AACSB Data and Research Blog

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.

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.

Business School Collaborations: Who Has a Plan?

By Colin Nelson

The AACSB Globalization of Management Education Task Force states on page 211 of its recent report that "connections do not just happen; they require proactive and strategic action by schools" in order for them to get the most out of their globalization efforts. What does this mean for business schools? It means that if they want to reap the greatest benefits of their collaborations for their students, they need to have a plan.

In an effort to keep abreast of the dynamic world of business education, AACSB has developed a survey on business school collaborations to track connections among business schools around the world. AACSB asks its members to provide information about their collaborations, which the survey defines as formal, written agreement between all partners involved in the survey.

In the most recent iteration of AACSB's Collaborations Survey (2009–10), we asked our respondents to indicate whether or not their business school systematically plans its collaborative and international activities, along three dimensions. First, we ask whether or not the business school has a formal written policy on collaborations, whether foreign or domestic. Next, we ask whether or not the school has a formal policy guiding its international activities of any type. Finally, we ask if the school has an office, department, or staff position in place that oversees collaborations and/or international activities.

Out of 249 respondent schools, representing 38 countries around the world, 64.3% reported having at least one of the two types of guiding policies in place, and 61.8% reported having an office, department, or staff position in place that oversees collaborations and/or international activities, whether or not the school indicated such policies were in place.

Seemingly comfortable majorities of the schools responding to the Collaborations Survey are making an effort to create a strategy to guide their globalization efforts. However, when we cut the data by world region, more interesting findings emerge:

Figure 1. Formal Policies by Region

   

Figure 2. Administration of Collaboration Activity by Region

 
 

Only 51.8% of schools based in Northern America reported having either kind of formal policy in place to guide collaborations or international activities in general, making them less likely than any other region to have such policies. Northern America is also the only region in which a majority of respondent schools reported having no office, department, or staff position in place that oversees collaborations and/or international activities. By comparison, more than 90% of schools based in all other regions combined reported having such an administrative structure. More than 90% of schools based in all other regions combined reported having at least one of the two types of guiding policies in place.

Now, it's true that schools from Northern America make up 67.5% of all respondents to the survey, and so it may be that increased participation from other world regions on future iterations of the survey could bring greater equity to the results. Nevertheless, if having some form of guiding strategy is key to getting the most out of globalization efforts, it seems that many schools in Northern America have some catching up to do in order to be on par with the rest of the world.

Regional Universities: Models for Developing Regions

By Colin Nelson

AACSB's recently-released report on globalization speaks extensively about what it means to be a "global" institution, and covers many dimensions of cross-border education, such as institutions with international branch campuses, international joint or dual degree partnerships, articulation/twinning agreements between institutions in different nations, etc.[i]

However, there is an important dimension of cross-border education that is not covered, namely the growing number of regionally-focused, multi-locational institutions to which multiple national actors contribute. These are different from institutions with branch campuses outside their country of origin, in that no one nation hosts the "main campus," but rather all campuses act as co-equal parts of the institutional network. Such institutions are an increasingly common strategy in developing regions, where individual nations have limited resources for promoting access to higher education.

I have observed three models for such institutions. First is the model in which governments of several states collectively found and/or own a given institution, or the "public model." Examples include:

• University of the West Indies (UWI)– Established in 1948 as a College of the University of London, UWI became independent in 1962. It has three main campuses: Mona, Jamaica (which includes the Mona School of Business); Cave Hill, Barbados (which includes the Cave Hill School of Business); and St. Augustine, Trinidad (which includes the Arthur Lok Jack School of Business). UWI also has 42 university centers, known collectively as the "Open Campus," among UWI's other 14 stake-holding countries and territories:

• University of the South Pacific (USP) – Established in 1968, USP is jointly owned by the governments of 12 island countries in Oceania, each with its own campus and/or university center. The Faculty of Business and Economics is based on the main campus; Laucala, Fiji:

• Eastern and Southern African Management Institute (ESAMI)– ESAMI is owned by the governments of 10 member states, who all signed its establishment charter in October 1979 and recognize its MBA programs. ESAMI headquarters is in Arusha, Tanzania, but all member states have campuses:

 

Another model is that of a private institution, founded and/or operating in multiple countries (the "private model"). This model does not preclude government cooperation, however, as such is generally needed for the institutions to operate effectively cross-nationally. Examples include:

• University of Central Asia (UCA) – An international treaty and charter establishing this secular, private university was signed in 2000 by the governments of Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, and Tajikistan, and H.H. the Aga Khan, and registered with the UN. UCA is an independent, self-governing institution with campuses of equal size and stature in each founding country:

• Arab Open University (AOU) – Though its headquarters is in Kuwait, campuses of AOU also lie in Bahrain, Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Oman, and Saudi Arabia. AOU was founded in 2002 in all nations that currently boast a campus, except Oman, whose branch opened in 2008. AOU uses the same teaching and program delivery methods as The Open University of the U.K., a partner of AOU. The Faculty of Business Studies is one of AOU's three original academic units, present at all campuses:

 

The final model blurs the line between individual institutions and consortia (the "consortium model"):

University of the Indian Ocean (UIO) – Established in 1998 under the aegis of the Indian Ocean Commission (IOC), UIO is a European Union-funded network of institutions of the five IOC member states and territories: the Comoros, Madagascar, Mauritius, Réunion (a French territory), and Seychelles. Though it has no physical campus of its own, multi-university degree programs are offered by UIO, focused on topical subject areas such as diaspora, or vocational degrees such as an MBA, whereby all participating students from IOC member countries attain the same recognized level of education. During its three-year pilot phase, the UIO secretariat was based in Réunion, but it now rotates among member states:

As the report points out, business schools in developed nations choosing to expand their global cross-border presence tend to select locations for their facilities "because of their roles as business centers in their respective regions and for their accessibility by students and faculty traveling from other regions of the world."[ii] As a result, less developed nations are not frequently chosen as hosts. I see regionally-focused institutions like those above as an encouraging sign, not only of developing nations' recognition of the utility of capacity-building inherent in management education, but also their ingenuity in creating locally relevant responses to their needs.

---

[i]AACSB International, Globalization of Management Education Task Force. (2011) Globalization of Management Education: Changing International Structures, Adaptive Strategies, and the Impact of Institutions, Emerald Group Publishing, Ltd, Howard House, Wagon Lane, Bingley BD16 1WA, U.K.

[ii] Ibid, p. 178.

Doctoral Study Abroad: A Disruption or a Valuable Experience?

By Hanna Drozdowski

A few weeks ago I interviewed three business school doctoral program directors, two from the U.S. and one from Latin America. These conversations revealed widely divergent opinions about the role of international study in doctoral education.

Differences across schools are expected, even encouraged. Schools have different missions, emphases, and approaches. But I was still surprised to discover how different the opinions about doctoral-level study abroad actually were. Although all of the programs emphasized research, indicating it as a top priority in their program objectives, the U.S. perspective (based on this comparison) remained that going abroad presents a disruption to students rather than a benefit. Throughout the conversation, Ph.D. programs were depicted as being in a category of their own (compared to MBA programs), making it more difficult for them to respond to globalization. With research constituting such an integral part of the doctoral education, students would not have access to the required resources if they were to lose a semester abroad, only unless the faculty mentor or dissertation chair was also at that same location.

However, the impression I got after discussing this topic with the South American b-school representative was very different. For example, within that school's doctoral program, a six-month study abroad period is compulsory for students; the sentiments behind the component were very positive; the experience was described as being "Amazing!" and not in the bit least regarded as a disruption to research and study. The idea of internationalizing students and immersing them into international academic communities appeared to be one of the program's biggest goals, priorities, and draws.

Beyond the Americas, based on earlier interviews and b-school collaboration research, a growing number of European business schools are starting to link up with Asian schools, even at the doctoral level. One interesting example is a DBA distance delivery program between two schools in Europe and Asia. This program adopted a "dual supervisory arrangement" aiming to appease fears (as mentioned above) of students lacking adequate access to their thesis supervisor. Students have two supervisors, one in each country, helping with their research. Having a second supervisor also allows for sharing of his or her local networks and helping to create context-specific knowledge about discipline and professional practice related matters.

Looking at AACSB's Collaboration Data, based on the responses of 2009-2010 BSQ participants representing 695 Schools, 21 collaborations were found in the form of a Study Abroad/ Student Exchange at the doctoral level. Of these 21 collaborations, only three U.S. schools were involved.

The academic, organizational, and even social culture in business schools varies from region to region and school to school; suggesting one approach is better than another would not be helpful. The context within which a school finds itself is a major factor determining whether scholars believe sending students abroad, even if it may cause breaks in valuable research, would be beneficial or not. Some programs are more established and confident in their knowledge and approach. Others are in earlier stages of development and more focused on establishing their position in the global academic community. However, it is safe to say that to expand doctoral students' global experiences and perspectives is a question that increasing numbers of business schools will ask, and more and more will decide the answer is "yes."