HOW ARE WE DOING? UNDERGRADUATE MARKETING PROGRAMS' OUTCOMES ASSESSMENT EFFORTS Carolyn Y. Nicholson, Stetson University Rebecca J. Oliphant, Stetson University ABSTRACT Much has been written about efforts devoted to measuring the effectiveness of business school programs (e.g., Farman and Jablonka 1990). Clearly, significant effort has been devoted to the task of assessment. Earning and maintaining AACSB accreditation, along with responding to critics of dated curricula, have been driving forces in assessing outcomes. A glance at assessment in the marketing department, on the other hand, tells a dramatically different tale. Although journals provide guidance for teaching and curriculum, assessment efforts at the program or major level have received significantly less attention. Anecdotally, assessment initiatives seem to be trickling down to the department level very slowly. In spite of major initiatives at the school and university level, specific goals and core competencies in marketing programs are rarely enumerated (Shank, Adams, and Beasley 1998), much less assessed. Although limited research on assessment within marketing programs exists (e.g., Glynn and Rajendran 1993; Miller and Chamberlain 1991), we do not know the current usage and range of outcomes assessments for evaluating curricula. In particular, how have assessment efforts advanced during a decade of focus on the process? This research reports on assessment efforts in AACSB- accredited marketing programs. Area coordinators and chairs of marketing degree programs in 331 U.S. AACSBaccredited business schools were asked to list the Outcomes assessments utilized in their marketing areas. The sample includes data from 137 programs, a response rate of 41.4%. The results (see Table 1) indicate that a wide range of tools is being utilized to assess competency of marketing students. These assessment tools can be organized as being student-based, alumni-based, and employer-based. Of particular note is the fact that 27.74% of programs are not using any assessment tools at the department level beyond traditional faculty oversight in courses and placement rates. Of the programs utilizing additional assessment tools, 11.11% gather data from all three publics, while 18.2% gather data from students and alumni only, and an additional 6. 1% gather data from students and employers only. SELECTED REFERENCES Farman, Sue R. and Kary D. Jablonka (1990), "Outcome Assessment: A Tool for Enhancing Quality, Relevance and Accountability," International Journal of Public Administration 13, 257-77. Glynn, Karen A. and K.N. Rajendran (1993)., "Perceptual-Based Student Outcomes Assessment Process in the Marketing Curriculum," Journal of Education for Business, 69 (Sept/Oct), 11-7. Miller, Fred and Don Chamberlain (199 1), "The Current Status of Outcomes Assessment in Marketing Education." Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 19 (Fall), 353-62.

Shank, Matthew D., David R. Adams and Fred M. Beasley (1998), "What Constitutes Consumer Behavior Literacy?" Marketing Education Review, 8 (Summer), 127-34.