Issue link: https://www.e-digitaleditions.com/i/59979
better equipped to serve its large population efficiently, effectively, and on par with educational systems elsewhere in the world. doctorally qualified business faculty are nearly nonexistent. s Monitoring teaching quality for consistency. s Requiring and evaluating faculty development programs. s Evaluating program content and alternate designations such as the FPM. Finally, to guarantee the quality of their output—their graduates—schools would use best practices such as the following: sAssessing the quality, breadth, and depth of student learn- ing, partially by requiring an exit examfor all graduating seniors. s Evaluating the quality of job placements. All areas could be monitored and evaluated with the help of external reviewers from Western countries. Through col- laboration, Asian and Western educators could develop a diverse and dynamic learning environment at Asian schools. As a group, these schools could better meet the needs of Asia's large population of students and its growing number of companies seeking highly qualified business graduates. The Faculty Dilemma The strategiesmentioned above would not only improve each school's offering, but also put them in a better position to meet international accreditation standards. Even so, there is an area where Western accreditation organizations could be adjusted to suit the circumstances of Asian higher education: faculty requirements.With Asian schools relying so heavily on adjunct faculty, and with doctorally qualified faculty at such a premium in their markets, some international accreditation processes place accreditation out of reach for many schools where faculty are concerned. For example, current AACSB accreditation standards require that at least 90 percent of faculty resources be either academically or professionally qualified, and that a minimum of 50 percent of faculty resources be academically qualified. Few schools in India and other parts of Asia would be able to reach that goal all at once. Again, this may be an area where international accrediting bodies could—and should—view accreditation with culture, as well as quality, in mind. To take into account the challenge Asian schools face in hiring faculty, processes could be put in place that worked with schools to meet accreditation standards while also rec- ognizing cultural circumstances. For instance, AACSB stan- dards could set up faculty requirement on a gradated scale, allowing schools to meet a 60 percent mark at one level, for example, and work up to the current benchmark for full accreditation. AACSB could also provide more assistance to Asian business schools in finding and hiring qualified faculty. No standard of accreditation should allow for ineffective teaching or accept inconsistent learning outcomes; but nei- ther can any accreditation organization afford to overlook Asia as a rapidly emerging market for management educa- tion. As it stands, certain elements of the Western accredita- tion formula have locked Asian business schools out of the accreditation process. To invite them into a community of continuous improvement, we must take into account the realities of their markets. East + West = Excellence Interest in business and business education in Asia should remain extremely buoyant, especially as new entrants into the workforce realize that climbing the corporate ladder requires a sound foundation in management theory and practice. As Asian business schools formalliances with other schools, both in Asia and elsewhere, they are furthering their goal to pro- vide leadership in management education in South Asia and the Asia Pacific region. Even so, it's telling that only eleven business schools in the Asia Pacific region, excluding those in Australia and New Zealand, have received AACSB accreditation. The reason, many Asian educators believe, is that some current interna- tional accreditation standards do not address the needs of Asian schools. Organizations such as AIMS and the Asian Association of Management Schools (AAMS) have emerged to fill that role, instituting an Asian-oriented evaluation sys- tem for management education, building an accreditation and ranking system for Asian management institutions, and promoting the development of original Asia-centric manage- ment concepts and methods. IfWestern accreditation organ- izations do not do the same, they may find that their brands take second place to other designations in an increasingly important Asian market. As I learned at my presentation to AIMS and in my inter- actions with Asian colleagues,many of Asia's business degree- granting institutions feel forgotten by the West, even as the region becomes a growing force in global business education. It's time to open up lines of communication and create a sys- tem of improvement and a set of standards that benefit both East and West. In doing so, management education not only better serves Asia, but also strengthens business education in the global context.s z Arvind Phatak is Carnell Professor of General and Strategic Management and International Business at the Fox School of Business at Temple University in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. He is also executive director of the Fox School's Institute for Global Studies and of Temple University's Center for International Business Education and Business Research (CIBER). BizEd NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2005 47