AACSB Data and Research Blog

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?

Business School Priorities: A Comparative Analysis

By Colin Nelson

In the annual Business School Questionnaire (BSQ) that goes out to all member schools of AACSB International (The Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business), we ask for data on each business school's priorities when it comes to different types of mission-based activity. These data points are unique to AACSB, and help us to connect our members to their peer schools, who report similar emphases.

Our data show how business schools prioritize two primary types of activity: general school activities such as teaching, research, and service (coded as BPA-1 through BPA-7 in the visualization below); and types of research activity, including contributions to practice, discipline-based scholarship, and learning & pedagogical research (coded as BPB-1 through BPB-13). Each school that completes the BSQ is asked to identify how they prioritize these activity types from among a number of possible combinations, as shown below:

Figure 1. Prioritization of Business School Activities

Source: AACSB BSQ. Note: These figures do not represent a controlled set of schools across all years. All BSQ participants in each academic year are included. Please scroll down for the "full-screen" button to see the whole display.

Interestingly, activity priority codes that hold teaching as either the highest, or one of the highest, priority activities were consistently chosen 88 percent of the time by the whole population of reporting schools. Even when one limits the sample to AACSB-accredited schools, the ratio only drops by one percentage point. By contrast, activity priority codes that place the highest priority on intellectual contributions (singularly or jointly) were only chosen between 52-55 percent of the time by the whole population of reporting schools, or between 55-57 percent by accredited schools.

BPA-1 and BPA-5 are consistently the most frequently chosen activity priority codes, together accounting for over two thirds of all reporting schools in each year. However, it is interesting to note that BPA-5 (which gives equally high priority to teaching and intellectual contributions) overtakes BPA-1 (which places teaching alone as the highest priority) as the most popular choice after the 2012-13 BSQ, particularly among AACSB-accredited schools. It will be worth watching to see whether the emphasis on intellectual contributions catches up to that placed on teaching in years to come.

Similarly, discipline-based scholarship, which we define as “the creation of new knowledge”, is consistently given the highest research priority (singularly or jointly) by approximately 70 percent of all reporting schools each year. Indeed, BPB-1 (which gives higher priority to discipline-based scholarship, medium to contributions to practice, and lower to learning & pedagogical research) is consistently the most popular choice amongst the research priority codes across all years, garnering over a quarter of all reporting schools in each year, whether one controls for accreditation status or not.

By contrast, learning & pedagogical research, which we define as “the enhancement of the educational value of instructional efforts of the institution or discipline”, ekes out only slightly more than a quarter of all reporting schools giving it highest research priority each year, while contributions to practice occupies a middle ground between the two in terms of emphasis.

Please look out for my next post, in which I plan to explore connections between the activity and research priorities and the gender balance of full-time faculty!

Gender Differences in MBA Enrollment

By Hanna McLeod

Although enrollment in MBA programs across AACSB-accredited schools as a whole has remained relatively steady over the past three years, some changes do emerge once you more closely examine the data, specifically when looking at female representation within the MBA market.

Figure 1. MBA Enrollment by Gender

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Source: AACSB Business School Questionnaire (BSQ). Data represents AACSB-accredited schools that provided enrollment data for MBA programs in all three years.

The chart above shows that MBA enrollment across AACSB-accredited schools has slightly decreased (by about 4 percent) over the past three years, and the proportion of female enrollments has remained steady at about 36 percent. When we take a look at what is occurring in the online MBA space, however, we see a couple of interesting things happening.

Figure 2. Online MBA Enrollment by Gender

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Source: AACSB Business School Questionnaire (BSQ). Data represents AACSB-accredited schools that provided enrollment data for fully online MBA programs in all three years.

The numbers shown above in Figure 2 are included in the total enrollment numbers in Figure 1. We see that total online MBA enrollment has increased by almost 24 percent in the last three years. Furthermore, although female representation has increased only slightly as a percentage of total online MBA enrollment, nearly 34 percent more females had enrolled in an online MBA program in 2015–16 than in 2013–14. That growth contrasts with only 20 percent growth among male enrollees.

These findings suggest that although female representation continues to be rather stagnant within the MBA population, which as a whole seems to be shrinking, there is significant interest within the online MBA space, at a higher rate than their male counterparts. One can speculate on the various reasons driving this trend, but the online space appears to be an increasingly attractive option for MBA students, particularly females.  

MBA Graduates’ Starting Salaries by Professional Function (Part II)

By Colin Nelson

As promised in my last post, here is a preview of the 2016–17 data from the BSQ Employment Module’s MBA CSEA sections:

Table 1. MBA Graduates’ Starting Salaries by Professional Function

Professional Function	N of Schools Reporting	N of Graduates Reporting	Weighted Average Salary (USD)
Consulting	75	2,001	$123,720
Finance/Accounting	90	1,934	$114,064
General Management	62	740	$107,396
Marketing/Sales	82	1,366	$102,844
Information Technology	25	112	$97,699
Other	59	416	$97,270
Operations/Logistics	70	558	$95,915
Human Resources	12	38	$83,952

Source: 2016–17 BSQ Employment Module—MBA CSEA Sections. Notes: All salary data represent weighted averages, based on the number of MBA graduates reporting salaries in each category.

As compared to the same data from the previous year’s survey, the number of schools reporting graduates in each function rose across the board, likely due to the fact that nearly 22 percent more schools completed the MBA CSEA sections of the survey in 2016–17 than in the previous year. However, the breakdown of professional functions has a very different configuration in terms of average salaries and numbers of graduates.

Table 2. Percentage Change From 2015–16 to 2016–17

Professional Function	N of Schools Reporting	N of Graduates Reporting	Weighted Average Salary (USD)
Information Technology	8.7%	16.7%	6.2%
Marketing/Sales	10.8%	12.2%	2.4%
Finance/Accounting	23.3%	3.0%	1.2%
Consulting	5.6%	-1.5%	1.1%
General Management	12.7%	5.6%	0.1%
Operations/Logistics	32.1%	18.5%	-1.2%
Other	18.0%	-14.9%	-3.7%
Human Resources	20.0%	31.0%	-12.0%

Source: BSQ Employment Module—MBA CSEA Sections.

As you can see, the least significant changes over last year in the average salaries and numbers of graduates reporting accepting positions occurred in the top three professional functions by average salary (Consulting, Finance/Accounting, and General Management). The most significant changes generally occurred within the fields with the fewest graduates reporting accepted positions. IT, for example, has seen a significant boost in both areas over last year, while the average HR starting salary saw an even more precipitous decline. Of course, it makes sense that the functions with the fewest graduates reporting accepted positions would have more significant changes, due simply to the smaller sample size, but it makes me wonder whether that is the only factor, or whether it is also reflective of general industry trends.

The data from the 2016–17 BSQ Employment Module’s MBA CSEA sections is now available to participating schools within our DataDirect system.

MBA Graduates’ Starting Salaries by Professional Function (Part I)

By Colin Nelson

For the past three years, AACSB has collaborated with the MBA Career Services Employer Alliance (MBA CSEA) to deliver their annual survey of MBA graduate data in conjunction with the Employment Module of AACSB’s Business School Questionnaire (BSQ). Among the many data points gathered by this survey are data on the starting salaries of MBA graduates by a number of factors, including the industry in which they receive employment, the geographic location of their employment, their level of pre-MBA program work experience, and more. Table 1 shows a sample of these data, broken out by the professional function in which they serve:

Table 1. MBA Graduates’ Starting Salaries by Professional Function

Professional Function	N of Schools Reporting	N of Graduates Reporting	Weighted Average Salary (USD)
Consulting	71	2,032	$122,433
Finance/Accounting	73	1,878	$112,695
General Management	55	701	$107,292
Other	50	489	$101,041
Marketing/Sales	74	1,218	$100,433
Operations/Logistics	53	471	$97,119
Human Resources	10	29	$95,453
Information Technology	23	96	$91,957

Source: 2015–16 BSQ Employment Module—MBA CSEA Sections. Notes: All salary data represent weighted averages, based on the number of MBA graduates reporting salaries in each category.

As one might expect, the professional functions with the largest average starting salaries are also the most popular, judging by the number of MBA graduates reporting employment. Interestingly, though, that pattern is interrupted, mainly due to the popularity of the Marketing/Sales category.

Look out for my next post, in which I will compare the same data from the 2016–17 iteration of the survey, prior to its upcoming release!

DataDirect: Turning Data Into Strategic Solutions

By Olga Sholderer

DataDirect was launched in 2005, and since then AACSB International has expanded the variety of surveys offered and has gone global. This year’s Business School Questionnaire (BSQ) has collected responses from 799 business schools, 280 of those outside of the U.S. DataDirect grants access to data on business schools’ institutional characteristics, budgets, faculty, students, and salaries, among others, for schools that participate in the questionnaires. At our recent EMEA Annual Conference in Madrid, we dedicated a session to demonstrating how business schools can use these data for evidence-driven solutions and strategic decision-making in their institutions. Session facilitators Chris Wert, from ISC Paris, and Wilfred Mijnhardt, from Rotterdam School of Management (RSM), shared their experiences using data from AACSB International’s surveys for their schools’ needs.

Wert dedicated a part of the session to using DataDirect for accreditation questions, faculty salary negotiations, and finding new collaborations. Completing the BSQ is obligatory for accredited schools, and its results provide a wide range of data points on business school characteristics, which is necessary for benchmarking during the accreditation process, said Wert. With the help of the BSQ, schools are able to find and compare themselves with their peers. Salary Survey, on the other hand, is helpful during the new faculty recruitment process and allows benchmarking against other business schools’ faculty and administrator salaries for compensation negotiations. Wert mentioned his experience in working with collaborations data, too: “I use the Collaboration Survey, and it is a very good survey. I think it is very important for European schools, even more so than for the Northern American schools, because here the European schools are much more focused on Erasmus, on double degrees, etc. There is a fair amount of good data.”

Mijnhardt shared his experience as a policy director using BSQ data on doctoral programs across AACSB member schools. He used multiple data sources to create a complex dataset to address his areas of interest. Pulling information on PhD enrollments, degrees conferred, and absolute and relative sizes of doctoral programs across a number of European schools enabled RSM to better analyze the current positioning of its school against others. This data helped RSM not only better evaluate the work currently done by the school but also better market the school’s programs. A school is able to compare itself against others and identify its unique characteristics that can be used for promotion of the school among potential students, partners, and donors. Mijnhardt underlined “how valuable AACSB data are if you want to move towards a more analytic perspective and more evidence-based policy support in your school.”

Surveys offered through DataDirect open numerous opportunities for seeking new partnerships, benchmarking against other schools in the areas of students enrollment, faculty numbers, range of programs offered, and faculty and administrator salaries. Frances Bowen from Queen Mary University of London mentioned during the session, “We don’t have an MBA program. It is very interesting to look at the schools and to see MBA versus specialized master’s programs across the schools in the market. Data coupled with professional intuition and judgment can be very helpful here.”

To be able to enjoy all of the benefits of AACSB DataDirect for data-driven solutions at your business school, participate in our currently open surveys or request to have a past survey unlocked for you. To learn more about other ways you can use data from DataDirect, please see our Data Case Guide. To learn more about how to use the system, please refer to our online tutorials or contact us with any questions at [email protected].

Continued Growth in Accessibility of AACSB-Accredited Online Degrees

By Colin Nelson

I’ve received a number of requests recently for an update to a post I wrote back in January 2013, regarding the trend toward greater numbers of AACSB-accredited schools offering fully online degree programs at various levels. It looks like this trend has only continued in the intervening years:

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

Notes: This chart includes data from a controlled set of 521 accredited schools that responded to the AACSB Business School Questionnaire (BSQ) in all five years. Each school may have more than one fully online program at each level.

Five hundred and twenty-one AACSB-accredited schools, representing 36 countries and territories worldwide, participated in each of the last five annual BSQ surveys. Figure 1 above shows that the proportion of this set of schools that reported offering one or more of their degree programs, at any level, in a fully online delivery format has grown from 25 to 37 percent over the past five years.

While fully online programs at the Masters-Generalist (MBA) level saw the highest rise in absolute number of schools offering them, the percentage gains in the numbers of specialized master’s and especially bachelor’s degree programs offered fully online were significantly more robust (more than 67 and 80 percent increases, respectively, versus 44 percent for the general business master’s programs). In my earlier post, programs at the Masters-Generalist (MBA) level were the primary driver for the increase in schools with fully online programs at any level, so this new data may indicate a shift in focus, at least within this controlled set.

Online doctoral programs remain the notable exception to this trend. None of the schools in the controlled set reported offering a fully online doctoral program. In fact, as of this writing, only one AACSB-accredited school has ever reported a fully online doctoral program on the BSQ, namely the Management School of the University of Liverpool (not a member of the controlled set), which offers a fully online DBA program.

It is also worth noting that the growth in the number of AACSB-accredited schools offering such programs remains almost entirely driven by schools based in the U.S.:

Table 1. Schools Offering Fully Online Programs by Country/Territory

Notes: This table includes data from a controlled set of 521 accredited schools that responded to the AACSB Business School Questionnaire (BSQ) in all five years, and N equals the total number of schools from each country/territory in the set. There were three Chinese schools outside of Hong Kong in the controlled set, but none of them reported fully online programs. Each school may have more than one fully online program at each level.

Although American schools make up about 79 percent of the schools in the total controlled set, they consistently make up 94–95 percent of the schools reporting fully online programs at any level. So why are accredited schools in other countries not showing similar levels of growth in this increasingly popular delivery mode?

For one thing, although the BSQ does not collect data on blended/hybrid programs, we know anecdotally that programs providing some online or asynchronous content are growing in number. It may be that more schools outside the U.S. are opting for blended/hybrid programs versus fully online delivery. Another reason may be that, from the student perspective, the physical location of the school offering fully online programs does not matter as much as the quality of the programs themselves. Nevertheless, as fully online delivery continues to grow in popularity, it will be interesting to see if more schools from all over the world begin to pioneer new programs in cyberspace.