School of Business
Plan for Accreditation through the Association to Advance Collegiate
Schools of Business (AACSB)1
February, 2013
Executive Summary
The School of Business at CSU Monterey Bay included plans in its 2009 Program Improvement
Plan (PIP) to prepare the School of Business (called BUS) for accreditation under the Association
to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB). As part of the PIP, an assessment was made
of BUS planning focus from 2009/2010 through 2014/2015. This assessment (see Appendix 1)
took each standard and provided a clarification of the "key gaps" that BUS needed to address.
The PIP and this assessment comparison to the AACSB Standards reinforced the two key
strategies of the School of Business: 1) continue to build a cadre of Academically Qualified (AQ)
faculty to teach a larger percent of the curriculum; and 2) focus on assessment. Much of our
focus on faculty recruitment has been on the replacement of existing faculty lines; a plan for
recruiting faculty was outlined in the Program Improvement Plan. BUS has focused on
assessment and with the help of Becky Rosenberg in Teaching, Learning and Assessment (TLA),
we have made significant strides in the particular strategy. Based upon feedback from CSU BUS
Deans who are undergoing re-accreditation this year, the focus of the examiners has been on
assessment, specifically closing the loop between assessment goals and practice.
Overview of the School of Business:
The School of Business Mission is to:
Develop effective and ethical leaders to excel in today’s diverse, global business
environment.
The School of Business confers three degrees:
1. Bachelor of Science in Business Administration (B.S. in BA) with
1
This document was put together by Marylou Shockley, Chair School of Business. I’d like to acknowledge the
contributions of Jill Jolly who did the data gathering, and Babita Gupta who did some of the analysis.
1
-Seven (7) concentrations within the B.S. degree
-Minor in Business
-Minor in Non-Profit Management offered in collaboration with the Health,
Human Services, & Public Policy (HHSPP) Department of the College of Professional Studies (CPS).
2. Masters of Business Administration (MBA) Online,
3. M.S. in Management and Information Technology (MSMIT) offered in collaboration
with the ITCD of SMART College (MSMIT program is currently under discussion to be
converted into an online degree program).
Currently School of Business has following resources –
o Seven (7) tenured or tenure-track (T/TT) faculty,
o Half (0.5) FERP faculty,
o 24 to 28 part-time faculty,
o One (1) staff for the BSBA program; one staff for the MBA program
o Annual operating budget of $18,700 including travel for professional development
and for subscriptions and memberships,
o About 700 declared Business majors,
o About 200 MBA students
This document outlines a plan for accreditation, building on the PIP. We estimate it will take
realistically at least six years to reach the point at which the School of Business will be groomed
for accreditation; documents from AACSB itself indicates the "fast track" for accreditation is
four years.
This AACSB planning report answers the following three questions:
o What is the process of accreditation as defined by AACSB?
o How does the School of Business at CSUMB compare to the Pre-Accreditation Criteria,
stated in Criteria A through G?
o Within the context of the criteria for pre-accreditation, what is the plan of the School of
Business to attain AASCB accreditation?
2
I. Process of Accreditation
In the Pre-Accreditation Handbook, AACSB describes the commitments of applicants as having
"the desire and capacity to secure accreditation."2 This is not an "application," but a multi-step
process in which continuous improvement is a major theme. Stakeholder involvement is critical
in AACSB's accreditation expectations shown in the following exhibit.
Exhibit 1: Overall Accreditation Philosophy of AACSB
Student Admission
& Retention
Staff Sufficiency &
Student Support
Individual Faculty
& Student
Educational
Responsibility
Faculty Sufficiency
& Qualifications
Faculty Mgmt &
Support
Aggregate
Faculty & Staff
Educational
Responsibility
PARTICIPANTS
Continuous Improvement
Processes
Mission
Statement
Continuous
Improvement
Objectives
Mission
Appropriateness
STRATEGIC
MANAGEMENT
Student
Mission
Financial
Strategies
Management of
Curricula
Continuous Improvement
Processes
ASSURANCE OF
LEARNING
Learning Goals
Educational Level
Exhibit found on page 4, Self-Assessment Primer for Pre-Accreditation, http://www.aascb.edu
2
Pre-Accreditation Handbook, page 1. http://www.aacsb.edu/accreditation/business/eligibility.asp
3
As shown in this exhibit the strategic plan is at the heart of this plan in which there are a
number of participants all focused on continuous improvement with the super-ordinate goal
called "Assurance of Learning."
The process for Application is rigorous as well as continuous. It takes focused effort maintained
over multiple years to achieve the standards outlined in an institution's Standards Alignment
plan. As shown in Exhibit 2, the journey toward accreditation initiates a culture of perpetual
self-assessment with involves not just the School of Business itself, but the entire University, its
community partners, students, and alumni. This journey is evidence and data driven.
Applicants have mentors to provide guidance; for example, at the Pre-accreditation phase, a
volunteer mentor--usually a dean--is appointed by AACSB as a guide to help interpret the
nuances of the processes. A by-product of this application process is a capacity building of
knowledge acquisition and networking that requires resources.
Exhibit 2
Timeline to Accreditation As Described by AACSB
Documents
Parameters
Eligibility
PreAccreditation
PreAccreditation Review
Timeline: BUS/w Sr. Lead.
One/Two Years
Three Years
Eligibility Application
--Max. 50 Pages
w/o Appendices
Self-Assessment Standards
Alignment Plan (SAP)
--Max. 100 Pages w/o App.
--A Strategic Management
Plan also included with SAP
 Submit Application
Application must meet
Criteria A through G
 Application submitted
 Fee: $1000
Upon Acceptance of Application,
A mentor is Appointed
 Standards of Self-Assessment
Requires SAP to be developed
 SAP must provide a realistic gap
Analysis of Institution’s capabilities
 Fee: $4,500
Plan Implementation
Reports (PIR)
--Max. 20 pages w/o App.
Cycle of Review Begins
 Plan Implementation
Reports completed
 Sent to the Initial Accreditation
Committee (IAC)
 IAC makes Recommendations
And assesses progress toward
SAP
 Peer Review Team appointed
With Chair
File for
Accreditation
Letter of Application
--Max. 10 Pages w/o App.
--Self-Assessment Report
Prepared for Visit
Upon receipt of Application
letter.
 Visit by Peer Review Team
 Report Submitted to IAC
 Determine to grant
initial accreditation
 Institution expected to
Maintain accreditation
 Fee: $12,000 (one time)
Prepared by Chair, School of Business Using AACSB documents
4
II.
First Step Toward AASCB Accreditation: Eligibility Application
Since the Eligibility Application represent the first step on the accreditation journey, the bulk of
the analysis will be focused on a comparison of BUS to the eligibility criteria. In Table 1, a
summary of the Criteria from A through G with an assessment of the issues for the School of
Business is shown.
Table 1: Comparative Assessment of Eligibility Criteria to School of Business Current Baseline
Criteria
Criterion A: A collegiate
institution seeking AACSB
accreditation must be a member
of AACSB International.
Criterion B: An institution
seeking accreditation by AACSB
must offer degree-granting
programs in business or
management.
Overall Assessment
--Done. CSUMB's School of Business has been a member since 2006
Criterion C: Degree programs in
business must be supported by
continuing resources.
--Evidence on resources must clearly demonstrate that your cash flow
(revenues per Eligibility Application) will be sustained over the next five years.
--Issue: Benchmarking shows that relative to other accredited Schools of
Business in the CSU, CSUMB's School of Business is small. However, there are
other accredited institutions that are also small.
--Issue: Current faculty profiles meeting Academically Qualified (AQ)
Standards; % of curriculum taught by AQ faculty. Benchmark comparisons
indicate significant short fall in these areas.
Criterion D: All degree programs
in business offered by the
institution at all locations will be
reviewed simultaneously.
--Defines the Scope of Accreditation.
--Issue: Organization and Autonomy for degree granting, financial resources,
human and physical resources, and management oversight.
--Issue: Branding Distinctiveness in which the identity of the BUS programs
are shown to be unique with its own brand awareness among stakeholders
--Issue: Exclusion Exception. CSU Business Schools and Colleges that are
AASCB accredited generally have "none" or no more than one other entity
housed with its School of Business. These complementary entities are
economics or policy. Linking Criterion D to Criterion C, careful consideration is
required. At the moment, both the BSBA and the MBA programs will be
included. What's not clear is the scope of the exclusion from review.
Criterion E: Consistent with its
mission and its cultural context,
--School of Business has a mission which is: Develop effective and ethical
leaders to excel in today’s diverse, global business environment. BUS must
--BUS meets this criteria for its BS in Business Administration
--Its MBA Program was launched in 2008 as an online program. The program
is modeled after the University of Maryland University College (UMUC) online
degree; University of Maryland's MBA program is not AACSB accredited.
--Issue: For its Accounting Program, it must determine whether or not to
establish a Master of Science in Accounting (MSA degree) to be included in
accreditation. Such a strategy would require in-depth exploration; for
example, does a MSA require a separate major to be established at the
baccalaureate level first? Would it be more advantageous to provide
additional courses for CPA licensure as online courses taught through Ext. Ed.?
The latter addresses changes in the Accounting education requirements for
CPA licensure that must also be taken into consideration.*
5
the institution must demonstrate
diversity in its business programs.
demonstrate its connection to its stakeholders at large.
--Issue: This mission and its guiding principles will require broader
participation by stakeholders to achieve buy-in (see Exhibit 1).
--Issue: BUS must begin the process of developing a Business Strategic Plan;
many of the components exist in the current documents such as the Program
Improvement Plan, the Assessment Plan, and the Program Review SelfAssessment Plan. However, it requires updating.
Criterion F: The institution or the
business programs of the
institution must establish
expectations for ethical behavior
by administrators, faculty, and
students.
Criterion G: At the time of initial
accreditation, a majority of
business graduates shall be from
programs that have produced
graduates during the two most
recent years.
--The University has established standards in the area of Ethical behavior by
students, faculty and administrators/staff.
--Issue: BUS will need to demonstrate how effectively it implements these
standards.
--BUS BS Administration and MBA degrees are both established and have
alums.
--Issue: Need to structure the collection of data for BUS Alums. At this time,
data is not as robust as needed.
--Issue: New programs such as a Master of Science Accounting (MSA) Program
are not yet developed.
*The California Board of Accountancy will be requiring 150 baccalaureate or higher units to qualify for CPA
licensure; this is in effect as of January, 2014. The new CPA licensure requirements are codified under SB 773.
Some Universities such as UC Davis and CalPoly, San Luis Obispso have opted to establish a Master Degree in
Accounting.
As you can see from the table 1, we only partially meet the criteria established for eligibility
with some significant gaps. The rest of this section expands on the AACSB expectations for each
criterion and provide evidence where available to clarify issues the application presents.
Criterion A: Membership
CSU Monterey Bay's School of Business has been a member of the AACSB since May, 2006. BUS
felt that it was important to become a dues-paying member to: 1) take advantage of the
networking potential; 2) have access to documents and benchmarking data; and 3) declare
intent of becoming accredited in the future.
As the School of Business proactively seeks to become accredited, it is crucial that the BUS Chair
develop a network among AACSB accredited members. Purpose of this network will be to
develop a formal and informal understanding of the social network of accredited members to
establish peer schools, mentorship, and the initial Peer Review team with its Chair. BUS Chair
has learned from the CSU Business Deans that understanding of informal and unstated
standards is essential to achieve accreditation; therefore, networking with our peers will be
critical to obtaining that understanding. This social knowledge can only be gathered by
attending meetings and conference; it is not in any manual.
6
Criterion B: Degrees meeting AACSB standards
The AACSB clearly states that degrees must be Bachelor's degrees or higher; two-year college
degree and certification programs are not included. What will become a challenge over the
time of the Eligibility application is any decision to add new programs. With the pending
mandate of bringing all CSU programs and concentrations into alignment, accounting becomes
a challenge. We are thinking about creating a Master of Science in Accounting to accommodate
the education requirements to become a Certified Public Accountant (CPA) in the State of
California. Currently, SB 773 (California Statute) calls for 150 baccalaureate or higher units that
applicants must have to qualify for licensure; ten of these units must relate to ethics with at
least one course on Professional Ethics in Accounting.3
Also under consideration is an online Degree Completion Program which may or may not need
separate accreditation. The MBA Program fortunately meets the requirement that any new
program must been in place for two years; it was launched in 2008.
Criterion C: Programs Supported by Continuing Resources
This criterion addresses resources with the expectation that these resources will be sustained
for at least five years. Since significant emphasis is placed on peer group comparisons, BUS
benchmarked smaller Schools of Business in the Western United States. Two CSUs were also
selected. Table 2 provides some data about the overall size of peer Business Schools.
Among the accredited CSU Business Schools, we don’t have the critical mass of students yet,
even when we add in our 200 MBA students, we are significantly smaller than Bakersfield.4
There are Business Schools much smaller than CSUMB that AACSB accredited; many of them
are private schools, but not all as Table 2 shows. We only looked at the undergraduate budgets
to achieve better numerical consistency. It appears that the budget model deployed is
significantly cost effective. CSUMB ratio of operating budget per FTE is consistent with the fact
that much of the curriculum is taught by non tenure/tenure track faculty.
3
The California Board of Accountancy was able to successfully get SB 733 passed in September, 2011. Although
the original Bill indicated 150 baccalaureate units were needed, the language was changed to include 150
semester baccalaureate units or higher. Source: legiscan.com/gaits/view
4
At the October CSU Business Deans meeting, the Deans from Pomona and Long Beach were asked whether or not CSUMB
should apply for accreditation. They indicated that we were too small. Their rationale applied to Bakersfield as well. Both
Deans indicated that if two faculty members upon review did not meet the AQ standards, this finding is significant when there
are only 23 tenure/tenure track faculty (the case with Bakersfield) with both of their Colleges, two faculty out of 40 plus
tenure/tenure track faculty would not result in a major negative finding.
7
Table 2: Comparison of Business Schools of Comparable Size
State
Institution
Operating
Budget
(including all
salaries)
(Undergrad)
FTEs
(Undergrad)
Operating Budget
(including all
salaries) per FTE
CSU Bakersfield, School of
Bus and Public Admin
CA
$4,504,751
CSU Stanislaus, College of
Bus Admin
CA
$4,839,226
Fort Lewis College, School
of Business Administration
CO
$2,400,000
706
$109,091
Montana State University,
College of Business
MT
$5,458,647
968
$116,141
Southern Utah University,
School of Business
UT
$3,543,148
1157
1379
643
$187,698
$151,226
$126,541
Median:
$4,504,751
$126,541
Mean:
$4,149,154
$138,139
CSU Monterey Bay, School
of Business
CA
$1,885,941
700
$67,355
Note: There are some inconsistencies in these numbers as compared to CSUMB. For example, these
operating budgets may include funds from MBA programs. However, the “general” size and numerical
consistency appears to be sound, especially since BUS uses significant numbers of Part Time faculty.
Source: AACSB Data Summaries by University.
8
Table 3 below compares full time tenure/tenure track faculty plus lecturers from various
campuses. The part time lecturers are adjusted for full time equivalency to enable comparison.
Table 3: Benchmark Comparisons of All Faculty (Tenure/Tenure Track & Lecturers)
All Faculty
(T/TT
+Lectures
adjusted for
FTE)
% T/TT
Faculty of
Tot.
Faculty
Enrolled
Students to
T/TT Faculty
Ratio BA/BS
Institution
State
BA/BS
Enrolled
Students
CSU Bakersfield,
School of Bus and
Public Admin
CA
1157
23
24
96%
50
CSU Stanislaus,
College of Bus Admin
CA
1379
24
32
76%
57
Fort Lewis College,
School of Business
Administration
Montana State
University, College of
Business
Southern Utah
University, School of
Bus
CO
706
20
22
91%
35
MT
968
30
47
64%
32
UT
643
26
28
93%
25
706
24
28
91%
32
926
25
30
85%
38
700
7.5
29
26%
93
T/TT
Faculty
Median:
Mean:
CSU Monterey Bay,
School of Business
CA
Source: AACSB Peer Data; University Websites
Fewer number of full-time tenure/tenure track faculty at BUS creates important challenges:
1) Meeting the requirement for mentoring students becomes extremely difficult when
there are only 7.5 faculty (Eight is used because one of the tenure track faculty is on
FERP), which means AACSB Standard 8 cannot be met;
2) The percentage of curriculum taught by full time tenure/tenure track faculty is low
which means AACSB Standards 9, 10, and to a degree 11 cannot be met.
Again, the Program Improvement Plan (PIP) report identified these as weaknesses (See
Appendix A). This Appendix compares the School of Business to the specific AACSB standards
rather than to the Criteria for Application as this report does.
9
As shown in Table 4 below, the growth trends in the School of Business in terms of students has
risen steadily over the past 12 years; however, the number of full time tenure/tenure track
faculty has not kept pace with this growth.
Table 4: School of Business Growth; Percent of Curriculum Taught by TT Faculty
FT
Faculty
% of
units
Taught
by FT
Faculty
% of
units
taught
by
lecturer
467
7.5
39%
61%
15
28
426
7.5
42%
58%
13
114
30
336
7.5
54%
46%
11
AY 08-09
118
28
357
7.5
50%
50%
11
AY 07-08
118
26
339
6.5
46%
54%
11
AY 06-07
105
27
298
6.5
52%
48%
9
AY 05-06
99
27
288
6.5
54%
46%
9
AY 04-05
95
25
269
6
54%
46%
8
AY 03-04
91
25
241
6
60%
40%
8
AY 02-03
82
26
200
6
72%
28%
6
AY 01-02
69
23
189
5
63%
37%
6
AY 00-01
51
19
142
4
68%
32%
4
A/Y
Sectio
ns
Taught
Avg
class
size
Units
Taught,
minus
Eng A*
AY 11-12
145
29
AY 10-11
145
AY 09-10
# FT
Faculty
required to
teach 75%
of units
*BUS no longer teaches lower division EngCom A courses; adjustments made for this.
Source: BUS and CPS records.
Under AACSB, generally the number of units taught by tenure/tenure track faculty is targeted
at 75% or more. In order to meet the “expectations of sufficiency,” AACSB’s states, “Normally,
participating faculty5 members consistently deliver at least 75 percent of the school's annual
5
AACSB indicates: "A participating faculty member actively engages in the activities of the school in matters
beyond direct teaching responsibilities. Such matters might include policy decisions, educational directions,
advising, research, and service commitments. The faculty member may participate in the governance of the school,
and be eligible to serve as a member on appropriate committees that engage in academic policymaking and/or
other decisions." Source: “Eligibility Procedures and Accreditation Standards for Business Accreditation” Revision date:
January 31, 2012, page 39. http://www.aacsb.edu/accreditation/standards-busn-jan2012.pdf. This definition follows AACSB
Standard 10 that specifically addresses Academically Qualified and Professional Qualified faculty. "Participating
faculty" are "Academically Qualified" faculty at CSU-Monterey Bay.
10
teaching (whether measured by credit hours, contact hours, or other metric appropriate to the
school).”6 The requirement for full time faculty is also shown in this chart. The School of
Business has never met the 75% benchmark. The growth in the School of Business exacerbates
this gap. The analysis shows that to meet the 75% benchmark, BUS would need to add at least 7
more faculty now.
In addition, the MBA/EMBA program at CSU Monterey has an enrollment of 200 students. It is
a growing program and the largest graduate program on the campus in terms of student
enrollments. Most additional faculty members who teach in this program have Doctorate
Degrees (PhD); however, these faculty would be categorized as mostly Professionally Qualified
(PQ). Because of the California Faculty Association (CFA) Union bargaining agreement 125%
rule, very few of the sections can be taught by tenure/tenure track faculty.7 In addition, BUS
has maintained its commitment to have tenure/tenure track faculty teach exclusively on the
undergraduate program during the Fall and Winter terms; there are no “workload buyout”
commitments except for the Chair of the School of Business and the Director of the MBA
Program. Again, AACSB states as its “expectations of sufficiency that, “Normally, Participating
faculty members consistently deliver at least 60 percent of the teaching in each discipline, each
academic program, and location.”8 BUS does not meet this requirement for the MBA/EMBA
Program. The 75% benchmark mentioned above is an "overall" expectation, while this AACSB
expectation applies to "specificity" making it clear that a "uniform application" of the standards
is required such that "averages" cannot mask a significant deficiency in discipline, program or
location.
The BUS Improvement Plan recognized these deficiencies in the number of full time faculty and
proposed the following hiring plan. At this point, we have not begun the implementation of this
plan. The faculty hiring plan will be discussed in more detail under Section 3 of this report.
Another observation made by the External Examiners in their report was that BUS needed to be
extremely careful that future hires met the AACSB criteria for being "Academically Qualified."
One of the External Examiners, Mary Wolfinbarger Celsi, Ph.D., Associate Dean for
Accreditation, California State University-Long Beach, did an analysis of the full time faculty and
a selection of part time faculty in terms of their qualifications as shown on their CVs or
resumes; she used three categories 1) Academic Qualification (AQ); 2) Professional
Qualification (PQ), or 3) Other (O) (See Appendix B).
6
Source: “Eligibility Procedures and Accreditation Standards for Business Accreditation” Revision date: January 31, 2012,
page 39. http://www.aacsb.edu/accreditation/standards-busn-jan2012.pdf. One other reference in AACSB documents
indicated that the lowest level is 50% of AQ faculty need to teach the curriculum; informal conversations with other
CSU business deans suggests that this 50% minimum standard is not followed because should one AQ faculty
member in a small program not meet the established standards, then a “major finding” leading to continuing review
is likely to occur. "
7
California Faculty Association (CFA) Bargaining Unit 3 Contract states this 125 rule limit in article 36.4. Source:
http://www.calstate.edu/laborrel/contracts_html/CFA_CONTRACT/2012-2014/article36.pdf
8
Source: “Eligibility Procedures and Accreditation Standards for Business Accreditation” Revision date: January 31, 2012, page
39. http://www.aacsb.edu/accreditation/standards-busn-jan2012.pdf..
11
This analysis does show that some of the part time faculty did not meet the qualifications for
"Professional Qualifications." However, the most crucial point of this analysis was that out of
the 7.5 tenure/tenure track faculty, only 4 faculty members were AQ. BUS learned that
doctorate degrees in Economics, Communications, and Hospitality/Education were not
considered AQ.9 Through research work and publications, tenure/tenure track faculty can
qualify as AQ. However, for Hospitality and Agri-business, it will be more of challenge to qualify
these faculty members as AQ. We understand the AQ/PQ standards are up for revision by the
AACSB, and will be available in 2013. These new standard could give BUS more flexibility in
faculty hiring.
In addition, BUS did some research on faculty pay as compared to other CSUs for business
faculty (See Table 5 below). We selected salary data on a sample bases, looking at approximate
size, location, and availability of data; the data provide at least good estimates of prevailing
salaries for business faculty among CSUs. These data highlight the challenges for hiring BUS
faculty who meet the AACSB criteria. It is one of the major discussions among CSU Deans and
was partially the reason why the Graduate fee was lobbied for and put into place for AACSB
accredited campuses.
Table 5: Salary Comparisons by Academic Type and Rank
Academic Discipline
Professor
Salary Avg.
$104,665
$96,995
$102,396
$104,205
$102,065
Associate Prof.
Salary Avg.
$100,807
$84,120
$96,852
$91,136
$93,229
Assistant Prof.
Salary Avg.
$99,007
$83,194
NA
$87,433
$89,878
Salary Avg. for all
ranks
$102,358
$91,436
$97,683
$95,152
Accounting/Finance
Gen. Bus Admin.
Info. Sys./Opns.
Mgt./Mktg./Entre.
Avg.
CSUMB
Accounting
$ 74,040
Gen. Bus Admin.
$85,173
Info. Sys./Opns.
$99,348
Mgmt./Mktg./Entre. $89,172
$72.036
Other (Hospitality)
$75,000
Note: Department Chairs are excluded.
CSUs included are: Bakersfield, CSU-East Bay, CSU-LA, CSU-Stanislaus, Humbolt, Sonoma State, CSU
Long Beach, CSU-San Marcos
Sources: CSU websites, and Sacramento BEE database, CSUMB Salary records
9
Informal discussions with the examiners and additional research showed that for Faculty engaged in the mission
of BUS can create research agendas that qualify them. For example, Brad Barbeau's research is in the area of
entrepreneurship; as he builds a research record in this area, he is likely to qualify as an AQ faculty. Pat Tinsley’s
business emphasis is Strategic Management, and she too can build her research in this area.
12
The School of Business has stayed within the faculty salaries offered at CSU-Monterey Bay. To
compensate for searches that would have failed because of low offers, several faculty with
excellent academic and professional credentials were brought in with service credit and as
associate professors. In the last three searches in the School of Business, all three professors
were hired as assistant professors. This is highly unusual; in two cases, accounting and
marketing/entrepreneurship, all candidates declined except the two candidates who were
offered and took their respective positions. Even among the full professors at CSUMB, BUS
professors are among lowest paid compared to other CSU business faculty.
Another reason for putting this salary data together is to determine incrementally the
additional outlay in resources that will be required to become AACSB accredited. In addition to
faculty salaries, additional staff and other resources will be needed for accreditation. As part of
our plan, BUS has put together a pro forma budget over the next 5 years, outlining the
additional investment costs for accreditation.
In addition to the current salary demands of new faculty, the challenge of salary compression of
existing salaries within the School of Business will also need addressed. The salaries for
assistant professors who currently are on the payroll are extremely low. The other full time
professors are equally low. No base salary among the existing full time professors equals the
average of salaries found in the CSU-schools of business.
Table 6 depicts a proposed hiring plan of tenure/tenure track faculty and staff lines with the
additional resources that will be needed each year to reach the target that satisfies AACSB
accreditation requirements. We have used data from other CSU hires (see Table 5 above) and
have used much lower range of salary for Assistant Professor among the benchmark
Universities. The bold salary numbers indicate timing of a hire and salary estimates in a given
year. Since incremental salaries accumulate over time, the subsequent years show this impact,
and the last row in Table 6 sums the total accumulated salaries through AY 20117/2018. The
costs for new tenure/tenure track faculty and staff rises exponentially such that in five years
the investment will exceed one million dollars per year.
This hiring plan does not include the impact of salary compression for existing professors in
BUS. Other CSUs Schools of Business have had to face this challenge. Again, a compensation
plan will need to be developed, working with Academic Personnel and the Senior Leadership of
CSU Monterey Bay.
13
Table 6: Estimated investments for the BUS hiring plan to meet AACSB accreditation requirements
Functional
Area
Faculty
Lines
Finance
2013/14
2014/15
2015/16
2016/17
2017/18
Assistant Prof
$ 90,000.00
$ 90,000.00
$ 90,000.00
$ 90,000.00
$ 90,000.00
Operations
Assistant Prof
$ 85,000.00
$ 85,000.00
$ 85,000.00
$ 85,000.00
$ 85,000.00
Mgmt/Intl.
BUS
Assistant Prof
$ 85,000.00
$ 85,000.00
$ 85,000.00
$ 85,000
$ 85,000
Agribusines
s
Assistant Prof
$ 85,000.00
$ 85,000.00
$ 85,000.00
$ 85,000.00
Informatio
n Systems
Assistant Prof
$ 90,000.00
$ 90,000.00
$ 90,000.00
Assistant Prof
$ 90,000.00
$ 90,000.00
$ 90,000
$ 90.000
Marketing
Assistant Prof
$ 87,000.00
$ 87,000.00
$ 87,000.00
Entreprene
urship/Inno
vation
Assistant Prof
$ 87,000.00
$ 87,000.00
Strategy
Assistant Prof
$ 85,000.00
$ 85,000.00
Staff for
BUS
Staff
Accounting
$ 45,000.00
$ 45,000.00
$ 45,000.00
$ 45,000.00
Net
Additional
Salary
Investment,
each year
$ 175,000.00
$215,000.00
$267,000.00
$172,000.00
$175,000.00
Cumulative
Salary
investment
$175,000
$390,000
$657,000
$829,000
$1,004,000
Source: CSU websites, and Sacramento Bee database, CSUMB Salary records. See Table 5.
14
Criterion D: Defining the Scope and Organization
In Criterion D, the focus is on the “institution” being accredited as defined by the degree
programs that will be accredited. The four factors that determine institutional scope are: 1)
Financial relationship; 2) Services provided to the accredited entity to determine levels of
subsidy and support by the over arching University; 3) Autonomy; and 4) Brand Independence.
In light of the information on the above four factors, AACSB’s Accreditation
Coordinating Committee (ACC) will determine whether the academic unit may be
taken as the ―institution to be accredited, or alternatively, whether the
organization of which the academic unit is a part shall be the ―institution‖ for
accreditation purposes. The applicant must demonstrate that the level of
independence is substantive.10
The strategic direction of the School of Business has been to work seamlessly within the CSUMonterey Bay University structure. Therefore, "independence" has not been a major strategic
target. For the size of both the University and BUS, this strategy has served both BUS and the
University mutual interests in fulfilling the charter described in its Vision. The School of Business
faculty team has worked tirelessly to build bridges into the community as outlined in CSUMonterey Bay's Vision Statement. In addition, community members have given us feedback
along two themes: 1) we must "friend raise" if we are going to be successful fund raising; and
2) we must adhere to our value proposition as expressed by our mission statement. With
respect to brand independence, we have remained closely aligned to the University’s brand.
Even the MBA/EMBA program is marketed under the CSU-Monterey Bay brand. Many AASCB
accredited Colleges have focused on "the College" or "the School" with literature and
advertising that brands their specific programs. BUS has not put together such a marketing
program that brands only its programs. Such a strategy would require the buy-in of the
University.
Table 7 shows the organizational entities for the Colleges/Schools of Business. In all CSUs but
four, the academic business entity is established as a College with a Dean. For those colleges
with Deans, nine of them have at least one other entity associated with business; these
associations are either economics or policy.
10
Eligibility Procedures and Accreditation Standards for Business Accreditation, revised 1/31/12, page 8.
http://www.aacsb.edu/accreditation/standards-busn-jan2012.pdf.
15
Table 7: List of CSU Business Academic Institutions
Name of CSU
Name of school which
includes the business
Head of the school
(Dean, Chair, AVP or
other)
Name of the person in the job
identified to the left
1
CSU Monterey
Bay
School of Business, College of
Professional Studies
Chair
Marylou Shockley, chair; Brian
Simmons, CPS Dean
2
CSU Bakersfield
Dean
John Emery
3
CSU Channel
Islands
School of Business and Public
Administration
Martin V. Smith School of
Business & Economics
Chair
J. Andrew Morris, chair; William
Cordeiro, AVP Acad. Affairs/MBA Dir.
4
CSU Chico
College of Business
Dean
Julie Indvik (Interim)
5
CSU Dominguez
Hills
Dean
Joseph Wen
6
CSU East Bay
College of Business
Administration & Public Policy
College of Business &
Economics
Dean
Jagdish Agrawal (interim)
7
CSU Fresno
Dean
Bob Harper
8
CSU Fullerton
Dean
Anil Puri
9
Humboldt State
Chair
Harinder Singh; David Lee, CPS Dean
10
CSU Long Beach
Dean
Michael E. Solt
11
CSU Los Angeles
Dean
James A. Goodrich
12
Cal Maritime
Director
Donna Nincic (Timothy Lynch, Chair)
13
CSU Northridge
Dean
William Jennings
14
Cal State
Polytechnic U.
Pomona
Dean
Richard Lapidus
15
CSU Sacramento
Dean
Sanjay Varshney
16
CSU San
Bernardino
Dean
Lawrence C. Rose
17
San Diego State
Dean
Michael R. Cunningham
18
San Francisco
State
College of Business
Dean
Linda Oubre
19
San Jose State
College of Business
Dean
David M. Steele
20
Cal State
Polytechnic U.
San Luis Obispo
Orfalea College of Business
Dean
Dave Christy
Dean
Sharon M. Lightner
Dean
William Silver
Dean
Linda Nowak
The Craig School of Business
Mihaylo College of Business &
Economics
School of Business, College of
Professional Studies
College of Business
Administration
College of Business &
Economics
ABS School of Maritime Policy
& Management
College of Business &
Economics
College of Business
Administration
College of Business
Administration
College of Business & Public
Administration
College of Business
Administration
College of Business
Administration
School of Business &
22
Sonoma State
Economics
College of Business
23
CSU Stanislaus
Administration
Source: CSU Websites; CSU Deans Database
21
CSU San Marcos
16
Again, AACSB establishes expectations of what constitutes the "institute" for accreditation
purposes. The AACSB has specific questions (outlined as steps) that must be addressed to
demonstrate the "institute's" independence. Here are steps 1 and 2:
Step 1: Does the applicant academic unit (faculty, school, college, department, etc.) depend
on a larger organization for one of the following: authority to grant degrees in traditional
business subjects; financial resources; human and physical resources; and/or management
oversight? If the answer is no, the applicant is defined as the institution and proceeds to
address programmatic scope issues outlined in Step 3. If the answer is yes, and the business
academic unit is part of or ―connected‖ to a larger organization, the relationships must be
described by addressing the questions in Step 2.
Step 2: Describe the extent of interdependence between the applicant academic unit and the
larger organization from which it obtains the authority to grant degrees, resources, and/or
managerial oversight. The description must, at a minimum, address the following areas
(Note: The questions under each area are not intended to be exhaustive):
Financial relationship: Does the larger organization approve the budget (operating and
capital) of the business applicant academic unit? Does the organization have control over a
large portion of the funds available to the academic unit? Does the applicant academic unit
subsidize the organization? Are the physical and financial assets ―owned‖ by the applicant
academic unit or the organization?11
Underlying these questions is the principle of degree of appropriate independence. Based
upon the organization of business schools within the CSU system, the entities that the AASCB
seems to deem as "accreditable" are deanships. The structure of a "College" appears to offer
the most defensible structure; however, there may be other structures that could be
considered as mentioned in step one such as a "faculty, department or school." More
benchmark research would be required to determine "peer entities" with structures other than
colleges with deans.
CSU-Monterey Bay could establish a college of business as has other CSUs. The "timing" of this
organizational restructure requires a critical mass of total student enrollments as an important
factor; in other words, BUS needs to grow to the size of other Business Colleges in the CSU to
be a sufficiently viable organizational entity. Other alternatives may be viable within the
University's existing college structure. BUS views that these decisions are the purview of Senior
Leadership at CSU-Monterey Bay.
11
Eligibility Procedures and Accreditation Standards for Business Accreditation, revised 1/31/12, page 7.
http://www.aacsb.edu/accreditation/standards-busn-jan2012.pdf.
17
Criterion E: Mission Aligned with Cultural context with Diversity in Business Programs
This is one of our strongest areas. What makes our case stronger is our alignment with the
University’s cultural context and commitment to diversity. We are, for example, a Hispanic
Serving Institution (HSI). The AACSB is also emphasizing a global focus. Our online programs
MBA Program can serve international students as well. In fact, we have attracted a few
students from Islands like Guam who have no local options for business graduate programs.
Our mission is to: “Develop effective and ethical leaders to excel in today’s diverse, global
business environment.” As described in our Program Improvement Plan, the School of Business
adheres to the following Guiding Principles in implementing the BUS mission:
o Provide quality education and learning programs that accelerate the success of each of
our students in school and after graduation.
o Develop an ever-improving reputation among prospective employers for providing
entrepreneurial students that meet market demand.
o Provide cost-effective, financially sustainable education and student support, now and
as the University and School of Business grows.
o Enhance quality of life in the region and for people School of Business serves
o Progress toward AACSB accreditation.
We feel we have a foundation upon which to re-build our business strategic platform geared
more toward AACSB expectations and standards. Again, in the Spring, 2013, the AACSB will be
refining their expectations and guidelines on mission statements that provide the foundation
for AASCB-accredited Business School strategic plans; these guidelines are will also accompany
the changes on Standard 10 (A/Q and P/Q re-definitions). As these plans roll out in the Spring,
2013, we will be in an ideal position to start working to:
o Develop a process that aligns with AACSB’s Philosophy as outlined in Exhibit 1.
o Work with our Stakeholders, which includes the Business Advisory, Campus Colleagues,
Community Members, Alums and Students to obtain participation and buy-in to our
plan
o Obtain help from the AACSB network for guidance and interpretation of the preaccreditation guidelines.
Criterion F: Ethical Behavior Expectations by Administrators, Faculty and Students
BUS currently adheres to the University’s policies and administrative processes governing
ethical behavior for students, faculty and administrators. Most certainly, within the curriculum,
we also do focus on ethical behavior. We also highlight Ethics during our Ethics Panel
Conference that we hold each year in Spring. The Policies for the School of Business include
standards of appropriate conduct for students and faculty. Many of these codes of conduct for
students are embedded in the syllabi for courses. Again, our current policies and processes will
need to be scrutinized against the interpretation of AACSB standards.
18
Criterion G: Programs offered by the Institution must have Produced Business Graduates for
at least two years.
BUS is working with Extended Education to develop additional online programs. One of these
programs is the re-establishing of the Master of Science in Management and Information
Technology (MSMIT). We may or may not choose to have this degree accredited under AASCB.
Again, an exception will need to be requested if we do not include the program. Under the
current licensure structure for CPAs in California, BUS may also need to develop an online
degree Master of Science in Accounting.
We are also developing an online Baccalaureate Degree Completion Program which we do hope
to include. We will need to determine if this Program will be an extension of our current B.S. in
Business Administration. BUS is also uncertain about its Hospitality and Agribusiness
concentrations; we believe at this time, that we can make an argument that these two areas
(although not traditional to business programs) do meet our mission to serve our local
communities.
One of the most important challenges facing BUS is the collection of data for its programs. At
this time, our data collection tools, especially for tracking alums, are not adequate. BUS has
been able to keep in touch with its MBA students; however, as the program grows, current data
collection tools are not scalable.
III.
School of Business Plan for Attaining AACSB Accreditation
As shown in Exhibit 2, AACSB accreditation is a multi-year process. Details for our Accreditation
Plan focus on the first two major steps of the process--namely, eligibility application and Preaccreditation. We estimate that these two steps will take five years and is highly resource
dependent.
There are two crucial strategic over-arching crucial to the successful application by BUS for
accreditation:
o Enrollment Growth: We do not have the critical mass of students in BUS Programs
yet. The growth level of student undergraduate enrollments in BUS has followed the
growth of the total University's enrollment over past three years.
o Full Time Faculty and Staff Growth: The data speak for themselves. Although we
have been very successful in developing an excellent pool of “Professional” faculty to
teach our in our undergraduate and graduate programs, compliance to AASCB
Standard 10 will require addition of Tenure/Tenure track faculty.
Enrollment Growth
Enrollment growth appears to be a critical to provide a financially sustainable organizational
structure when viewing the enrollment structures of other Business Schools. For this reason,
BUS has been very diligent and creative in developing programs to booster growth. We
19
recognized six years ago that even if the CSU Chancellor’s limits were lifted on “traditional”
programs, the campus is space constrained. Therefore, we developed a fully online MBA
Program, under a partnership with Extended Education and International Programs. In addition,
BUS has worked to have all faculty use iLEARN; there are a few holdouts, but most courses are
taught using the iLEARN learning system. In addition, we have tactically pushed our
professional capabilities such that most of our BUS core MLO courses can be taught online or
hybrid. These tactics have us poised to establish an undergraduate degree completion program
that is fully online.
Using CSU Bakersfield as a benchmark, the College of Business and Public Administration has
1150 student enrollments in its business program. Here in Table 8 is the mix of enrollments
that we are proposing to reach a similar level of enrollments as CSU Bakersfield.
Table 8: Projected Growth in Enrollments
Program
Current through 2012
2013 Thru 2018
--Undergraduate “traditional”
725
750*
--MBA
200
300
--Business Degree Completion
-150
--International Students
NA; counted in
50
traditional base
Totals
925
1250
*This projected growth is a function of classroom space, limits imposed by the Chancellor's
Office and other contextual factors impacting University enrollments such as existing limits on
the total enrollments by local communities due to water shortages.
Source: Projections by School of Business
The MBA Program was launched in 2008, and has now reached 200 students. Over the past
year, the growth rate has tapered off; therefore, the projected growth is modest. BUS has every
reason to believe that we will get to the 1250 enrollment number sometime within the next
five years, and likely sooner than later. We have also been working with Dean Angle at
Extended Education and International Studies to see if we can create pathways for international
students. Again, the growth in this category is conservative because we are not sure what
classroom space and resource capacity will be required for these international students. Again,
we are reasonably confident that we will be able to achieve this over-arching strategy.
Full Time Faculty and Staff Growth
As enrollments grow, there is the need to create new faculty lines and staff support. BUS has
one analyst supporting the School of Business. With the level of staff administration required to
maintain an organization compliant with AACSB expectations, BUS will need to add at minimum
another two staff employees over next five years.
Our Program improvement Plan called for the addition of seven new faculty lines. This hiring
plan was to start in 2011/12. It has not started. Both the PIP and Proposed hiring plan for full
20
time faculty is shown in Table 9. We propose hiring a total of 11 tenure track faculty over the
next five years starting next year; it will require hiring at least two faculty per year. This table is
consistent with the Table 6 in which the hiring plan was expressed in terms of salary
investment. In Table 9, the hiring plan demonstrates the consistency with the BUS Program
Improvement Plan (PIP). The PIP showed a hiring plan from AY 2011/12 through AY 20013/14
to hire 7 new tenure/tenure track faculty. (Note: the “X” delineates the PIP proposal; and the
“XX” delineates the current proposal.). With the proposed growth in the BUS programs, BUS
proposes a need for 11 new faculty lines.
Table 9: Hiring Plan for Full Time Faculty: PIP vs Proposed
Functional Area
Faculty
lines
2011/ 2012/
12
13
Finance
PIP
Proposed
PIP
Proposed
PIP
Proposed
PIP
Proposed
PIP
Proposed
PIP
Proposed
PIP
Proposed
PIP
Proposed
PIP
Proposed
X
Operations
Mgmt/Intl. BUS
Agribusiness
Information
Systems
Accounting
Marketing
Entrepreneurship/
Innovation
Strategy
2013/
14
2014/
15
2015/
16
2016/
17
2017/
18
XX
X
XX
X
XX
XX
XX
XX
X
XX
XX
X
XX
X
XX
X
XX
Source: School of Business Documents; projections by BUS
Before we can complete our eligibility documents to begin the process of AACSB accreditation,
BUS needs to add a minimum of six more faculty; the hiring plan suggests this target should be
achieved by 2015/16. Although tenure/tenure track faculty will require a significant
investment, this investment is necessary to scale enrollments, and more importantly,
demonstrate our intent to meet AACSB requirements. As shown in Table 3, the current ratio of
undergraduate student enrollments to full time faculty is about 100 to 1. California Faculty
Association (CFA) union rules prohibits faculty from working over 125%; this constraint causes
less flexibility in having full time faculty from teaching on an overload basis on our MBA and
upcoming MSMIT program.
21
Many other issues such as salary compression for existing BUS faculty and competitive salaries
to attract talented full time faculty to CSU Monterey Bay are additional challenges that will be
faced over the next five years should the faculty lines be secured.
Action Plan for Moving toward AACSB Accreditation
Assuming that these overarching strategies can be achieved, the following plan of action
focuses on the AACSB Accreditation process itself. The Plan of Action for AACSB Accreditation
is depicted in Exhibit 3. The Action Plan shows the key milestones that need to be achieved.
The Eligibility Application which officially launches the accreditation is targeted to be submitted
in draft during Academic Year 2015/16. The AACSB process is to accept a copy of the report
upon which they can make comments before the final Eligibility application is submitted. BUS
has targeted year 2015/16 because by then the tenure track hiring plan should show intent to
meet the AQ expectations and the BUS enrollments will demonstrate a critical mass of students
in all BUS programs.
22
Exhibit 3: Five Year Action Plan for AACSB Accreditation
Plan AY
Area
2012/13
2013/14
2014/15
2015/16
• Plan Agreement • Launch BUS Degree •BUS Organization: • Total 7 FT Faculty
Hired
Completion Program Meets AACSB
• Submit DRAFT
Standards
Eligibility Appl.
AACSB for
comment
CSUMB Leadership • Sr. Leadership • Orchestrates
• Designs/
• Inputs /endorses
Decision Targets
shapes &
Fundraising Plan implements
DRAFT AACSB
(w/participation approves plan
BIT/BUS/ITCD
Org. Structure
Eligibility
of BUS)
• Sr. Leadership Programs
for BUS
Plan
Agrees on hiring
Plan; assigns 2
Faculty lines
2013/14
• Re-aligns
• Developments • Develops
• Works on DRAFT
BUS Action Plan
Business
Plan
Processes/
of network with
Eligibility
That
meets
Roles
to
new
AASCB Member
Application
AACSB Stds.
Structure
schools (chair)
Obtain informal
•
Obtains
buy•
Builds
Potential
• Creates Prof.
Comment from
in
of
plan
from
Peer
groups
Dev. Program for
AACSB
stakeholders
• Sets criteria for • Seeks a mentor,
BUS Faculty on
• Refines Bus.
Mentor
AASCB Accred.
based on criteria,
Plan
w/input
•
Continues
hiring
• Submits Sub.
Who is compatible
• Creates BUS
Plan for Fac./Staff • Formalizes peer
Change Doc. To
WASC for Degree Stds. that meet • Creates data
structure
New
AQ/PQ
Analysis
structure
Completion
• Continues hiring
• Connects with • Continues
• Creates buy-in Qualifications
Alums/students via extending BUS
w/BUS Advisory • Conducts 2
Fac. searches
Surveys/Letters program for growth
on Plan
Source: School of Business
Key Milestones
2016/17
2017/18
• BUS Enrollments: • Total 11 FT
1200 in all programs Faculty Hired in
• Submit Eligibility last five years
• Complete
Application to
Pre-Accreditation
AASCB
• Inputs /endorses
AACSB Eligibility
Plan
Plan
• Inputs &
attests to
PreAccreditation
Plan
• Completes
• Works on
Eligibility plan Self-Assessment
Addressing
& PreComments from Accreditation
AACSB
Plan.
• Continues hiring • Obtains input
• Continues /
From stakeholders
Stimulates
AASCB mentor
enrollment
• Continues hiring
Growth
• Continues
• Develops
Program
Marketing
growth
Plan w/unique,
mission-driven
brand
The Action Plan in Exhibit 3 also shows that the Accreditation is a campus effort, not just a BUS
effort alone. Resource planning, organizational structure, and program capacity building all
23
require Senior Leadership and key campus stakeholder buy-in. In addition, external stakeholder
buy-in will also be required as the School of Business prepares itself for AACSB Accreditation.
The Action Plan targets by year depict the preparation phase for accreditation. The School of
Business will find creative ways to grow, working with Extended Ed and International Programs.
The “traditional” on campus undergraduate program is simply limited by California State
funding and Chancellor Office parameters for campus growth; in addition, the campus is
classroom limited. One of the underlying premises of the Plan is that BUS will take advantage
of advancements in technology and learning research in order to provide the foundation to
build and maintain rigorous, sustainable online programs incorporating academic excellence.
Right now, the tools used in the MBA have created courses that are very unique. In addition, we
are also developing new processes for assessment that involves faculty who are located in
other States.
The Action Plan in Exhibit 3 below also calls for the faculty team to become intimately familiar
with AACSB accreditation, and for the Chair to extend the social network of contacts nationally
for the following reasons: 1) BUS will need a mentor; it is important to determine who has
successfully mentored a School with our mission through the ASSBC process; 2) the informal
network will also provide important input into what universities are good candidates for peer
comparison and benchmark; and 3) the informal network will be crucial to understanding the
nuances of accreditation beyond the “written expectations.”
BUS has competencies for building a strategic plan, marketing plan, data collection structure,
stakeholder networking, and the accreditation documents for Eligibility and Pre-Accreditation;
it simply does not have the human capacity. Hence, this is the need for BUS to hire a MPP Level
Leader (preferably a Dean), staff and faculty to build this capacity.
In summary, BUS wholeheartedly supports the effort to build a School of Business that will
eventually become AACSB accredited. We also believe that this journey can be undertaken
with full campus wide support, and community support. As BUS grows, there is good reason to
believe that the cash revenues generated by BUS programs can offset some of the investment
costs required to build capacity. For example, the Dean of Ext. Ed. and International Programs
has discussed the possibility of hiring tenure track faculty to teach directly in the online
programs within Ext Ed. and International Programs. However, additional funding from our
supporters will still be needed in the form of endowments to support: the “added premiums of
buyout time” for faculty research to maintain efforts such as AQ status of faculty, symposia to
address the socio-economic issues faced by our communities and academic internships for
students.
We look forward to feedback from the CSUMB Senior Leadership on this plan and discussion on
how best to move this accreditation process forward that will ultimately benefit the University
as a whole and the community.
24
Appendix A: Table from Program Improvement Plan, June, 2010.
Table 1: The Association to Advance Collegiate School of Business (AASCB) Accreditation Standards
Summary
The AASCB has established 20 Standards, 17 of which apply to undergraduate programs; these standards must be
integrated and tied to Standard 1 which is the mission of the School of Business.
AASCB Standards
School Business-CSUMB Program Review/Program
Improvement Plan (PIP)
Standard 1: Mission Statement; must define the BUS has a statement. Aligned with CSUMB mission and BUS
direction and scope of program
undergraduate program.
Standard 2: Intellectual Contributions by
Intellectual contributions beyond the scope of Program Review
faculty to advance BUS knowledge,
document. AACSB calls for very specific inventory of
management theory, practice, and
contributions.
learning/pedagogy.
Standard 3: Student Mission must be clearly
Program review speaks to student population and alumni as
articulated in Mission Statement.
well.
Standard 4: Continuous improvement,
Improvement goals must be aligned to Mission. They must be
following total quality management. Must
clearly articulated. BUS is focusing over the next five years on
have goals.
assessment and building of faculty resources.
Standard 5: Financial Strategies to adequately
fund programs.
BUS resources dependent on overall financial health of the
University and the State of California. With support from the
community, there are opportunities for additional resources.
Standard 6: Student Admissions.
BUS is an upper division major; the entry into BUS follows
mostly University guidelines. Transfer pathways include
prerequisites for BUS students (examples: financial and
managerial accounting, business law, macro and micro
economics, etc.).
Standard 7: Student Retention; practices and
standards to retain high caliber students.
Standard 8: Staff sufficiency to support
students and programs.
Major WASC Effectiveness measure for CSUMB. BUS PIP
supports this goal.
A major weak spot in program; only one staff support for a
faculty of 30 to 36 of which only 7 are full time tenured/tenure
track (T/TT). Advising is undergoing significant change driven
primarily by WASC Effectiveness measure. BUS faculty are
involved in career advising. Ratio of students to FT faculty is
63.4 to 1 with respect to FTES served or 93 to 1 with respect to
enrollments.
Standard 9: Faculty Sufficiency; requires FT
faculty to deliver 75% of the school’s annual
teaching. Should not fall under 50% depending
on mission (cross-referenced to Standard 10).
A major weak spot in program. Full time T/TT faculty deliver
only 34.5% of taught program.
Standard 10: Faculty Qualifications; must
maintain expertise to accomplish mission.
Standards are expressed in Academically
Qualified (AQ) and Professionally Qualified
(PQ). Ninety percent of the program must be
delivered by AQ/PQ faculty members who
have the specific academic and/or professional
qualifications to teach course.
A major weak spot; BUS has not been adequately funded to
hire T/TT faculty. External examiners pointed out some of the
weaknesses of the School of Business in this area; addressed
also in the PIP.
25
AASCB Standards (Cont’d.)
Standard 11: Faculty Management and Support
for faculty over the progression of their careers.
School Business-CSUMB Program Review/Program
Improvement Plan (PIP)
BUS relies on the CSUMB processes to hire and provide
Retention, Promotion and Tenure monitoring for T/TT faculty.
Within the School of Business, some mentoring is established
for new faculty. Processes are in place to evaluate and assess
performance of lecturer faculty. Support for faculty professional
development is meager.
Standard 12: Aggregation of Faculty and Staff
to deliver the BUS mission. This includes:
setting and adhering to high learning
expectations, innovation in instructional
processes, assessment and evaluation of student
achievement.
Faculty and staff effort in BUS is devoted to students and its
mission of teaching.
Standard 13: Individual Faculty Educational
responsibilities.
Our vision for the CSUMB is teaching excellence. BUS is
committed to outcomes-based education (OBE), and measures
student engagement through peer evaluation and the RTP
process.
Standard 14: Student Educational
responsibility.
Expectations of students are clearly imbedded in syllabi, BUS
policies and CSUMB policies.
Standard: 15: Curriculum Management and
Content. This is referred to as the Assurance of
Learning Standards. Must align to institution’s
mission. Specifically mentions general
knowledge areas of communications, ethical
reasoning, analytic skills, use of technology,
knowledge of global economy,
multicultural/diversity understanding, reflective
thinking skills.
BUS has established, through the Program Review process,
GKOs in addition to its MLOs. In the PIP, BUS is focusing in
on embedding a process of continuous assessment into its
program.
Standard 16: Establishing specific knowledge
and skills. Focus on discipline-specific
knowledge
BUS has established MLOs to define discipline-specific
knowledge areas. Will be included in curriculum assessment of
program as shown in the PIP.
Standard 17: Undergraduate Educational Level;
discusses program structure in terms of overall
credit hours, articulation, and conferring of
degrees.
This area is defined broadly under CSUMB policies to which
BUS adheres.
Standards 18, 19, and 20 describe Graduate and
doctoral level programs.
Review will be applicable to Master Science Management and
Information Technology (MSMIT) and MBA graduate
programs. Both programs are established through Extended
Education, but will need to be included in the AACSB
application. No doctoral programs are established at this time.
Source: School of Business; PIP document with some updates.
26
Appendix B: Table from External Examiners' Report for Program Review May, 2009
This table appeared in the Examiner's Report, and also the Program Improvement Plan for BUS.
It is relevant to this discussion, so has been included in this report.
NAME
Brad Barbeau
Erika McGrath
Peter Richmond
Sanjay Lanka
Gary Shara
Burke Pease
Murray Milson
Nancy W.
Scheurich
Valerie Woerner
Scheurich
Babita Gupta
Walter Henning
Louis Panetta
William Martin
Catherina Ku
Jeffrey Froshman
Aaron Johnson
Patsy Tinsley
McGill
Marylou Shockley
Total Monterey
Bay
QUALIFICAT
ION
(ACADEMICAQ,
PROFESSIONAL-PQ,
OTHER-O)
(FROM TABLE II)
O
O
O
O
P
Q
P
Q
A
Q
P
Q
P
Q
A
Q
P
Q
P
QO
A
Q
P
Q
P
QO
A
Q
AQ FACULTY% OF TIME
DEVOTED TO
MISSION
(FROM TABLE II)
1
0
0
%
1
0
0
%
1
0
0
%
PQ
FACULTY% OF TIME
DEVOTED
TO MISSION
(FROM
TABLE
II)
2
02
%
6
%
2
56
%
3
%
2
65
3%
%
2
62
6%
%
OTHER
FACULTY- % OF
TIME DEVOTED
TO MISSION
(FROM TABLE II)
QUALIFI
CATION
RATIOS
PER STD
10
1
04
00
8
%
%
16
0%
0
%
1
0
0
%
1
0
1
0
40
2
5
%
00
5
2
50% Ratio
3
0%
6
6
Standard
4
90% Ratio
5
%
%
%
%
5
Source: School of Business External Examiner and PIP documentsStandard
from the Program Review
%
Process.
27