California State University, Chico
College of Business
AACSB Reaffirmation Status Summary
July, 2000
Reference Numbers refer to annotated Peer Review Team Report. “Continuing Review Report” column lists the most relevant related
sections from the Continuing Review Reports. All of the reports deal with these issues to one degree or another.
Reference
Number
1
2
3
Standard: Team’s Concern
Preconditions: Effort should be made to increase
faculty diversity.
P.3.b: College has not satisfied the business
standards.
M.1: Mission Statement not in catalog or other
materials.
4
M.1: Curriculum improvement process is new.
5
M.1: Mission Statement too new for outcome
assessment.
Current Status
Outreach is an ongoing part of recruitment.
Continuing
Review Report
2000: Appendix C
Thrust of whole continuing review effort.
All
Statement is in catalog, on plaques
displayed near administrative offices, and in
promotional materials.
Process has been (is being) carried out, and
program changes are being made.
N/A
Continued following of Mission, and
gathering of Mission related data.
1999: p. 3-2,
Appendix G
2000: pp. 3-2, 3-3,
and related
Appendices
2000: pp. 3-1, 3-2,
and related
Appendices (esp.
Appendix F)
Reference
Number
6
7
8
Standard: Team’s Concern
M.1: Concern about level of faculty buy-in on
planning.
M.4: Concern over “state of the art” in graduate
programs mission.
M.4: “Diversified research portfolio” not acceptable
in Mission Statement.
Current Status
We are uncertain how to quantify this
outcome. Qualitatively, there now is more
harmony within the College.
Mission has been revised.
Mission now specifies emphasis on applied
research and instructional development.
9
FD.1: Needs a mission-based faculty resource plan.
Plan created and being carried out.
10
FD.1: Better faculty planning could help deal with
funding problems.
FD.3.a: Problems with workload allocation
processes.
Based on above plan , College received
additional faculty funding from University.
Workloads are tied with progress made in
accordance with new Faculty Development
Program.
New Faculty Development Program helps
faculty set and reach productivity goals,
with administrative review in Spring.
11
12
FD.3.a: Faculty development process appears
informal and not effective.
13
FD.3.a: Insufficient number of faculty are
academically qualified and instructionally current.
Significant progress has been made in the
area of faculty scholarship.
Continuing
Review Report
N/A
1998: p. 5-3
1998: pp. 5-1, 5-2.
Evidence of
meeting the stated
mix is in 2000:
Appendix K
1999: p. 2-2 and
Appendix C. 2000:
Appendix C
Evidence available
upon request.
1998: Appendix E
1999: pp. 4-1, 4-2
2000: p. 4-2
1998: Appendix E
1999: pp. 4-1, 4-2,
Appendix P
2000: p. 4-2
2000: pp. 3-3, 3-4
(IN & IC)
Appendices K and
L
Reference
Number
14
Standard: Team’s Concern
FD.3.a: Budgetary support for faculty is constrained.
18
FD.3.d: Limited financial resources.
Current Status
Efforts to increase support have been made,
and use of existing funds have been more
carefully targeted to performance goals.
Integration of systems was reviewed, and
changes made to personnel policies.
Percentage continues to climb. Now
exceeds 80%.
The Faculty Development Program links
assignments and rewards to productivity,
and provides for developmental activities.
Scholarship weighs heavily in merit pay
awards.
Please see #14 above.
19
20
FD.3.d: A balance of regional and national
conference participation is desirable.
FD.3.e: Outside faculty activity policy needed.
About 70% of presentation activity is at the
national or international level.
Policy established and carried out.
21
FD.4.b: More MIS faculty are needed.
22
FD.4.b: Faculty’s lack of academic qualification and
instructional currency.
FD.4.b: Concern over meeting criterion of 60%
student credit hours taught by full-time faculty.
Recruitment and hiring of MIS faculty
continues.
Please see #13 above.
15
16
17
23
FD.3.b: Ineffective and disjointed faculty
performance appraisal systems.
FD.3.c: Insufficient percentage of faculty engaging
in intellectual development activities.
FD.3.c: To increase scholarship, teaching
assignments need to be reviewed, activity needs to
be rewarded, and mentoring assistance is needed.
Percentages have improved, with an overall
College rate of 82%. On an annual basis, all
areas exceeded 60%.
Continuing
Review Report
2000: p. 4-2,
Appendices E & N
1999: pp. 4-2, 4-3,
Appendices Q & R
2000: Appendix K
Above Faculty
Development Plan
references, plus:
2000: p. 4-3
Also:
2000: p. 2-2 (IN.1)
2000: Appendix K
1999: p. 4-4,
Appendix S
2000: 4-3
2000: p. 3-5
2000: Appendices
J, K and L
2000: Appendix M
Reference
Number
24
Standard: Team’s Concern
FD.4.b: Granting of leaves without qualified
replacements.
Current Status
Leaves are not granted unless a qualified
replacement is available.
25
FD.4.b: Redding MBA taught as overload.
26
FD.5: Faculty not qualified. Causes include
ineffective process to ensure productivity, definitive
determination of appropriate types of scholarship,
and overly permissive standards regarding
scholarship.
FD.5: Not enough part-time faculty are
professionally qualified.
Teaching loads were adjusted. Redding
program has been discontinued.
Please see #13, #8, and #12 above. Also, a
new intellectual contributions policy was
established early in the continuing review
process.
27
28
C.1.3.e: Little evidence of cross-functional teaching
in graduate program.
Recruitment and hiring process emphasizes
getting professionally qualified people. In
areas where there’s a shortage of qualified
people, part-time faculty work under the
direct supervision of academically qualified
full-time faculty.
Cross-functional links have been
strengthened and documented.
29
C.1.3.e: A required graduate course was not taken
by 10 graduates.
All required courses are taken by all
students.
Continuing
Review Report
2000: p. 2-2
(P.1.e), 3-5,
Appendix D
[Similar data are
presented in earlier
Reports.]
1999: p. 5-4
2000: pp. 5-3, 5-4
In addition to
above references:
1999: Appendix H
1998: p. 3-2,
Appendices F & G
1999: Appendix D
2000: Appendix D
2000: pp. 5-1 thru
5-3; Appendices O
and P
1998: p. 5-2
Reference
Number
30
31
32
Standard: Team’s Concern
IN.2 & IN.3: Faculty are not qualified, and don’t
know the definition of instructional currency.
Current Status
Please see #13 above. Also, there have been
a series of College and faculty-Chair
meetings to reinforce the definitions of
qualification and currency.
S.1.d: Suggested simplifying graduate admissions
formula.
IC.1: “Diversified research portfolio” lacks focus,
confusion over acceptable intellectual contributions,
and insufficient number of faculty engaged in
scholarly activity.
Suggestion considered.
Please see #8, #26 and #16 above.
Continuing
Review Report
Also: References
to Faculty
Development
Program. Meeting
minutes available.
1999: p. 5-4
Please see #8, #26
and #16 above.