Editing or adding columns is not recommended. If a school wants to provide further explanation, we suggest footnoting the item in question and providing additional or breakdown information elsewhere.
Yes, any Intellectual Contributions being produced by faculty contributing to the mission of the business school should be included on Table 2-1.
Intellectual Contributions from faculty that left the school during the reporting period are not counted in Part A of Table 2-1. However, they can be reflected in Part D of the table.
Research monographs and research-based books should not be listed under Textbooks. They should be listed under ‘Other IC Type.' If there are particular publications a school would like to highlight, that can be done in Parts B, C, and/or D of the same table.
Other Teaching Materials refers to anything distributed publically and not solely for your school's own classes e.g., software, online courses, any materials used by other schools.
A school should add a footnote indicating that an article has coauthors from the same school. The contribution would count as two (one in each discipline) with a footnote.
Yes, the sum for each overall category (Portfolio of ICs and Types of Intellectual Contributions) should equal each other. The Specific Types of Intellectual Contributions would be extracted from the Portfolio of ICs (Basic or Discovery Scholarship; Applied or Integration/Application Scholarship; and Teaching and Learning Scholarship).
A case could be made for this as the activities are current, sustained, and substantive. However, there is still the expectation in Standard 2 that the School supports the depth and breadth of faculty participation. Classifying an unbalanced number of faculty members with activities described as SP could impact the school's ability to align with Standard 2.
Schools often track job placement rates (how soon after graduation the students were able to secure employment), how many graduates secure positions in prestigious companies, and examples of those companies (ex: Fortune 500 companies or local equivalents). The information provided may differ based on geographic location as well. In India, schools often track the starting salaries of their graduates. Other examples of information that could be disclosed include licensure or certification exam results, graduation rates, and employment advancement. AACSB asks for business unit level data rather than details at the program level, and the school may decide on the type of data they want to share. If the information disclosed is too vague, a PRT might request that they add some specificity. This information should be published and readily available on the business unit's website.
Standard 4 (Student Admissions, Progression, and Career Development) articulates a general expectation from AACSB’s view point that students admitted into graduate programs will have earned a bachelor’s degree. However, the school may choose to allow exceptions, but it needs to be prepared to demonstrate how these exceptions support quality and align with the school’s mission.
No, there is not a specific structure that needs to be followed. The school determines the best format to meet their needs. It is advisable to refer to the Standard's basis for judgement, and the plan should project resource requirements (or targets) and define anticipated actions and an applicable timeline.
There is no prescribed time frame for reviewing learning goals. Schools are expected to have a systematic and sustainable way of reviewing curriculum as well as the Assurance of Learning process. Normally, each goal should be evaluated at least twice over a five-year AACSB review cycle.
Assessment data collected from valid statistical samples of student work is acceptable to support conclusions about learning outcomes and identification of areas for improvement. Sample characteristics should be established to provide a high degree of confidence that the data are representative, valid, and reliable.
AACSB does not have an absolute standard. The goal or benchmark for overall student performance on any given learning goal should be determined by each school consistent with its mission, degree programs, and student profile. This performance level provides a basis to determine if the collective student performance on any given learning goal is acceptable or unacceptable. If performance is unacceptable, curricula change should follow to address the problem.
No, but the learning goals do represent the intentions of the faculty for every student. If students are not achieving the learning goals at acceptable levels, action must be taken to strengthen the curriculum for future students.
AACSB expects schools to specify 4-10 learning goals for each degree program. There is no limit, but this is the guidance in order to keep the assessment program manageable.
There is some flexibility in this standard. Some schools with more than 5% may elect to exclude executive education and alternatively, schools with fewer than 5% of their resources coming from Exec. Ed. may choose to include it within their scope. The 5% is of the total annual resources including all sources of funding, even endowments. The expectation is that a school that includes executive education in its review presents a consolidated income statement showing the revenue sources and highlighting the percentage of revenue coming from this source.