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.

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.

Trends at Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) in the U.S.

By Colin Nelson

Because February is African-American History Month in the U.S., it seems an appropriate time to examine trends in the business schools of those institutions that have been designated by the U.S. Department of Education as Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs). HBCUs are institutions founded prior to 1964, with the express mission of serving African-American students. In terms of business education, HBCUs are collectively responsible for producing 21 percent of all business and management degrees earned by African-American students in the U.S.

Figure 1. Five-Year Enrollment Trends at HBCUs

Note: Proportions come from a controlled set of 9 HBCUs that reported data to the Business School Questionnaire (BSQ) in all five years.

As you can see, total enrollment at the HBCUs in our set has fallen steadily over the past five years, by nearly 20 percent overall. Interestingly, though, enrollment at the graduate level has actually grown by nearly 37 percent at these schools over the last five years, this despite the fact that the number and types of programs have remained fairly stable during this period. Apparently, the decline in enrollment overall is entirely due to declining undergraduate enrollment.

Enrollment is not the only thing declining at HBCU business schools, however.

Figure 2. Five-Year Faculty Trends at HBCUs

Note: Proportions come from a controlled set of 9 HBCUs that reported data to the Business School Questionnaire (BSQ) in all five years.

Although not as drastic as the reductions in enrollment, the total number of full-time (FT) faculty for the controlled set of HBCUs declined by 4.6 percent over the last five years, and the total number of full-time equivalent (FTE) faculty declined by nearly 9 percent. In addition, for this same set of schools, the average annual operating budget also declined by 1.5 percent.

I should note here that the data presented in this post should not be construed as definitive for all 105 currently operating HBCUs in the U.S. Indeed, only 32 of them are members of AACSB International as of this writing (although another 10 schools are former members, and 15-20 percent of all HBCUs are ineligible for membership due to the lack of business programs at the bachelor level or higher). Nevertheless, we are certainly not the only ones to point out the various issues plaguing HBCUs in recent years. As an employee of an organization that cares about diversity as well as quality in higher education, I hope that a path can soon be found to renewed prosperity for these important institutions.

Regional Focus: Europe

By Jessica Brown

Aggregates and Averages—A Look at Changes in the Per-School Averages for European Schools Based on data reported in 2009-10, 2011-12, and 2013-14.

When we look at the data reported on the annual AACSB surveys, we often examine it as a whole with aggregate sums across all of the participating schools based on specific characteristics or by looking at each individual school’s data separately. Taking a regional view is another way to drill down and examine the data that AACSB collects. Yet another interesting way to view this data is to take a look at the per-school averages based on those aggregate numbers to get a general idea of what the aggregate numbers could mean for individual schools. Of course, there will always be a range of responses, so an average cannot give the complete picture, but it does offer schools another benchmarking point to determine whether their school’s reported numbers are above or below the mean.

All of the averages used in this article are based on the aggregate data from the following table collected from participating member schools in Europe on the annual Business School Questionnaire.

For each of the education levels listed below, the graph shows the average number of applications, offers of admissions, entrants, enrolled students, and degrees conferred per school based on a controlled set of 44 European schools that participated in the annual Business School Questionnaire in all three years listed. Please note that not all schools that participated provided all data points for each year. The data table above displays the number of participating schools that provided each of these data points in each year listed.

The Undergraduate Level

At this level, while the average number of applications has risen in each year, the averages for offers of admission, entrants, enrollments, and degrees conferred have all stayed relatively stable with small variations up or down. This could be caused by a number of factors, including the potential that some schools are seeing increased demand based on the number of applications received, but are already at capacity and haven’t increased the conversion of those applications to enrollments or that, despite receiving additional applications, the number of qualified applicants has remained largely the same.

Figure 1: Undergraduate Averages Per School For European Comparison Group 

The Master's-Generalist (MBA Equivalent) Level

When looking at the aggregate data for this comparison group and time period, 31 schools reported a total of 67,378 applications at the master’s-generalist level in 2009–10, and 40 schools reported a total of 107,375 applicants in 2013–14. By looking at this on a per-school basis, you can see that the number of students applying at the master’s-generalist level has been on the rise, with a 27.0 percent increase in the average number of applications reported per school from 2009–10 to 2013–14 for this group of survey participants.

A very interesting point on this figure is the close match between the number of new entrants and degrees conferred – showing that the average number of incoming and outgoing students per school tends to be similar. As both offers of admission and enrollments show an upward movement in 2013-14, the entrants and degrees conferred numbers may also begin to show growth in future years as these students continue through their programs.

Figure 2: Masters-Generalist Averages Per School For European Comparison Group 

The Master's-Specialist Level

For master’s-specialist programs, the average number of applications has also increased, but, unlike the at master’s-generalist level, the average number of entrants is somewhat higher than the average number of degrees conferred. Especially when seen in conjunction with the continued increases in offers of admission and enrollments, this could indicate that schools are adding more capacity to their specialized master’s degree programs, which may lead to continued increased growth in these programs.

[This content is also available in eNEWSLINE, April 2015.] 

U.S. Minority Student – Faculty Ratios Remain High

By Hanna McLeod

Trends within underrepresented minority populations at AACSB schools and within education in general, has long been a topic of significant interest to the public. As Elliot Davis mentions in an earlier blog post, AACSB continues to support and explore initiatives that aim to increase minority representation – both by students and faculty – within business schools.

The tables below show a glimpse of some of these trends, specifically a five year comparison within AACSB-accredited schools regarding undergraduate enrollment, faculty counts, and their respective ratios, for American Indian/Native American, Black/non-Hispanic, Hispanic, and White/non-Hispanic populations. *Business School Questionnaire (BSQ); 371 U.S. AACSB-accredited schools that reported this data in both given years

 An initial observation is that faculty counts for the three listed minority populations have increased in that five year period, while undergraduate enrollment has seen significant drops except for the Hispanic population, which has grown by more than 14 percent. In light of this growth, however, the undergraduate student to faculty ratio for the Hispanic population at AACSB schools remains high, actually increasing in that time period to 146 Hispanic students for every Hispanic faculty member. From this data one can assume that although AACSB schools are experiencing growth in Hispanic undergraduate enrollment and faculty numbers, the rate of growth is still not fast enough for improvements in lower student to faculty ratios in the undergraduate classroom, particularly in comparison with the other groups. Does this data mirror minority trends and representation at your business school? What other observations do you think are interesting to note?

 

The Numbers Game

By Joseph Mondello

Over the last dozen years, AACSB has worked diligently to compile the most comprehensive database for business education in the world. Everything from institutional characteristics to effective practices to global collaborations is now collected and available, primarily as a member benefit to member schools’ faculty and students, but we also serve as a source of information for the media as well. Understandably, this volume of data can be sliced and diced a variety of ways to explain the present state of business education, and to look for trends that may indicate future movements in enrollment, finances, admissions, governance, etc.

One topic that seems to have attracted the most research and analysis is gender, and specifically the growth, or lack thereof, in female students enrolled across all academic levels in the business school community. It is also a topic that serves as a perfect example of why careful consideration of the way data is reported is necessary to produce an accurate portrayal of current gender trends. In the academic years of 2007-08 through 2012-13, I can tell you with some assurance that the percentage of female students in Masters’ programs is inching upward. I can also tell you, with the same assurance, that the number of female students enrolled in Masters’ programs has declined. At first glance, these would seem to be contradictory statements; however, let’s take a look at a graphic representation of the data:

Learn About Tableau

As you can see, what the data are really showing is a decline in Masters’ enrollment for both men and women. However, the rate of decline for women is slower. This makes it appear there is greater female visibility when, in fact, it more a case of less visibility among male students.

Why there is a decline and why it is affecting men more than women are topics for another day, but the point here is that unless you see the data in its totality, you may be led to the wrong conclusions. It is the responsibility of every unbiased researcher and analyst to present their findings in the most thorough way possible so that any interested parties, be they student, faculty, or media, are properly informed.

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?

Do Female-Led B-Schools Render Higher Female Enrollment?

By Hanna Drozdowski

From the AACSB Data and Research Blog team, Happy International Women’s Day to all the women who take on the many roles—deans, faculty, administrators, students—at AACSB member schools and management education worldwide! In honor of this special day, the AACSB Data and Research Blog team thought a post showing some of AACSB’s gender data would be appropriate to share with our readers.

 
Increasing female representation, especially in leadership positions, at business schools has long been a challenge that many schools have been working hard to overcome.  In the past five years, we have seen some improvement in the female representation among dean (or equivalent) positions at AACSB business schools; however, there is still room for more! Salary Survey data in the table below shows a snapshot of female representation in the dean (or equivalent) position in 2012-2013 and five years prior, in 2007-2008. Although an increase from 17% female representation to 18.5% is not very large, we are still seeing some growth in the actual number of female deans serving at AACSB member schools.

 

*AACSB Salary Survey Data

AACSB’s 2006-2007 and 2011-2012 Deans Surveys showed similar changes with female representation growth, from 17% in 2006-2007 to 18% five years later.

A past article in The Wall Street Journal, “More B-Schools Choose Women as Deans” included mention of the following:

 “having women in leadership positions can make a mark on a school's student body, a crucial asset as institutions look to close the gender gap among that population as well…The presence of women deans, just like the presence of women executives in the corporate world, ‘helps [students] to see the kind of things they can do and where they can go,’ says Linda Livingstone, dean of Pepperdine University's Graziadio School of Business and Management.”

 

Linda Livingstone’s quotation in the article made me wonder if AACSB data shows that business schools led by female deans are more inclined to attracting female students. Take a look at the enrollment data below:

*2011-2012 BSQ Data

Based on these numbers, it doesn’t seem that female deanship makes a significant difference in female enrollment. But what we can infer is that female enrollment, especially at the MBA and EMBA levels, is still rather low; but appears closer to 50/50 at the Specialized Master’s level.

Encouraging females to pursue business education and leadership positions has been an important agenda item for many schools, as well as other various educational institutions and associations. More work needs to be done in this space, but I do predict that in the next five years our data will show more equal representations among females and males.

 

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.