Publications

Posted on

Predatory Academic Journals and Accreditation

By Dr. Vlad Krotov

Predatory journals are exploitative academic publishing platforms that charge authors high submission fees but fail to provide the legitimate services associated with reputable academic journals, such as peer review and editorial oversight. These journals often promise quick publication times and lack transparency in their operations. The term “predatory” is used because these journals prey on the need of researchers to publish their work for career advancement, academic requirement, or visibility, without actually contributing to the scholarly discourse in a meaningful way. Predatory journals pose significant challenges to the integrity and quality of academic and professional accreditation standards. In this article, we explain how to identify predatory journals and what simple strategies a business school can pursue to prevent faculty from publishing in these journals. 

Predatory academic journals come in all shapes and sizes and are not unique to a particular field. However, there are few things that predatory academic journals share in common. Typical characteristics of predatory journals include:

    • Lack of Peer Review: They often claim to conduct peer review but either do not do it or do it superficially, failing to uphold standards of academic rigor.
    • Misleading Metrics: They may claim high impact factors and indexing in reputable databases without actual inclusion or by using misleading metrics.
    • Aggressive Marketing: They frequently use spam emails to solicit manuscripts from researchers.
    • Unclear Editorial Policies: They have vague or nonexistent editorial policies and practices, making it difficult to understand their review processes or criteria for publication.
    • Dubious Practices: They may list scholars as editorial board members without their permission or knowledge, and often have fake or non-existent contact addresses.
    • Rapid Publication: They promise rapid publication, which appeals to researchers under pressure to publish but undermines the integrity of the review process.
    • High Article Processing Charges (APCs): They charge authors high fees for publishing, often without providing the expected publication services

Predatory journals pose significant challenges to the integrity and quality of academic and professional accreditation standards. Accreditation bodies evaluate academic programs, institutions, and professionals based on various criteria, including research output, publication quality, and contributions to the field. The issues with predatory journals impact these evaluations in several ways:

    • Dilution of Scholarly Quality: Accreditation relies on the quality of scholarly work produced by an institution or individual. Publications in predatory journals, which lack rigorous peer review, can dilute the overall quality of an institution’s or individual’s scholarly output. This makes it difficult for accreditation bodies to assess the true academic contribution and quality of research.
    • Misrepresentation of Academic Productivity: Predatory journals can inflate an individual’s or institution’s publication record, misleading accreditation bodies about the actual academic productivity and impact. This misrepresentation can lead to unwarranted accreditation status or recognition, undermining the credibility of the accreditation process.
    • Erosion of Trust: The involvement of faculty, researchers, or institutions with predatory journals can erode trust in their credibility and integrity. For accreditation bodies, associating with entities that lack discernment in publication venues can question their standards and the value of the accreditation they provide.
    • Resource Misallocation: Resources spent on publishing in predatory journals are resources wasted, as they do not contribute to the advancement of knowledge or the academic’s reputation in a meaningful way. This misallocation can affect the overall quality of education and research that accreditation bodies seek to ensure.
    • Compromised Evaluation Metrics: Accreditation often uses publication records as a metric for evaluating the quality and impact of academic work. Predatory journals, through their lack of quality control and dubious metrics, compromise these evaluation metrics, making it harder for accreditation bodies to rely on publication records as a measure of quality.
    • Difficulty in Distinguishing Legitimate Work: The prevalence of predatory journals makes it increasingly difficult for accreditation bodies to distinguish between legitimate and non-legitimate work. This requires them to invest additional resources in vetting publications, which can be both time-consuming and

Researchers are advised to carefully evaluate the credibility of journals before submitting their work, using tools and checklists such as the ABDC List, Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ), Think. Check. Submit., and Beall’s List (though it’s no longer updated, it served as a significant resource for identifying potential predatory publishers). 

Moreover, a business school may decide to develop policies that give faculty members credit only for publications that are in journals listed in well-accepted lists, such as ABDC or Cabells. Additional quality criteria may also be applied to these publications. 

Posted on

Does AACSB accreditation lead to higher student enrollment?

By Dr. Vlad Krotov

Globally, AACSB accreditation is the most prestigious quality mark. It may take many years of concentrated effort and substantial financial investment to achieve AACSB accreditation. Before embarking on this accreditation journey, many business schools wonder whether their investment will yield a tangible return, especially in terms of student enrollment. 

Several studies have attempted to link AACSB accreditation to various measures of business school performance, including student enrollment. Cameron et al. (2023) find that receiving AACSB accreditation elevates a school’s ranking, potentially attracting more students. Additionally, Ito (2022) suggests that AACSB accreditation can increase graduate student enrollment, particularly for teaching-oriented business schools. This notion is challenged by the study by Doh et al. (2018), indicating that HBCU business schools do not always get more enrollment through AACSB accreditation.

It can be argued that the results are mixed because it is difficult to develop a solid, longitudinal design that ties AACSB accreditation to school performance. There are many benefits of AACSB accreditation (Ito, 2022) but it is not the only variable that affects a business school’s performance. Other forces, such as demographic trends or competition, affect enrollment much more than accreditation in some markets.

Additionally, our experience indicates that accreditation efforts can have many negative effects in the short term. Having AACSB accreditation can, for example, lead to faculty attrition (because some faculty members may not wish to adhere to higher research standards or be involved in general quality improvement) or even to a drop in student enrollment (since some students prefer schools with lower academic standards where they can earn degrees more easily). According to Cameron et al. (2023), schools pursuing AACSB accreditation have “flatter undergraduate enrollment” than those not pursuing it.

It can be argued that AACSB accreditation is largely about creating and implementing a long-term plan for improving a business school. It’s a unique journey business schools choose to take. It’s hard to predict with certainty whether this journey will result in higher enrollment. The opposite outcome is quite possible. Dumond and Johnson (2013) suggest possible drawbacks or challenges associated with AACSB accreditation processes, such as limiting business schools’ ability to adjust to change. In some cases, business schools can make a strategic mistake by abandoning their current market in favor of one in which they have no advantage. 

These errors in strategic planning, something that no business school is immune to, are likely to lead to lower enrollment. Peer Review Teams will often notice that a school lacks healthy enrollment and a viable financial position and require the school to address both. Unfortunately, not every business school can be successful at implementing these strategies, even with oversight from AACSB.

References

Cameron, M., McCannon, B. C., & Starr, K. (2023). AACSB accreditation and student demand. Southern Economic Journal, 90(2), 317-340.

Doh, L., Prince, D., McLain, M., & Credle, S. (2018). The impact of the AACSB accreditation on enrollment growth at HBCU(historically black colleges and universities) business schools. Pressacademia, 5(2), 130-141.

Dumond, E. J., & Johnson, T. W. (2013). Managing university business educational quality: ISO or AACSB?. Quality Assurance in Education, 21(2), 127-144.

Ito, H. (2022). Competing through international accreditation: cost-benefit analysis and process of AACSB for a business school in Japan. International Journal of Educational Management, 36(7), 1380-1393. 

Posted on

Policy for Ethical Use of Conversational Generative AI Chatbots in Student Assignments

1. Introduction:

This policy serves as a framework for the ethical use of Conversational Generative AI Chatbots (GAI Chatbots) by students in their assignments. It aims to strike a balance between harnessing the potential of these tools for learning and research while upholding academic integrity and ethical conduct. Students are encouraged to embrace the educational value of GAI Chatbots while respecting the principles outlined in this policy.

2. Purpose:

The purpose of this policy is to ensure that students employ GAI Chatbots in a responsible and ethical manner that does not impede their academic progress and fosters the development of critical thinking and problem-solving skills.

3. Responsible Use:

Students using GAI Chatbots should adhere to the following principles of responsible use:

a. Academic Honesty: Students are expected to uphold academic integrity and honesty in their assignments. The use of GAI Chatbots should not involve plagiarism or submitting work as their own if it is primarily generated by the chatbot.

b. Proper Attribution: If students utilize GAI Chatbots to generate content, they should appropriately attribute the assistance provided by the chatbot and make it clear that the content is generated with the help of AI.

c. Independent Learning: GAI Chatbots can serve as educational aids, but students should not overly rely on them to complete assignments. The primary goal is for students to develop their own skills and understanding.

4. Privacy and Data Security:

Students should ensure that they do not share personal or sensitive information while interacting with GAI Chatbots. They should also be cautious when using chatbots that require data input, making sure they comply with privacy regulations and institution-specific policies.

5. Contextual Applicability:

Students should evaluate the context in which they use GAI Chatbots. These tools may be more suitable for certain assignments and less so for others. Students should assess whether using a GAI Chatbot aligns with the learning objectives of their assignment.

6. Critical Thinking and Review:

Students should critically review and assess the output generated by GAI Chatbots. They are encouraged to verify and refine the content provided by the chatbot to ensure its accuracy and relevance to the assignment.

7. Collaboration and Peer Review:

Students are encouraged to collaborate with peers and instructors to review and discuss the content generated by GAI Chatbots. Peer review and discussion can help improve the quality of work and reinforce ethical practices.

8. Compliance with Academic Institution Policies:

Students must adhere to the academic policies and guidelines of their respective institution regarding the use of AI tools in assignments and should be responsible for utilizing the GAI Chatbot according to these policies. This includes understanding any specific rules or expectations related to GAI Chatbot use provided by instructors for specific courses and assignments. This policy should not override any of the GAI-related rules and instructions set forth by institutions, colleges, departments, specific programs, or individual instructors. 

9. Reporting Ethical Concerns:

If students encounter ethical concerns related to the use of GAI Chatbots, they should report these concerns to their instructors or academic institutions for appropriate guidance and resolution.

10. Accountability and Consequences:

Students are accountable for their adherence to this policy. Violations of these ethical guidelines may lead to academic penalties, including failing grades or disciplinary actions.

11. Review and Updates:

This policy should be reviewed periodically to ensure its relevance and compliance with evolving educational standards and technological advancements.

This policy was generated with the help of ChatGPT and can be used and distributed freely under the CC BY license.

Posted on

Ethical and Legal Risks of Using Generative AI in Academic Research

By Dr. Vlad Krotov

Academic research has been transformed by the advent of Generative Artificial Intelligence (GAI). AI continues to expand the limits of what is possible for scholars as they utilize its capabilities to enhance their intellectual endeavors.  

Using GAI in academic research has its ethical and legal risks, however. There is still a large gray area when it comes to the legality and ethics of using GAI in academic research, which researchers, legal experts, and the general public need to clarify. To navigate these uncharted waters, the academic community must tread cautiously.

This article examines the ethical and legal risks associated with the use of GAI in academic research. Questions surrounding authorship, plagiarism, bias, transparency, and value of academic research dominate the ethical landscape. Data privacy, intellectual property rights, and copyright law are pressing legal concerns. This article explores these ethical and legal issues in more detail. 

This article is not intended to provide legal advice or to serve as a final judgment regarding what is illegal or unethical regarding GAI use. A licensed legal professional should be consulted if you need legal advice on GAI. This article merely aims to raise awareness about the legal and ethical risks associated with academics using GAI. 

Copyright

Copyrighted materials are used by some GAI tools to train their models. Using GAI to create your text may result in you using copyrighted content without giving the original sources proper attribution. In addition, if a substantial portion of your text has been written by GAI, then this text isn’t your own original and creative work. As a result, you may not be able to claim copyright for your own work. When you submit your article to a journal, the situation becomes even more complicated. When an article is published, most journals require authors to transfer copyright to them. Using GAI may not grant you complete ownership of the text, so you cannot transfer your copyright. Additionally, some of the ideas in your text may have been borrowed from another author. As a result of all these legal implications, some journals and conference proceedings decided not to review articles that contained AI-generated text. 

Data Privacy

Research shows that Internet users trust search engines like Google and Bing with their most intimate thoughts and intentions (for example, when researching a disease or finding information about someone they know). As part of their “prompts”, academics can submit confidential or copyrighted data to GAI tools. Generally, GAI tools outline how they use user data in their privacy policies, stating that they store user information for a specific period of time. If this is the case, then you may be handling confidential or copyrighted data in an unauthorized manner by using GAI tools.

Plagiarism

The fact that some GAI tools rely on copyrighted text to train their models is exacerbated by the fact that these GAI tools are not very meticulous about citing their sources. GAI obtains most of its “knowledge” from various Web sources. It is possible that you are using someone’s data or ideas without giving them proper attribution when you use text generated by GAI in your own work. In academia, this is considered to be a weak form of plagiarism. 

Authorship

It can be questioned whether you are the author of your work if substantial portions of it were written by GAI. It is possible to compare your current writing samples, generated by GAI, with your previous work using authorship attribution tools. Your doctoral degree and tenure can be revoked if it can be proven that you did not write much of your dissertation or academic articles used in your tenure portfolio. 

Quality

A number of GAI literature review tools are meticulous when it comes to citing sources. However, it is unclear how these sources are selected for generating text. For example, when “writing” a literature review, GAI tools often omit most of the “seminal papers” – they probably use whatever papers are available. Sometimes, GAI produces misleading or incorrect text (e.g., citing papers that do not exist or providing incorrect factual information). These issues in your work can easily be detected by a human journal reviewer who is knowledgeable about your topic. Your reputation as an expert in your field may be damaged by all these quality issues in your work. 

Bias and Discrimination

Humans are still superior to AI tools when it comes to emotional intelligence. Some GAI tools may be incapable of addressing sensitive topics appropriately. When dealing with sensitive topics, humans possess a degree of emotional and social intelligence that makes them more cautious and responsible. There are also mechanisms built into GAI tools to ensure sensitive topics are handled appropriately (for example, providing a lengthy disclaimer that the question is highly controversial and may have a range of strong opinions). In spite of this, GAI tools are not sufficiently intelligent to fully understand why their responses may upset some people. As a result, some of this “insensitive” text containing implicit or explicit discrimination or bias can find its way into your own papers and books. 

Academic Goodwill

In the era of GAI, school teachers and college instructors are increasingly edgy and suspicious of students’ work. In a few seconds, GAI can generate an essay or a detailed case study. AI-detection tools will not be able to detect plagiarism if the text is paraphrased and edited. The academic community will also become less trusting when evaluating someone’s work. When reading somebody’s article, reviewers and editors will keep wondering: “did this person write this text?”, “am I reading creative, original ideas or is it a useless article generated by AI for the purposes of getting another ‘hit’ required for tenure or promotion? In contrast to what most people think, AI text detection tools are more reliable and valid. Despite this, these tools can still lead to false accusations against authors based on text analysis. All these issues are likely to strain the relationships among academics, especially when a researcher is not transparent about his or her use of GAI.

Reputation of Academic Research

The GAI can further damage the reputation of academic research among the public. There is already criticism that academic research is “useless” in many fields. By using GAI, academic papers that merely reshuffle things around and don’t offer anything new are becoming increasingly easy to generate. Some of the most popular academic journals, which are already “flooded” with submissions, are likely to receive even more submissions in the future. This will undermine their article processing capabilities and make it harder for researchers to find “gems” in the ocean of submissions. Moreover, AI-based referencing tools make it easier to generate long lists of references and citations – something some academics view as “citations spam”.  This further undermines the reputation of academic research

Conclusion

To mitigate these ethical and legal risks, researchers must be vigilant in upholding existing ethical standards towards academic research, complying with existing legal frameworks related to privacy and copyright, ensuring transparency of their use of GAI, and critically evaluating the outputs of GAI models. Open dialogue among the members of the academic community as well as clear guidelines can help the academic community navigate the complex landscape of GAI-powered research while preserving the integrity and respect of scholarly work.

Posted on

Three Strategies for GAI-Proofing Your Course

By Dr. Vlad Krotov

Generative AI has hit business educators like a freight train. In just a few months after its launch  in 2022, ChatGPT had acquired 100 million users; 200 million users are predicted by 2023. Following the suit, Google has released its own conversational chatbot, Google Bard this year. Google Bard is powered by the same technology as Google’s search engine, so, unlike ChatGPT, it seems to be more aware of recent news and developments.

Shortly after the release of ChaGPT by OpenAI, several professors from top business schools announced that ChatGPT was able to pass their exams. While some business school professors still act as if ChatGPT doesn’t exist, a growing number of educators believe that Generative AI is a disruptive technology that will quickly and permanently alter the century-old rules and pedagogical approaches in business education. If this is true, then educational institutions must introduce changes and create policies to ensure that students use this new, disruptive technology in a way that does not impede their learning.

Nowadays, most students know what ChatGPT is and how to use it for completing homework assignments. How to mitigate the academic integrity issues associated with the use of GAI by students seems to be of the utmost importance to business schools, since academic integrity is important for quality of business education and is a formal requirement of all major international accreditation bodies, such as AACSB. In this article, I outline three simple strategies that business educators can use to mitigate academic integrity issues caused by GAI use. I also discuss each of these strategies’ pros and cons. 

Punitive Strategy

Despite the rapid advancements in GAI, Many educators choose to teach their courses “as is”. Some specify in their syllabi that the use of Generative AI for completing assignments is prohibited and punishable under the school’s Academic Integrity Policy. AI-detection tools, such as ZeroGPT, are used to monitor student submissions for AI-generated content. 

Pros

    • Trusting students to make ethical choices and punishing those who do not is an old, simple, and, perhaps,  wise approach for ensuring academic integrity. When students want to cheat, they will find a way to do so – by using GAI, hiring someone to do their projects, or in some other way. It is important for educational institutions to have an admissions process that screens out students who are likely to cheat in the first place. Instructors should be able to trust most students and not act as investigators and prosecutors at all times. If a cheating student is caught, the punishment should be severe enough to deter others from even considering unethical behavior.  
    • A minimal amount of effort on the part of faculty and the business school is required with this approach
    • A business school may want to take this approach in the short term if they want to “wait and see” what happens with Generative AI in business education before making any important decisions or investments. 

Cons

    • AI detection tools are often ineffective at detecting AI-generated text, even though this issue is not as serious as some educators believe. False-positives are also quite common. It is possible for students to revise AI-generated text to make it unlikely that it will be flagged by such software as ZeroGPT. Furthermore, proofreading tools such as Grammarly and WordTune can produce false positives as well. 
    • GAI is here to stay, most likely. It may not be wise to prohibit students from using GAI tools, since these tools may soon become essential in the business world. 
    • In the near future, business schools will probably discover new ways to improve student learning by implementing GAI. Those business schools that do not adopt GAI for teaching and learning may soon lag behind those that do. 

Flipped Classroom Strategy

It is possible to “flip” a class so that most learning and important assessments take place in a physical classroom, in front of the instructor, and with very little use of computers. For example, all exams can be administered face-to-face. Important learning exercises can be done in class as well. Major projects, while carried out outside of the class, should be presented and defended in class as well. 

With this approach, the instructor can offer students help and make sure they are the ones doing the assignments. An instructor can ask individual students or student groups to demonstrate and explain progress on their project work in class every week. The grading weight devoted to attendance and participation can be increased as well, encouraging students to attend face-to-face classes. Students are free to use GAI tools outside of the classroom in any way they see fit (e.g. to prepare for a particular class session), but they should be able to demonstrate their competence face-to-face.

Pros

    • Performing teaching and assessment face-to-face can be quite effective for attaining course learning objectives. 
    • It’s much easier for an instructor to detect cheating when most of the work is performed in front of him or her.

Cons

    • While it’s possible to ask online students to take major exams or defend major term projects on-campus, this strategy is obviously not well-suited for asynchronous online courses. 
    • May not be appropriate for large classes, since this approach requires individual attention to every team and, sometimes, every student. 

Integration Strategy

Instead of excluding GAI from the classroom, an instructor may choose to embrace the technology in a way that actually assists teaching and learning. This is probably one of the most effective yet difficult approaches. GAI is still a new technology. Many educators lack a solid understanding of how to use this technology ethically and productively. 

What’s clear though, is that this approach may require a radical redesign of each course’s pedagogy. GAI can be used by students to answer basic questions at the “understanding” level of Bloom’s Taxonomy, for example. In fact, students may be instructed to ask ChatGPT or Google Bard questions in relation to the subject matter of the course and then to read and evaluate the responses as a part of an assignment. Thus, the point of the assignment is to interact with GAI and not to provide “correct answers”. 

When it comes to higher-order cognitive skills, an instructor may ask very complex and context-specific questions in a format not supported by major GAI tools in order to decrease the likelihood that GAI will be used to complete these assignments. 

Ideally, these assignments should be in the form where GAI still lacks capability. For example, instead of just asking to analyze a case study, the instructor can ask students to create flowcharts or UML Activity Diagrams based on the case. Alternatively, students can be asked to record videos with their analyses and post them to YouTube. Thus, even if students ask GAI for assistance, the final product will largely be their own work. 

Also, while GAI tools such as ChatGPT and Google Bard are becoming increasingly knowledgeable in many topics and increasingly capable of performing very complex cognitive tasks, they often lack knowledge and understanding of very narrow and specific contexts. For example, an instructor can ask complex questions in relation to specific local individuals or organizations that may be known only to students and the instructor. For example, let’s say there’s a small, local software company where the university is located. The instructor can talk about this company in class and then asks students to come up with strategies that are suitable for this company given its unique local context

Regardless of which approach is chosen for assessing higher-order cognitive skills, the instructor can quickly run his or her questions and assignments through ChatGPT or Google Bard to see what kind of responses students are likely to get when they ask GAI for help. If GAI can answer these questions with ease, then additional context or complexity needs to be added to the question. ALternatively, the format of the assignment can be changed (e.g. from an open-ended response to a visual diagram). 

Students can rephrase these specific questions as generic ones and submit them to ChatGPT. But generating a quality response will still require analyzing and accommodating the local context (and this is where most of the learning will occur) or putting the responses in a format that still entails some learning. The instructor can deduct points if the local context is not properly accounted for or the format instructions are not followed. A grading rubric can be created that evaluates students’ work based on the extent to which a solution is contextualized for a specific company or individual and the extent to which all the directions were followed. If necessary, an oral defense can be scheduled so that students can demonstrate their mastery of the material. 

Pros

    • Since GAI is likely to become a permanent fixture in business, this approach will make students more prepared for the era of GAI
    • With this approach, the instructor can automate some of the basic tutoring tasks and focus on developing higher order cognitive skills among students via complex, contextualized, and innovative assessments. 

Cons

    • This approach can be time consuming, since it requires quite a bit of thinking and curriculum revision
    • Many educators may lack time, expertise, or motivation for integrating GIA into their curriculum in a way that is ethical and conducive to student learning. 

In conclusion, it can be said that Generative AI is very likely to become a permanent fixture in business education. Individual educators and business schools will have no choice but to adapt to this new, disruptive technology and find ways to accommodate in an ethical and productive fashion. The list of strategies for accommodating GAI in the classroom provided here is not perfect or exhaustive. What’s important though is that every educator and business school should have a strategy in relation to GAI, or they will quickly find themselves in a disadvantaged situation. Having a strategy in relation to GAI is better than having no strategy at all. 

Posted on

Student academic integrity and the admission process

By Dr. Vlad Krotov

Academic integrity and the admission process in business schools.

Students must adhere to the highest academic integrity standards in order to receive a quality business education. All major accreditation agencies for business schools place a great deal of emphasis on ethics. For example, ethics and integrity is one of the main guiding principles of AACSB – the most prestigious accreditation for business schools worldwide. 

Despite that, some business schools treat ethics and academic integrity among students as an afterthought. Most business schools have student conduct rules and academic integrity policies, but these important instruments are not put to action until it’s too late. Academic integrity issues are often dealt with when they arise (usually, via a nerve-wrecking investigation process and subsequent severe punishment). This punitive “inspection approach” is time consuming, nerve-wrecking, and often unfair to students who are not fully aware of all rules and nuances of academic integrity. 

Instead of relying on this passive approach to enforcing academic integrity, business schools should focus on proactively preventing academic integrity issues from arising. This proactive “prevention approach” should start with the admission process. Quite often business schools admit students who are not fully aware of ethical standards in relation to academic work, are not prepared academically (and, thus, are likely to “cut corners”), or simply lack personal integrity for making ethically sound judgements consistently. A business school should do its best to inform students about their standard in relation to academic integrity and reject those applicants who are not likely to adhere to these standards. 

A business school can incorporate the following approaches into its admission process to minimize chances of academic integrity incidents among students:

Clearly communicate expectations during the admission process.  In application materials, websites, and admission communications, clearly articulate the school’s commitment to academic integrity. Include a code of ethics or integrity statement that applicants must acknowledge and agree to.

Conduct admission interviews. Interview all the applicants, even if their application materials look perfect. Don’t over rely on transcripts and standardized test scores to assess a candidate’s technical competency. Ask technical questions in relation to the courses that the candidate has taken to make sure that the candidate’s GPA and standardized test scores accurately reflect his or her abilities. Ask ethical dilemma questions during interviews to gauge an applicant’s ethical decision-making skills.

Require integrity essays or statements. Ask applicants to write essays or statements about their understanding of academic integrity and their commitment to upholding it. Use these essays as a basis for evaluating an applicant’s character and values.

Check references. Contact references provided by applicants to inquire about their character and adherence to ethical standards. This can provide valuable insights into an applicant’s integrity. If the person who wrote a reference cannot say anything specific about the applicant, this is a big “red flag”. It could be that other application materials cannot be trusted either. 

Review personal statements. Scrutinize personal statements for any signs of academic misconduct or unethical behavior. Ask questions about personal statements during interviews. A personal statement that is plagiarized, inaccurate, or written by someone else should warrant rejection of the application. 

Orientation and Training. Offer orientation sessions on academic integrity policies and procedures as part of the onboarding process for admitted students. Include training on proper citation, avoiding plagiarism, and ethical decision-making in an academic context.

Faculty involvement. Involve faculty members in the admission process, especially in interviews and reviewing essays or statements. Faculty can provide valuable input on an applicant’s potential for ethical behavior and spot “early warning signs” of a potentially problematic candidate.

By incorporating these practices into the admission process, business schools can set clear expectations for ethical behavior among students from the outset and send a strong message that academic integrity is a core value of the business school. Moreover, candidates who are likely to commit academic integrity violations due to lack of preparedness or poor personal choices can be eliminated from the program. This proactive and preventive approach helps create a culture of integrity that fosters quality of education and benefits all the stakeholders. 

Posted on

Why do business schools move away from standardized test scores?

By Dr. Vlad Krotov

For decades, graduate business schools around the world have been using the GRE (Graduate Record Examination) and GMAT (Graduate Management Admission Test) scores as one of the major selection criteria. Today, some business schools are beginning to de-emphasize the importance of GRE and GMAT scores in their admission criteria, recognizing that they might not be the most accurate predictors of success in a graduate business program. Standardized test scores are being used as optional by many graduate business programs, including some of the top ones. 

On the one hand, standardized test scores serve as a simple and reliable criteria for assessing certain skills of aspiring applicants, such as quantitative reasoning and analytical writing skills. On other hand, standardized tests have been plagued with numerous issues when used as the primary selection criteria for business school applicants. Some of the problems are discussed below:  

    • Limited Assessment: GRE and GMAT scores primarily assess quantitative and verbal reasoning skills, along with analytical writing ability. They may not fully capture an applicant’s broader skill set, such as leadership, creativity, communication, and interpersonal skills. These “soft skills” are crucial for success in business and management. It has been observed by many business schools that some applicants with outstanding test scores lack these skills and do not even seem to show a great deal of potential to improve.
    • Test Anxiety: Some students experience test anxiety, which can negatively impact their performance on standardized tests. There are some business schools that worry that requiring standardized test scores may discourage potential applicants from applying. 
    • Bias: It has been argued in research literature that standardized tests can exhibit cultural, socioeconomic, and gender biases that may disadvantage certain groups of applicants. As a result, requiring standardized tests may put certain groups at a disadvantage, creating an unfair admission process. 
    • Reduced Diversity: Relying heavily on standardized tests might inadvertently limit the diversity of the admitted student body. Candidates from non-traditional backgrounds, different industries, or with unique skill sets may not be accurately represented by these tests.
    • Preparation Disparities: Performance on GRE and GMAT can be influenced by the extent of test preparation. Students who can afford to spend time and money on test prep courses or resources might have an advantage, potentially leading to inequities in the admissions process. For example, younger students may have more time on their hands to prepare for these tests in comparison to older, working adults. Thus, this may put busy, experienced executives at a disadvantage when applying to programs that actually have experienced executives as their target market.  
    • Mismatch with Program Goals: For some business programs that focus on specialized fields or non-traditional business disciplines, GRE and GMAT scores might not align well with the specific skills and knowledge required for success in those areas.
    • COVID-19 Disruptions: The COVID-19 pandemic has caused disruptions in test administration, including cancellations and changes to the testing format. This has prompted some schools to temporarily  or permanently waive standardized test requirements.
    • Cheating: While companies administering standardized tests take numerous precautions to protect the integrity of the examination process, some students still manage to cheat on these exams. In the COVID-19 era, many standardized tests were administered online, which exacerbated the issue. Admission professionals and program directors routinely come across applicants with “sky high” test scores who appear to lack basic quantitative and verbal skills. Some graduate business programs choose to interview all the applicants to verify their skills and credentials “in person”. 

Given these challenges, many business schools are reevaluating the role of GRE and GMAT scores in their admissions process and considering more holistic approaches that consider a wider range of factors when evaluating applicants. Some business schools are moving towards more holistic admission approaches, considering factors like work experience, recommendation letters, interviews, and personal statements. Overreliance on GRE/GMAT scores might overshadow these valuable insights into an applicant’s suitability for the program.

While many accredited business schools do require standardized test scores as a part of their admission process, it should be noted that some of the most prominent accreditation agencies for business schools, such as AACSB, do not explicitly require standardized test scores to be used in business school admission. An accredited business school is typically required to have a formal admission process to select applicants who are likely to master the program learning outcomes. Therefore, accreditation agencies emphasize overall education quality rather than specific selection criteria.

Posted on

Why do Business Programs Face Declining Enrollment?

By Dr. Vlad Krotov

Business programs may face enrollment issues for a variety of reasons.  These issues can stem from factors within the business school itself, changes in the external environment, shifts in student demographic or educational preferences, or a combination of all these factors. 

Some common reasons for enrollment challenges include:

    • Program Relevance: If a program’s curriculum does not align with current industry trends, potential students may opt for programs that offer more relevant and marketable skills. For example, many business programs today incorporate modules and courses related to Artificial Intelligence (AI) – a very powerful and potentially disruptive technology across all major industries. 
    • Market Saturation: In some cases, there might be an oversaturation of similar programs in the market, leading to stiff competition for enrollments. For example, the market for MBA programs is known to be highly saturated in major cities in the United State. In an attempt to gain easy access to a large pool of working professionals, a variety of public, private, in-state, out-of-state, or even international business schools offer their MBA programs at various price points within all major cities in the US. 
    • Lack of Awareness: If a business school fails to effectively market its business programs or communicate their unique value, potential students may not be aware of them. To attract potential students, business programs need to be known for something (e.g. value, entrepreneurship focus, international accreditation, alignment with professional certifications, etc.) It is for this reason that accreditation agencies, such as AACSB, require each accredited business school to have a unique and distinct mission statement.
    • Quality Perceptions: If a business program is perceived as lower in quality or less prestigious than others in the field, it could lead to lower enrollments. Accreditation by an international accreditation agency, such as AACSB, usually addresses most quality concerns among students.
    • Location: The location of an institution can influence enrollments. Programs situated in less desirable or inaccessible areas might struggle to attract students. For example, many business schools located in remote, rural areas have problems attracting students simply because there are not too many people there who are both willing and qualified to join a graduate business program. Many of these programs have no choice but to go online or open branch campuses in major population areas. 
    • Changes in Demand: Rapid shifts in industry trends or technology can lead to shifts in demand for certain programs, leaving some academic offerings less appealing. The rapid advancements in Artificial Intelligence technology, for example, can increase demand for Computer Information Systems programs and decrease demand for accounting degrees due to concerns that simple accounting functions can be automated by AI. 
    • Economic Factors: Economic downturns or changes in job markets can influence students’ decisions to pursue certain programs that they perceive as having better job prospects. Usually, economic downturns are negatively correlated with university enrollment. During economic downturns, workers may choose to go to school to upgrade their skills or to change their careers. Economic downturns within a specific industry, such as technology, can cause students to turn away from business majors pertaining to that industry.
    • Inadquate Pricing: High tuition fees or other associated costs can discourage potential students from enrolling in certain business programs, especially if they believe the return on investment might not be sufficient. Regardless of how valuable, prestigious, and unique a business program may be, it must be competitively priced or students may not enroll. 
    • Competition: Competing business schools offering similar or more attractive programs can draw students away from a particular program. Some markets are characterized by “hypercompetition” among business schools. For example, more than 60 local, regional, and international institutions offer MBA programs in the United Arab Emirates (UAE) – a country with roughly 10 million people. 
    • Demographic Changes: Changes in demographics, such as declining birth rates or shifts in the age distribution of potential students, can impact the number of students seeking higher education in general. One area of the United States with serious demographic problems is the Midwest. Business schools and universities in the Midwest are putting more emphasis on attracting international students in order to combat the negative effects of declining birth rates on student enrollment. 
    • Institutional Reputation: A business school’s overall reputation can affect enrollments in its programs. If an institution faces negative press or widely publicized ethical controversies, this might lead to decreased interest among students. Revocation or suspension of accreditation is one of the worst things that can happen to a business school from a publicity standpoint. Press coverage of incidents like that is usually extensive. Students will often avoid such schools for fear that their diplomas will not be recognized by employers. The reputation of an “uncredited school” will haunt the business school for years even if accreditation is reinstated shortly after the incident. 
    • Online Education: The growth of online education and the availability of remote learning options can lead to increased competition among business programs. Business schools that are slow to adapt to online learning or fail to administer online business programs in a way that supports the mission of the business school may soon be left behind by more agile competitors offering attractive online options to students.

To address enrollment issues, business schools might need to undertake various strategies such as conducting market research, updating program offerings, improving marketing efforts, enhancing program quality, and adjusting tuition and financial aid options. 

Prior to implementing any changes, it is important to understand the specific reasons for enrollment challenges. Academic consultants and market research firms are hired by many business schools to better understand the factors impacting enrollment and devise strategies and action plans to resolve the issues.

Posted on

The Impact of Accreditation on Faculty Salaries

By Dr. Vlad Krotov

Faculty compensation at AACSB accredited schools vs. the market average

As a way to attract and retain quality employees who can support the mission and goals of the college, internationally accredited business schools generally offer above-average market compensation to their faculty and staff. 

According to AACSB’s 2019–20 Staff Compensation and Demographics Survey, the overall average nine-month salary for faculty at AACSB accredited schools (across all ranks and disciplines) is approximately 131 thousand USD; the median is 12 thousand USD. ZipRecruiter, a leading employment website in the United States, reports that the average compensation for a business school professor in the United States in 2023 is approximately 103 thousand USD. The compensation offered by AACSB-accredited schools is therefore noticeably higher than the market average.

References

AACSB (2023). 2019–20 Staff Compensation and Demographics. Retrieved from https://www.aacsb.edu/insights/data-insights/staff-compensation-and-demographics-survey 

ZipRecruiter (2023). Business School Professor Salary. Retrieved from https://www.ziprecruiter.com/Salaries/Business-School-Professor-Salary 

Posted on

Recruitment of Diverse Faculty: Debunking the Myths

By Dr. James Mackin

Over the last several decades, although the percentage of total college enrollment attributable to underrepresented minorities has been rising steadily in the United States, the percentage of underrepresented minorities among the professoriate has remained relatively stagnant. Currently, the percentage of underrepresented minority faculty at four-year colleges and universities is less than half the percentage of underrepresented minority undergraduates and about a third of the percentage of underrepresented minorities in the U.S. population.  Further, the percentage of underrepresented minorities decreases as faculty move up the ranks from assistant to associate to full professor.

Studies have shown that underrepresented minority faculty have positive direct and indirect impacts on student outcomes . For example, in a survey of higher education institutions across the country conducted by the Bernard Hodes Group, 92% of minority students and 86% of non-minority students replied “yes” to the question of whether or not minority professors had a positive impact on their educational experiences.  This clearly indicates that a diverse professoriate is good for all students, not just underrepresented minorities.

One of the biggest barriers to recruitment of diverse faculty that I have faced as an administrator was the proliferation of myths related to the recruitment and retention of diverse faculty. Common myths are as follows:

    • Elite private institutions that can afford to pay higher than average salaries are getting all the underrepresented faculty candidates.  In fact, the data show that there is no relationship between the diversity of the faculty at an institution and the institution’s wealth.  To further emphasize the point, about 50% of all African American faculty in the U.S. are employed at historically black institutions, which tend not to be the richest of institutions. 
    • Underrepresented faculty are not interested in us because of our geographic location.  While it is true that geography does play a role in determining faculty diversity at an institution, many institutions that do not seem to have any advantages from the standpoint of geographical location are experiencing success in attracting underrepresented minority faculty to their campuses. 
    • No amount of focused effort will make a difference in attracting underrepresented minority faculty candidates to the campus.  In fact, the data show that institutions that engage in systematic and purposeful underrepresented minority faculty recruitment efforts are successful in diversifying their faculty.

The bottom line is that the data are consistent with the notion that underrepresented minority faculty are attracted to campuses for the same reasons as majority faculty.  If a campus is purposefully reaching out to prospective underrepresented faculty, chances are the campus will be successful in recruiting these prospects regardless of any perceived recruitment advantages or disadvantages the institution might have. 

References

Bernard Hodes Group, PhD Project: Student Survey Report (2008), http://www.phdproject.org/en/news-events/~/media/Sites/PhDProject/news/Students_Report_6-9-08.pdf, Hodes Research.

Does Diversity Make a Difference? Three Research Studies on Diversity in College Classrooms (2000), American Council on Education and American Association of University Professors, Washington, DC. 

Espinosa, Lorelle L., Jonathan M. Turk, Morgan Taylor, and Hollie M. Chessman (2019) Race and Ethnicity in Higher Education: A Status Report. Washington, DC: American Council on Education.

Kim, Y.M. (2011) Minorities in Higher Education Status Report, Twenty-Fourth Status Report, American Council on Education, Washington, DC.

Mackin, J.E., Wright, I. and Wislock, R. (2008) Recruitment and Retention of Underrepresented Faculty, Staff and Students at a Traditionally White, Rural Institution of Higher Education, 21st Annual Conference on Race and Ethnicity, Orlando, FL.

Smith, C.G., Sotello Viernes Turner, C., Osei-Kofi, N., and Richards, S. (2004) Interrupting the Usual: Successful Strategies for Recruiting Diverse Faculty, The Journal of Higher Education, Volume 75, Number 2, March/April.

University Leadership Council (2008) Breakthrough Advances in Faculty Diversity: Lessons and Innovative Practices from the Frontier, The Advisory Board Company, Washington, DC.