefieldofbusiness education. Academicians and employ-ers view AACSB accreditation as the qualityassurancestandardforbusiness schools (Hardin & Stocks, 1995). For manyyears,theAACSBstandardswere suchthataccreditationwasfeasiblefor only the top-tier business programs at research-orienteduniversities.
By the early 1990s, around 260 of suchprogramsexisted,andsuchaccred-itation was considered as out of reach of the remaining schools. Approxi-mately 900 teaching schools were not AACSB-accredited at that time (Hen-ningger, 1998). However, this orienta-tionchangedin1991whentheAACSB adopted an approach to make their accreditation mission-driven. AACSB furthermodifiedtheaccreditationstan-dards in 2003 by focusing on assess-mentoflearningoutcomesasdefinedby theschool(Motchan,2003).Theeffort appears to be an attempt to become the gold standard for accreditation of all legitimate baccalaureate and gradu-atebusinessprograms.TheAACSBhas clearlyembarkedonaprogramtobrand theaccreditationproductfortheeyesof employersandprospectivestudents.
Many universities have created a market-identity program and have becomeapartofthepromotionalpack-age (AACSB, 2006b). Employers and prospective students can now find the AACSB logo and other information providedbythisWebsiteintheadver-tisements, in promotional materials, andmostnotablyontheWebpagesof nearlyeveryAACSB-accreditedschool. Conversely, schools without AACSB accreditation rarely make their accred-iting agency a prominent part of their promotionalmaterials.
The efforts of the past decade have led to significant changes in the direc-tion of AACSB accreditation. Prior to 1991, in most states only the flagship stateinstitutionsandthemostexclusive (and largest) private universities were AACSB accredited. This was due to the research focus ofAACSB prior to 1991 and the extraordinary costs
asso-ciated with accreditation. Since 1991, manystateshavemandatedorstrongly encouraged AACSB accreditation for all 4-year state-supported institutions. An example is those of Texas. Prior to 1991, there were 12 state (public) campusesthatwereAACSBaccredited. Includingprivateinstitutions,atotalof 16 campuses were AACSB accredited in the state. Since 1991, most of the branch and regional campuses have been added, as have been a number of private institutions.According to its Web-based list, the AACSB indicates that there were 31 public and private campuses in Texas that were AACSB accredited at the time of this article. Priorto1991,inArkansas,therewere4 AACSBcampuses,andnowthereare8. Priorto1991,inLouisiana,9campuses were AACSB accredited; now there are 14. Throughout the U.S., there are now530AACSB-accreditedinstitutions (AACSB, 2006c). These numbers do notincludeschoolsincandidacy.
It is interesting that most of the added AACSB-accredited institutions were international universities, regional public state universities, or small pri-vate affiliated universities. Educators and researchers now perceive AACSB accreditationasmoreobtainablebecause of increased flexibility in the applica- tionofstandardstonon-first-tierinstitu-tions (Yunker, 1998). The key concept isthatofbeingmissiondriven.Thishas opened the door for much smaller pro-grams,suchasthatatOuachitaBaptist inArkansas,wheretherearejustadozen full-time faculty and a relatively small numberofstudents(AACSB,2006c).
Itisclearfromitsstrategicdirection thatAACSB intends to make the case thatanon-AACSBschoolisineffectan unaccredited institution and therefore not capable of providing a legitimate business degree. AACSB has enjoyed somesuccessonthisfrontinthatboth studentsandemployersareincreasingly aware of the brand and what it means. One recent examination of AACSB accreditationrelativetotherecruitment of accountants found support for the hypothesis that such accreditation had asignificantpositiveeffectonrecruiter impressions of prospective employees (Hardin&Stocks,1995).Infact,inthis
tion that is not AACSB accredited as
nonaccredited. As AACSB accredita-tion grows in recogniaccredita-tion and applica-tion, this effect should become more pronounced.
The second accrediting body that specializes in business schools is the Association of Collegiate Business Schools and Programs (ACBSP). The ACBSP started in 1988 in an effort to bring specialized accreditation to the 900 or more schools with a teaching focus(Henningger,1998).Thehallmark of the ACBSP process was the con- ceptofbeingmissiondrivenandthere-fore open and more accessible to the regional state and small private affili-atedschoolsthataremorelikelytohave a primary focus on teaching. ACBSP has 383 member institutions, of which 276areaccredited(AssociationofCol-legiateBusinessSchoolsandPrograms [ACBSP], 2004b). Nearly half of the ACBSP-accredited business programs are2-yearinstitutions.Threeyearsafter the ACBSP started, the AACSB pro-mulgatednewstandards,orientingitself toward a greater range of 4-year busi-ness programs. Although the ACBSP may continue to accredit such institu-tionsforalongtime,theAACSBshould remainandstrengthenitspositionasthe quality accreditation agency of record forthe4-yearinstitution.
In1997,theoriginalfounderofACBSP established a third accrediting body, the International Assembly for Collegiate Business Education (IACBE). IACBE addresses largely the same target group of institutions as ACBSP, having a phi-losophyofaccreditationthatis“...based on the results of the assessment of edu-cational outcomes, rather than on pre-scriptive input standards” (International AssemblyforCollegiateBusinessEduca-tion[IACBE],2005,p.1).Thisapproach to accreditation by IACBE represents clearlyanattempttobeanalternativeto AACSBaccreditationandincompetition with ACBSP. IACBE (2006) currently lists201institutionalmembers,ofwhich 160areaccredited.
Although growth in numbers of accredited institutions has accelerat-ed, the growth has occurred unevenly. Although regional institutions in some states—such as Texas, Arkansas,
Mis-are virtually all AACSB accredited, otherstateslagfarbehind.
Curriculum
The business education curriculum in mostAmericaninstitutionsofhigheredu-cation tends to follow a four-discipline model.Themostcommoncomponentdis- ciplinesareaccounting,finance,manage-ment,andmarketing.Inadditiontothese fields, some institutions include manage-ment information systems (sometimes taughtoutsideofbusinessinthecomputer-sciencefield),economics(oftentaughtas aliberal-artsdiscipline),andoperations research (often taught in engineering). Programs in small business, business law,generalbusiness,andotheradhoc fieldsareusuallywithinoneofthefour primaryfields.
Course hours, curriculum content, and general structure of programs are remarkably consistent, regardless of the type of university. This similarity amongprogramsislargelydrivenbythe accreditation process. To achieve and maintainaccreditationbyeitherAACSB orACBSP,theinstitutionmustmeetthe program requirements specified by the accrediting agency. The requirements specifiedbybothagenciesareremark-ably similar (AACSB, 2006a; ACBSP, 2004a).As a result, there is very little competitive difference among the pro-gramcontentsofbusinessprogramsthat therangeofinstitutionsoffers.
Faculty
At the core of accreditation—either generalorspecialized—isfacultyqual-ification. In fact, it is compelling to consider that if individual members of the faculty are well qualified in their teaching fields, then curriculum and other components of the teaching processshouldfallintoline.Thegreat roadblockformanyinstitutionsseeking accreditationisthatoffaculty.Found-ers have built both types of schools onateachingmodel,whichisaccept-able to both theAACSB andACBSP. However, these schools have often been quite lax in applying standards forfaculty.Bothoftheseaccreditation agencies specify that percentages of credithourstaughtbyqualifiedfaculty
thereareseparatestandardsfordoctor-allyqualifiedfacultyaswell(AACSB, 2006a; ACBSP, 2004a). In practical terms,thismeansthatvirtuallyallfull-time members of the business faculty should be doctorally qualified in their teachingfields.
Being doctorally qualified does not mean that the faculty member simply holdsadoctorate.Itmeansthatthefac-ulty member is specifically trained in his or her teaching field.Although this mightbedesirable,manyschoolsthatare accustomedtohiringout-of-fielddoctor-ates(usuallyDoctorofEducationorJuris Doctor)arestunnedbythesalarylevels ofin-fieldbusinessdoctoralfaculty.
For some time, starting salaries for new PhDs in most business dis-ciplines have been significantly above thenationalaverageforalldisciplines. National salary survey data of public institutions indicates that new assistant professors of business administration earn approximately 43% more than average for all faculty, approximately $65,000 in 2000–2001 (College and UniversityProfessionalAssociationfor Human Resources [CUPA-HR], 2001). Forcertaindisciplines,suchasfinance and accounting, starting salaries are significantlyhigher.Manyfactorshave contributed to higher faculty salaries in the business disciplines, including graduation rates for such faculty, non-academic opportunities, and market demand associated with the rapidly growing number of AACSB-candidate schoolsseekingappropriatelyqualified facultymembers.
Two additional considerations likely influence salary levels at small affiliat-ed institutions. Institutions with strong tiestoamission-drivensponsor,suchas a church or religious order, have often emphasized the mission as a factor in employee recruitment. School adminis-trators have sometimes used identifica-tions of this type to offset the inability orunwillingnessoftheinstitutiontopay marketsalaryrates.Educatorsmightchar-acterize this phenomenon as themission discount. In other words, qualified indi-vidualswithanaffinityforthemissionof theinstitutionmayconsideremployment ataratebelowthepuremarketrate.Esti-
Educators might characterize the second consideration for the small pri-vate affiliated university as thetenure premium. Most institutions of higher education offer some form of tenure. Accordingtonationalsurveydata,more than 99% of responding noncollective bargaining public institutions do so (CUPA-HR, 2001). Researchers have demonstrated that prospective employ-ees assume that tenure has economic value and consider that value in their employment decision. Therefore, if an institutiondoesnotoffertenureormain-tainsasystemwithstandardsotherthan the typical 7-or-out model, then—all otherthingsbeingequal—aprospective facultymemberwouldfactorthelackof tenureintohisorhersalarydemands.If the economic value of tenure is about 20%,theneteffectforthesmallaffili-ated institution without tenure would beawash.Inotherwords,themission-driven affiliated school that does not offer tenure could expect to pay near themarketaveragefornewfacultyofa particularlevelofqualification.
Inadditiontothesalaryandqualifi- cationissuesassociatedwithaccredita-tion, another significant consideration is faculty workload. Both specialized accreditation agencies more or less specifyamaximumloadof12hoursper teaching school, teaching loads would probably show a 50–50 mix of 9- and 12-hour semester loads. Survey data indicatingthattheaverageundergradu-ate teaching load at responding public institutions is 22 credit hours per aca- demicyear(i.e.,9to10months;CUPA-HR,2001)supportthisestimation.
Resources
A very real problem for the univer-sityseekingaccreditationisfindingthe appropriateresourcestohireanddeploy theappropriatefaculty.Often,significant systemicbarrierstointernalreallocation arise for reasons of perceived fairness or other political–structural reasons. Thereistheissueofsufficientresources overall in tough economic times. The bottom line is that for accreditation to
occur,suchbarriersmustbeovercome. With pay levels of starting assistant professors in some fields approaching $75,000, and with salaries of chairs or deansbeingwellinto6figures,smaller private affiliated universities have both facedcriticaldecisionpointsinthepast. For public regional institutions, the decisionwastobranchoutfromteacher training to becoming a truly compre-hensive university. Such an institution couldserveabroadcrosssectionofthe studentpopulationinalocationorenvi-ronmentmoreinlinewiththeprevious experiencesofthestudent.
Forsmallprivateaffiliatedschools,the decision was to broaden a ministerial or theological focus into the offering of morebroad-baseddegrees,suchasthose of liberal arts, sciences, or professional training. This decision came about as a resultofkeydecision-makersrecognizing theappealofanaffinityinstitution,where abroadspectrumofstudentsidentifying with the institution would seek training for living in the real world. This led to ostensibly religious institutions offering degrees in teaching, business, the arts, science, and the like. This focus served avaluablefunctionforthosesharingthe values of the institution. Parents could send students to get a usable education withsomeassurancethattheemphasisof schools faced the decision of whether to seek regional accreditation. While manyoftheregionaluniversitiessought accreditation much earlier, administra-tors at smaller affiliated institutions faced a bigger problem. Increased mobility of students and the growth in graduate school enrollments forced consideration of regional accreditation. Theuniversitieswerereallyfacedwith the decision of whether they would
become legitimate higher education institutions within the largerAmerican systemofeducation.Toobtainaccredi-of smaller affiliated schools chose the accreditation route, and it is a rarity todaytofindonethatisnotregionally accreditedbyarecognizedagency.
TheThirdCrossroads
Athirdcriticaldecisionnowpresents itselftoinstitutionsdesiringtoofferbusi-ness education programs. Competitive forces are forcing the issue of special-izedaccreditationforbusinessprograms. In 1991, less than 11% of 2- or 4-year Americanbusinessprogramsmaintained specialized accreditation. Today, this number exceeds 30% and is climbing rapidly.Nearly100additionalprograms are in candidacy. It is conceivable that the unaccredited programs will become a minority very soon. The largest state institutions are alreadyAACSB accred-ited or are seeking such accreditation. Manyregionalpublicinstitutionsarefol-lowingcloselybehind.
Thelargeprivateaffiliatedinstitutions are already accredited. This leaves the battlegroundtothesmallerprivateaffili-ated university and, to a lesser extent, the lagging regional state institution. Administrators of some smaller private systemsandschoolshavealreadyrecog-nizedaproblemandaremovingtoward accreditation.SchoolssuchasSt.Mary’s (Texas),AbileneChristian(Texas),Bel-montUniversity(Tennessee),Chapman (California), and Morehouse (Georgia) are examples of smaller universities that are going in this direction. Funda-mentally, the question is whether (a) smallerprivateaffiliatedinstitutionswill take appropriate steps to maintain the legitimacy of their business education programsor(b)theywillchaseanever-narrowinggroupofstudentswithniche market approaches until such programs arenolongerviable.
InitialCompetitiveResponses
Over the past decade, smaller pri-vateaffiliatedinstitutionshavepursued
anumberofstrategiestocounteractthe growingtendencyoftraditionalstudents to seek programs at larger accredited schoolswithastrongerreputation.The most prevalent strategy has been the classic response of specialization. In this approach, the institution seeks a student desiring an education package thatdiffersinsomewayfromthetradi-tionalone.
Typically, institutions have packaged these programs as executive or degree completion programs. Often based on a cohort model, such programs have providedmuch-neededrevenuetocash-needysmallerinstitutions.Theproblem with this approach is that it is under attackfrombothends.Manymoresmall institutions and for-profit and distance-learning institutions have entered this fieldwhencompetitorsareemphasizing quality.Thereisalsoatendencytodivert revenuefromtheseprogramsintoactivi-ties unrelated to maintaining the core business education offering. This often leavesthebaseprogramillequippedto compete with those peer schools rap-idly seeking accreditation and violates theprogramandfacultyrequirementsof theaccreditingbodies(AACSB,2006a; ACBSP, 2004a). The risk is that these sourcesofrevenuewillgodryandthat institutions use as well, this strategy focusesonlimitingfacultycoststhrough creative hiring, extensive use of con-tingent (adjunct) faculty, and relatively high workloads. Many times this has meantthatmaster’slevelfacultyarefill- ingfull-timepositionsandthatadminis-trators consider out-of-field doctorates as acceptable. The problem with this strategyisthatitcannotoutlivethecur-and current market rates that bridging thegapatonceisimpossible.Anunex-pected death or resignation could leave a smaller institution with no qualified
CanBusinessEducationSurvive inRegionalStateandSmall AffiliatedUniversities?
Can business education survive in regional state and small affiliated uni-versities?Onlyregionalstateandsmall affiliated universities can answer this question. School administrators have demonstrated that schools at every level are certainly capable of operat-ing high-quality accredited programs. It is fundamentally a matter of will, leadership, and strategic intent. If the institutiondesiresthem,suchprograms are possible. However, desire alone is insufficient.Acommitmentofresources andthewilltoovercomebarriers—both internal and external—are necessary. Somekeyconsiderationsfollow.
Accreditation
Justasregionalaccreditationbecame the standard for universities in the 1950s, specialized accreditation is the standard for schools of business in the 2000s.Academicinstitutionsareupping the ante, increasing resource demands forparticipationincertaintypesofpro- grams.Universitieswithanarrowstra-tegicemphasisareseekingaccreditation as a way to legitimize their programs (Holmes,2001).Ifalegitimateinstitu-tionofhighereducationdesirestooffer businesseducationprograms,accredita-tionislikelytobecomeasfundamental asatelephone.Forinstitutionsthatseek to make their graduates fully compet-itive in the workplace or in seeking admission to graduate business study, accreditationbyAACSBwillbecomea requirementratherthananoption.
Faculty
Universities desiring to maintain quality business education programs must eventually accede to reality and take market forces into consideration whenhiringfaculty.Qualifiedbusiness facultyaregoingtobeamongthehigh- estpaidpersonnelonauniversitycam-pus, often making considerably more than individuals in administration who supervise them. Evidence exists that supportsthepossibilitythatnotonlyare salaries higher atAACSB schools, but also there is more dispersion between
Internalresistancetotheseideascanbe extreme. However, as with accredita-tion, it is simply the cost of participa-tion. Administrators must pay greater attention to faculty credentials, experi-ence,andproductivity. thy that recognized business programs have a natural philanthropic constitu-ency. Successful graduates tend to sup-port those institutions that have served themwell.Inaddition,administratorscan convert experience in offering packaged degree programs into nondegree execu-tive education programs that can bring significantfundsintotheuniversity.
Conclusion
The transition from a regionally accredited institution to a specifically accredited business education program presentsasignificantchallengetoprivate affiliated universities and the regional statepublicinstitutions.Bothtypeshave significant structural and financial bar-riers to change that they can overcome only by fresh thinking about what the particular business education program willbe.Universityleadershipmustbreak throughthefinancialandpoliticalbound-ariesthatlimititsabilitytomoveintothe new realities of the business education marketplace. As time passes, the entry costs for such institutions accumulate, making breakthrough even more diffi-cult, perhaps even unlikely. Failure to move promptly forward clearly places that institution on the trailing edge of academic progress and minimizes the chancesofthesurvivalofbusinessedu-cationinthatschool.
NOTES
Dr.K.J.Tullis isprofessorandchair,Depart-ment of Manageisprofessorandchair,Depart-ment at University of Central Oklahoma. His areas of academic interest are strategicmanagementandorganizationaltheory.
Dr.JohnP.Camey isassistantdeanandpro-fessor, Department of Marketing, University of Central Oklahoma. He is also the director of undergraduateprogramsandassessment.Hisaca-demicinterestisinmarketingmanagement.
Correspondence concerning this article should
Management, University of Central Oklahoma, 100N.UniversityDr.,Edmond,OK73099.
E-mail:ktullis@ucok.edu
REFERENCES
Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business(AACSB).(1998). Numberofunder-graduate business degrees awarded continues to plummet. Retrieved March 15, 2006, from http://www.aacsb.edu/publications/printnews line/NL1998/fandegrees_1.asp
Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB). (2003, April 28).New standardsforbusinessaccreditationadoptedby AACSBInternational[Pressrelease].Retrieved July 23, 2006, from http://www.aacsb.edu/ members/media/pr-2003NewStds.asp
Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB). (2006a).Eligibility proce-dures and accreditation standards for business accreditation. Retrieved August 1, 2006, from http://www.aacsb.edu/accreditation/business/ STANDARDS.pdf
Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business(AACSB).(2006b).Memberservices. Retrieved August 1, 2006, from http://www .aacsb.edu/members/media/default.asp Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of
Business (AACSB). (2006c). Schools accred-ited in business. Retrieved July 27, 2006,
from http://www.aacsb.edu/General/InstLists .asp?lid=3
Association of Collegiate Business Schools and Programs(ACBSP).(2004a).ACBSPstandards and criteria for demonstrating excellence in baccalaureate/graduate degree schools and programs.OverlandPark,KS:Author.
AssociationofCollegiateBusinessSchoolsandPro-grams(ACBSP).(2004b). Frequentlyaskedques-tions.RetrievedAugust1,2006,fromhttp://www .acbsp.org/index.php?mo=st&op=ld&sid=s1_ 020acc&stpg=25
Brandenburg, R. G. (1983). What can business schoolsdobest?BusinessForum,8,8–12. Conhaim,W.W. (2003). Education ain’t what it
usedtobe.InformationToday,20,37–38. College and University Professional Association
for Human Resources (CUPA-HR). (2001).
National faculty salary survey. Boone, NC: AppalachianStateUniversity.
Hardin,R.J.,&Stocks,M.H.(1995).Theeffect ofAACSBaccreditationontherecruitmentof entry-level accountants.Issues in Accounting Education,10,83–95.
Henningger,E.A.(1998).TheAmericanAssembly ofCollegiateSchoolsofBusinessundernewstan-dards: Implications for changing faculty work.
JournalofEducationforBusiness,73,133–137. Holmes,L.(2001).Seekingaccreditationiswell
worththework. BlackIssuesinHigherEduca-tion,18,152–155.
International Assembly for Collegiate Business Education (IACBE). (2005). Accreditation process manual: International Assembly for CollegiateBusinessEducation.OverlandPark, KS:Author.
International Assembly for Collegiate Business Education(IACBE).(2006). Alphabeticalmem-bershiplisting.RetrievedFebruary16,2006,from http://www.iacbe.org/membership_listing_ alpha.htm
Kirp, D. L. (2003). Education for profit.Public Interest,152,100–113.
Levernier,W., & Miles, M. P. (1992). Effects of AACSB accreditation on academic salaries.
JournalofEducationforBusiness,68,55–61. McCormick, A. C. (2000).The 2000 Carnegie
classification: Background and description. MenloPark,CA:CarnegieFoundationforthe AdvancementofTeaching.
Motchan,R.(2003).Newstandardsforbusiness accreditationadoptedbyAACSBInternational. RetrievedJuly23,2006,fromhttp://www.aacsb .edu/members/media/pr-2003NewStds.asp NorthCentralAssociation(NCA).(2000).
State- mentsofmission,vision,corevaluesandstrate-gicpriorities.Chicago:NCAHigherLearning Commission.
Yunker,P.J.(1998).Asurveyofbusinessschool headsonmission-linkedAACSBaccreditation standards.Journal of Education for Business, 73,137–144.
