AACSB Data and Research Blog

Preliminary Results From the 2017–18 Business School Questionnaire

By Jeanine Romano

Data collection for the 2017–18 AASCB Business School Questionnaire (BSQ) and BSQ Finances Module officially closed in early June. We have had record participation this year, with 972 of our member schools submitting a BSQ and 587 submitting a BSQ Finances Module

Since our June closing date, AACSB’s Business Education Intelligence (BEI) team has been reviewing each survey to help ensure that schools are submitting valid, reliable, and complete data. Data integrity is our top priority, so even though we do have validation processing rules programmed into the survey submission system, we also read through each submitted survey and assist schools when necessary. This may seem like a rather arduous process to some but it will lead to a data set that our members can be confident is as accurate as possible and truly germane to their benchmarking and peer analysis.

So far we have validated and accepted 426 BSQs and anticipate releasing the rest of the data by the end of September. As a benefit of participating, all member schools that submitted the surveys will have access to the custom report tools available in DataDirect

Here’s what can we tell you based on data from the 426 surveys we have accepted so far:

• A little less than half of these schools reported that their undergraduate students are mostly residential, whereas almost two-thirds of all graduate students are commuters.
• Close to 60 percent of the schools reported that they have updated their strategic plans within the last 18 months.
• Almost half of respondents indicated that teaching was their sole highest priority, whereas about 12 percent indicated that intellectual contribution was their sole highest priority.
• The median operating budget for these schools was over 11 million USD, but the average was a little less than 22 million USD.
• About 75 percent of these schools indicated that they offered at least one bachelor’s degree in accounting. A little less than this percentage also reported that they offered a specialized master’s degree in accounting.
• This year we introduced data analytics into our field/discipline category. Less than 2 percent of reporting schools indicated that they offered a bachelor’s degree in this area of study, and about 8 percent indicated that they offered a specialized master’s degree in the discipline.
• Only 20 percent of all doctoral degrees were in the field of accounting, but 40 percent were in the field of management.
• Nearly 82 percent of schools indicated that they offered at least one MBA program.
• Almost twice as many students on average at these schools are enrolled in part-time programs than in full-time programs.

But these are just preliminary results of only 426 schools. When we have finished reviewing and accepting all of our schools’ surveys, will we see something different? What about undergraduate enrollments, faculty, staff, and admissions? What are the differences in these figures based on location, mission, size, and other factors? And how are schools’ program portfolios, enrollments, staffing structures, and financial situations changing

In the coming months you will see some blog posts on the complete set of data, where we’ll be diving into questions such as: What is the state of data analytics as program of study? Where are the trends in online MBA? How do salary versus non-salary expenditures vary depending on what a school emphasizes? Are the percentages of women in faculty roles increasing?—to name just a few

AACSB strives to be widely recognized as the primary source for data and analysis on business education globally. We look forward to receiving the submissions for all schools and being able to provide our members with an even more accurate picture of the current state of business schools.

BSQ Survey Data Validation: Why We Do It and Why You Should Care

By Jeanine Romano

A few months ago, AACSB released its 2017–18 iteration of the Business School Questionnaire (BSQ) to all of our educational members, and last week was the official final deadline for submission. Currently, over 760 schools have submitted their responses to the BSQ, and we are working with more than 250 additional schools to complete their surveys in time to be included in our annual data reports.

While AACSB’s DataDirect system has been around since 2004, we have been collecting data about business schools since 1968, when we launched the Salary Survey for the first time. In 2001, we added the survey that became the BSQ once the DataDirect system was in place. Within the past 10 years, our suite of annual surveys has grown to include several spinoff BSQ modules on topics for which many schools desire more detailed information. These include the Finances Module, the Employment Modules, and the Expanded Data Module, as well as surveys on collaborations and Innovations That Inspire. As a result, DataDirect has become the most comprehensive database on business schools in the world!

None of this growth would have been possible without the help of AACSB’s members and their commitment to submitting valid and reliable information to our surveys, and we want to thank all of our members for their time and their ongoing support of the global business education community.

Now that the data have been submitted, it’s time for AACSB’s Business Education Intelligence (BEI) team to review each survey to make sure that the data are valid, reliable, and, most of all, complete. While we do have validation processing rules programmed within the survey submission system, we also read through each submitted survey to be sure that the qualitative information is appropriately entered, and to catch subtle discrepancies that may be overlooked by our programmed validation.

We realize that our members’ time is valuable and that the BSQ is quite extensive. This year we have taken steps to minimize the number of validation issues our members might encounter by providing more BSQ tutorial webinars (available in the DataDirect Users Group on the AACSB Exchange) and a BSQ Common Validation Guide (available in DataDirect under Downloads ⇒ DataDirect Tutorials and Guides ⇒ BSQ Common Validation Issues. 

In addition, we have changed the way we communicate our concerns regarding your survey submission by including validation comment boxes in each section of the survey. This way, the information you need regarding your survey validation is available within the survey itself when you go back to make corrections.

By having a data validation comment box for each section of the survey, we can more clearly communicate any concerns regarding your survey.

Many of our members may receive an email from a BEI team member asking to clarify or correct certain items in the survey. If your school receives such an email, please take the time to review our feedback in the data validation comment boxes. Because of this extra step we take to ensure accuracy, our members can feel confident that any data from our platform are valid and reliable when used for benchmarking and research. We want to be sure that our members’ experience with the DataDirect survey submission process is a positive one, and we will work to make even more improvements in the future.

Please feel free to contact us with any suggestions or questions you may have at [email protected].

AACSB and AAUP Faculty Salary Comparative Analysis

By Joshua Barillas 

Recently, the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) released this year’s Annual Report on the Economic Status of the Profession, which includes results of their annual Faculty Compensation Survey. According to the report, the average salary increase for full-time continuing faculty at participating AAUP institutions was approximately 3 percent (from a subset of 1,018 U.S. institutions representing 378,865 full-time faculty members).

AACSB International conducted a similar analysis using our faculty data from the Staff Compensation and Demographics Survey (SCDS), formerly the Salary Survey, from the past two years (2017–18 and 2016–17). The SCDS collects not only salary information for full-time faculty and administrators but also additional information regarding part-time faculty and staff demographics. More information is available in an executive summary for our most recent SCDS (2017–18).

Institutions participating in AAUP’s survey report aggregate full-time faculty salary data split by academic rank and gender for nine- and/or 12-month contracts. AAUP collects related information, such as the number of faculty; total contracted salaries; and the number of tenured, tenure-track, and non-tenure-track faculty. For full-time continuing faculty, institutions report the number of continuing faculty and the total salary outlays for the current and previous year by academic rank, from which the percentage increase in salary is calculated. A recent AAUP presentation on the survey provides further information, including an introduction, overview, and resources.

Unlike AAUP’s survey, participating AACSB member business schools within the SCDS report faculty salaries and demographics at the individual level. Schools are allowed to reference faculty with unique anonymous identifiers; however, these unique identifiers are an optional variable, so not all schools utilize them, which limits our ability to track individual continuing faculty across years.

The initial subset of SCDS data used for a comparative analysis consists of 12,246 continuing full-time faculty. These faculty represent 228 business schools from institutions that are (1) based within the United States and (2) also present in AAUP’s list of participants. Continuing full-time faculty in the context of the SCDS refers to individuals who had a matching unique identifier and further matching demographic characteristics to track on the personal level, even if they were promoted in academic rank between 2016–17 and 2017–18. However, no individual in the sample was promoted within this time frame. Characteristics used to match were discipline taught, gender, and contract length.

Following with AAUP’s methodology, schools whose faculty salaries experienced an average decrease of more than 1 percent or an average increase of more than 16 percent by academic rank with no satisfactory explanation were excluded from all subsequent calculations. Our final data set consisted of 11,675 individuals from 225 U.S. business schools. The following are some highlights from our analysis using SCDS data.

Highlights

• The average salaries for full-time continuing business school faculty (professors, associate professors, assistant professors, and instructors) increased by 2.6 percent over the previous year, without adjusting for inflation.
• Female professors and instructors saw an average salary increase equal to or greater than that of their male counterparts. Table 1 below shows the average salary increase percentage by gender for all academic ranks. Note again that these numbers represent only continuing faculty and that not all schools had continuing faculty in all ranks.

Table 1. Average Salary Increase Percentage for Continuing Faculty by Gender

Rank	Percent Increase (Female)	Percent Increase (Male)
Professor	2.47	2.34
Associate Professor	2.26	2.26
Assistant Professor	1.97	2.07
Instructor	2.65	2.57

• The table below shows the percentage of business schools in the sample that pay men more than women at the same academic rank. Like AAUP’s methodology, parity in pay was calculated as the ratio between the average salary by rank for women divided by the average man’s salary. A ratio below 1 indicated the average woman’s salary was below the man’s average salary at that rank, and a ratio above 1 indicated the average woman’s salary was above the man’s average salary at that rank. The numbers below indicate the percentage of schools in the sample whose parity was below 1 for each academic rank. Note again that these numbers represent only continuing faculty and that not all schools had continuing faculty in all ranks.

Table 2. Percentage of Schools Where Average Salary Was Below Gender Parity by Academic Rank

Rank	Percentage of Schools Below Parity	N Schools
Professor	69	203
Associate Professor	52	215
Assistant Professor	51	212
Instructor	66	169

• The average salary for professors was 162,000 USD. Associate and assistant professors earned, on average, 134,000 USD and 128,000 USD respectively. The average instructor salary was 78,400 USD. The figure below shows the 2017–18 distribution of average salaries by academic rank.

Figure 1. Distribution of Average Salaries by Academic Rank, 2017–18

Additional Resources

Custom reports that provide detailed breakouts by field/discipline, accreditation status, and institutional control (public vs. private) using the most recent SCDS data are available to all participating schools. Access is available via the AACSB DataDirect benchmarking tools.

For additional requests and questions, please contact us at [email protected].

Trends in Employment of Business School Graduates (Part II): Industry of Employment for Full-time MBAs

By Colin Nelson

For the past few years, AACSB has collaborated with the MBA Career Services Employer Alliance (MBA CSEA) to deliver their annual survey of MBA graduate data as part of AACSB’s BSQ Employment Module. While the AACSB data entry sections of the survey gather basic employment data for graduates of degree programs at all levels, the MBA CSEA sections (which conform to their standards for full-time MBA programs) take a deeper dive into the specific employment outcomes of full-time MBA program graduates.

Figure 1. Full-time MBA Graduates by Industry of Employment, Numbers and Weighted Average Starting Salaries

Note: Data come from 89 AACSB-accredited business schools that completed the MBA CSEA data entry sections of the BSQ Employment Module in all three years.

Unsurprisingly, the majority of graduates gravitate to the industries with the highest average salaries in each year, although it is interesting to see the direction of some of the trend lines in the tab labeled “FT MBA Graduates Accepting Position.” For example, the numbers of MBA graduates reporting that they accepted a position in the consulting and financial services industries (the two highest-paying of all industries on the list, on average) have dropped 5 to 6 percent over the past three years. This is in spite of the fact that the average starting salary reported in both industries increased by a similar percentage over that same period.

In contrast, the numbers of MBA graduates reporting that they accepted a position in the technology sector increased nearly 17 percent, despite the fact that the average reported starting salary only increased by 2.5 percent over the last three years. A particularly surprising finding was the overall increase in average reported starting salary for graduates going into either government or transportation and logistics services. These were the highest two increases of all industries on the list, although it is likely that the small number of such graduates may be skewing the averages somewhat.

Employment Trends of Business School Graduates (Part I): Post-Graduation Employment Rates

By Colin Nelson

Among the most important objectives that business schools ultimately have is to ensure that their students prepared for the careers they will pursue post-graduation. One aspect of the data AACSB International collects from schools that participate in the Employment Module of our annual Business School Questionnaire (BSQ) measures how successful their graduates are in obtaining employment after earning their degrees.

Figure 1. Business Graduates Reporting Job Offer Acceptance

Note: Data come from 137 AACSB member schools that completed the AACSB data entry sections of the BSQ Employment Module in the last three years.

Of particular interest is the difference between the trends in employment rates and the numbers of graduates at each level. For example, among this set of participating schools, there was a decline in the overall number of graduates over the past three years for both general business master’s and doctoral programs, of approximately 8 percent and 14 percent, respectively. In both cases, the proportion of total graduates attaining employment within three months of graduation rose by a couple of percentage points.

In contrast, both undergraduate and specialized master’s programs saw a rise in their overall number of graduates by approximately 21 percent, while the employment rate held steady for undergraduate degree earners and declined by nearly 7 percent for specialized master’s graduates. This discrepancy may indicate that the job market is able to absorb an increased number of business degree graduates at the undergraduate level. To a lesser extent, this is also true at the specialized master’s level, given that the decline in employment rate for these graduates is far less than the increase in their numbers.

Look out for the second part of this series, in which we discuss trends in the industries in which MBA graduates find employment!

Factors Affecting School Size Categories (Part II)—Or, What Makes A School Large, Small, or Somewhere in Between?

By Colin Nelson

As promised in my last post, we have continued exploring potential alternate parameters for categorizing schools according to size. This post explores the impact on the number of schools classified as small, medium and large—if the parameters are changed from the standard parameters based on counts of full-time faculty to the various alternate parameters mentioned in Part I. We look at that impact at subsets of AACSB member schools offering different combinations of degree levels.

Figure 1. Net Change in Size Categories, Standard vs. Alternate Parameters by Degree Program Levels Offered

 

Some of the considered alternative size parameters cause the numbers of small, medium and large schools to differ more significantly from our standard classification scheme than others do. For example, when using the alternate parameters of Full-Time Equivalent (FTE) Faculty Counts or Total Enrollment Counts, in each case the vast majority of schools stay in the same size category as when defined by the current standard Full-Time (FT) Faculty parameters. Schools that do change category almost inevitably move down the size scale, particularly schools that offer both undergraduate- and graduate-level programs. Only among schools that solely offer undergraduate programs does the change in size category potentially go in either direction.

By contrast, when we apply alternate parameters based on student/faculty ratios, the numbers of schools that change size category from the standard parameters are far greater, comprising anywhere between 20 to 40 percent of the schools in each group. The net changes for both types of student/faculty ratios follow the same general pattern, but that pattern is much less uniform than that of the alternate parameters of FTE Faculty and for Total Enrollment.

Schools with doctoral programs, for example, appear much more likely to move down in size category when using either Student/FT Faculty or Student/FTE Faculty Ratios. In particular, application of the Student/FT Faculty Ratio results in over 34 percent of schools that offer doctoral programs moving down in size category, whereas nearly 19 percent of all schools without doctoral programs move up in size category.

When selecting peer schools for benchmarking in DataDirect based on school size, it is important to keep factors such as these in mind. What other characteristics do you think might influence the size category under these alternate parameters?

Factors Affecting School Size Categories (Part I)

By Colin Nelson

Historically, AACSB International has classified business school size categories by the number of full-time (FT) faculty reported on the annual Business School Questionnaire (BSQ), according to the following parameters: small (35 or fewer), medium (36-74), and large (75 or more). Since the recent release of the BSQ data from the 2016–17 iteration of the survey, however, we decided to explore some other potential parameters for size categorization, to see whether any significant differences would result. For the purpose of this experiment, we chose total overall enrollment, the numbers of full-time equivalent (FTE) faculty (the sum of the headcount of FT faculty and the reported FTE of part-time faculty), and student/faculty ratios for both FT and FTE faculty totals as new, alternate parameters.

Figure 1. Comparison of Size Categories, Standard vs. Alternate Parameters

As the data show, of these different ways that business schools can be categorized by size, some cause the categorization to differ more significantly than others from our standard classification scheme. For example, the alternate parameters for FTE faculty and for total enrollment each retain the majority of schools in each size category from the standard FT faculty parameters. By contrast, the differences from the standard parameters in the number of schools that fall into each size category for the alternate parameters for student/faculty ratios are far greater.

Notably, institutional control type also appears to have a significant effect on the proportion of schools that change size categories, regardless of which alternative parameters are used:

Table 1. Percent of Schools Remaining in Original Size Categories, by Control Type and Alternate Parameters

Source: AACSB 2016–17 Business School Questionnaire (BSQ).

The figures in Table 1 indicate the proportion of schools in each set that did not change size category when alternate parameters were applied. Further, any change in size category can be in either direction. Depending on the alternate parameters used, there were some schools that shifted from large to small, and vice versa, and others that moved only one step up or down.

The numbers clearly indicate that the effect of alternate parameters is greater when applied to private institutions than when applied to public institutions, in that public institutions are less likely than private ones to change size category when alternate parameters are applied, regardless of which alternate parameter was used. Being cognizant of such variabilities can be useful for school administrators, particularly when selecting peer schools for benchmarking in DataDirect.

Look out for Part II of this series, which will delve into the effects of the alternate parameters in conjunction with the types of degrees offered by institutions.

Survey Says: New Changes Ahead for Salary Data Collection

By Colin Nelson

September 2017 will mark the opening of the 50th iteration of AACSB’s annual Salary Survey. On this 50th anniversary, in order to better serve our global membership’s needs for pertinent staffing and compensation data, AACSB will be enfolding the Salary Survey into a more holistic data collection instrument, which we will be renaming the Staff Compensation and Demographics Survey. This move will align the two previously independent but complementary data sets in the former version of the Salary Survey and the Business School Questionnaire (BSQ), allowing us to connect our members with more relevant, contextualized, and timely data on business school faculty and staffing, while also giving them better tools with which to benchmark against their peers.

A couple of months ago, we reached out to our membership for input on how we might design the new survey so that their data needs in this area could best be met. We received great feedback from over 100 member schools, representing 30 countries and territories from all over the world. This feedback validated some of the actions we were already planning, such as returning the survey section on faculty compensation practices to its original home:

Figure 1. Should the Compensation Practices Section Remain in the BSQ Finances Module, or Return to the Salary Survey?

In other cases, the survey results helped us realize where there were gaps in our data collection that we can now fill in a way that will benefit our members. For example, based on the requests of numerous respondents for the ability to track faculty cohorts, we will be adding a “Year Hired” column to the faculty sections of the Salary Survey form. With this addition, our members will be able to track faculty members’ longevity of service by a variety of factors, such as rank, disciplinary area, qualification type, etc.

Another similar change will occur in the way we track tenured/tenure-track faculty. Acknowledging that the concept of tenure is not applicable in all nations in which we have members (and not universally applicable even in nations where it does exist), we will be adding a “Not Applicable” option to the survey column in which respondents indicate whether a given faculty member is tenured/tenure-track or not. We will also be including questions regarding alternate faculty models, which we hope will garner further data on how schools across the world deal with faculty contracts.

Most significantly, starting this year we will be providing an option to allow schools to report and benchmark on the individual demographic data, separately from the salary data. It is very important to note here that the way in which AACSB collects and reports on salary data is in compliance with most national and international statutes regarding personal data privacy (e.g., the European Union’s newly adopted General Data Protection Regulation). All data pertaining to specific individuals are collected in anonymized form in a secure database. They are reported only in aggregate, in such a way that it is impossible to attribute a specific data point to a specific individual, or even to a specific reporting school. Nevertheless, we received feedback from a number of schools who that indicated that their parent universities have internal policies against sharing individual salary figures.

We took all these concerns into consideration, and as a result, the 2017–18 Staff Compensation and Demographics Survey will allow respondents to forego entering salary figures while retaining the ability to enter the remaining individual-level data points collected, such as the numbers of faculty by rank, disciplinary field, gender, qualification type, etc., all of which are data points collected only on the AACSB Staff Compensation and Demographics Survey. Naturally, only those participants who enter salary data will be able to benchmark on salary figures, but our hope is that the opt-out feature will allow more of our members to participate and gain benefit from the ability to benchmark on the other individual-level data points.

To conclude, thanks to our members’ input, we made these and other significant improvements to the survey and the benchmarking tools that draw on its data. We look forward to being able to serve their needs for data regarding business school staffing and compensation, in ways that better adapt to various international contexts. Be on the lookout in the early months of 2018 for postings of data gleaned from the results of our revised survey, as well as access to new and improved benchmarking tools!

Gender Equality and Pay Gap in Business Education: EMEA Region (Part I)

By Olga Sholderer

Many countries across the globe have made significant strides toward greater gender equality since the 1960s, the start of the feminist movement. Many forms of discrimination against women are now illegal in many developed countries, women are present in job markets that they did not have access to previously, the pay gap has shrunk, and women have increasing opportunities to take on leadership roles. Within academia, women’s presence has become more prominent among faculty and students and, as we have previously reported, there are higher growth rates for enrollment into online MBA programs among women.

Despite the progress, there is still a long way to go to ensure equal opportunities for men and women in both education and the workforce. While the enrollment rate for female students in business schools grows steadily (enrollment of female undergraduate students in business schools grew by 17 percent from 2010 to 2015 against 16 percent for male students, according to AACSB’s annual Business School Questionnaire), equal employment of women, and specifically in leadership positions at business schools, is still underwhelming. The Economist reports that overall in the private sector, “sixty per cent of firms surveyed by the Peterson Institute for International Economics, a research body, had no women on their board.” The business education sector hardly differs from this situation, as female business school deans are still considered an exception. AACSB’s 2014 Dean Survey identified only 69 female deans against 285 male deans among its participants globally.  Similar dynamics take place in compensation practices of business schools. Data from AACSB’s Global Salary Survey demonstrate that there still is a significant difference between salaries for male and female professors.

Graph 1. Professors’ Median Salaries, EMEA

Source: AACSB Global Salary Survey. N=15 reporting schools. Salaries indicated for 12-month period.

Table 1. Number of Professors Reported in Global Salary Survey by Year and Gender

The charts above show that median salaries for female professors in the Europe, Middle East, and Africa (EMEA) region are 16,800–47,450 USD lower than those for male professors. Interestingly, the average salaries for female professors drop significantly in the 2015–16 academic year, as reported by participating schools. Female professors are not well-represented in the sample (see Table 1) and, thus, the results may be biased.

A follow-up post will demonstrate the effect of tenured and tenure-track professors’ salaries in the EMEA region, and will share some measures business schools are taking to reach greater gender equality in business education.

Business School Activity Priorities and Faculty Gender Balance

By Colin Nelson

As promised in my last post, today I explore associations between the business school activity priorities reported on the annual Business School Questionnaire (BSQ) by AACSB member schools, and their reported faculty gender balance. As a reminder, the activity priority codes reported on the BSQ reflect one dimension of diversity in business school missions by identifying the rank-order prioritization of intellectual contributions, teaching, and service. There seems to be a small but clear progression in average gender balance based on whether schools reported emphasizing intellectual contributions (ICs) over teaching, or vice versa:

Table 1. Female Percentage of Total Full-time Equivalent (FTE) Faculty, by General Activity Priorities

Source: AACSB BSQ, 2015–16. Data come from all AACSB member schools that reported faculty data with gender breakouts.

I’ve grouped the general activity codes by the activity types that they each emphasize most highly in Table 1 above. Codes BPA-2 and BPA-4 both indicate that the sole high-priority activity of the school is ICs. However, the codes differ in that BPA-2 places medium emphasis on teaching and low emphasis on service, while BPA-4 holds the reverse emphases. Codes BPA-1, BPA-3, and BPA-6 indicate the same for teaching, differing in that BPA-1 places medium emphasis on ICs and low emphasis on service, while BPA-3 is the reverse, and BPA-6 holds both ICs and service as medium emphasis. BPA-5 and BPA-7 indicate both teaching and ICs are equally highly emphasized, but BPA-5 holds service as low emphasis, and BPA-7 holds it equally high with teaching and ICs.

The data show that both the mean and median percentage of female faculty are largest among schools that regard teaching as their sole high priority activity and lowest among schools that hold ICs as their sole high priority activity, while schools that emphasize both teaching and ICs equally highly constitute an intermediate position. This progression became even more obvious when the 760 schools were divided into four quartiles by their female percentage of FTE faculty:

Figure 1. General Activity Priority Groups, by Female Percentage of Total Full-time Equivalent (FTE) Faculty

Source: AACSB BSQ, 2015-16. Data come from all AACSB member schools that reported faculty data with gender breakouts.

What these data suggest is that schools with a greater focus on teaching are more likely to have a higher proportion of female faculty than those with a greater focus on producing ICs. If that is indeed the case, then my next question is this: Are schools with a greater focus on teaching more likely to have a higher proportion of female faculty because women are more likely to seek faculty positions at such schools? Or, are schools with a greater focus on teaching more likely to have a higher proportion of female faculty because they tend to hire more women than those with a greater focus on producing ICs?