More About - Business School Accreditation

Every business school eventually accredits itself by deemed complance with the accreditor's pronounced accreditation standards, thereby entitling the school to use the accreditor's particular certification mark(s), the socalled "logo(s)."

Accreditation standards vary widely so that dual and triple accreditation is not uncommon. But the "ABCDE" agency — to lend a common reference without naming anyone in particular — promoting itself to be the highest prized one, "proves" its fairy tale by structuring the accreditation process as extraordinarily slow, say 5 - 7 years, arduous, costly, forcing believers into submission by the age-old strategy of withholding supply, claiming to accredit only the "top 5%" of all the business schools in the world, without achieving any improvement over that of AASBI's quick, straight-forward and unbureaucratic practice (see below), but quite the contrary.

AASBI was created out of this frustration with ABCDEs' by business professors and professionals in 2007 with the purpose and aim to recognize well qualified schools under due process but not the everlasting obstacle course imposed by ABCDEs whose true goal is to dominate its membership at high cost and expense anywhere in the world, regardless. As a result, ABCDEs' accredited universities often employ a full-time accreditation officer only to comply with the needlessly extensive and ongoing reporting requirements.

ABCDEs claim that reporting and publication of the data entices business schools to keep pace and advance to the level of their chosen comparison groups, a process it calls "benchmarking." See "Does benchmarking hinder mission diversity of [...] accredited schools? Evidence from the U.S. and Europe" by John E. Cicala, Natasha Delcoure, and Barbara R. Oates, Texas A&M University-Kingsville, Business Education and Accreditation, Vol. 9, No. 2, 2017, pp. 1-14 — full article PDF. The authors believe that the high level of conformity among business schools "is a direct result of acredited business schools benchmarking their PAC institutions to gain or maintain accreditation status."

And there is a question in the subsequent article at the URL cited above by Michael J. Page, Bentley University, Niek Brunsveld, University of Amsterdam, and Dianne L. Bevelander, Erasmus University Rotterdam, whether such business accreditation with its emphasis on proven quality — by "extraction of historical record as a signal of quality assurance for the future" — even constrains innovation.

What Joseph Tainter (1988) concludes in his "The Collapse of Complex Societies" applies to its individual elements including ABCDE, namely, that they eventually collapse under the weight of their own accumulated complexity and bureaucracy, growing "in complexity in order to overcome new issues. However, the returns from complexity eventually reach a point of diminishing returns. After this point, collapse will eventually ensue." (Luke Kemp, "Are we on the road to civilization collapse?" The BBC. 19th February 2019.)

ABCDEs' complexity does not symbolize virtue but tyranny to keep its members in shock and awe. Underlying complexity is simplicity. The power of AASBI in its simplicity is equivalent to the power that ABCDE in its complexity takes away from a school applying for, or maintaining, accreditation. Now ABCDE threatens to sue, attacking AASBI with the fabricated complaint of "false advertising" while denying its own fault of complexity.

Harbour Island at Tampa on the Sandbank of Florida

        How and Why the U.S. ABCDE's Accreditations Are in Decline:

  1. Overbearing unreasonable buraucracy violating academic freedom and competence.

  2. Aiding and abetting atrocities of human rights-violating governments by accrediting their state-controlled universities educating better executioners,
        e.g., P.R. China, thereby undermining the U.S. Congress's Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act of 2019 (HKHRDA ) and
        Uyghur Human Rights Policy Act of 2019.

  3. Monopoly-building by

  • accrediting only the so called "top 5%" of wealthy business schools to create the illusion of a highly prized gold standard;
  • these so accredited schools are hiring only academic staff from amongst their own PhDs;
  • Financial Times's annual MBA-rankings are restricted to these "ABCDE"-accredited business schools, regardless of popularity based on reputation and academic standing. Thereby "ABCDE" imposes a kind of censorship because the objectivity guaranteed by the freedom of the press is being destroyed by under-reporting.
  3. High cost of up to $1 million investment to comply with required changes of facility, faculty and curricula.

  4. Wastefully long application process of 5-7 years — see, for example, President Tom Robinson, "Why B-schools seek AACSB accreditation"
          on YouTube 3 minutes, 17 January 2019.

  5. Ivey Leage and founding members are defaulting on their mandatory annual "bench-mark" reporting requirement, are no longer complying.

  6. Suspension by CHEA Council for Higher Education Accreditation, the American accreditor of accreditation agencies:
    CHEA's denial of recognition to AACSB 25-26 July 2016 for failure to "show that its accreditation process advances academic quality, demonstrates accountability, encourages self-scrutiny and planning, employs fair and appropriate procedures and demonstrates ongoing review of practice, and that it possesses sufficient resources to carry out its accreditation processes;" AACSB's subsequent 23 September 2016 withdrawal from CHEA recognition; CHEA's report PDF [ also offline ] dated 29 September 2016).
  7. Replaced by certification under ISO 9001, a quality assurance system designed for suppliers of U.S. and U.K. military equipment, deemed wasteful
      and inappropriate for business school-accreditation.

  8. U.S. government influence of rules that are unwanted by foreign universities.

Thai monks collecting alms with elephant. — Image credit - fair use

      How and Why AASBI's Accreditation criteria have
a more beneficial purpose and outcome:

  1. AASBI Accredited schools are on the List of examined, qualified and Recognized Universities published by AASBI.1)
  2. Students are guaranteed to study in a country that honors and practices their intellectual and physical freedoms and safety of human rights as enshrined in the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
  3. AASBI excludes schools of business located in human rights-violating countries, e.g., P.R. China, Myanmar, Saudi Arabia, etc. as countries with a low freedom score as rated by Freedom House.
  4. AASBI does not limit accreditation to the so called "top 5%" because accreditation of all qualified schools is a matter of public interest, rather than the interest of a a select privileged few.
  5. AASBI guarantees the School of Business's academic freedom. AASBI does not subject the school to overbearing controls and reports.
  6. AASBI does not create a monopoly among its accredited schools for the hiring and employment of instructors.
  7. AASBI does not require annual reporting during the initial 3-year accreditation period, but recommends voluntary submission of events deemed relevant by the school.
  8. AASBI regularly promotes its accredited schools on its websites with articles and reviews.
  9. AASBI does not charge an accreditation free.
  10. AASBI's accreditation process is designed to complete within 3 months or earlier, if certain information cn be obtained by AASBI directly, e.g., governmental licensing, faculty qualifications,
facilities, financial information, plus objective assessmentys by recognized agencies including EdUniversal, if available.
  11. AASBI does not otherwise hold the business schools's publicized rankings in any particular regard.

1) Universities that are not on the list contact the Secretary, if believed they should be.

Updated 2021-02-01