Issue link: https://www.e-digitaleditions.com/i/438743
50 BizEd JANUARY | FEBRUARY 2015 program to maximize learning oppor- tunities?" When schools communicate what is valuable to them, they clarify their missions, engage stakeholders, and clearly demonstrate their commitment to continuous improvement. As these activities are also essential to the ac- creditation process, schools that develop internal ratings systems will be able to use these data when they seek to attain or maintain accreditation. 2. Develop and track quality metrics. A school that wants to improve "teach- ing quality" first must define what that means for its particular program. There are dozens of potential metrics for each of the nine quality categories in the PQM; in fact, we generated more than 400 potential objective and subjective metrics, examples of which are listed in the chart below. Some quality measures are obvious—for instance, schools are likely to look at starting salaries when considering career outcomes or student satisfaction when considering reputa- tion—but we have included some less familiar ways to capture quality as well. In particular, we think that subjective measures are often the most useful be- cause they can be tailored to the mission of an individual program. 3. Seek to cooperate and compete. The media rankings make it appear as if business schools are in head-to-head competition with one another, ignor- ing the fact that they're all engaged in the same primary endeavor: education. For this reason, we argue that business school quality will rise when schools create communities of practice that promote cooperation around central characteristics. For example, adminis- trators of large part-time MBA programs share information and best practices through BusinessEducationInsider.com and AACSB's Affinity Group designed for schools offering MBAs for working professionals. Other collaborations rely on proximity or complementary programming. For in- stance, the University of Chicago's Booth School of Business and Northwestern AN OUTLINE OF OUR PROGRAM QUALITY MODEL DIMENSION DEFINITIONS SAMPLE METRICS 1. CURRICULUM—The overall quality of the courses of study provided by the institution, including content, delivery, and program structure. n Classroom "sit-in" quality reviews by external raters n Curricular relevance ratings measuring the extent to which curriculum matches mana- gerial job requirements n Executive ratings of content applicability in syllabi of core courses n Ratings by students or subject matter experts of time spent in various delivery formats n Ratio of core-to-elective credit hours 2. FACULTY—The overall quality of teaching personnel, including qualifications, research, and teaching n Alumni ratings of overall faculty quality n Student course evaluations, controlling for associated factors (e.g., "degree of course difficulty") n Percent of faculty with five or more years of industry experience n Percent of faculty on journal editorial boards n Number of faculty research citations 3. PLACEMENT—The overall quality of career-related programmatic opportunities for students, including alumni networks, career services, and corporate/community relations n Percent of active recruiters that are alumni n Percent of alumni serving as mentors n Percent of administrators or faculty serving on community organization boards n Percent of MBAs utilizing career services n Percent of courses that provide community-related service learning n Ratio of yearly internships to number of students n Ratio of career service advisors to student population 4. REPUTATION—The extent to which the institution is recognized by external stakeholders as being of high quality or merit n Application volume n Quality evaluations by peer institutions n Employer ratings of overall institutional quality n Accreditation peer reviews n Faculty ratings of programs and institutions