Issue link: http://www.e-digitaleditions.com/i/438743
JANUARY | FEBRUARY 2015 BizEd 49 that expands the way they define and measure program quality? QUALITY educational system ought to inspire. In our view, only a rating system—not a ranking system—would present complete information to stakeholders with a broad variety of interests. For some stakehold- ers, starting salaries are irrelevant; for others, starting salaries are all that matter. Because media rankings are calculat- ed on limited criteria, they don't allow stakeholders to make decisions based on their own priorities, but a comprehensive rating system would. Similarly, because a rating system does not pick "winners," it would support AACSB International's mission-driven accreditation format by allowing schools to focus on quality im- provement efforts most aligned with their particular missions. Yet such a system would require clearly defining what is meant by "educa- tional quality." We recently took on this challenging task for graduate business school programs, and MBA programs in particular. In our study, we found that academic quality can be measured across nine dimensions, including curriculum, faculty, placement, reputation, student learning and outcomes, institutional resources, program and institution cli- mate, program student composition, and strategic focus. In our Program Quality Model (PQM), these nine categories can be described further by 21 additional quality subdimensions, suggesting that quality is both complex and multifaceted. (See the chart on pages 50-51 for a more detailed description.) Of course, some of the PQM indicators include familiar inputs and outcomes, such as test scores and starting salaries, that many rankings capture. Yet our research suggests that 60 percent or more of program quality is described by factors that transpire during the educa- tional process or support the educational environment. These factors are almost entirely absent from the most popular rankings. More important, it is within this 60 percent that an institution's real value proposition is made. This includes the way it teaches students, promotes learn- ing, and develops its curriculum. RECLAIMING PROGRAM QUALITY Even using the PQM framework, building a comprehensive national or internation- al rating system would require intense courage, cooperation, and commitment from all business school stakeholders. Because such an undertaking could take years, we offer four concrete steps busi- ness schools can take right now. 1. Focus on the business school mission. Schools can regularly assess programs and plan for improvements by using the PQM to evaluate their success against their own distinctive missions. For example, in examining curriculum, schools can involve stakeholders by asking, "Is our MBA curriculum aligned with what future managers need to be successful? How can we deliver the cur- riculum in a way that promotes optimal learning? How can we structure our BY ROBERT S. RUBIN AND FREDERICK P. MORGESON