I. Rationale
One hallmark that distinguishes an AACSB-accredited school from a non-AACSB
accredited school is the quality of faculty and staff employed by the school. AACSB looks
at both the degree to which faculty participate in the life of the school on a meaningful
basis (“faculty sufficiency”) and what the academic credential and ongoing activities are
that sustain faculty currency and relevancy (“faculty qualifications”). These measures are
a combination of both input and output measures that proxy for quality of faculty.

II. Clarifying Guidance
Discipline and Specialty Field
Table 3-1 requires reporting faculty by discipline, irrespective of organizational
structure. For example, a school with a Department of Accounting, Finance, and
Information Systems should report those faculty within the disciplines identified by the
school, according to what discipline (subject) they normally teach.
Disciplines are defined by the school in the context of their mission. Normally, the
disciplines should align with the degree programs and/or majors or other areas where
intellectual capital would be expected to be maintained, including concentrations and
specialties. For example, a school offering a Master of Accountancy would normally be
expected to identify accounting as a discipline. It is important to note, however, that not
every degree program will require a unique discipline be identified. For example, the

discipline of management may offer a multitude of degrees and/or majors (e.g.,
entrepreneurship, strategy, human resources, etc.) for which faculty could all be
reported under the discipline of management.1
If a faculty member teaches in two disciplines, the faculty member can be apportioned
between the disciplines accordingly. In such a case, the faculty member’s highest
qualification status is shown in both disciplines in Table 3-1. For example, a faculty
member who teaches two courses in accounting and two courses in finance and who
achieves SA status through scholarship in accounting would be shown in both
accounting and finance with teaching hours apportioned for faculty sufficiency
purposes; SA status would reflect 50 percent time devoted to mission in each of the
respective disciplines for faculty qualifications purposes. The faculty member’s
intellectual contributions would be shown in accounting in Table 8-1. If the teaching in
the second discipline is immaterial, the school may choose not to apportion the faculty
member but report their qualifications in the primary teaching discipline, in accordance
with a principles-based approach.
Some disciplines may not offer degree programs but in fact may contain courses that
service other degree programs. For example, courses or modules in business law may
support multiple degree programs without any associated degree programs in business
law alone. In that case, the school should list business law as a separate discipline in
Table 3-1 and check the box that indicates no degree, majors, etc. are offered in this
discipline. This logic carries over to any similar service courses. Common examples of
such service courses include, but are not limited to, statistics and economics (when
taught within the business school).
Faculty are also listed with the specialty subfield within their discipline in Table 3-1.
Specialty Field is the field/discipline of focus, from the master list provided by AACSB,
that most closely aligns with the individual faculty member’s focus and role. The
Specialty Field classification supports peer benchmarking and aggregate or trend
analysis of faculty compensation, faculty sufficiency, and faculty qualifications. Given
the many unique variations in how business schools structure their faculty, the specialty
field may or may not match the discipline heading for the faculty member reported in
Table 3-1. However, among schools that participate in the annual AACSB Staff
Compensation and Demographics Survey, the specialty field should match the
individual’s field/discipline as reported in that survey. The specialty list to be used in
Table 3-1 can be found here.
Table 3-1 should also indicate the normal professional responsibilities of each faculty
member using the following guide: UT for undergraduate teaching; MT for master’slevel
teaching, DT for doctoral-level teaching/mentoring, ADM for administration, RES
for research, ED for non-degree executive education, and SER for other service and

outreach responsibilities. A faculty member may have more than one category
assigned.
The final column of Table 3-1 is “Brief Description of Basis for Qualification.” This
column is intended to provide the peer review team with a high-level overview of the
basis on which a faculty member is classified as SA, PA, SP, IP, as reflected in the
school’s faculty qualifications guidelines. Schools should provide a code or brief
description for each faculty member for the benefit of the peer review team; additional
information should be attached as needed to understand a school’s coding system.

Faculty Sufficiency
A participating faculty member will be engaged beyond teaching in matters such as
policy decisions, advising, research, and service commitments to the school. The
faculty member may participate in the governance of the school and be eligible to serve
as a member on appropriate committees responsible for academic policymaking and/or
other decisions.
Normally, the school considers participating faculty members to be ongoing members of
the faculty, regardless of whether a faculty member’s appointment is of a full-time or
part-time nature, whether their position with the school is considered their principal
employment, and whether the school has tenure policies. The individual may be eligible
for, and participate in, faculty development activities and have non-teaching
assignments, such as advising or committee assignments, as appropriate to the faculty
role the school has defined, taking into consideration the depth and breadth of the nonteaching
assignment.
A supporting faculty member does not usually have deliberative or involvement rights
on faculty issues, membership on faculty committees, or assigned responsibilities
beyond direct teaching functions (e.g., classroom and office hours). Similar to the
above, classification as a supporting faculty member does not rely on the person’s
contractual status with the institution.
Depending on the teaching and learning models and associated division of labor across
faculty and professional staff, the faculty body is sufficient in numbers and presence to
perform or oversee the following functions related to degree programs:

• Curriculum development: A process exists to engage multidisciplinary expertisein the creation, monitoring, evaluation, and revision of curricula;
• Course development: A process exists to engage content specialists inchoosing and creating the competencies, learning experiences, media,instructional materials, and learning assessments for each course, module, or session;
• Course delivery: A process exists for ensuring access to instructionfrom appropriately qualified faculty and staff at the course level;
• Assessment and assurance of learning: The obligations specified in the assurance of learning processes for the school are met; and
•  Other activities that support the instructional goals of the school's mission.

Faculty should be sufficient to ensure achievement of all mission activities. This could
include high-quality and impactful intellectual contributions and, when applicable,
executive education, community service, institutional service, service in academic
organizations, service that supports economic development, organizational consulting,
and other expectations the school holds for faculty members.

Completion of Table 3-1: Faculty Sufficiency
As per the standard, normally, participating faculty members will deliver at least 75
percent of the school’s teaching globally (i.e., across the entire accredited unit) and 60
percent of the teaching within each discipline, as defined by the school.
Table 3-1 should be completed to document the distribution of participating and
supporting faculty for the most recently completed, regular academic year prior to the
year of a peer review visit (often referred to as the “self-study year”). For example, if
School A's visit is in February 2025 and its normal academic year runs from September
to June, Table 3-1 will capture September 2023 to June 2024.
The teaching productivity metric used to calculate faculty sufficiency must reflect the
operations of the business school (e.g., student credit hours (SCH), European Credit
Transfer System (ECTS), contact hours, individual courses, modules, or other
designations that are appropriately indicative of each faculty member’s teaching
contributions). To avoid any unnecessary conflicts, concurrence on all aspects of the
metric with the peer review team well in advance of the visit is a best practice.
If a faculty member has no teaching responsibilities, they must be included in Table 3-1
and reflected in the qualifications section of the table. In this case the two columns
related to faculty sufficiency should be left blank.
Deans/heads of business units should be included in the table and classified based on
the school’s faculty qualifications criteria.
Digital courses should use the same teaching productivity metric being used for inperson
courses and the method used should be described.
Faculty Qualifications
AACSB standards recognize four distinct faculty qualification categories in which faculty
members may be classified, depending on the nature of their initial academic
preparation and subsequent academic and/or professional engagement activities.
Each school must document the classification for each faculty member in accordance
with one of the following categories: (1) Scholarly Academic (SA), (2) Practice

Academic (PA), (3) Scholarly Practitioner (SP), or (4) Instructional Practitioner (IP).
Faculty who do not meet the school’s criteria within this framework are classified as
Additional (A) faculty.
Criteria for each of the four categories should align with the school’s mission, expected
outcomes, and strategies, and should include the following essential elements:

• The combinations of academic preparation and/or professional experience required of faculty at the time of hiring, as well as the types of academic and/or professional development activities required of faculty for them to sustain their qualification status after they have been hired;
•  How the school assigns priority and value to different continuing academic and professional engagement activities; how such assignments support its portfolio of SA, PA, SP, and IP faculty; and how this portfolio of faculty supports its mission, expected outcomes, and strategies;
• The qualitative standards the school requires for various, specified development activities and the ways that it assures the quality of these activities; and
• The depth and breadth of academic and professional engagement that faculty members are expected to undertake within the normal AACSB review cycle in order to maintain their qualification status.

A single set of criteria may be applied to all faculty resources. Alternatively, the school
may also choose to vary criteria based on level of teaching (e.g., undergraduate vs.
graduate) or role as relates to one’s contribution to the mission of the school. For
example, a school may maintain one set of SA criteria for undergraduate faculty and a
separate set of criteria for graduate or research faculty. This distinction is particularly
relevant with respect to the higher level of intellectual contributions expected of
graduate and research faculty. Standard 8 provides additional guidance in the area of
intellectual contributions by level of faculty. Note that location or modality, in and of
themselves, are not sufficient to maintain separate faculty qualifications criteria and
would be inappropriate.
Criteria for granting and for maintaining various qualifications for participating faculty
who also hold significant administrative appointments (e.g., deans, associate deans,
department heads/chairs, or center directors) in the business school may reflect these
important administrative roles. That is, a school may maintain different faculty
qualifications criteria for such administrators within the business school if they so
choose. Note that it is inappropriate to confer SA status to an administrator without
some level of accompanying ongoing activities with the spirit of what their own SA
faculty are expected to be engaging in to be deemed “Scholarly Academics.”
Title alone is not sufficient to confer qualification status. Administrators who cease
administrative functions and return as faculty members would ordinarily be granted a

reasonable amount of time to regain currency in teaching or research as needed and
would maintain their faculty qualifications status during this transition time, after which
he/she would be expected to be classified according to the school’s normal faculty
qualifications criteria. The school may define what it considers reasonable transition
time, but such transition time would normally not exceed three years.
Below is additional guidance on each of these categories in terms of both definitions and
the types of activities in which each type of faculty engages on an ongoing, sustained
basis.
(1) Scholarly Academic (SA) faculty normally possess a terminal degree in a field related
to the area of teaching. The standard specifically includes a PhD or DBA, MST, LLM,
or JD, but other terminal degrees may also be appropriate as described below.
Other terminal degrees may be appropriate for SA or PA status. For example, an MD
teaching in a healthcare management program may be appropriately classified as
SA or PA if the faculty member engages in ongoing sustained activities consistent
with the school’s criteria for SA or PA classification. We envision a future
environment where terminally-qualified faculty outside of business are increasingly
common as SA and PA faculty, and they bring a broad and rich perspective to
business education in ways that truly accelerate innovation, foster engagement, and
amplify the impact of business education.
It is the closeness to the field of teaching and relevant ongoing activities in the field
of teaching that, combined with a terminal degree, that establishes the appropriate
faculty qualification status. The less related the terminal degree is to a faculty
member’s field of teaching, the more important it is for that faculty member to
demonstrate sustained, substantive academic and/or professional engagement to
support currency and relevancy in their field of teaching and contributions to other
mission components.
SA faculty may undertake a variety of academic engagement activities to support
maintenance of this status. A non-exhaustive list of academic engagement activities
includes the following:

-Scholarly activities leading to the production of scholarship outcomes as
documented in Standard 8;
 Relevant, active editorships with academic journals or other business
publications;
- Service on editorial boards or committees;
- Validation of SA status through leadership positions, participation in recognized
academic societies and associations, research awards, academic fellow status,
invited presentations, etc.;
-Significant participation in academic associations, professional standard-setting
or policymaking bodies.

(2) Practice Academic (PA) faculty normally possess a terminal degree in a field
related to the area of teaching. PA faculty may undertake a variety of professional
engagement activities to interact with business and management practice to
support maintenance of this status. While schools may choose to include a
publication requirement in their own faculty qualification criteria, Standard 3 does
not require a PA faculty member to publish.
A non-exhaustive list of professional engagement activities includes the following:

-Consulting activities that are material in terms of time and substance;
-Faculty internships;
- Development and presentation of executive education programs;
- Sustained professional work supporting qualified status;
- Significant participation in business professional associations, professional
standard-setting bodies, or policymaking bodies;
- Practice-oriented intellectual contributions, as detailed in Standard 8;
- Relevant, active service on boards of directors;
- Documented continuing professional education experiences;
- Participation in professional events that focus on the practice of business,
management, and related issues; and
- Participation in other activities that place faculty in direct engagement with
business or other organizational leaders.

(3) Scholarly Practitioner (SP) faculty normally possess a master’s degree in a
discipline related to the field of teaching. In limited cases, SP or IP status may be
appropriate for individuals without master’s degrees if the depth, duration,
sophistication, and complexity of their professional experience at the time of hiring
outweighs their lack of master’s degree qualifications. In such cases, the school is
expected to make its case for SP or IP status.
Normally, at the time that a school hires an SP or IP faculty member, that faculty
member’s professional experience is current, substantial in terms of duration and
level of responsibility, and clearly linked to the field in which the person is expected
to teach. The less related the initial professional experience is to the faculty
member’s field of teaching, or the longer the time since the relevant experience
occurred, the faculty member must demonstrate higher levels of sustained,
substantive academic and/or professional engagement related to the field of
teaching in order to maintain professional qualifications.
A non-exhaustive list of academic and professional engagement activities an SP
faculty member may engage in includes the following:

- Scholarly activities leading to the production of scholarship outcomes as
documented in Standard 8;
- Relevant, active editorships with academic, professional, or other business or
management publications;

-Service on editorial boards or committees;
-Validation of SP status through leadership positions in recognized academic
societies, research awards, academic fellow status, invited presentations, etc.;
- Development and presentation of continuing professional education activities
or executive education programs; and
- Significant participation in academic associations, professional standardsetting
bodies, or policymaking bodies.

(4) Instructional Practitioner (IP) faculty may undertake a variety of professional
engagement activities involving business and management practice to support
maintenance of this status. A non-exhaustive list of professional engagement
activities includes the following:

- Consulting activities that are material in terms of time and substance;
- Faculty internships;
- Development and presentation of executive education programs;
- Sustained professional work supporting IP status;
- Significant participation in business professional associations, professional
standard-setting bodies, or policymaking bodies;
- Relevant, active service on boards of directors;
- Documented continuing professional education experiences;
- Documented professional certifications in the area of teaching;
- Participation in professional events that focus on the practice of business,
management, and related issues; and
- Participation in other activities that place faculty in direct contact with business
and other organizational leaders.

While the standard does not prescribe minimum ratios by degree program, location, and
modality, the standard expects the school to have an appropriate blend of qualified
faculty across these dimensions.

Completion of Table 3-1: Faculty Qualifications
The header of Table 3-1 should specify the normal academic year format or schedule
being used (e.g., September 2020–June 2021). Shorter terms such as summer or
intersession terms should be excluded from the academic year for these purposes.
Table 3-1 should list all faculty contributing to the mission of the school, including
participating and supporting faculty, graduate students who are instructors of record
with formal teaching responsibilities, and faculty with significant administrative
responsibilities, regardless of whether such administrators are teaching. Faculty who
are on short-term leave and who are expected to return to faculty should be included in
the table and a footnote explanation provided.

Normally, the determining factor for who is included in Table 3-1 is: Which individuals
have primary engagement with the learner, regardless of the modality and method of
delivery of the course. The instructional faculty members who have primary
engagement with the learner, either directly or indirectly, must be reported in Table 3-1,
regardless of whether they are full-time, adjuncts, or faculty contracted through a third
party. Examples of indirect engagement with students include engagement through the
use of teaching assistants/tutors or through enhanced artificial intelligence. In the case
of an individual who designs the course but does not have any subsequent engagement
with learners, the individual would not be included in the table. Instead, it would be the
individual(s) that have primary engagement with the students who are included in the
table. In the case of teaching assistants/tutors supporting a faculty member teaching
large courses, the teaching assistants/tutors would not be included in the table. Schools
using such models should document how the model supports high-quality academic
programs.
While a faculty member could technically meet the school’s criteria for more than one
category (e.g., SA and PA), the faculty member should be reported in only one
category.
Table 3-1 should not include the following faculty members:

• For interdisciplinary programs, faculty teaching non-business courses.
• Faculty teaching courses or modules that service the general university population.
  Some examples include, but are not limited to, courses intended for non-business
  majors, lower-level business communications courses where basic oral and written
  communications is the primary content, economics courses serviced outside the
  business school, non-business courses that are prerequisites to business, math,
  calculus, statistics courses serviced outside the business school, or foreign
  language classes
• Faculty teaching in partner schools supporting a collaborative provision program
  that is deemed out of scope for the AACSB-accredited school.
• Faculty supporting any transfer credit such as advanced placement courses, dual
  credit courses through high school and university arrangements, courses
  transferred in through articulation agreements, or study abroad courses transferred
  in.
• Faculty members who are solely dedicated to the delivery of non-credit executive
  education programs, non-credit certificates, etc. For faculty who deliver both noncredit
  executive education and credit-bearing courses, the faculty member should
  be included in the tables with respect to the credit-bearing courses only.
• Faculty members who terminated employment with the school prior to the most
  recently completed regular academic year should not be included in Table 3-1.
  However, faculty who left mid-year for the most recent regular academic year
  of record (i.e., they left during the self-study year) may be included for the
  portion of the year they were a faculty member, with an appropriate footnote to
  denote that the faculty member has left. Percent of time devoted to mission
  should be adjusted accordingly. For example, a full-time faculty member who
  left midway through the self-study year would be reflected as 50 percent
  devoted to mission in Table 3-1. Faculty members who joined the school midyear
  are similarly treated. For Table 8-1 purposes, it is not necessary to
  apportion the intellectual contributions portfolio for such faculty members; thus,
  the entire intellectual contributions portfolio is included.
• Teaching assistants or tutors who support an instructor of record by assisting in
  grading, test proctoring, tutoring, and conducting labs for students.

Calculating “Percent of Time Devoted to Mission”
“Percent of time devoted to mission” reflects each faculty member’s contributions to the
school’s overall mission during the period of evaluation. Reasons for less than 100
percent might include part-time employment, shared appointment with another
academic unit, or other assignments that make the faculty member partially unavailable
to the school.
A full-time faculty member’s percent of time devoted to mission is normally 100 percent.
For doctoral students who have formal teaching duties, the percent of time devoted to
mission should reflect their teaching duties only, and not any other activities associated
with their roles as a student, e.g., work on a dissertation. For example, a doctoral
student who teaches one class over the normal academic year, and a part-time faculty
member whose responsibilities are limited to the same level of activity, should be
assigned the same percent of time devoted to mission. A faculty member teaching in
more than one discipline may be listed multiple times, but the percent of time devoted to
mission should be reflected proportionally in each discipline and should not be more
than 100 percent. For part-time faculty, the expected percent is less than 100 percent
and should reflect the amount of time devoted to the mission. If a school used a fulltime
equivalent (FTE) human resources system, then the FTE may be a reasonable
approximation for percent of time devoted to mission. In the absence of an FTE system,
the school should have a rational manner (e.g., total contracted hours, etc.) of assigning
the percent to part-time faculty that is, as a best practice, agreed to by the peer review
team well in advance of the report submission.
The key is to determine, on a percentage basis, the amount of time a school considers
a normal teaching load for a given semester. That amount is then applied to those who
are less than full time to determine the percent of time that individual is considered
“devoted to mission” for all of the duties that individual performs in a given semester.

Sample Calculations of Percent of Time Devoted to Mission:
The following are three sample calculations under the assumption a school has a
40/30/30 FTE model, meaning 40 percent of the faculty member’s time is devoted to
research, 30 percent of their time is devoted to teaching, and 30 percent of their time is
devoted to service.
If an individual is assigned additional duties, this percentage would be added to the
percentage devoted to teaching.

• Example 1: Faculty member teaches one 3-hour (expressed in student credit
  hours, or “SCH”) class per year and has no additional teaching, research, or
  service responsibilities. Standard teaching load is nine credit hours per
  semester, or 18 credit hours per year. The percent-of-time calculation is based
  on the standard teaching load for a full-time faculty member per year. Thus, the
  denominator in this example is 18 credit hours, while the numerator is the
  apportioned effort the school attributes to teaching—in this case 30%.
  Percent of time devoted to mission is 30%/18 credit hours = 1.67%/credit hour
  x 3 credit hours for a class = 5%. This is the number that would go in Table 3-1
  under the appropriate faculty qualification cell.
• Example 2: Faculty member teaches one class per year and has 10% service
  assigned and no research expectations. Standard teaching load is 9 credit
  hours per semester, or 18 hours per academic year.
  Percent of time devoted to mission is 5% (same calculation as above) + 10
  service% = 15%. This is the number that would go in Table 3-1 under the
  appropriate faculty qualification cell.
• Example 3: Faculty member teaches two classes per year and has no
  additional teaching, research, or service responsibilities. Standard teaching
  load is 12 credit hours per semester, or 24 hours per academic year.
  Percent of time devoted to mission is 30/24 = 1.25%/credit hour x 6 credit
  hours = 7.5%. This is the number that would go in Table 3-1 under the
  appropriate faculty qualification cell.

Completion of Table 3-2: Deployment of Faculty by Qualification Status in
Support of Degree Programs

• The school should provide an analysis of the deployment of SA, PA, SP, IP,
  and Additional faculty by degree program level (bachelor’s, master’s, doctoral).
  Bachelor’s degrees can be combined into one line; postgraduate degrees
  should be broken out by degree program. MBA programs may be combined
  into one line; however, where significant differences exist among types of MBA
  programs or target audiences, it is preferable to show these varying MBA
  programs broken out on separate lines.
• The school must complete Table 3-2 in the format provided in this document to
  demonstrate deployment of faculty resources across each degree program
  level. Deployment should be consistent with the school’s mission, expected
  outcomes, and strategies. Peer review teams may request more detail related
  to a discipline, program, delivery mode, and/or location.
• The school should provide information for the most recently completed regular
  academic year. Each cell represents the percentage of total teaching (whether
  measured by credit hours, contact hours, courses taught, or another metric
  appropriate to the school) for each degree program at each level, by faculty
  qualifications status. The sum across each row should total 100 percent. Provide
  a brief analysis that explains the deployment of faculty, as noted above, to
  mission, expected outcomes, and strategies.
• All cells should be formatted consistently and reflected as percentages (e.g., 40%).

Faculty and Professional Staff Development
The school should be able to produce upon request promotion and tenure policies (if
applicable) for the various units of the school, as well as annual evaluation policies. One
question of interest to the peer review team is whether such policies are clearly
communicated and understood by the faculty and staff.
Consistent with Standards 1 and 7, the school is expected to plan for and provide
resources for assisting faculty in maintaining currency with current and emerging
technology. This is especially important in areas in which technology is rapidly changing.
In areas where doctoral students or other graduate students have teaching
responsibilities, the school should describe how it ensures the quality and preparedness
of these students for successful classroom experiences. This is particularly true for
doctoral students, consistent with Standard 7.
Development of both faculty and professional staff is also expected and may include
internal or external training and upskilling as needed to remain current and support the
school’s faculty and students. Certifications such as the Certified Management &
Business Educator (“CMBE”) credential offered by the Chartered Association of
Business Schools for master teaching, provides the means for ongoing or continuous
development as well as validating expertise. Additionally, the Higher Education Academy
HEA Fellows program can be explored as a way to externally validate expertise in
teaching. These are intended as examples that exist among a number of programs.

While there is some overlap between Standards 3 and 7 with respect to the provision of
teaching resources, the distinction is that Standard 3 lays out the expectation that
appropriate training and technology, along with other resources needed for success in
the classroom, are available, while Standard 7 is where the school describes how these
resources have been employed to improve teaching effectiveness and impact of
teaching.

III. Sample Tables