AACSB Data and Research Blog

Faculty Qualifications Part II: Supporting Faculty

By Colin Nelson

As promised in my last post, today I discuss the categorization of supporting faculty along several dimensions. Please note that the schools included constitute the same set that I looked at in my last post, but 27 of those schools reported no supporting faculty at all, and have thus been removed from the number of schools in the tables below.

 

Table 1. Supporting Faculty by Accreditation Status of Reporting School

Source: 2014–15 Business School Questionnaire (BSQ)

In contrast to the participating faculty, those who are deemed supporting faculty are more likely to be classified as Instructional Practitioners (IP) than any other qualification category defined in Standard 15. Even more so than with Scholarly Academic (SA) participating faculty, the proportion of IP-qualified supporting faculty is significantly higher in the AACSB-accredited schools; however, in this case the difference is likely due to a similarly higher proportion of supporting faculty in the non-accredited schools that have not yet been classified. This makes sense, given that those schools that have not yet attained accreditation would be less likely to have made such classification a priority.

 

Table 2. Supporting Faculty by Continental Region

Source: 2014–15 Business School Questionnaire (BSQ)

Since 60 percent of the reported supporting faculty in this set are from schools in Northern America, it is clear that the overall worldwide figures are somewhat skewed in favor of Northern American proportions, but it is still interesting to look at the relative proportions across geographic regions. Unlike with SA-qualified participating faculty, only Africa and Northern America show clear majorities of supporting faculty classified as any of the four qualification categories. While it is true that supporting faculty from schools in the other regions are classified as IP more often than not (when classified at all), it is nevertheless clear that these schools are much more likely to employ SAs or Practice Academics (PAs) as supporting faculty, as well.

 

Table 3. Supporting Faculty by Program Levels Offered

Source: 2014–15 Business School Questionnaire (BSQ)

As with AACSB Accreditation, the program levels offered by reporting schools appear to make major and interesting differences in their proportional complement of supporting faculty qualifications. Again, supporting faculty are classified as IP more often than not, regardless of program levels offered, but only those schools that offer undergraduate programs and not doctoral programs show clear majorities of such faculty. Schools that offer doctoral programs, or that do not offer undergraduate programs, are significantly more likely to have SA and, to a lesser extent, PA supporting faculty, which makes sense given that they would need more scholarly support in order to focus on higher-level degree programs. Interestingly, schools that offer only undergraduate programs are apparently by far the most likely type of school to have PA supporting faculty.

Faculty Qualifications Part I: Participating Faculty

By Colin Nelson

Now that the 2013 AACSB Accreditation Standards have been in place for a couple of years, a large majority of AACSB member schools are now comfortable classifying their faculty into the new qualification categories defined in Standard 15 (i.e., Scholarly Academic or SA, Scholarly Practitioners or SP, Instructional Practitioners or IP, and Practice Academics or PA). In fact, of the 770 total schools that participated in the 2014–15 Business School Questionnaire (BSQ), approximately 73 percent were able to report their faculty strength in those terms, broken out by participating versus supporting faculty. In this post, I discuss the categorization of participating faculty along several dimensions.

 

Table 1. Participating Faculty by Accreditation Status of Reporting School

Source: 2014–15 Business School Questionnaire (BSQ)

Unsurprisingly, given the proportional requirements of Standard 15 and the relative size of the set of accredited versus non-accredited respondents to the BSQ, the SA category forms the majority of participating faculty, though the proportion is certainly higher in the AACSB-accredited schools. What I find interesting here is that the same difference in proportion of such faculty at the non-accredited respondent schools, just over 6 percent, appears to be made up by their faculty whose qualifications include a mixture of academia and professional practice (i.e., either SP or PA).

 

Table 2. Participating Faculty by Continental Region

Source: 2014–15 Business School Questionnaire (BSQ)

Again, given the requirements of Standard 15, SA faculty are likely to form the majority of participating faculty regardless of where in the world the reporting school is located. However, it is interesting to see that there is still a high degree of variability across geographic regions in terms of how large a majority of SA faculty exists. In particular, schools in Latin America and the Caribbean, and to a slightly lesser extent in Europe, appear to be the most inclined to employ participating faculty of more diverse qualification categories. I should also note that the high proportion of SA faculty in Africa is likely due to the small number of respondents, and that all of those schools are either accredited or in the initial accreditation process.

 

Table 3. Participating Faculty by Program Levels Offered

Source: 2014–15 Business School Questionnaire (BSQ)

As with the other dimensions discussed above, variance in the types of degrees offered by reporting schools does not preclude the SA category’s prominence. What I find interesting here is that the schools that offer only graduate programs seem to be the most willing to hire participating faculty with more diverse qualification types. In particular, such schools show the largest proportion of SP or PA faculty, which may indicate both the necessity and freedom to include a greater emphasis on the practical knowledge at schools focused entirely on graduate-level studies.

Be on the lookout for the next post in this series, in which I will take a similar look at reported qualification types in supporting faculty!

A 5 Year Comparison of MBA/Master's Specialist Degree Program Disciplines

By Elliot Davis

In May, my colleague Jessica Brown provided a snapshot of MBA degree program disciplines, focusing on data collected in the 2013-14 AACSB Business School Questionnaire (BSQ). Her data found that, among AACSB-accredited schools, General Business and Management are the runaway leaders with respect to disciplines offered for MBA degrees, collectively accounting for 51.4 percent of all MBA programs offered. This shouldn’t be particularly surprising, as MBA degrees are often positioned to provide a broader, more generalized understanding of management, whereas, those seeking more specific interests often seek a specialized master’s degree. 

Snapshots used in this way are valuable for gauging the number of program offerings among a group of respondents at a given point in time. Looking at Jessica’s data, I was curious about how the makeup of MBA degree program disciplines had changed over time. Instead of looking at year-over-year change, which results in a smaller sample size, I decided to take two snapshots utilizing a controlled set of 592 schools (disregarding accreditation status) that reported in both 2009-10 and 2013-14 BSQs. For the purposes of this post, I will be rounding out to two spaces, so that the smaller changes are not lost due to rounding. 

MBA Degree Program Disciplines

Among MBA degree program disciplines, the greatest increase with respect to the total was the general business program discipline, which saw a 3.80 percent growth during this period. While the total number of MBA programs reported declined by 114 within this controlled set, the general business discipline increased by 21 total programs. Looking at the other end of the spectrum, CIS/MIS, e-business (including e-commerce), and Other (which would include a wide assortment of miscellaneous programs) saw the greatest declines, though these declines were rather nominal, at just (0.78 percent), (0.53 percent), and (0.50 percent) respectively.

Using the same controlled set of 592 schools and instead looking at Master’s Specialist programs during this period, there are (unsurprisingly) some stark differences.

Master’s Specialist Degree Program Disciplines

While MBA programs saw a decline in total programs, Master’s Specialist programs actually saw a 142 program increase overall. The discipline which was the greatest benefactor of this increase was finance, which added 32 new programs, giving it a 1.05 percent growth with respect to the total percentage of Master’s Specialist programs offered. Accounting saw a similarly favorable spike, growing by 22 programs. Interestingly though, due to the overall increase in Master’s Specialist programs offered, the Accounting discipline actually fell by 0.52 percent with respect to the total. The greatest increases with respect to their percentage of the total, other than finance, were general business, strategic management, and quantitative methods. As was the case with the MBA, e-business declined, losing 3 programs.

Which degree programs disciplines do you expect to see make headway in the next five years? Which will see the greatest decline? And, to what do you attribute the gains made by degree program disciplines such as the Master’s Specialist in Finance, or the General Business MBA? Share your thoughts in the comments or let us know at [email protected]. 

2013-14 Snapshot of MBA and EMBA Degree Program Disciplines Offered at AACSB-Accredited Schools

By Jessica Brown

MBA and EMBA are two of the many business degree paths that students may choose to enhance their education and careers. While the master’s generalist category includes a number of different degree titles that are considered broadly equivalent in educational focus to the MBA, the most immediately recognized and discussed are probably the MBA and EMBA. These two degree titles are what a lot of people think of first when looking for a business school, but, once students reach out to potential schools, it becomes clear that choosing the degree title is just the first step. Which disciplines are available and how those programs are delivered can be as important to students as the degree title itself. Business schools worldwide differentiate their degree programs in a variety of ways, from student experience and research opportunities to detailed focuses on specific fields and delivering programs in the times and ways that work best for their students’ needs.

On the 2013-14 AACSB Business School Questionnaire (BSQ), 533 AACSB-accredited schools worldwide reported offering at least one MBA degree, while 243 reported offering at least one EMBA degree. The overall numbers show that an average of four MBA programs and one EMBA program are offered at each school, but when the data are broken down by region, the number of MBA programs per school is highest among reporting schools in the Americas. As the data from the Americas represent more than 80 percent of the reporting schools, breaking out the regional data is one way to better understand how the data reported by AACSB-accredited schools from other areas of the world may differ.

2013-14 Programs Reported with MBA or EMBA Degree Titles at AACSB-Accredited Schools

 

* Please note that this region includes a small comparison group of reporting schools.

One way that schools can differentiate their programs is by offering specific field or discipline concentrations for their degrees. Depending on the school, this approach may be in the form of an official discipline for each degree (such as awarding an MBA in accounting) or as a major focus for the degree (such as awarding a MBA degree with a concentration or focus on accounting). On the annual BSQ, schools are asked to provide a focus discipline for each degree program listed. For many MBA programs, the discipline may be listed as General Business to indicate that the program is an overall generalist degree without any additional specialization, but increasingly MBA programs are being reported with different disciplines as schools continue to tailor their MBA programs to meet student and industry needs.

The data charts below illustrate that General Business and Management are still the strong leaders among the disciplines offered for both EMBA and MBA degrees, but other disciplines are also well represented. While General Business and Management were the most commonly reported disciplines for the EMBA degree (86.9 percent of reported EMBA programs), at the MBA degree title, those two disciplines accounted for only 51.4 percent of the reported MBA programs. At the MBA degree title, Finance, Marketing, and Other (a category for disciplines beyond the standard 27 disciplines collected on AACSB surveys) were the next most commonly reported disciplines, with another 28.4 percent of MBA programs reported with one of the remaining 23 disciplines.

2013–14 BSQ: Five Most Common Fields or Disciplines by Percentage of MBA Degree Programs Reported

 

For the EMBA, while other disciplines represented a smaller portion of those reported overall, the disciplines other than General Business and Management that appeared in the five most commonly reported were not the same as those for the MBA. At the EMBA level, International Business and Health Services / Hospital Administration joined the Other category to complete the top five.

2013–14 BSQ: Five Most Common Fields or Disciplines by Percentage of EMBA Degree Programs Reported

 

 

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

 

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.] 

Differential Tuition Rates at Business Schools

By Colin Nelson

One of the more frequently asked questions received by AACSB International’s research staff, which we were unable to answer prior to the release of our new BSQ Finances Module, was regarding the degree to which business schools charge tuition at rates different from the standard tuition rate of their parent university. While we have heard anecdotally that the number of schools charging differential tuition rates has been increasing, until we have multiple years of data gathered by the BSQ Finances Module, it is impossible to discuss trends from a data perspective. For now, however, we are at least in a good position to talk about existing differential tuition rates at AACSB member business schools.

Of all the schools that responded to the 2013-14 BSQ Finances Module, 334 had a parent university from whom to differ, and 80 of these (or about 24 percent) indicated that they charge tuition at a rate different from the standard institutional rate of their parent. Four other schools also indicated that although their tuition rate did differ from that of other academic units, their parent institution itself had no standard rate across the board. Interestingly, almost all the schools that reported differential rates (74 of the 80) were AACSB-accredited.

Table 1. Reported Differential Tuition Rate Statistics

Differential Rate (% diff. from inst. standard)	N=	Mean	Std. Dev.	Max	75%	Median	25%	Min
	80	+19.9	+24.1	+100.0	+30.0	+11.0	+6.0	-25.0

 

As you can see, the range of differentiation from the institutional standard is very wide. It is worth noting, though, that of the 80 schools that entered the percentage by which their tuition rate differs from that of the standard institutional rate of their parent, only five indicated that their tuition rate was lower than the institutional standard, all of which were AACSB-accredited.

An even more interesting picture emerges when we look at the differential rates broken down by a couple of other dimensions:

Table 2. Differential Tuition Rates by School Size

School Size	N=	Proportion of Total Participants of that Size	Mean % Difference from Parent	Median % Difference from Parent
Small (35 or fewer FT faculty)	15	15.3%	+28.9	+16.0
Medium (36 to 75 FT faculty)	34	24.8%	+17.3	+10.0
Large (More than 75 FT faculty)	31	27.9%	+18.3	+10.0

 

When we look at the difference that school size makes, it seems that smaller schools have a tendency to differ from the standard institutional rate of their parent university by a larger percentage than their medium-sized or larger counterparts, whose differential rates are very similar. This may be a function of sample size, because the proportion of small schools reporting differential rates is significantly lower than the same proportion of their medium-sized or larger counterparts.

However, of the nine schools that reported differential rates of +50 percent or more, four were small schools (including two of the three that reported the maximum differential rate of +100 percent), versus only two medium-sized schools, and three large schools. Additionally, no large school reported a differential rate higher than +71 percent, and three of the five schools that reported rates lower than the standard institutional rate were large schools (including the school reporting the minimum differential rate of -25 percent).

Table 3. Differential Tuition Rates by Degree Levels Offered

Program Levels Offered	N=	Proportion of Total Participants of that Category	Mean % Difference from Parent	Median % Difference from Parent
Masters only or Masters/Doctoral only	4	26.7%	+34.8	+28.0
Undergrad/Masters only or Undergrad/Masters/Certificates	37	18.5%	+19.8	+10.0
Undergrad/Masters/Doctoral	39	33.9%	+18.4	+12.3

Note: There were no “Undergrad only” schools that reported a differential tuition rate.

When we look at the difference made by the degree levels offered by the school, it seems that schools offering only graduate-level programs have a tendency to differ from the standard institutional rate of their parent university by a significantly larger percentage than those that offer undergraduate programs as well. While this might appear to be a function of the smaller sample size of schools offering only graduate-level programs, it should be noted that the proportion of such schools reporting differential rates is virtually the same as the proportion of such schools in the overall set of survey participants. Interestingly, schools that offer programs at all three levels were much more likely to report differential tuition rates at all, as compared to other categories, with just over one-third of all such schools reporting a differential rate.

Changing Program Composition

By Elliot Davis

If you’ve been tapped into the news regarding higher education and business schools lately, you may be concerned by some of the words being used to describe the current landscape. There have been cries of enormous upheavals occurring at business schools, describing these changing times as any one of a slew of natural disasters, like the higher education tsunami, or earthquake, or avalanche. With this whirlwind landscape in a constant state of flux, how have business schools adapted their program offerings to the changing environment?

Using a controlled set of AACSB Accredited schools that responded to the Business School Questionnaire over the past five years, the following chart shows the percentage gains and declines in program offerings by discipline across all educational levels. 

Source: AACSB Business School Questionnaire, 2008-2009 to 2012-2013. Controlled set of AACSB Accredited Schools Reporting in all 5 Years. N = 493. 

I was immediately struck by the large falloff in e-business and e-commerce programs. This program has seen a whopping 46.81 percent dip over the five year time frame. On the flip side, business ethics including corporate social responsibility has seen a 37.50 percent increase over that same period.

The following are the programs that have seen the greatest increases and decreases over this time frame:

To drill down further, the following dashboard shares more details by displaying the changes broken down by educational level and the number of programs being reported.

Learn About Tableau

Is what we are seeing occur here in business school programming reflective of the times? When we look at the next five years’ worth of data, what programs will have seen the largest growth and largest decline?

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?

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.