STATEMENT OF ACCREDITATION STATUS

CORNELL UNIVERSITY
300 Day Hall
Ithaca, NY 14853
Phone: (607) 255-2000; Fax: (607) 255-9924
www.cornell.edu

Most Recent Commission Action:

March 5, 2009:

To acknowledge receipt of the substantive change request and to include the following additional locations for the Cornell-Queens Executive Boardroom MBA within the scope of the institution's accreditation: (1) The Cornell Club, 6 East 44th Street, New York, NY 10017; (2) Regus Amherst Center, Suite 100, 300 International Drive, Williamsville, NY 14221; (3) Regus Metro Place, One Metro Place, Suite 100, Dublin, OH 43017; (4) Regus Park One Center, Suite 200, 6100 Oaktree Boulevard, Independence, OH 44131; (5) Regus Evening Star, 1101 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, 6th Floor, Washington, DC 20004; and (6) Regus Key Center, 601 108th Avenue SE, 19th Floor, Bellevue, WA 98004. The next evaluation visit is scheduled for 2010 - 2011.

Brief History Since Last Comprehensive Evaluation:

November 16, 2006:

To accept the Periodic Review Report and to reaffirm accreditation.

November 16, 2006:

To thank the institution for receiving the Commission's representative, and to affirm inclusion of the additional location in Doha, Qatar within the scope of the institution's accreditation. To accept the progress letter and to remind the institution of the two progress letters, due by April 1, 2007, the first, documenting the development and implementation of a comprehensive plan for the assessment of student learning for the Boardroom Executive MBA distance learning program and the second, documenting the development and implementation of a comprehensive plan for the assessment of student learning for the Palisades, NY site. The next evaluation visit is scheduled for 2010-2011.

March 8, 2007:

To acknowledge receipt of the New York State Education Department letters of approval submitted by the institution and to include the additional location in Palisades, NY and the distance learning (videoconferencing) Boardroom Executive MBA program within the scope of the institution's accreditation. To remind the institution that the Commission previously requested two progress letters, due by April 1, 2007, documenting (1) the development and implementation of a comprehensive plan for the assessment of student learning for the Palisades, NY site, and (2) the development and implementation of a comprehensive plan for the assessment of student learning for the distance learning program. To further remind the institution that the Commission directed a site visit within six months after the Palisades, NY additional location had been established. The next evaluation visit is scheduled for 2010-2011.

June 28, 2007:

To accept the progress letter submitted by the institution.

June 28, 2007:

To thank the institution for receiving the Commission's representative, and to affirm inclusion of the additional location at the IBM Palisades, Route 9W, Palisades, New York within the scope of the institution's accreditation. The next evaluation visit is scheduled for 2010-2011.

November 15, 2007:

To thank the institution for receiving the Commission's representative, and to affirm inclusion of the additional location at Nanyang Technological University in Singapore within the scope of the institution's accreditation. The next evaluation visit is scheduled for 2010-2011.

January 2, 2008:

To acknowledge receipt of the substantive change request submitted by the institution and to include the additional location at Bahir Dar University in Bahir Dar, Ethiopia within the scope of the institution's accreditation. The next evaluation visit is scheduled for 2010-2011.

April 30, 2008:

To acknowledge receipt of the substantive change request submitted by the institution and to include the additional location at Tamil Nadu Agricultural University, Coimbatore, India within the scope of the institution's accreditation.

April 30, 2008:

To acknowledge receipt of the substantive change request submitted by the institution and to include the Master of Engineering - Systems Engineering distance learning program within the scope of the institution's accreditation effective upon receipt of New York State Education Department approval. The next evaluation visit is scheduled for 2010-2011.

November 20, 2008:

To acknowledge notification of approval by the New York State Department of Education and to affirm inclusion of the Master of Engineering -- Systems Engineering distance learning program within the scope of the institution's accreditation. The next evaluation visit is scheduled for 2010 - 2011.

Next Self-Study Evaluation: 2010 - 2011

Next Periodic Review Report: 2016

Date Printed: July 1, 2009

DEFINITIONS

Branch Campus - A location of an institution that is geographically apart and independent of the main campus of the institution. The location is independent if the location: offers courses in educational programs leading to a degree, certificate, or other recognized educational credential; has its own faculty and administrative or supervisory organization; and has its own budgetary and hiring authority.

Additional Location - A location, other than a branch campus, that is geographically apart from the main campus and at which the institution offers at least 50 percent of an educational program.

Other Instructional Sites - A location, other than a branch campus or additional location, at which the institution offers one or more courses for credit.

Distance Learning Programs - Yes or No indicates whether or not the institution has been approved to offer one or more degree or certificate/diploma programs for which students could meet 50% or more of their requirements by taking distance learning courses.

EXPLANATION OF COMMISSION ACTIONS

An institution's accreditation continues unless it is explicitly suspended or removed. In addition to reviewing the institution's accreditation status at least every 5 years, actions are taken for substantive changes (such as a new degree or geographic site, or a change of ownership) or when other events occur that require review for continued compliance. Any type of report or visit required by the Commission is reviewed and voted on by the Commission after it is completed.

In increasing order of seriousness, a report by an institution to the Commission may be accepted, acknowledged, or rejected.

Levels of Actions:

Grant or Re-Affirm Accreditation without follow-up

Defer a decision on initial accreditation: The institution shows promise but the evaluation team has identified issues of concern and recommends that the institution be given a specified time period to address those concerns.

Postpone a decision on (reaffirmation of) accreditation: The Commission has determined that there is insufficient information to substantiate institutional compliance with one or more standards.

Continue accreditation: A delay of up to one year may be granted to ensure a current and accurate representation of the institution or in the event of circumstances beyond the institution’s control (natural disaster, U.S. State Department travel warnings, etc.)

Recommendations to be addressed in the next Periodic Review Report: Suggestions for improvement are given, but no follow-up is needed for compliance.

Supplemental Information Report: This is required when a decision is postponed and are intended only to allow the institution to provide further information, not to give the institution time to formulate plans or initiate remedial action.

Progress letter: The Commission needs assurance that the institution is carrying out activities that were planned or were being implemented at the time of a report or on-site visit.

Monitoring report: There is a potential for the institution to become non-compliant with MSCHE standards; issues are more complex or more numerous; or issues require a substantive, detailed report. A visit may or may not be required.

Warning: The Commission acts to Warn an institution that its accreditation may be in jeopardy when the institution is not in compliance with one or more Commission standards and a follow-up report, called a monitoring report, is required to demonstrate that the institution has made appropriate improvements to bring itself into compliance. Warning indicates that the Commission believes that, although the institution is out of compliance, the institution has the capacity to make appropriate improvements within a reasonable period of time and the institution has the capacity to sustain itself in the long term.

Probation: The Commission places an institution on Probation when, in the Commission’s judgment, the institution is not in compliance with one or more Commission standards and that the non-compliance is sufficiently serious, extensive, or acute that it raises concern about one or more of the following:

1. the adequacy of the education provided by the institution;
2. the institution’s capacity to make appropriate improvements in a timely fashion; or
3. the institution’s capacity to sustain itself in the long term.

Probation is often, but need not always be, preceded by an action of Warning or Postponement. If the Commission had previously postponed a decision or placed the institution on Warning, the Commission may place the institution on Probation if it determines that the institution has failed to address satisfactorily the Commission’s concerns in the prior action of postponement or warning regarding compliance with Commission standards. This action is accompanied by a request for a monitoring report, and a special visit follows. Probation may, but need not always, precede an action of Show Cause.

Suspend accreditation: Accreditation has been Continued for one year and an appropriate evaluation is not possible. This is a procedural action that would result in Removal of Accreditation if accreditation cannot be reaffirmed within the period of suspension.

Show cause why the institution's accreditation should not be removed: The institution is required to present its case for accreditation by means of a substantive report and/or an on-site evaluation. A "Public Disclosure Statement" is issued by the Commission.

Remove accreditation. If the institution appeals this action, its accreditation remains in effect until the appeal is completed.

Other actions are described in the Commission policy, "Range of Commission Actions on Accreditation."