University Accreditation Results(Results for Certified Evaluation and Accreditation for University)

Asia University

Basic Information of the Institution
Ownership: Private

Location: Tokyo, Japan

Accreditation Status
Year of the Review: 2019
Accreditation Status: Accredited（Accreditation Period: April 1.2020 – March 31.2027）

Certified Evaluation and Accreditation Resultsfor Asia University
Overview
With the founding principles of “self-help and cooperation,” Asia University (hereinafterreferred to as the “University”) has as its goal “to nurture individuals who can contributeto the development of Asia and other parts of the world.” The University’s mission andpurpose are based on these principles and goal. In order to achieve its founding principles
and purpose, the University has established the mid- to long-term plan Asia FutureRoadmap 2025, presenting further detailed policies in the form of four visions. Therefore,
the University is making efforts to improve its educational and research activities. The
University continues to implement various programs toward achieving its founding
principles, including the Asia University America Program (AUAP) in which many
students have participated since its launch in 1988.
The University is committed to disclosure. It has laid down policies andprocedures for internal quality assurance and has made relevant information accessible
via its website and other means. The University is actively engaged in self-assessment
and review. It has established a Self-Assessment and Review Committee as anorganization responsible for internal quality assurance across the whole University.
However, improvement should be made to clarify the Self-Assessment and Review
Committee’s relationship with other internal quality assurance organizations such as theInternal Quality Assurance Inspection Committee and the Three-Year Mid-Term Action
Plan Implementation Committee, its roles, and its authority in the regulations.
Regarding education, faculties and graduate schools have established andannounced their degree award policies and curriculum design and implementation
policies (curriculum policies) in line with the characteristics of their respective disciplines,
based on the University’s overall degree award policy (diploma policy). The curriculumof each faculty and graduate school is systematically structured in line with the curriculum
design and implementation policy, and subjects are provided according to four criteriathat have been established to foster social and professional independence among students.
In order to develop globally-minded individuals, the University encourages students tolearn in a way that corresponds to its principles. For example, it offers four study abroad
programs each with different features.
The “Deai-no-Hiroba,” an orientation event for freshmen, which has been held
for over half a century as introductory education for new students, enhances new students’2

sense of belonging to the University through a variety of programs, and functions
effectively as a way to encourage active participation in learning and on-campus activities
after enrollment. The “Deai-no-Hiroba” workshop is remarkable in that senior students
offer guidance to the new students as assistants, which contributes to the growth of thesenior students as well.
There are, however, several issues that need to be resolved. First, the threepolicies (degree award policy, curriculum design and implementation policy, andadmission policy; hereinafter referred to as the “Three Policies”) for the Master’s Courseand Doctor’s Course are identical in some graduate schools, even though they provide
different degrees. This should be corrected. As noted above, the relationship, roles, andauthority of the organizations involved in internal quality assurance are not clearly
defined in the regulations; the learning outcomes of students that are indicated in thedegree award policy are not appropriately grasped or evaluated; and the regulations forseveral committees in charge of discussing university-wide matters pertaining tomanagement of the University, such as the Directors Council Regulations and the Deans
Council Regulations, do not clearly define the specific agendas, quorums, and resolution
methods of the committees in question. These issues should be corrected.
Going forward, we hope the University solves these issues through internal
quality assurance efforts and accelerates its remarkable initiatives for further developmentof its program.
Notable Strengths
Student Support
 As introductory education, new students participate in an orientation on student life
held in April, after enrollment. Furthermore, the University holds the “Deai-noHiroba”, an orientation event for freshmen. It involves exchange between newstudents, faculty members, and current students and a three-day program for practical
introductory education, and aims to enable new students to adapt to university life anddevelop a sense of belonging to the University. Senior students who have taken partin multiple training sessions participate in the “Deai-no-Hiroba” as assistant students.
The senior students develop their own team-building skills and leadership through thetraining sessions and providing guidance to the new students. These initiatives havebeen continually improved and implemented for over half a century since 1969, andrepresent the University’s efforts to implement its founding principles of “self-help3and cooperation.”
Suggestions for Improvement
Internal Quality Assurance Although the Self-Assessment and Review Committee has been established as anorganization responsible for the promotion of internal quality assurance, its
relationship with other internal quality assurance organizations such as the Internal
Quality Assurance Inspection Committee and the Three-Year Mid-Term Action Plan
Implementation Committee, roles, and authority of the respective organizations are
not clearly indicated in the regulations or in terms of actual operation. Therefore, theinternal quality assurance system is not functioning effectively. This situation should
be corrected.
Curricular & Learning Outcomes Faculties carry out a questionnaire survey at the time of graduation to grasp students’learning outcomes that are indicated in the degree award policy. However, the survey
only covers matters such as students’ satisfaction of student life in general, and does
not enable faculties to fully grasp the learning outcomes that are indicated in thedegree award policy. Though graduate schools hold mid-term presentation meetingsand carry out thesis examinations, the relevance of these activities with the learningoutcomes indicated in the degree award policy are unclear. Therefore, faculties andgraduate schools should use diversified methods to appropriately grasp and evaluate
the learning outcomes indicated in the degree award policy.
Student Enrollment
 The ratio of student enrollment to the student enrollment cap is low at 0.43 in theMaster’s Course in the Graduate School of Economics and 0.20 in the Doctor’s
Course in the Graduate School of Asian and International Business Strategy, and there
are no students in the Doctor’s Course in the Graduate School of Economics and theDoctor’s Course in the Graduate School of Law. Therefore, significant improvement
should be made in graduate school quota management.

4University Management and Finance The regulations for several committees in charge of discussing university-wide
matters pertaining to management of the University, such as the Directors Council
Regulations and the Deans Council Regulations, do not clearly define the specificagendas, quorums, resolution methods, and procedures for revision and repeal. TheDirectors Council Regulations define the Directors Council as the “supreme decisionmaking body regarding the daily business of the University,” and does not includeprovisions for ensuring the ultimate authority of the President. The Regulations for
the Board of Acting Directors state that the Board of Acting Directors is a deliberative
body, not a determining body. However, in the actual management process, the Boardof Directors determines important University matters that are outside the scope of its
agenda, such as policies related to budget formation. Such flaws in the universitywide regulations pertaining to management of the University should be corrected
appropriately.
 According to the School Regulations and Faculty Council Regulations, each FacultyCouncil is capable of discussing and determining matters related to curriculumorganization and the examination of the educational and research achievements offaculty members. This is hardly appropriate in light of the revision of the School
Education Act on university governance reform (enacted on April 1, 2015). Similar
provisions are included in the Graduate School Regulations and Graduate School
Committee Regulations. The situation should be improved.
Recommendations
Curricular & Learning Outcomes The degree award policy for the Master’s Course and Doctor’s Course is identical in
the Graduate School of Asian and International Business Strategy and the GraduateSchool of Economics, respectively, even though the courses provide different degrees.
This should be corrected.
 The Master’s Course and Doctor’s Course in the Graduate School of Asian andInternational Business Strategy and the Graduate School of Economics, respectively,
have the same curriculum design and implementation policy, even though the courses
5

provide different degrees. This should be corrected.
Student Enrollment
 The admission policy for the Master’s Course and Doctor’s Course is the same in all
graduate schools, even though the courses provide different degrees. This should becorrected.

6