You may recall prior postings from me regarding AACSB accreditation
related items.  Most of the documents mentioned in those prior postings are
linked from my home page.  That link is at the bottom of this email.

      Dan is correct that 90% of the faculty who appear in the front of a
class room need to be either Academically Qualified (AQ) or Professionally
Qualified (PQ).  No more than 10% may be "Other", and it is expected that
those faculty are ABD.

      The AQ designation is presumed upon the earning of a doctorate.
However, maintenance of either the AQ or the PQ requires Intellectual
Contributions (IC) during a rolling 5 year period.  A Ph.D. or a J.D. that
is 6 years old no longer, by itself, proves AQ.

      The Mission of the College determines which of the very many forms of
IC the College values.  However, the College ought select different IC for
proving AQ and for proving PQ because the IC of AQ ought not be identical
to the IC of PQ.

      An additional note is warranted by Dan's Dean's approach.

      AACSB uses a portfolio approach.  AACSB expects inputs to vary.
However, one task of assessment is to validate that the Learning Goals (LG)
are achieved with similar outputs regardless of variation of input.
Ideally, the many forms of inputs will be distributed across the College's
tasks in roughly equal percentages; unless, of course, local protocols
prohibit it.  For example, if a local protocol requires faculty teaching in
a graduate class have a Ph.D., then AACSB would expect and not object to an
imbalance of input allocation.  But, if a Dean allocates all of the
part-time faculty to the freshman level courses (of some similar distorted
allocation), then AACSB is going to expect the accreditation document to
expressly justify that imbalance ---and--- AACSB is going expect the
assessment data to validate the wisdom of that imbalance.  Generically,
money is not a pedagogical justification.

      It is feasible that part-time teachers will be the superior teachers
in the local environment.  If that is the case, then that too justifies the
concern with an imbalanced distribution of inputs.

      Any time distinctive delivery systems are used (e.g., some large
sections and some small sections), then the data generated by the
assessment tools needs to be sorted by those distinctive delivery systems
and expressly compared.

Michael

Professor Michael J. O'Hara, J.D., Ph.D.
Finance, Banking, & Law Department
College of Business Administration
Roskens Hall 502
University of Nebraska at Omaha
Omaha  NE  68182
[log in to unmask]
(402) 554 - 2823 voice  fax (402) 554 - 2680
http://cba.unomaha.edu/faculty/mohara/web/ohara.htm