Peter,

Great message! And great results. Is there anything that we, as individual faculty, should be doing to ensure that the language either remains as good as it is or gets better? I read the part of your message about no changes from the floor, but one never knows.

Thanks!

Kurt S. Schulzke, JD, CPA, CFE 
Associate Professor of Accounting & Business Law 
Director - Law, Ethics & Regulation 
Corporate Governance Center 
Kennesaw State University 
+ 1770-423-6379 (O) 
+ 1404-861-5729 (C) 
http://coles.kennesaw.edu/centers/corporate-governance/ 
My research: http://ssrn.com/author=804023 




----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter J Shedd" <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2013 2:25:55 PM
Subject: Re: AACSB standards




Greetings – 



I apologize for coming late into this “conversation” via ALSBTALK. I could state that teaching late into last night (when the discussion began) and being in meetings this morning and early afternoon (through the various exchanges) have kept me away from e-mail, but you don’t want to hear my “story.” 



Instead, I happily take this opportunity to share with all of you the work that has been done by the AACSB’s Blue-Ribbon Committee on the newly Proposed Accreditation Standards. To review this story, let’s begin with the language of the current Accreditation Standards as it relates to the faculty qualification of those of us holding JD degrees. These current Standards can be found at http://www.aacsb.edu/accreditation/standards-busn-jan2012.pdf As has been referenced in previous messages, Standard 10 on Faculty Qualifications (pages 42-49) includes the following pertinent language: 



Academically Qualified Faculty 



1. A doctoral degree in the area in which the individual teaches. 

For purposes of these standards the term ―doctoral degree means completion of a degree 

program intended to produce scholars capable of creating original scholarly contributions 

through advances in research or theory. In some cases programs with the word ―doctorate (or 

equivalent) in the title do not have the aim to produce scholars who make original intellectual 

contributions. Those would not be deemed to be ―doctoral degrees in the sense required in the 

accreditation review process. Such non-research ―doctorates might be deemed academically 

qualified per category six below. Individuals with a graduate degree in law will be 

considered academically qualified to teach business law and legal environment of business. (Boldface and underlined added) 



Throughout the ten years these Standards have been in place, there has been very little issue that “a graduate degree in law” means a JD or comparable degree. Under this language, our Academy members have succeeded in being counted as Academically Qualified. 



The Blue-Ribbon Committee initially proposed language that would have severely restricted the “standing” of faculty holding the JD degree. This conclusion is based on the opinion of many persons (members of our Academy who are Deans or Associate Deans or have been Deans or Associate Deans). Illustrating the guidance and leadership of Caryn Beck-Dudley, Steve Salbu, and Joan Gabel, these three joined together to write the members of the AACSB’s Blue-Ribbon Committee expressing the need to restore to the proposed Accreditation Standards language similar to that quoted above from the current Standards. This letter was reinforced with communication to the Blue-Ribbon Committee on behalf of our Academy. That letter was supported by the following outstanding group of supportive individuals: 



· Jere W. Morehead, Senior Vice President for Academic Affairs and Provost, University of Georgia 

· Carolyn Hotchkiss, Dean of Faculty, Babson College 

· Robin D. Anderson, Dean of Pamplin School of Business Administration and Franz Chair of Entrepreneurship, University of Portland 

· Larry Clark, Dean of College of Business, University of North Carolina Wilmington 

· Bryan McKinney, Dean of the Hickingbotham School of Business and University General Counsel, Ouachita Baptist University 

· Gregory C. Mosier, Dean of the College of Business, University of Nevada 

· Jeffrey Van Duzer, Dean of School of Business and Economics, Seattle Pacific University 

· Karla Fox, Special Assistant to the Provost and Former Interim Dean of School of Business, University of Connecticut 

· Henry Lowenstein, Former Dean of Business, Coastal Carolina University and Past AASCB Pre-Accreditation Committee Member 

· Michael J. Garrison, Associate Dean for Faculty and Scholarship, Opus College of Business, University of St. Thomas 

· Michael H. Hogg, Associate Dean, Freeman School of Business and Vice President for Student Affairs and Dean of Students, Tulane University 

· Lon Moeller, Associate Dean, College of Business, University of Iowa 

· Paula Murray, Former Associate Dean for Undergraduate Programs, McCombs School of Business, University of Texas 

· Judith Stilz Ogden, Former Assistant Dean and MBA Director of the College of Business, Clayton State University 

· Ann M. Olazábal, Vice Dean for Undergraduate Business Education, School of Business Administration, University of Miami 

· Nim Razook, Associate Dean for Undergraduate Programs, Price College of Business, University of Oklahoma 

· Lisa Reed, Associate Dean of Undergraduate Programs, Pamplin School of Business Administration, University of Portland 

· William Wiggins, Chair of Institutional Review Board and Former Associate Dean of Business for Academic Affairs, Bentley University 

· Beverley Earle, Chair of Department of Law, Taxation and Financial Planning, McCallum Graduate School of Business, Bentley University 



As you can see from this list, our Academy is indebted to many persons who lent their support to our discipline. Another key (vitally important) person was Janine Hiller. We were benefited greatly by the fact that Janine was able to converse with her Dean (Richard Sorensen) who chairs the Blue-Ribbon Committee. Without Janine’s help we would not have been as effective as we believe we were. 



This effectiveness is summarized by the following language that is now included in Standard 15 (Faculty Qualifications and Engagement) of the Proposed Standards on page 44 (second sentence of second bullet) of the attached: 



Individuals with a graduate degree in law will be considered SA or PA for teaching business law and legal environment of business subject to ongoing, sustained, and substantive academic and/or professional engagement activities demonstrating currency and relevancy related to the teaching field. 



This sentence should allow those holding the JD degree to be counted among the academically qualified faculty. For this, we can all be relieved. I say “relieved” because the information I have indicates that the attached document will be presented to the Deans during the April AACSB meeting in Chicago. No further changes are anticipated and changes from the floor are not expected (not allowed?). Thus, the language immediately quoted above will be the new Standard moving forward (after April 2013). 



I also want to point out that the proposed Standard 9 (Curriculum Content) states the following on page 34 (see attached): 



General Business and Management Knowledge Areas – applicable to undergraduate, master’s, and doctoral general business and management degree programs (even if they have options for majors/concentrations). Greater depth of knowledge at higher degree levels is expected. 



 Economic, political, regulatory, legal, technological, and social contexts of organizations in a global society ( boldface and underlining added ) 

 Social responsibility, including sustainability, and ethical behavior and management 

 Financial theories, analysis, reporting, and markets 

 Systems and processes in organizations, including planning and design, production/operations, supply chains, marketing, and distribution 

 Group and individual behaviors in organizations and society 

 Statistics, data analysis, and decision making 

 Other specified areas of study related to concentrations, majors, or emphasis areas 



Once again, we should feel good that the words “regulatory, legal” are in the first bullet point under General Business and Management Knowledge Areas. Thankfully, graduate degrees build on these General Areas. 



I have limited my comments to the acceptability of the JD (graduate degree in law) and the focus on “regulatory and legal” in the curriculum. The previous messages in this discussion thread have raised other points. I refrain from extending the length of this message except to say that I will be happy to try to answer any specific question you might have. Feel free to contact me via e-mail at [log in to unmask] 



All my best, 



Peter Shedd 

AACSB Liaison 





From: Academy of Legal Studies in Business (ALSB) Talk [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Henry Lowenstein 
Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2013 12:21 PM 
To: [log in to unmask] 
Subject: Re: AACSB standards 



Eric and all are right, but on the AQ/PQ part (and future version). The question of who can teach business law under current Standard 10 goes beyond publications. Here are the short versions (there is a paragraph of explanation under each I’ll omit due to time. 



1. A doctoral degree in the area in which the individual teaches 

2. A doctoral degree in a business field, but primary teaching responsibility in a business field that is not the area of academic preparation 

3. A doctoral degree outside of business, but primarily teaching responsibilities that incorporate the area of academic preparation. 

4. A doctoral degree outside of business and primary teaching responsibilities that do not incorporate the area of academic preparation. 

5. A specialized graduate degree in taxation (includes law and taxation). 

6. Substantial specialized coursework in the field of primary teaching responsibilities, but no research doctoral degree. 



Again, each one of these contains explanatory guidance for schools and AACSB site teams. J.D. is detailed as accepted terminal degree for teaching business law. 



From these the schools develop their criteria and make sure they comport with regional accreditation standards. And, then comes the definition of scholarship to reach that AQ/PQ designation. 



Hope this is helpful. 



Henry 




Henry Lowenstein, PhD 

Professor of Management and Law 

E. Craig Wall Sr. College of Business Administration 

Coastal Carolina University 

P.O. Box 261954 

Conway, SC 29528-6054 USA 

(843) 349-2827 Office 

(843) 349-2455 Fax 

[log in to unmask] 

www.coastal.edu 





From: Academy of Legal Studies in Business (ALSB) Talk [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Eric D Yordy 
Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2013 11:43 AM 
To: [log in to unmask] 
Subject: Re: AACSB standards 




Nancy and all, 





Thanks for the discussion! One thing to keep in mind is that the AACSB is voting on new standards in April that eliminate the AQ/PQ distinctions and create 4 different faculty qualification categories with new percentage requirements. The proposed standards (which we believe will pass) are available to "members" so all of your deans and probably associate deans have access. The one specific thing it says about law is 








· Individuals with a graduate degree in law will be considered SA or PA for teaching business law and legal environment of business subject to ongoing, sustained, and substantive academic and/or professional engagement activities demonstrating currency and relevancy related to the teaching field. 


Where: 




· · Normally, at least 90-percent of faculty resources are Scholarly Academics (SA), Practice Academics (PA), Scholarly Practitioners (SP), or Instructional Practitioners (IP). 

· · Normally, at least 40-percent of faculty resources are Scholarly Academics (SA). 

· · Normally, at least 60-percent of faculty resources are Scholarly Academics (SA), 

Practice Academics (PA), or Scholarly Practitioners (SP). 







Eric D. Yordy, J.D. 


Associate Dean 


The W.A. Franke College of Business 


Northern Arizona University 




Sent from my iPad 



On Feb 21, 2013, at 9:32 AM, "White, Nancy Jean" < [log in to unmask] > wrote: 




AACSB does not set standards for faculty qualifications to teach anything, they set standards for business administration programs. Even then, they don't set out specifics, alot depends on the type of program and the standards are supposed to be faculty driven. Here is a simplified overview of what I think is very common but please correct me if I am wrong. 



No MBA program: 50% of the faculty must be AQ or PQ. AQ is defined by the program but I think can be 2 peer reviewed journal articles or preceedings in 5 years. Some other activities might be expected and I am not that familiar with these programs so I could be wrong. PQ is a full time lawyer/judge, or someone similiar, usually teaching a class or two. 



MBA programs: 90% of the faculty must be AQ or PQ. AQ is defined as minimum 2 peer reviewed journal articles. PQ same as above. 



I don't have any idea what is expected of PhD programs. 



Hope this helps! 



Nancy J. White 
Department of Finance and Law 
Sloan 329 
Central Michigan University 

Webpage: http://faculty.cba.cmich.edu/webs/white2nj/ 
989-774-1842 
fax: 989-774-6456 
[log in to unmask] 
You can access many of my papers at: http://ssrn.com/author=411303 
________________________________ 
From: Academy of Legal Studies in Business (ALSB) Talk [ [log in to unmask] ] on behalf of Rosemary Hartigan [ [log in to unmask] ] 
Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2013 9:44 AM 
To: [log in to unmask] 
Subject: Qualifications for Teaching Legal Environment 

Hi Everyone, 

I know that this topic has come up before, but what are the AACSB standards for faculty qualified to teach Legal Environment and B-Law? 

Thanks. 

Rosemary 

-- 
Rosemary Hartigan 
Collegiate Professor and Associate Chair 
Director One Year MBA 
Business and Executive Programs 
The Graduate School 
University of Maryland University College 
240-684-2484