AACSB Data and Research Blog

Does AACSB Accreditation Matter When Forming Collaborations?

By Colin Nelson

Recently, I’ve been doing some deeper analysis of the data from AACSB’s most recent Collaborations Survey in support of our upcoming Management Education Forum on Developing High-Impact Collaborations. While doing so, I noticed that there were significant differences between AACSB-accredited reporting schools and reporting schools without AACSB accreditation in the proportion of partnerships with other schools by accreditation status.

Figure 1. Reported Partnerships by AACSB Accreditation Status

Source: AACSB International Collaborations Survey 2010-11. Note: This chart does not account for the 45 reported partnerships with non-business academic units or non-educational institutions, for whom accreditation is not applicable.

As a reminder, partnerships in the context of our survey denote a one-to-one relationship between two institutions involved in a collaboration. A reporting school can have one or many partnerships within a single given collaboration.

As you can see, nearly 45% of all partnerships reported by AACSB-accredited schools were with other AACSB-accredited schools. By contrast, less than a quarter of the partnerships reported by schools without AACSB accreditation were with AACSB-accredited schools.

There are a number of different reasons why this difference might exist. AACSB-accredited schools may desire (or simply have the ability) to exercise greater discrimination in their choices of whom to collaborate with. After all, if your partner is also accredited, there is less need to be concerned about whether they can deliver the same level of quality on their part of any collaborative arrangement, so allying with another accredited school may be more attractive as a result.

It is also worth noting that this pattern of partner selection does not necessarily apply universally when you break the total number of partnerships down by the different types of activity we track:

Table 1. Percentage of Reported Partnerships, by Activity Type and Partner Accreditation Status

Activity Type	Accredited Reporting Schools		Non-accredited Reporting Schools
	Accredited Partner	Non-accredited Partner	Accredited Partner	Non-accredited Partner
Articulation/ Twinning Agreement	15.8%	84.2%	25.0%	75.0%
Dual Degree (or Multiple Degree)	36.5%	63.5%	33.0%	67.0%
Faculty Activity	45.2%	54.8%	17.4%	82.6%
Franchise Agreement	14.3%	85.7%	0.0%	100%
Joint Degree	51.0%	49.0%	17.7%	82.3%
Non-Degree/ Executive Education	54.6%	45.4%	35.7%	64.3%
Shared Resources	53.9%	46.1%	32.5%	67.5%
Study Abroad/ Student Exchange	45.5%	54.5%	24.1%	75.9%
Validation Agreement	0.0%	100%	33.3%	66.7%
Other	47.0%	53.0%	15.3%	84.7%

Source: AACSB International Collaborations Survey 2010-11. Note: This table does not account for the 45 reported partnerships with non-business academic units or non-educational institutions, for whom accreditation is not applicable.

More than 80% of all partnerships reported by AACSB-accredited schools involving Articulation/Twinning, Franchise, and Validation Agreements are with partners that do not have AACSB accreditation. This makes sense, of course, because accredited schools are much less likely to have need of AACSB-accredited partners for these types of collaborative activities. On the other hand, when it comes to partnerships involving Joint Degrees, Non-Degree/Executive Education, and Shared Resources, AACSB-accredited schools show a clear preference for partners who are likewise AACSB-accredited.

Visa Regulations Influencing Enrollment Trends?

By Hanna Drozdowski

Recent visa regulations and reforms in the United States and in other countries have lately been a widely discussed topic, in particular to their aftereffects on various industries and organizations. As management education researchers, naturally we tend to focus on issues revolving around student visas, especially business students, but I have observed that other groups are also being significantly affected. 

The other day I came across an article in the New York Times discussing how the strict visa regulations are “depriving the U.S. stage” for foreign artists and performers. According to Homeland Security Department records, “requests for the standard foreign performer’s visa declined by almost 25 percent between 2006 and 2010…During the same period the number of these visa petitions rejected, though small in absolute numbers, rose by more than two-thirds.” 

Relating back to student visa regulations, Hollywood has also used this for a story plot in a fairly recent film called, “Like Crazy,” about a British student studying in the United States who falls in love with an American. Their relationship dramatically complicates when her visa expires and is subsequently banned from entering the country – quite the emotional roller coaster for the couple. 

Focusing on the management education landscape, one article touches on these stricter U.S. regulations on business students, and discusses why Canada is a more appealing destination for foreign MBA students: “Canada's student visa rules, the country's diversity and welcoming reputation also help to give Canadian business schools a vital competitive advantage over schools in the U.K. and the U.S., which are the world's top recruiters of foreign students.” 

Does AACSB data support this statement in regard to the comparison made with the U.S.? In the Business School Questionnaire, we ask schools to indicate the number of students enrolled at different degree levels who are non-citizens without permanent visas and that we can assume are studying on a student visa.

Click Here to View Visa-Enrollment Data

At the Undergraduate level we see that in fact for both Canada and the United States there has been a growth in students who are non-citizens, not holding permanent visas. From 2006-2007 to 2010-2011, the number of these students in Canada rose from 14.2% to 20.9%, while in the U.S. the numbers rose from 3.8% to 6.4%.  At the MBA level, both countries showed more steady trends, however the United States did show a decline from 14.1% in 2006-2007 to 12.6% in 2010-2011, while in Canada the number rose slightly from 28.4% to 29.7% in that same timeframe. Regardless of the change in numbers, a significantly larger percent of students without a permanent visa do enroll at Canadian schools compared to U.S. schools.

 

 

Business Schools and International Branch Campuses

By Colin Nelson*

Globalization is all the rage in higher education these days. Among the many different means by which higher education institutions may seek to broaden their global footprint, however, none is as attention-getting, resource-intensive, or demonstrative of commitment to globalization as the establishment of an international branch campus (IBC).

According to the latest report from the Observatory for Borderless Higher Education (OBHE), the number of IBCs around the world continues to grow, though the pace of institutions establishing IBCs has slowed somewhat from where it was earlier this century. OBHE has identified 200 IBCs worldwide as of the end of 2011, with at least 37 more under development.

Business schools in particular have been leaders in the field of the globalization of higher education, since the practice of management has historically been an internationalized enterprise, and only continues to grow more so. Therefore, it stands to reason that business schools would also be at the forefront of the IBC trend. One of the questions asked of AACSB member schools who participate in the Collaborations Survey is whether or not their school maintains a campus in one or more of the major world regions outside their home region:

Table 1. International Branch Campuses of AACSB Member Schools

Reporting Schools:			Number with Presence in:
Primary Campus Regions	Total Reporting Schools	Reported Multiple Campuses	Africa	Asia	Europe	Latin America and Caribbean	Northern America	Oceania
Eastern Asia	19	1	1	-	0	0	0	0
Western Asia: Middle East	5	2	1	-	2	1	2	2
South-Eastern Asia	7	0	0	-	0	0	0	0
Southern Asia	5	0	0	-	0	0	0	0
Eastern Europe	6	0	0	0	-	0	0	0
Middle Europe	25	3	1	2	-	1	0	0
Northern Europe	20	6	1	6	-	0	0	0
Southern Europe	5	0	0	0	-	0	0	0
Australia and New Zealand	8	1	0	1	0	0	0	-
Central America	3	1	0	1	1	-	1	0
Northern America	193	34	2	18	27	10	-	4
South America	12	1	0	0	0	-	1	0

Source:AACSB Collaborations Survey 2010-11. Note: This chart is corrected for mistakes in reporting, and null responses were considered negative. AACSB's World Region Classification System, which is based on that of the United Nations, explicitly makes no official endorsements regarding the countries and territories listed, either geographically or politically.

Out of the 309 AACSB member schools that reported data on the latest iteration of the survey, 49 reported at least one campus outside their home region. Of these, 15 reported having a campus in multiple regions outside their home region. Taking these data in conjunction with those of the OBHE, AACSB member schools account for at least 43% of all currently extant IBCs in the world!

This percentage is likely even higher, given that only 309 AACSB members (out of our current total of 1271), have so far reported their data to the Collaborations Survey. A number of those who have not are known to have one or more IBCs.

It is important to note, however, that establishing IBCs is not necessarily the best approach to embracing globalization. There are a whole host of factors to be considered before establishing, and while operating, an IBC, in order to ensure that a school is taking into account what is best for its stakeholders, particularly with regard to maintaining equivalent quality. As we here at AACSB took pains to point out in the case studies within our recent report, Globalization of Management Education,  no one approach to addressing the issues surrounding globalization is best (or even feasible) for all schools.

Nevertheless, with more and more of our members beginning to establish IBCs of their own, maintaining quality management education across international campus networks will necessarily become increasingly important for AACSB.

*Edited May 3, 2012: An earlier version of this post gave the total number of business schools contributing data to the Collaborations Survey as 308, rather than the accurate total of 309.

Are We Really Seeing a “New Kind of Dean?”

By Hanna Drozdowski

In the last few months, the Research and Knowledge Services staffs have been taking a closer look at the business school dean profile from the results of the recent Deans Survey, which seems to be a growing interest among our members, media, and various stakeholders. One article in particular came to mind, published in The Chronicle of Higher Education by Katherine Mangan, “Business Schools Are Hiring a New Kind of Dean,” last December. When I first read the article, our Deans Survey had just closed, and I was eager to see whether our results supported those mentioned in the article derived from the Korn/Ferry Institute’s report, “The Business School Dean Redefined.”

The article discusses the “new breed” of deans, and some of the differences compared to deans hired several years ago. One of these areas centers on the academic background of deans. According to the article, “Many new deans emerge from fields like organizational development and management, while in the past they were more likely to have backgrounds in finance and economics.” The Korn/Ferry Institute’s research was based off of behavioral analysis of recent dean candidates, internal discussions, and follow-up interviews with deans, provosts, and search committee chairs. Our data comes from a self-reported survey in which 500 deans from AACSB member schools participated in. I was curious to see whether our survey’s results supported any of the statements from the Korn/Ferry Institute’s report.

Our survey’s results show that deans have been in their current position an average of 4.6 years, with the median being roughly 3 years. I decided to compare deans currently serving their first deanship who were hired within the last 3 years and those who were hired more than 3 years ago. Although there is a difference in the number of respondents who indicated the academic focus of their highest degree for each group, we can still get a sense of how the academic background of deans has changed. (click on images to enlarge)

Indeed we do see a growth in deans with a Management, Strategic Management, and Behavioral Science/ Organizational Behavior background compared to those who were hired more than 3 years ago. For deans serving more than 3 years in their current position, 23.5% have a background in Management, Strategic Management, or Behavioral Science/ Organizational Behavior, compared to 28.8% who have been in their current position for 3 years or less. And although Economics and Finance still remain the top foci of degrees among newer deans, 25.6% of deans serving 3 years or less indicated an Economics or Finance background, compared to 29.1% of those who have been serving in their current position for more than 3 years.

Data also suggests that deans currently in their first deanship start their first appointment as dean at an older age than those who had indicated serving as dean before their current appointment. More specifically, the average age at start of appointment for those currently in their first deanship is 52 years old, and 47 years old for deans who indicated having a prior first deanship, according to our data.

Online Education - A Life Preserver for the Middle Class

By Joseph Mondello

Online schools and programs are everywhere. Whether you major in Literature or Logistics, there is an online degree out there to fit your needs. And, contrary to some schools of thought, that can be a good thing.   

Undergraduate and graduate learning has been expanded to large segments of society that formerly were ignored. No matter what part of the world they live in, single Moms (or Dads), the disabled, the disadvantaged, the disenfranchised citizens of the world now have access to a college education. For many of the “99 Percenters”, long exploited and shut out of the great wealth generated by the world economy, online business education has become the yellow brick road on the way to upward mobility.

To keep up with this new competition, traditional universities and colleges have recognized the need to adapt to the online phenomenon. This is readily seen by the growth in these business programs at the Undergraduate, MBA, and Specialized Masters levels as reported by our accredited members worldwide:

Year	Count	Level
2001	4	UG
2006	45	UG
2010	86	UG

 

Year	Count	Level
2001	26	MBA
2006	136	MBA
2010	202	MBA

 

Year	Count	Level
2001	9	SM
2006	42	SM
2010	79	SM

                        Source: AACSB Business School Questionnaire

 

Of course, online learning does have its detractors. It is commonly stated that students relying solely on this method of delivery are missing out on the total education experience.  The physical classroom provides a nurturing environment where the passion and deep understanding of a subject by the teacher is readily apparent.

In addition, there is the concern that one can never minimize the influence of our peers, and in an environment of give-and-take discussion, we learn almost as much from our fellow students as from the instructor. This is part of developing our critical thinking and the ability to discern the shades of gray between opposing viewpoints of black and white.

In business education disciplines where standards and regulations are strictly enforced, such as Finance, Accounting, and Information Systems, these intangibles may not matter as much, but what about those programs where creativity is needed and multiple solutions may exist, as in Marketing and Management?  In these types of disciplines, case discussions and analysis will often lead to differing viewpoints and a healthy exchange of ideas. Doesn’t online education, with its inherent nature of learning at a distance, constrict such dialogue and debate among class mates?  

Back at the turn of the century, when online programs were in their infancy, these criticisms were quite valid, but they have become less so as the technology has grown more sophisticated. Video presentations now bring instructors into the home or workplace where their enthusiasm and depth of subject matter are as palpable as in an actual classroom. Chat rooms, Blackboards, conference calls, and Skype also make it possible to exchange ideas and opinions with classmates and teachers, and hybrid programs are now readily available which blend traditional and online pedagogical practices.

What it all comes down to is that there is affordable, quality education for the rest of us. You don’t need rich parents or a trust fund from grandma to pursue an MBA. And, for those less fortunate, you don’t have to mortgage your future to pay for an education now. As the tables above show, even traditionally structured universities, with prestigious accreditation, have opened themselves to online programs and this trend will grow as the technology used to create such programs becomes more sophisticated, easier to use, and more pervasive. Online education is one, small victory for the disappearing middle class, and we will take what we can get.

 

Broadening Our View of Assurance of Learning

By Dan LeClair

Nearly ten years have passed since AACSB formulated the Assurance of Learning section of its accreditation standards. Building on a long tradition of assessment and continuous improvement, the new standards required accredited business schools to demonstrate achievement of learning goals specified by program. By placing greater emphasis on outcomes, accreditation could be more flexible about how learning objectives are met and standards would, thus, be more globally applicable. The change was also a response to increasing demands for accountability. It was no longer enough to use indirect measures, such as surveys of graduates, and other broad indicators, assurance of learning standards expected direct evidence that program learning goals have actually been met by graduates.

Today, the Blue Ribbon Committee on Accreditation Quality is examining AACSB’s experience with assurance of learning. To assist, staff colleagues and I gathered insights from the assessment literature and accreditation volunteers, as well as from our efforts to maintain an online Assessment Resource Center, convene the assessment listserv which now resides in AACSB’s Exchange, create two assessment seminars, and build an annual conference that focuses entirely on the subject. Our research revealed three major opportunities to broaden our view of assurance of learning.

First, assurance of learning could be recast so that it fits more appropriately within a broader curricula management system. Like other accreditation standards, the benefits of assurance of learning are derived mostly from the process of determining and revising learning goals and measures, as well as designing related policies and procedures. However, feedback from experienced deans reveals these benefits are sometimes lost to schools that adopt “cookie-cutter” approaches already being used other schools. In addition, taking on a life of its own, assurance of learning often exists separately from the curriculum. As a consequence, learning goals often do not reflect the wide range of distinctive missions across business schools, and some even claim that learning goals are so generic they can be applied to any professional education.

In Committing to Quality: Guidelines for Assessment and Accountability in Higher Education the New Alliance for Student Learning and Accountability urges institutions to “set ambitious goals.” The Alliance provides several guidelines for doing so, including ensuring that outcomes reflect appropriate higher education goals. For business schools, that would mean engaging employers and other business stakeholders, as well as academic thought leaders, in developing learning goals. Two other guidelines from Committing to Quality also illustrate why a broader curricula management approach makes sense:

Institutional practices, such as program review, are in place to ensure that curricular and cocurricular goals are aligned with intended learning outcomes.

The institution and its major academic and cocurricular programs can identify places in the curriculum or cocurriculum where students encounter or are expected or required to achieve the stated outcomes.

The second opportunity is to encourage more holistic approaches to assessment. Perhaps unintentionally, AACSB accredited schools have been steered away from using indirect measures (e.g. surveys of stakeholders), which can provide valuable contextual information to inspire and support curriculum change. The opinions of recruiters, faculty, and students can help schools to interpret gaps in learning goal achievement and provide insights about how to close these gaps. Similarly, data and information about students, including their characteristics and values, can help schools to use the results of direct assessments to improve curricula.

Many schools responded to the call for direct assessments by putting resources into those projects at the expense of other tools that can provide valuable insights about student learning. A broader view might encourage a portfolio of “evidence” (rather than strictly quantitative “measures”), including direct assessments, survey results, qualitative information, course taking patterns, etc. Subtle changes in accreditation language could encourage schools to examine all of their evidence to determine how students learn, detect patterns, and identify the changes needed.

The third opportunity to broaden our view of assurance of learning is to embrace national requirements for accountability, assessment, and program review as part of a broader assurance of learning framework. Knowledgeable accreditation volunteers have argued that AACSB standards have not been especially adaptable to different requirements internationally. Ironically, assurance of learning standards were originally adopted to enable globalization by focusing on outcomes rather than inputs, but did not fully consider how other national requirements could be substitutes, complements, or sources of conflict. Some require periodic in-depth and independent program reviews, while others require nothing at all. Some have national exams by field, others do not. Recognizing this diversity, schools could be encouraged to tailor their approach based on the national requirements; presenting existing evidence, filling the gaps, reducing duplication, and using resources more efficiently.

Since 2003 AACSB has been committed to assurance of learning, holding schools accountable for achieving their designated learning outcomes. This commitment has gained momentum within the higher education community, positioning AACSB as a leader in the area. Now, it is again a pivotal time in the evolution of assurance of learning: a time when it is important to broaden our view of its scope, purpose and implementation.

How Much is Enough?

By Colin Nelson

In a post I made a few months ago discussing the growing number of business schools gaining accreditation from one of the international accreditation organizations we track, I noted that there appears to be a growing number of schools gaining multiple overlapping accreditations from two or more accreditors. I just completed my semi-annual update of the figures, and it seems that the trend continues:

Figure 1. Number of Schools with Multiple Accreditations

Note: The above chart includes all combinations from tracked accreditors.[i]

According to the accreditors’ lists of accredited schools, there are now a total of 173 business schools worldwide with multiple accreditations, up from 129 in 2009. Of these, 57 are now holders of the so-called “Triple Crown,” having attained accreditation from AACSB, EQUIS, and AMBA.[ii]

Amazingly, there are now four “Triple Crown” business schools that hold yet another accreditor’s seal of approval. These quadruple-accredited schools include: Reims Management School (France) and Erasmus University’s Rotterdam School of Management (Netherlands), both of whom also have FIBAA-accredited programs; CENTRUM Católica (Peru), which also has IACBE accreditation; and Kozminski University (Poland), which also has IQA accreditation from CEEMAN. While Rotterdam has had all four accreditations since before I began keeping track, the others definitely gained the “Triple Crown” only after having already acquired their “4^th” accreditation.

I should also point out here that the trend I speak of is not unidirectional amongst all the various accrediting bodies. Indeed, over the 2.5 years that I’ve been keeping track, most of the accreditors have had at least one school, and in some cases quite a few, forsake or otherwise lose their accreditation, even though they may experience a net gain in total accredited schools (the exceptions being AACSB, AMDISA, and CEEMAN). As I pointed out in my earlier post, all accreditors are definitely not equivalent. Otherwise, multiple accreditations would not be necessary, nor would the overall number of schools with them be growing.

However, since each accrediting organization has a very different mission, area of focus, and set of standards, it may be that some of the schools with multiple accreditations feel that the different emphases of their accreditation processes are complementary (e.g., EQUIS’ emphasis on internationalization strategy versus AACSB’s assurance of learning processes), and thus worth the price of having some or even all of them. Others, such as Harvard Business School, Hong Kong University of Science and Technology Business School, the Indian School of Business, or The Wharton School, seem to do just fine with AACSB accreditation alone.

Obviously, all the schools I’ve mentioned here are among the best in the world. The value of the voluntary accreditation offered by AACSB, and some of the other accreditors, as an indicator of quality management education is equally obvious. I have to wonder, however, about when it is that a business school reaches a point of diminishing returns. When does the burden of accumulating additional accreditations become greater than the value added? And while I don't think we've reached the point at which we'll start seeing overlapping accreditations start to recede, when that point does come, how do schools decide which to keep?

---

[i] Organizations tracked include: the Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB International); the Accreditation Council for Business Schools and Programs (ACBSP); the Association of MBAs (AMBA); the Association of Management Development Institutions in South Asia (AMDISA), offering SAQS accreditation; the Central and East European Management Development Association (CEEMAN), offering IQA accreditation; the European Council for Business Education (ECBE); the European Foundation for Management Development (EFMD), offering EQUIS and EPAS accreditations; the Foundation for International Business Administration Accreditation (FIBAA); and the International Assembly for Collegiate Business Education (IACBE).

[ii] I would like to offer corrections to the list on the website of the Triple Crown Club, which incidentally is not endorsed by AACSB, nor to my knowledge by EFMD or AMBA. It is missing seven of the 57 schools, namely: IAE Business School (Argentina); Shanghai Jiao Tong University (China); Copenhagen Business School (Denmark); Euromed Management School (France); SDA Bocconi (Italy); Victoria University of Wellington (New Zealand); and Kozminski University (Poland). It also incorrectly identifies ESSEC Business School as a member of the TCC; ESSEC does not currently have any AMBA-accredited programs, though it certainly carries AACSB and EQUIS accreditations.

Undergraduate Programs – Changes in Disciplines Offered 2001-02, 2010-11

By Jessica Brown

Business schools have a difficult job in determining which academic disciplines they should include in their program offerings. They need to offer a well-rounded education and, at the same time, prepare their students for those business disciplines that will be most helpful when finding the right career after graduation.  How often do business schools readjust their program offerings? Have they changed in the past 10 years? To take a look at program offerings via disciplines, we created a controlled set of376  schools that participated in both the 2001-02 Business School Questionnaire and the 2010-11 Business School Questionnaire and used this set to find what percentage of schools offer specific discipline degree programs at the undergraduate level.

For some disciplines, there were very few changes. Seven of the 29 discipline represented in the data set changed by less than 1% or 3 schools in increase or decrease. Of the remaining 22 disciplines, 19 disciplines were offered by fewer schools in 2010-11 and three disciplines were offered by more schools in 2010-11 than 2001-02.

In 2001-02, the discipline offered by the most schools at the undergraduate level was Accounting at 90.4% of the controlled set of schools offering at least one undergraduate program in accounting. In 2010-11, that had decreased to 84.3% of the same set of schools offering at least one undergraduate program in accounting. While this was still the highest percentage for that year, indicating that accounting programs are still very popular offerings, it does show that the focus may be beginning to shift.

 

While some of the most popular programs have shown a slight decrease over the past 9 years, the three disciplines making the greatest gains were General Business, Supply Chain/Transport/Logistics, and Entrepreneurship/Small Business Administration.

Disciplines showing the largest decreases in percent of schools offering programs at the undergraduate level:

 

Discipline	2001-02	2010-11	Controlled set	2001-02	2010-11
	School Count	School Count	School Count	School Percent	School Percent
HR Mgt - incl Persnl & Ind/Labor Rel	131	97	376	34.8%	25.8%
Production/ Operations Mgt	93	60	376	24.7%	16.0%
Marketing	319	287	376	84.8%	76.3%
CIS/ MIS	249	218	376	66.2%	58.0%
Finance - incl Banking	314	290	376	83.5%	77.1%
Accounting	340	317	376	90.4%	84.3%

 

Disciplines showing the largest increases in percent of schools offering programs at the undergraduate level:



 

Discipline	2001-02	2010-11	Controlled set	2001-02	2010-11
	School Count	School Count	School Count	School Percent	School Percent
General Bus	144	177	376	38.3%	47.1%
Entrepreneurship/ Small Bus Admin	77	98	376	20.5%	26.1%
Supply Chain/ Transport/ Logistics	38	54	376	10.1%	14.4%

Opportunities for Internationalization

By Colin Nelson

In an increasingly interconnected world, many business schools have come to the realization that they cannot effectively train the managers and business leaders of the future without providing opportunities for their students (and by extension, their faculty and staff) to engage in international activities, which contribute to their understanding of that world. In AACSB’s annual Collaborations Survey, responding schools can report on a variety of such opportunities that they make available to students, faculty, and/or staff:

Figure 1. Opportunities for Internationalization in Use at Business Schools

Source: AACSB Collaborations Survey (2010-11).

Among the 308 total schools that contributed data to the latest iteration of the Collaborations Survey, strong majorities affirm offering all ten of the internationalization opportunities asked about in the survey, which I see as a positive indication that business schools are taking seriously the need to prepare their students for business leadership in a globalized world. Still, it is evident that some means are more broadly considered useful than others to this endeavor.

For example, approximately 89% of respondents reported offering short-term trips abroad for academic credit, while only 59% reported offering them in a non-credit capacity. Clearly then, the business schools who responded to the survey more strongly favor giving credit for the educational experience inherent in short-term trips abroad.

Study abroad opportunities for students were easily the most popular of the ten types, with 95% of respondents reporting that such opportunities were available at their school. This makes sense, given that such opportunities are relatively easy to arrange and execute compared to other types. Indeed, study abroad/student exchange was an element of 88% of the 5,513 total reported collaborative agreements in the survey, and the sole element of nearly 66% of all reported collaborations.

Internships abroad and (seemingly despite the attention that such programs typically receive) joint/dual degree programs were among the least commonly reported opportunities in the survey, with 72% and 62% of respondents affirming their use, respectively. This, too, makes sense, given that these types of international opportunities require much more in the way of resources, logistics, and long-term commitment than many of the others above.

Nevertheless, this represents a rise of nearly 5% (in the case of internships) and 7% (in the case of joint/dual degree programs) from the results of the 2009-10 Collaborations Survey. Other evidence also suggests that growth in collaborative degree programs may be a trend worth watching.

Partnerships between Bologna Member States

By Hanna Drozdowski

The continent of Europe is unique compared to other regions in the world for many reasons. The distance between countries, for the most part, is short, yet cultural differences, such as language, religion, traditions, and cuisine are quite vast! I think this diversity is what makes Europe so fascinating, and one of the things that Europeans relish most. However, when it comes to education such differences can make it challenging for students, academics, and educational institutions to work together smoothly; hence opportunities for frameworks such as the Bologna Accord to enhance collaboration.

There is truly an overwhelming amount of policies, views, information, resources, etc. on the successes and failures of the Bologna Process – way too much to cover in a blog post. However, one of the major pillars for the implementation of the Bologna Process was to increase student mobility by increasing awareness of, appreciation for, and ease of studying in different countries, as well as alleviating the frustrations and complexities of grade credit transfer, differences in course structure, etc. It can be assumed that the Bologna Process has prompted its member states’ schools to implement more partnerships with each other, or encouraged more collaboration to promote not only student mobility, but also faculty mobility and collaborative degree programs, research projects, and other initiatives. 

I decided to look at the partnership trends of the Bologna Process member states that participated in our 2010-2011 Collaborations Survey. Figure 1 below compares the proportion of partnerships schools in each country reported having with schools in other Bologna member states and in “non-Bologna” member states. As one would expect, the data shows a majority have more partnerships with other Bologna countries. In fact, schools in 12 of 17 of the represented countries had more partnerships among other Bologna signatory countries than beyond the group. However, schools in five countries actually reported having more partnerships with non-Bologna countries, i.e. France, United Kingdom, Netherlands, Romania, and Belgium; or where the number of partnerships with each group is very close.

Why would schools in some countries be more likely partner with schools outside Bologna? Unfortunately, our data cannot answer that question. However, I decided to take a look at the ethnic representations for each of these countries, using the CIA World Factbook (keep in mind that some of the census data is somewhat dated). Figure 2 shows the ethnic groups found in each country, according to the CIA World Factbook. 

Figure 1. Bologna Countries and Their Partnerships
(Click on the figure to view a larger version.) 

Figure 2. CIA World Factbook: Ethic Groups per Country
(Click on the figure to view a larger version.) 

When we look at the distribution of ethnic groups from various world regions (Figure 3), we see that those countries that have more partnership with countries outside of the Bologna Process, are made up of more diverse populations. Perhaps a country’s higher level of ethnic diversity has some influence on where schools choose to establish partnerships with?

 Figure 3. Etnnic Distribution from the Following World Regions 
(Click on the figure to view a larger version.)