AACSB Data and Research Blog

Significant Strides in Specialized Master’s Enrollment

By Hanna McLeod

In the past few years the AACSB research and knowledge services team has been noticing interesting trends in enrollment at the graduate level, specifically decreasing numbers for MBA programs and greater interest for Specialized Master’s programs. There are various opinions and speculations on what is behind this trend – changing employer and student interest for more focused or specialized knowledge; programs offering shorter time to degree; oversaturation of a particular market; etc. But how significant have the enrollment changes for these two degree program types really been in the past five years? Take a look below:

MBA vs. Specialized MA Enrollment Change at AACSB-Accredited Schools, 2008-09 to 2012-13*
	MBA Enrollment	Net Change	Specialized MA Enrollment	Net Change
Asia	19%	1,600	21%	1,460
Europe	7%	2,646	49%	13,079
N. America	-3%	-4,024	38%	13,879
World**	-0.5%	-815	37%	29,495

*controlled set comparison of 2008-2009 and 2012-2013 AACSB Business School Questionnaire (BSQ) data for respective regional enrollment at AACSB-accredited institutions.

**"World” includes data from regions of Latin America, Oceania, and Africa, which are not reported separately due to small data set.

Overall, for all AACSB accredited schools in the world, MBA enrollment has decreased minimally in the past five years, but we see quite a different story for the Specialized Master’s program with a 37 percent jump over the past five years. However, MBA enrollment still exceeds that of the Specialized Master’s – in 2012-2013 MBA enrollment across all AACSB-accredited schools was at 179,994, compared to 109,726 for Specialized Master’s enrollment.

Another interesting point these data show is the difference across regions. For instance, in Asia enrollment growth for both the MBA and the Specialized MA has been relatively similar; however, within both Northern America and Europe, the growth in the Specialized MA enrollment rate has significantly exceeded that of the MBA. As the MBA becomes more established in the Asian region, as it has in parts of Northern America as well as Europe, I wonder if we will begin seeing similar trends for that region. Or, does this data suggest cultural difference and different business demands within parts of Asia, where a more “well-rounded” business knowledge is desired versus more specialized knowledge on a particular business area? What do you think?

Who Goes Where to Study Abroad? (Part II, Levels)

By Colin Nelson

As I mentioned in my last post, this time I will be discussing the data from AACSB’s Collaborations Survey on student exchanges reported by our member schools, in the context of the educational level of the students who choose to study abroad. As before, in this context, studying abroad refers to a year or semester spent abroad at a school other than the one at which the student is actually enrolled, rather than being an "internationally mobile student," who undertakes an entire degree program in a country other than their home.

Figure 1. Outbound Exchange Students from Reporting Schools, by Level

Learn About Tableau

Source: AACSB Collaborations Survey 2011-12.

Something I find interesting about the numbers of exchange students from the reporting schools is the extreme lopsidedness in the proportion of undergraduate vs. graduate students from schools in Northern America. Nearly 83 percent of outbound exchange students from Northern American reporting schools were undergraduates. By contrast, undergraduates constituted only about 56 percent of the total number of outbound exchange students from reporting schools in the regions with the next highest percentage, namely Asia and Oceania. Indeed, the proportion of undergraduates may be even lower in Oceania (and Europe) given the sizeable number of exchange students from those regions whose level was not reported.

Figure 2. Inbound Exchange Students Hosted at Reporting Schools, by Level 

Learn About Tableau

Source: AACSB Collaborations Survey 2011-12.

Admittedly, given the limited data from Africa and Oceania, as well as the fact that the educational level of the majority of hosted students in the latter was not reported, it's difficult to make any valid statements about those regions. Hopefully, greater participation in the Collaborations Survey in future years from those regions will enable us to do that.

Among the regions with better representation, however, once again Northern American reporting schools appear to have much more focus on exchange students at the undergraduate level than do reporting schools from anywhere else. So why is it that business students from Northern American schools appear to study abroad as undergraduates so much more frequently than as graduate students? It is true that Study Abroad/Student Exchange partnership agreements reported by Northern American schools were nearly twice as likely to include an undergraduate component as to include a master's component. However, the same was true of those reported by Asian schools. Clearly then, while the predilection for that type of agreement may have something to do with the uneven proportions we've observed, it is not the only factor.

Who Goes Where to Study Abroad? (Part I, Regions)

By Colin Nelson

In AACSB’s Collaborations Survey, we collect information on many different types of partnerships and activities that our members pursue with partner institutions around the world. An increasingly large number of schools have reported such activity over the years, and the sheer number of collaborations between them has grown by leaps and bounds. One thing that is more difficult to track, however, is the amount of use that a given partnership agreement sees.

By far the most commonly reported type of collaboration is Study Abroad/Student Exchange, which is the sole activity type of 63.7% of all reported collaborations (and one of multiple types involved in another 23.6% of all reported collaborations). Fortunately, the survey does capture the number of students a reporting school sends and receives in a given survey year, by region and by level, so we can, at least to a degree, judge the level of intensity for this type of activity:

Figure 1. Regions Visited by Students of Reporting Schools

Powered by Tableau

 

Source: AACSB Collaborations Survey 2011-12.

Figure 2. Home Regions of Students Hosted by Reporting Schools

Powered by Tableau

Source: AACSB Collaborations Survey 2011-12.

Clearly, schools in Europe are the most common study abroad destination for students of AACSB members from any region (save Africa, and that not by much). Likewise, by and large AACSB members host more students from Europe than anywhere else (where the home region is specified). The exceptions to this observation are Asia, where intra-regional mobility is more common, and Africa, where again the lack of more than a single reporting school likely skews the results. Please note as well that in this context, studying abroad refers to a year or semester abroad at a school other than the one at which the student is actually enrolled, rather than being an "internationally mobile student," who undertakes an entire degree program in a country other than their home.

These observations make sense for two reasons. First, the European community has long had transnational education programs in place such as Alfa, Edulink, Erasmus Mundus, and Tempus, which help to enable such interactions between schools in various world regions. As a result, European students are more likely than those of any other region to engage in study abroad.

Secondly, over half of all reported Study Abroad/Student Exchange partnerships were reported by European schools:

Table 1. Regional Percentages of Total Reported Study Abroad/Student Exchange Partnerships

Region	Percent of Total
Africa	0.3%
Asia	14.1%
Europe	51.0%
Latin America and the Caribbean	5.1%
Northern America	26.0%
Oceania	3.6%

Source: AACSB Collaborations Survey 2011-12. May not sum to 100% due to rounding.

Watch for my next post, where I'll talk about educational levels in this context.

 

Growth in Accessibility of AACSB-Accredited Online Degrees

By Colin Nelson

Much has been said regarding management education offered online, including in the archives of our own blog. While it is certainly very much up for debate whether MOOCs will all take over instruction of basic classes, or if virtual campuses will come to replace brick-and-mortar, the one thing that no one can deny is that online education is increasing in popularity and availability:

Figure 1. Number of AACSB-Accredited Schools Reporting Fully Online Programs

Note: This table includes data from a controlled set of 480 accredited schools that responded to the AACSB Business School Questionnaire (BSQ) in all five years. Please note that each school may have more than one fully online program at each given level.

480 AACSB-accredited schools, representing 34 countries and territories worldwide, participated in each of the last five annual BSQ surveys. Figure 1 (above) shows the numbers of these schools that reported offering one or more of their degree programs, at any level, in a fully online delivery format has grown by nearly 43% over the past five years. Obviously, much of that growth comes at the MBA level, while the gains in numbers of bachelor’s and specialized master’s programs offered fully online were more modest.

One notable exception to this trend is online doctoral programs. As of this writing, no AACSB-accredited school has ever reported a fully online doctoral program on the BSQ. There are, however, AACSB-accredited schools offering blended/hybrid or distance-learning doctoral programs, so who’s to say what the future may bring?

Interestingly, the regional breakdown of which schools offer their programs in the fully online format is far from even. Although schools in Northern America made up approximately 87% of the controlled set represented here, they consistently made up more than 95% of those who reported offering fully online MBA or specialist master’s programs, and 100% of those offering fully online bachelor’s programs. By contrast, there are as yet no African or Asian respondents that report fully online programs at any level, and there were none in Oceania prior to the 2010-11 survey year.

This regional concentration is at least partly a function of greater historical participation in the BSQ in Northern America. However, since the regional concentration of schools offering fully online programs remains several percentage points higher than the regional concentration of BSQ participants in all years, participation is clearly not the only contributing factor.

Given the origins of the Internet itself in the region, for example, schools in Northern America have also had the most time and opportunity to develop the virtual infrastructure necessary to make offering fully online programs feasible. Additionally, since fully online education makes geographical location largely a moot point from the perspective of potential students, the location of the offering institution probably matters less than it would for other modes of delivery.

Now, it very well may also be that schools in regions other than Northern America are underreporting their programs, or are simply underrepresented in the BSQ thus far. The number of BSQ participants outside Northern America has grown steadily over the past five years, however, and is up 45% in 2011-12 versus 2007-08. This will be a trend worth continuing to watch, particularly as our global participation grows larger and larger.

Different Levels of Student Mobility

By Hanna Drozdowski

Students no longer feel the need to stay in their home country to pursue higher education. AACSB-accredited schools are appearing in all regions of the world, now spanning nearly 50 countries and territories, providing students with more opportunities to pursue top quality business education in almost every region of the world! My colleague, Colin Nelson, and I recently took a look into the differences in student mobility among different regions at different program levels, based on the results from the most recent Business School Questionnaire (BSQ) data. The table below shows that there are significant differences among different regions, and at different academic levels: 

What about these data are most interesting to you? I immediately noticed the significant difference among undergraduate and doctoral students outside the host country in the Northern American region. The data illustrate a similar pattern in the European region, including a majority of students at the doctoral level studying outside their country of origin. However, the opposite trend is seen in Western Asia & North Africa, where we see the highest proportion of students outside the host country at the undergraduate level, and the lowest at the doctoral level.

However, motivations for student mobility differ among regions, as well as among students. Some students choose to study abroad in pursuit for a higher quality education; others may believe the international experience will enhance their resume making them more attractive to recruiters. In the European region, the presence of longstanding intergovernmental programs such as ERASMUS and the implementation of the Bologna Process clearly make a positive impact on the ability and inclination of students to pursue higher education across national borders.

Regionally, the percentage of internationally mobile graduate students enrolled at AACSB member schools is significantly lower in Latin America & the Caribbean, in Eastern, South-Eastern, & Southern Asia, and in Western Asia & Northern Africa, vs. in Europe and in Oceania. Northern America has a notably high majority of internationally mobile students at the doctoral level, while Oceania even has a majority at the masters-specialist level. Could these trends be a reflection of where mobile students think the better quality programs are, at those respective levels? Do internationally mobile doctoral students see Northern America and Europe as the hub for business doctoral research, while students seeking a specialized master’s program see the best offerings in the countries of Oceania?

There are a number of possible reasons for these distributions that the data alone can only suggest, not prove. However, it will be interesting to see how these distributions will change, particularly in emerging economies, where the presence of AACSB membership among business schools continues to grow.

 

Business Schools Cannot Live by Tuition Alone

By Colin Nelson

Much has been written in recent months about the affordability of higher education. Data from AACSB’s annual Business School Questionnaire (BSQ) indicate that the cost of tuition has indeed risen over the past five years, though it has not done so in a uniform fashion across geographic regions:

Figure 1. Mean Undergraduate Tuition & Fees for Local Students (Single Year) at AACSB-Accredited Schools, in USD

 
Source: AACSB International Business School Questionnaire (BSQ).

The data in Figure 1 represent the mean cost for a single year of undergraduate study across a controlled set of AACSB-accredited schools in each region that reported undergraduate tuition data in all five of the most recent BSQs. Several schools in countries (or in certain select states/provinces within those countries) that legally prohibit higher education institutions from charging undergraduate tuition to domestic (or EU) nationals were removed from this analysis.

While the average tuition at accredited schools has gone up in all regions over the past five years, the rates of rise in the Americas were much faster than those of the Asia-Pacific (i.e., Asia + Oceania) and European regions. Single-year undergraduate tuition costs rose fastest in Latin America and the Caribbean, with a 30.4 percent increase over the five-year period, while those in the Asia-Pacific region rose most slowly at only 9.9 percent. The costs at European schools also rose more slowly, at 18.5 percent, while Northern American schools showed a 23.2 percent increase.

Interestingly, increases in tuition costs at the graduate level paint a very different regional picture than at the undergraduate level:

Figure 2. Mean Full-Time MBA Tuition & Fees for Local Students (Full Program) at AACSB-Accredited Schools, in USD

Source: AACSB International Business School Questionnaire (BSQ).

Again, the data for Figure 2 come from a controlled set of AACSB-accredited schools in each region that reported full-time MBA tuition data in all five of the most recent BSQs. Please note that tuition costs reported for full-time MBA programs are given for the entire program, rather than for a single year, as at the undergraduate level.

At the MBA level, mean tuition costs for accredited schools in the Americas and the Asia-Pacific regions remain relatively close over time, as compared to the mean MBA tuition cost in Europe, though they do show evidence of beginning to spread out in the latter years of the survey. The significantly higher mean MBA tuition cost in Europe makes sense, though, given that almost all of the countries where undergraduate tuition fees are banned by law are in Europe; thus it may well be that European schools seek to make this up at the graduate level. However, the rate of rise in MBA program tuition over the five years depicted here was actually the lowest in Europe, at only 21.4 percent, and only marginally higher in Latin America (at 22.8 percent), whereas at schools in both the Asia-Pacific and Northern American regions the rate was approximately 33 percent.

If it is true that the opportunity cost of higher education has risen as high as it can, tuition-wise, then business schools should expect to see more pushback from students on future tuition hikes. Where declining state support has been the norm in many countries around the world, business schools would be wise to begin looking to emphasize sources of revenue other than tuition increases to offset the loss.

Indeed, such actions may already be underway. According to our analysis of BSQ financial data from those schools that reported their sources of funds in the most recent BSQ (2011-12), on average over 11 percent of the funding reported for schools in Asia and Europe came from non-degree management education offerings, compared to less than three percent on average from schools in Northern America. This may suggest, at least in part, why the rise in tuition rates is somewhat smaller in Europe and Asia than in Northern America.

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.

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.

Why the Growing Market Share of For-Profit Providers?

By Colin Nelson

Recently I pulled data from the U.S. Department of Education’s IPEDS Data Center for one of our member schools. The data had to do with the growing market share of for-profit business education providers at the master’s level. Though my colleague Dan LeClair has touched on this topic once before, the data I saw gave me a new point of view for this increase.

As Dan pointed out, the market share of business master’s degrees conferred by for-profit providers in the U.S. has grown considerably over the past decade. I found the trend in enrollments to be even more pronounced:

Figure 1. Graduate-Level Enrollment in Business Programs by Sector (U.S.)

Note: N = the total number of graduate-level business students enrolled in the given year. In 2000-01, 710 total institutions reported enrolling business graduate students, versus 1127 in 2008-09. Source: IPEDS Data Center.

Enrollment in graduate-level business increased overall and in each sector, but the share of enrollment across sectors changed dramatically. It is interesting to note that the growth in for-profit providers’ market share in degrees conferred that Dan noted in his post primarily takes away from that previously held by private not-for-profit institutions. In the case of enrollments, however, it is public institutions that suffer the bulk of the losses in market share.

There are a number of possible reasons for the growing market share of for-profit schools in these areas. For-profit schools often allocate far more resources for advertising and recruitment than public and private, not-for-profit institutions do (or can). Many for-profit institutions are seen, rightly or not, as having less stringent requirements with regard to admissions, faculty qualifications, curricula, etc., than other (particularly AACSB-accredited) schools. I should note here that, at this writing, there are no AACSB-accredited schools in the for-profit sector.

What struck me as particularly curious was when I considered these trends in the context of reported ratios of full-time versus part-time enrollees by sector:

Table 1. Percentage of Full-Time Graduate-Level Enrollment in Business by Sector, 2008-09 (U.S.)

Institution Type	N =	Mean FT % of Business Graduate Enrollment	Median FT % of Business Graduate Enrollment	Reported Range
Public	401	43.9%	40.3%	1.7% to 100%
Private, for-profit	147	74.8%	100%	2.8% to 100%
Private, not-for-profit	556	48.4%	43.6%	0.5% to 100%
Total	1,104	50.3%	45.0%	0.5% to 100%

Note: N includes all institutions reporting enrollment figures for both Full-time and Part-time graduate students in Business. Source: IPEDS Data Center.

These numbers indicate that for-profit schools have significantly higher proportions of business graduate students enrolled full-time, which IPEDS defines as nine or more graduate credit hours per semester. This was quite unexpected, particularly considering that for-profit schools typically market themselves to working adults, who presumably must also contend with time management for their jobs in addition to their studies, and thus might be expected to gravitate more towards part-time study.

From my perspective, then, this implies that it is easier for working adults (and likely others as well) to carry a full-time course load at for-profit institutions. If so, it would certainly explain, at least in part, the substantial increases in market share of enrollments at and degrees conferred by for-profit schools.