Accreditation FAQs

A complete listing of accredited members is available here. It is our policy not to disclose the names of schools currently in the process of seeking accreditation. A complete list of member institutions may be found here. Please see our membership pages for an overview of AACSB membership and the various membership options available.

Membership, however, does not denote AACSB Accreditation and should not be interpreted as achieving accreditation. Accreditation is granted only to those institutions which have undergone a lengthy peer review process and been found to satisfy the Guiding Principles and Standards for accreditation.

AACSB does not require prior permission to use the seal, nor do we require a review of your marketing materials. As an AACSB-accredited institution, we encourage you to use the accreditation seal, which you can find in your my.aacsb.edu account along with the AACSB brand guidelines. 

Earning AACSB Accreditation is a significant accomplishment, and we encourage you to promote your achievement—in print, on your institution's website, and around campus.

By default, AACSB Accreditation is granted to the entire institution. Under institutional accreditation, all business degrees within the institution, regardless of whether they are housed within the business school or elsewhere in the university, are to be included in the scope of the AACSB accreditation review, unless otherwise excluded. It is possible, in the case of institutional accreditation, to request the exclusion of certain degree programs which are below the established thresholds of traditional business content (25 percent or more for baccalaureate degree programs and 50 percent or more for post-baccalaureate degree programs). A form must be completed for each program a school wishes to exclude.

AACSB staff members approve common exclusion requests. However, questionable program exclusion requests will be forwarded to the appropriate operating committee (IAC, CIRC, AAC).

In contrast to institutional accreditation, schools may apply as a single academic unit within a larger institution offering business and management degree programs. Business academic units that would like to enter the accreditation process as the unit of accreditation must submit a Unit of Accreditation Application for review and approval by the Initial Accreditation Committee (IAC). This application must be approved prior to the submission of the eligibility application. More in-depth information on the unit of accreditation can be found here.

There is no substantive difference in the IAC-Y and IAC-Z committees. You can submit your reports to either group. However, it is suggested that when you submit to either the Y or Z committee, you remain with that committee for the duration of the initial accreditation process.

For information on AACSB-accredited schools and degree programs, we encourage you to visit the Learner section of our website to explore programs that might fit your needs and goals.

Many of the institutions accredited by AACSB offer blended and online programs. AACSB International does not dictate the modality through which a program must be delivered. Standard 2 provides the following guidance:

Basis for Judgment
2.2 Virtual Resources

• The school provides infrastructure to support its instructional activities for all modalities.
• Faculty have access to sufficient current and emerging technologies for both teaching and research purposes consistent with their mission, strategies, and expected outcomes. Such access may be realized through partnerships with other schools or other third parties.
• Professional staff are provided adequate training and technology infrastructure for advising, career placement, and other mission-specific activities.

In addition, Standard 5.2 provides guidance on the degree program structure-  “Programs resulting in the same degree credential are structured and designed to ensure equivalence of high-quality outcomes irrespective of location and modality of instructional delivery.”

AACSB's standards are not prescriptive in terms of specific courses that a certain degree program should include. Curriculum content is addressed in Standard 4. This standard outlines core competencies, skills, and experiences that would typically be included in a business degree program. s AACSB does not have a standard curriculum to which we expect schools to adhere; schools have the latitude to formulate curricula that is best for the mission of their school and the learner population it serves.

AACSB does not evaluate transcripts. However, there are a number of organizations that offer evaluation services. The National Association of Credential Evaluation Services is a member organization comprised of organizations that offer such services. For a complete listing of their members, visit their website here.

From the Initial Accreditation handbook, "Processes to support the accreditation review include the selection of comparison groups to form a relevant context for judgments, inform strategic planning activities, and assist in the selection of peer review team members. Reviewers from comparable institutions are better prepared to make evaluative judgments about the school, to understand the school and its aspirations, and to offer suggestions for the school’s improvement.”

Schools can identify these groups themselves or use DataDirect to assist in their efforts. You can find DataDirect FAQs and online tutorials here.

Please be aware of unauthorized AI GPTs (Generative Pre-trained Transformers) impersonating AACSB International, using our logo, and offering advice under false pretenses. These impostor GPTs are not endorsed by or affiliated with AACSB. They pose significant risks to your data security and may not provide accurate advice. 

 Any GPT created and published by AACSB International will:

• Be clearly identified within the GPT as the official GPT for AACSB.
• Be accessed from the AACSB website.
• Include a designated contact person to address any questions or concerns you may have.
• Be fully compliant with AACSB privacy and security policies.

If you encounter a suspicious GPT claiming to represent AACSB, please report it to [email protected] immediately.

The first step in the accreditation process is to establish membership with AACSB. To apply for membership, please complete our online membership application. Additional details about membership are available at aacsb.edu/membership/educational. The AACSB membership team can be reached at [email protected].

Once membership is established, a school should familiarize its faculty and administration with the AACSB accreditation standards and the accreditation journey. To proceed into the accreditation process, the school should attend a mandatory Eligibility application (EA) Workshop to assess its accreditation readiness and better prepare for the accreditation journey. The schedule for the EA Workshop is found here: Eligibility Application Workshop. Participants have up to two years from the date of the EA Workshop to submit their eligibility application. After two years, the school will need to attend another EA Workshop to be eligible to apply.

Eligibility applications are accepted at any time. Schools are encouraged to attend a regularly scheduled Q&A session complimentary for workshop attendees where AACSB staff are available to address questions on their eligibility application. Once the eligibility application is complete and submitted to the Eligibility Review Committee (ERC), AACSB staff will check for completeness and any potential concerns. The ERC will review the application at the next scheduled meeting. Meeting dates and applicable deadlines are available here.

Eligibility applications are due to the committee at least two months in advance of the meeting. If approved, a mentor will be assigned to help guide the school through the initial accreditation process.

Many schools find it useful to send their staff to the Business Accreditation Seminar, which offers an in-depth overview of the initial accreditation process and the nine business accreditation standards. Additionally, the small group allows for detailed conversation and specific questions related to each school’s situation, as well as comprehension of the overall process requirements.

We make every effort to organize peer review teams with members who speak the primary language spoken at the school, but because there is no guarantee that the peer review team members will speak the school's primary language, all salient documents will need to be translated into English. This will also help the committee members who may not speak the language. While there is no expectation that all documentation be translated into English, documents that will assist the PRT (and subsequently the committee) in rendering an accreditation decision should be available in English. All accreditation documents, such as the eligibility application, iSER, final SER, etc., must be in English.  The faculty members’ curriculum vitae (CVs) should be in English, but all of the journal articles or other intellectual contributions do not need to be translated into English. Assurance of learning summary reports should be in English; however, meeting minutes and student work are not expected to be translated. Other examples of materials that should be translated include faculty handbooks, which will help a committee and team understand how faculty are managed; codes of conduct; student handbooks; a sample of syllabi; marketing materials (although not all); and student/alumni evaluations that a school may have distributed to get feedback.

To help in cases where team members do not speak the language spoken at the school, it is common for the school to have a translator either present for the entire visit or parts of the visit in which participants do not speak English.

All formal complaints must be submitted through AACSB’s official online complaint form (submissions via email are not accepted): https://aacsb.jotform.com/260695802609060

AACSB’s complaint policy, including full details on the process and requirements, is available on page 36 of the Accreditation Policies and Procedures Handbook located here.  

All complaints should:

1. Identify the complainant and their relationship with the institution;
2. Identify the relevant AACSB guiding principle(s) and/or accreditation standard(s) and describe the lack of alignment;
3. Provide supporting documentation, including (if applicable) evidence of the complaint being pursued through the institution’s internal channels and the outcome;
4. Identify the timeframe during which the incident or concern occurred.

If you have questions after reviewing the form and policy, you may contact us for general guidance at [email protected].

The accreditation standards are available here.

The amount of time it will take a school to earn accreditation depends largely on how closely aligned they are with AACSB standards when they apply for eligibility. On average, we observe that schools take between five and six years to earn AACSB Accreditation.

Individuals can update information by accessing myAACSB. Individuals noted as Official Contacts for AACSB purposes should submit an Official Contact Change form to [email protected]. For more information, official organization contact definitions, and to access the contact change form, please visit the updating your information page.

Does the overall faculty resource plan need to have a certain structure? Do we have to take special time period into account?

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.

Standard 5 specifies a systematic process for assurance of learning. What do peer review teams usually expect in determining whether this standard is met?

The assurance of learning process is designed to ensure systematic continuous improvement of curriculum. Peer review teams will seek evidence that shows competencies for each degree program are in place. The standard does not describe what a school must do to have a “mature” AoL system. While a robust AoL system will have multiple competency goals for each degree program, AACSB does not prescribe an optimal number of competencies for a given degree program. Typically, schools will close the loop at least once in their accreditation cycle for each competency. AACSB interprets closing the loop to mean that a school shows how curriculum was improved as a result of the assurance of learning process. Results of the assessment should be documented and available for peer review teams upon request. The assessment processes and results should lead to documented continuous improvement in curriculum. Table 5-1 is mandatory for schools in the initial accreditation process and optional for schools completing their CIR report.  However, all schools are encouraged to complete Table 5-1 as it presents assurance of learning data in an organized and standardized way for the benefit of the school and peer review team.

How often should a school review its learning competencies for each program?

There is no prescribed time frame for reviewing learning competencies. Schools are expected to have a systematic and sustainable way of reviewing curriculum as well as the assurance of learning process. As mentioned above, normally, schools “close the loop” at least once in their accreditation cycle for each competency goal. AACSB interprets closing the loop to mean that a school shows how curriculum was improved as a result of the assurance of learning process. Specifically, data from a second measure allows faculty, a peer review team, or other engaged stakeholders, to judge whether the curriculum improvements that were driven by the first round of data/results have been effective in helping students learn and/or perform better.

Must all students be assessed?

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.

What is the minimum performance standard?

AACSB does not have a prescribed standard. The goal or benchmark for overall student performance on any given learning competency 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 competency is acceptable or unacceptable. If performance is unacceptable, curricula change should follow to address the problem.

Must all graduates meet the expected standard on all learning goals?

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.

How many competency goals are needed?

The standards do not prescribe the number of learning goals a school must define for each degree program. Many schools specify 4-10 learning goals for each degree program. There is no limit, but this is guidance in order to keep the assessment program manageable.

The standards state that if five percent or more of total annual resources come from executive education, the school should have a process to ensure high quality and continuous improvement. Could you provide a definition of annual resources? Does this include state funds, profit centers within the college (i.e. executive ed, research bureau)?

There is some flexibility in this standard. Some schools with less than 5 percent of their resources coming from executive education may choose to include it within their scope. The 5 percent 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 will present a portfolio of executive education programs and describe how the portfolio is aligned with the school’s mission and strategy. The school should also provide a narrative discussing how the school ensures high-quality processes and outcomes in its executive education offerings.

Concerning Standard 6, what does a school need to disclose publicly?

In addition to public disclosure information required by national or regional accreditors, schools are expected to provide readily accessible, reliable, and easily understandable information to the public on the performance of their business students, including learner achievement information and overall program quality, as determined by the school. Disclosures are not prescriptive but are informed by the school’s mission, strategies, and expected outcomes, and may include post-graduate learner success outcomes, admission data, retention and time-to-degree data, placement data, or other mission-specific outcomes. This information should be available on the accredited unit’s website where it is clearly displayed and distinguishable from university amalgamated data.

What are the AACSB standards for MBA/executive MBA candidates who have not earned a bachelor's degree?

Standard 6: Learner Progression 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 should be prepared to demonstrate how these exceptions support quality and align with the school’s mission.

When filling out Table 8-1, may we change the intellectual contribution columns or add columns?

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 information elsewhere.

Are all faculty intellectual contributions or just participating faculty ICs to be included on Table 8-1?

All intellectual contributions being produced by faculty contributing to the mission of the business school should be included on Table 8-1, including those that are being produced by Supporting faculty (if applicable).

In Table 8-1, how are co-authored intellectual contributions properly reflected?

In Table 8-1 co-authored intellectual contributions would be fractionally apportioned for co-authors at the same institution from business disciplines so as not to double-count the article in the table. For example, professor X in Accounting and professor Y in Finance co-author a peer-reviewed journal article. Each professor would get .5 allocation for that co-authored piece. When considering co-authored publications between an author from a business discipline and an author outside of a business discipline, the author from the business discipline who would be included in Table 8-1 would get 1 allocation.  For example, professor M in Marketing and professor N in Psychology co-author a peer-reviewed journal article.  Professor M would get 1 allocation for the piece and his/her contribution would be included in table 8-1.

On Table 8-1, should we include intellectual contributions from faculty that have left during the reporting period?

Intellectual contributions from faculty that left the school during the reporting period (i.e. year of record) may be counted in Table 8-1. However, if the faculty left prior to the reporting period (e.g. in year 3), then their intellectual contributions would not be included in Table 8-1.

In Standard 8, does the "Portfolio of IC's" in sum have to be the same as the sum of the "Types of IC's"?

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).

Is the production of new chapters and substantial revision of chapters in new editions sufficient to classify a faculty member as scholarly practitioner?

A case could be made for this as the activities are current, sustained, and substantive so long as  the school’s criteria, in keeping with its mission, allow for this type of scholarly activity. Classifying an unbalanced number of faculty members with the activities described as SP could impact the school's ability to align with standard 8.

AACSB advises schools to request exclusions for programs that could be construed as business degrees, even if they are below the threshold of business content. Schools should disclose these programs as a precaution. If a peer review team were to find a program that looked as though it could be business degree program, for example: Engineering Management, a school would want to be able to say that they disclosed this to AACSB and went through the exclusion approval process. If unsure as to whether or not the program in question could be construed as a business program, please contact your staff liaison for further clarification.

Yes, the language of delivery typically does not influence the scope of accreditation.

The percentage of business content is calculated by dividing the maximum total number of business credits that can be taken in a degree (including electives) by the total number of credits required to earn the degree. For example, a 120-hour bachelor’s degree with 30 or more hours of business credits would normally be included in scope unless an exclusion request is granted by the appropriate AACSB committee. For more information, please refer to the 2020 Business Accreditation Standards.

For universities with multiple schools offering business degrees, there are instances in which only one unit wishes to seek accreditation. With the adoption of the 2013 accreditation standards, schools have the option to apply as an academic unit. Schools wishing to proceed with this route are advised to speak with a member of the accreditation staff to get additional information as to whether this is the appropriate option. Schools should have a strategic reason for applying as a single unit (i.e., there are other units offering business degrees at the university that could prevent the institution from earning AACSB accreditation). To move forward with academic unit accreditation, the school should complete the unit application, and it will be brought to the appropriate operating committee. Schools wishing to seek academic unit accreditation must demonstrate a sufficient level of independence in the following two areas:

1. Branding
2. External Market Perception

Explanations of each criterion along with additional information on the differences between institutional accreditation and unit accreditation can also be found here.

For AACSB-accreditation purposes, schools will report only on the business content portion of the degree program. Faculty teaching non-business courses should not be included in the accreditation tables and assurance of learning is not required for non-business courses. If you have questions regarding which courses in a degree program should be classified as business, please contact your AACSB staff liaison.

The total costs of the accreditation process will vary, depending on a variety of factors. There are, of course, the standard accreditation and membership fees that are paid by the school when they are seeking accreditation including: annual membership dues, one-time eligibility application submission fee, one-time IAC acceptance fee, annual accreditation fees, and a one-time initial accreditation application fee (see accreditation fees). In addition, there are costs associated with aligning with AACSB standards. Examples include: the hiring of faculty, implementation of systems and processes to ensure continuous improvement, hiring professional staff, etc.

The school will also be required to incur all travel costs of the mentor (mentor will visit at least once, often more) and typically three peer review team members for the peer review team visit. Often the peer review team chair will visit the school once before the visit (although not required) and then a three person team will visit the school for the review. In the case of a deferral, the school will need to have a second visit, with two team members. It is difficult to estimate these travel costs, as they will depend on the distance the members of the team have to travel and the number of visits they make to the school. Learn more about AACSB travel policy and expenses.

Learn more about AACSB membership dues.

Credit Card

Log in to your myAACSB account to process payments. All major credit cards are accepted.

You may also contact Accounts Receivable at +1 813 769 6534. If you must call, please be prepared to provide:

Name on the card, credit card number, expiration date, billing zip code, amount, and invoice number.

DO NOT EMAIL YOUR CARDHOLDER INFORMATION

ACH Direct Deposit (for U.S. and Canada ACH deposits only) and International Wire Transfers
Please see the remittance section at the bottom of your invoice, or contact Accounts Receivable at +1 813.769.6523 

Lockbox (U.S. Currency)
AACSB International—The Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business
Lockbox 1143
P.O. Box 95000
Philadelphia, PA 19195-1143 USA

Normally, the determining factor for who is included in Table 3-1 is: Which individuals have primary engagement with the learner, regardless of the modality and method of delivery of the course. The instructional faculty members who have primary engagement with the learner, either directly or indirectly, must be reported in Table 3-1, regardless of whether they are full-time, adjuncts, or faculty contracted through a third party.  Examples of indirect engagement with students include engagement through the use of teaching assistants/tutors or through enhanced artificial intelligence. Teaching assistants or tutors who support an instructor of record by assisting in grading, test proctoring, tutoring, and conducting labs for students would not be included on Table 3-1.

However, if the student-faculty interaction is primarily with the facilitator/tutor and the facilitator/tutor is responsible for other teaching activities, then the school would be expected to include these facilitators/tutors. While each situation is unique, and each case will be looked at individually, we encourage schools to research comparable schools that may have implemented a similar faculty model.

If a faculty member is involved through teaching or research in two disciplines, they should be listed in each  discipline and footnoted. However, the percentage of time devoted to mission should not exceed 100%.  The percentages should reflect the faculty member's allocation of time devoted to mission in each discipline e.g. 50/50.

For Table 3-2, bachelor’s degrees can be aggregated to the degree level. However, we suggest “breaking out” master’s degrees programs in order to show how faculty are deployed across both research and professionally oriented master’s programs since there are inherent differences between these programs and the faculty required to teach in them. MBA programs may be combined into one line; however, where significant differences exist among types of MBA programs or target audiences, it is preferable to show these varying MBA programs broken out on separate lines.

AACSB standards do not specify faculty teaching loads. A peer review team and committee will often use the school’s peer school list to benchmark whether the school’s teaching expectations are reasonable. For example, if the peer schools expect a 3-3 teaching load and the school being reviewed has a 5-4, this may be deemed to be too high. Also, during a peer review team visit, the team will visit with the faculty and will ask questions to try and get a sense of whether they have the time to devote to their responsibilities such as research and advising.

Generally speaking, with cross-disciplinary programs, schools are not expected to document the qualifications of faculty teaching outside of the business discipline. If it were to be determined that the content of their courses is related to traditional business subjects, then the school may be asked to include these faculty in their reporting.

Standard 3 states: Normally, the school considers participating faculty members to ongoing members of the faculty, regardless of whether their appointments are full-time or part-time, whether their positions with the school are considered their principal employment, and whether the school has tenure policies.

A supporting faculty member does not normally participate in the intellectual or operational life of the school beyond the direct performance of teaching responsibilities. Usually, a supporting faculty member does not have deliberative or involvement rights on faculty issues, membership on faculty committees, or assigned responsibilities beyond direct teaching functions (e.g., classroom and office hours). Classification as a supporting faculty member does not rely on the person’s contractual status with the institution.

Schools are expected to develop criteria for documenting faculty members as "participating" or "supporting". Criteria should be consistent with each schools’ mission, expected outcomes, and strategies.

The school can define ABD in a manner that makes sense for the particular type of program, duration, etc. in question. Normally individuals are classified as ABD after passing their comprehensive or qualifying exams.

The faculty member of record should be included on the tables. Unless the research assistant has substantial teaching responsibilities for a specific course, this assistant is not included on the table.

The school applies its own definitions for faculty and ensures that the definitions are aligned with the mission statement. A person meeting the school’s definition for more than one category should be designated under one classification per discipline.

According to Standard 3, an LLM degree is considered a terminal degree in business for those faculty members teaching taxation and for those teaching courses or modules related to law or aspects related to the legal environment of business (e.g. ethics, sustainability, etc.). If a faculty member with an LLM is engaged in ongoing, sustained, and substantive academic activities such as scholarly research and other scholarly activities, they may be classified as SA in Taxation and Law. If they remain current through sustained activities related to practicing law or other related activities, they may be classified as PA.

"Percent of time devoted to mission” is intended to broadly represent and encompass all professional responsibilities of each faculty member, including teaching, research, and other professional responsibilities that may be assigned. The faculty qualifications portion of Table 3-1 should not be developed using a metric that only captures teaching. For full-time faculty members including those holding administrative roles within the business school/accounting program, the “percent of time devoted to mission” is 100 percent. For part-time faculty members, something less than 100 percent, and the calculation used to determine the percentage, should be specified.

For part-time faculty members, something less than 100 percent should be specified. If the school uses a full-time equivalent (FTE) model for its human resource system, then FTE may be a reasonable approximation of “percent of time devoted to mission.” However, in the absence of an FTE model, the school will need to have a rational way of assigning the percentage to part-time faculty. Examples of calculations can be found in the 2020 Interpretive Guidance for AACSB Business Accreditation.

Faculty members who are on sabbatical leave (or other short-term leave noted below) should be included in the tables because they are part of the school’s “total faculty resources.” Since faculty on sabbatical leave do not normally teach, schools should include them in Table 3-1 but clearly identify them as on sabbatical leave either in a footnote or other materials that support the data included in the tables. Typically, there would not be data entered into the sufficiency columns. For faculty members on sabbatical leave, their intellectual contributions would also be reflected on Table 8-1. The same guidelines apply for faculty members who are visiting at other schools, are on sick leave, Fulbright fellowships, etc.

Business communication faculty may normally be excluded from these analyses to the extent they are teaching business communications classes in writing and speaking. The same applies to faculty in the business unit teaching general education classes. If these faculty members teach traditional business subjects they would be included in Standard 3 analyses to the extent of this teaching. Clear disclosure of the treatment of such faculty housed in the business school should be provided.

Standard 3 provides a non-exhaustive list of activities normally expected of SA, PA, and SP status. SA faculty are normally expected to produce some peer-reviewed journal articles, related to their field of teaching as part of their portfolio of scholarship. SP faculty are normally expected to produce practice, applied, or pedagogical publications related to their field of teaching as part of their portfolio of scholarship. PA faculty sustain currency and relevancy through professional engagement, interaction, and activities related to their field of teaching. While some schools may include a publication requirement for PA faculty, this is not an expectation within the standards. A peer review team may question a school’s criteria if it appears the criteria are not in alignment with the school’s mission and peer institutions. Note that Standard 8 does require that “A significant cross section of faculty in the school and each discipline is engaged in the production of intellectual contributions, relying heavily on participating faculty.”

“Peer reviewed journal” articles have traditionally been the most respected form of research and publication outcomes across the academic community. The production of peer review journal articles is a key way in which faculty maintain currency and expertise in their field. Thus, all schools are expected to have some high-quality peer-reviewed journal articles in their portfolio of intellectual contributions. The type of peer review journal articles should be aligned with their school’s mission. Schools with primarily teaching missions may produce more high-quality applied and pedagogical research, while schools offering research master’s and doctoral degrees are expected to produce a greater percentage of high-quality basic research.

Within the AACSB 2020 Business Standards, AACSB has outlined a number of other collaborative provisions of which we are aware.  We have also highlighted some key considerations and the potential impact on accreditation that each type of agreement may have.  For programs deemed “in-scope” per the table found in the standards, the school is responsible for assurance of learning on the partner programs and reporting on partner faculty delivering courses in business disciplines. If you have any questions, please contact your school’s AACSB accreditation staff liaison.  Staff liaison contact information can be found here.