中欧进入美国商学院协会（AACSB）认证程序

zoudaodi

以下是引用freeagle在2005-2-25 9:30:00的发言：
香港的有香港中文大学，香港城市大学，香港科技大学，大陆一家都没有，dublinstone看得很仔细，我觉得长江在有意无意混淆民众视听。

这样作假的学校和野鸡学校有什么区别哟

trojans

长江也没有作假，他们的确可能拿到了AACSB的会员资格，只是这个会员资格对于证明学校的教学和管理质量没有任何意义和关联，和中欧目前进行的认证是完全两回事。AACSB accreditation是极为严格的，通常要4-5年才能完成评估，而且AACSB还会指派专门人选对申请学校如何提高教学和管理质量进行指导。所以，中欧这次申请AACSB认证不管成功与否，都可以预期到他们教学和管理质量的提高和与国际标准的靠拢，对我们申请人来说都是好事情。相比之下，长江因为成立时间短，可能还没有足够的数据和资格申请EQUIS或者AACSB的认证，所以就走了捷径申请了AACSB会员资格，本来是无可厚非的事情，只是应该对个中区别向大家交待的清楚点，不然不仅真的有点混淆视听哗众取宠的嫌疑，而且也让大家明了真相之后感觉到长江底气不足的无奈。还不如从一开始就老老实实做人，该是什么就是什么比较好。

总是两难

以下是引用lzhang2000在2005-2-25 9:32:00的发言：
I would say this shows significantly different styles bewteen different schools:-)

you could not be more right.

dublinstone

其实我们可以从另外一个角度看这个问题：我们能学到什么？

因为正好选修了传媒在商业领域的作用这个课程，所以从传媒角度来分析（申明：以下分析是试图进行案例分析，而不是对于所涉及的人，组织，公司进行评价，谢谢）：

长江的做法，我不觉得有错。长江提供的信息本身都是没有错误的，或者说正确的。长江也没有什么走捷径，从客观的角度分析，没有一定的水平，也不可能成为会员。

长江的技巧，是在信息披露的方式上。对比长江网站上的中英文新闻，

长江动态
和
CKGSB Joins AACSB's Membership

就可以发现，英文版上的这条新闻，最后一段和中文版本不一样，或者说，英文版上披露了关于会员和认证之间的区别。中文网站的受众就是中文读者了。这个很正常，因为长江的主要目标客户，也是大中华区的潜在领袖人物。而且，长江也的确没有义务翻译AACSB上的内容，而且，信息披露不构成合同要约的一部分，除非是广告，那么，如果中文读者认为会员和认证之间有什么关系，那么就是读者自己的责任了。实际上，就前面的情况来看，长江披露了相关信息，至少是在英文版本的新闻上。

如果有读者因为阅读了中文网站上的新闻而对长江这样做而发出一些评论，并做了公开表达，比如，某DX说“这样作假的学校和野鸡学校有什么区别哟”，那么，按西方的标准，是构成了诽谤Libel。根据我学的来分析，可以说这个是很直接的Libel了。理论上，是可以被起诉的当然，这里还有许多空间让发表言论者避免这样的不利情况的。

问题是，为什么读者会产生这样的理解偏差呢？这个是人的思维惯性。信息都有暗示功能。不完全的信息更加有了想象的空间。而我们是认为，以母语思考，并且以母语作为法律凭证，这个是很自然的事情。但是，在英语这样一个强势语言前，如果是涉外信息，的确会经常有母语信息和英语信息披露不对称，从而信息不完全的问题。这个当中，有翻译的问题，有信息披露的技巧问题。比如查一些英文信息，通过Google直接查，首先出来的是中文版本，因为Google默认我们的语言是中文，那么，看到的也许是中文翻译稿。而中文翻译稿是否信，雅，达，就要看翻译机构的水平了。另外，还要看你看到的是第几手稿件了。信号在传输过程中的损失（包括自身原因和外部原因），是信号处理的一个基本原理，也是传媒实践中的一个基本原理。在许多商业活动中，我们都可以看到类似的情况。广告信息是非常典型的不完全信息披露，从而促使读者产生想象。

在到中欧后的第一天，Linda老师给所有同学上了一个思想教育课：如何引用别人的资料。其中有一个，是要尽可能引用最初的出处，而不是引用别人引用的。这个当中，就有避免信息不对称，而导致自己处于信息劣势的问题。因为别人引用的时候，很有可能是省略了许多对你理解很有用的信息。这个在我这门课上也得到了印证。但是，你不可能因为你通过二手，三手引用的资料产生的问题，而指责二手，三手信息的作者。因为他们没有义务为你提供全部信息。要获得全部信息，最可靠，当然也会花费一些时间，就是查到最初的出处。

引申开来，在CD上，大家引用一些消息，不要只是看到消息本身就发表评论，而是应该查查相关的资料，官方网站上是怎么说的，第三方是如何评论的，这样或许能在今后的商业活动，学术活动中避免不必要的口水和律师费。

[此贴子已经被作者于2005-2-26 17:19:18编辑过]

grossman

Trojans and lzhang2000,

Did CK ever said that it was accreditated by accsb on its web page? If it claimed so and it was not then you could say that CK is not 厚道. The question should be: Is CK a member of ACCSB? If it is not and it claimed so then it is not 厚道. To support your claim, you should call ACCSB to see if CK is a member of ACCSB or not. You have not provide such an evidence yet. I hope that you have a hard look at the facts before you rush to judgement call.

By the way, is CEIBS a member of ACCSB? could someone find out?

I hope that people are rational rather than emotional on this board. We also need to think positively. CK's view is that CEIBS is a good school but CK believes that they are better. I hope that people who have some allegiance to CEIBS think more positively and think more highly of themselves. I hope that CEIBS is willing to say that they want to be the best in the world, not just the best in Asia. Chinese already have a reputation of experts of inside fighting and we do not need that here. We are all Chinese and we compete with each other to make all of us better.

Indeed, I think many of the discussion here exhibit a clan mentality that seem to be very destructive rather than constructive. Many people are trying to say our rivals are worse and that's why we are better. This is a very sad reality about Chinese education.

Come on, guys! Mr. Li Ka-shing has put aside 2 billion RMB for CK. It is a good thing for China. It is a good thing for Chinese MBA education. I also want to argue that it is a good thing for CEIBS.  With CK coming up strong, CEIBS will feel the heat and that can make CEIBS better. CEIBS cannot rely on part time faculty forever to become a real top world class business school and that is what CEIBS has learnt from CK by hiring some permanent faculties of their own.

CEIBS is a pioneer in MBA education in China and you have to grant them that. But what is wrong with some competition. Competition can only make the consumers of higher education better off. CKGSB attracted talented faculties to come home from abroad so that they can share their knowledge with the business community in China. Professor Ming Huang, who used to be at Stanford and Chicago and won many teaching and research awards at these schools, would never have come back without CKGSB. (When Professor Huang was on the job market, his advisors at Stanford forbid him to apply to schools lower than top 15. he applied to top 13 schools as two schools were not hiring. He got thirteen job interviews, thirteen campus visits, thirteen job offers and was on the cover of Businessweek. No one, Chinese or non-Chinese has beat this record. That is the CK style: on the top of the world.)

lzhang2000

Hi Grossman, I have NEVER commented on whether CK is "HouDao" or not. So please clam down. I am sorry about your perception. Please let the readers comment on the news of your school (maybe your employer?). A fact is that, at least as indicated here, some persons thought CK already got AACSB membership after reading your Chinese version news. Why just yelling at others while not review the wording by yourselves????

Thanks for your long, long words. Even though I did not spend much time reading it, I appreciate your loyalty to CKGSB. Please not be emotional, though. Take it easy:-) If I offended you somehow, please accept my appology. I only care for a fair environment for all of candidates. That is all.

grossman

Apology accepted. Actually, I only looked at the English version and it seemed alright. I should have checked the 

Chinese version. The Chinese version does miss out the last paragraph in the English version and it should

be put back in. The truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. That is what we should strive for.

Someone should drop a message to the web news team to get the last paragraph translated as well and the Chinese

version should be as close to the English version as possible. 

The following are the relevant web messages in both versions: 

CKGSB Joins AACSB's Membership Effective as of June 28, 2004, CKGSB officially becomes a member of AACSB International. AACSB’s Board of Directors unanimously voted to approve CKGSB’s membership based on a set of eligibility criterion including program positioning and cycles, faculty size & composition, student composition, curriculum etc. With 88 years of history, AACSB International is a US based premier accreditation agency of business schools worldwide. Its 17 founding members include Columbia University, Cornell University, Dartmouth College, Harvard University, New York University, Northwestern University, The Ohio State University, Tulane University, UC-Berkeley, University of Chicago, University of Illinois, University of Nebraska, University of Pennsylvania, University of Pittsburgh, University of Texas, University of Wisconsin-Madison, and Yale University. Now the organization has a total membership of around 1000 business schools and corporations. In addition to accreditation, the organization has expanded its role as a source of information, training, and networking for business school deans from around the world. While membership does not constitute accreditation, it signifies CKGSB’s continued effort in playing an active role in the international business community, as well as monitoring industry trends and benchmarking information for quality improvement purposes.

长江商学院成为国际管理教育协会（AACSB）会员

自2004年6月28日起，长江商学院正式成为国际管理教育协会（AACSB）会员。对长江的项目市场定位，师资队伍建设，学生质量和课程设置等经过严格的资格审查后，AACSB董事会投票决议，一致批准长江商学院获得该协会的会员资格。

国际管理教育协会(AACSB)是对全球商学院进行资质鉴定的权威性机构，总部设于美国，已有88年历史。17个始创成员为哥伦比亚大学、康奈尔大学、达特茅斯大学、哈佛大学、纽约大学、西北大学、俄亥俄州立大学、图灵大学、加州大学伯克利分校、芝加哥大学、伊利诺斯大学、内布拉斯加大学、宾西法尼亚大学、匹兹堡大学、德克萨斯大学、威斯康星－麦迪逊大学和耶鲁大学。迄今为止，该协会已有1000个商学院和企业会员。除了认证服务，AACSB还为世界范围内的管理教育机构提供信息，培训和各种资源。

落花流水

我终于弄明白了这其中的玄机。长江还是改不了浮夸的老毛病。混淆视听是长江一贯的伎俩。成天吹嘘李嘉诚名下的企业提供广阔的就业前景，可是进入李氏企业的寥寥无几。标榜学生的gmat成绩如何高，殊不知是用高分奖学金做诱饵，鼓励那些已经录取的学生不断重考。闻所未闻啊。这个学校还有诚信吗？

落花流水

读MBA也就是来提高一下，混个好的钱途。做学问是找错了地方。不知道长江吹嘘的教授的行头对学生找工作会不会有很大的帮助。恐怕会被用人单位笑掉大牙的。

grossman

Mr. 落花流水 had the following comment in an earlier post:

"长江的教授都是华人教授。除了个别冒尖的，大部分都来自美国二三流的学校。"

I have the following comments:

1. If the word 华人 had any negative connotation in your comment, shame on you. If you are a Chinese citizen, your should be exiled. If you are a non-Chinese citizen, you should be deported.

2. On the other hand, if the implication is that CK has discriminated against non-Chinese professors, it is not true. Some of the non-Chinese faculties who applied for CK and was rejected because either he/she do not meet the academic standard of CK or because he/she cannot spend 12 months/year in China. Many of the short term visiting professors who taught at CK are non-Chinese. For example, Ravi dhar of Yale, Ron Wilcox of Virginia, Jim Ohlson of ASU, etc.

3. Full time professors at CK had tenure track positions at Chicago, MIT, Yale, Stanford, Berkeley, UCLA, Duke, Carnegie-Mellon, UBC, Wharton, UNC, NYU, U. of Minnesota, INSEAD etc. If you view these schools and 2nd-3rd tier schools, CK is very happy to hire more faculties from these 2-3 tier schools. I wonder what  your definition  of  first tier school would be.

CK differentiates from other schools in its focus on research and knowledge creation. That is the path CK has chosen. Recruiters' ranking is not everything. In Wall Street Journal ranking which relies exclusively on recruiters, Stanford is ranked #46 while Southern Methodist University is ranked #8. I wonder how many people had heard of SMU here and how many would have chosen Stanford over SMU if both schools give them offers.