AACSB Data and Research Blog

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?

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.

The Effect (Or Not) of Institutional Control on Starting Salaries

By Colin Nelson

By far one of the most popular queries we here at AACSB receive is regarding information about how a degree from an AACSB-accredited school contributes to the career of those who receive it. As we prepare to release the data from the 2015-16 iteration of the AACSB BSQ Employment Module survey, I thought I might treat our readers to a preview of the data that can help to shed light on that question.

For those who may be unfamiliar with the survey, on it we collect information about the starting salaries for graduates at every level. To frame the context of what we collect, it is important to understand that all starting salaries reported are only for those graduates who were seeking employment (i.e., not already employed during their course of study, continuing their education afterward, etc.). Moreover, they are only those that pertain to employment seekers who received and accepted job offers either at the time of graduation, or within three months. In this way, we can be sure that the salaries reported were received on the basis of the degree earned.

Figure 1. Average of Lowest and Highest Reported Base Starting Salary, by Institutional Control and Degree Level

Source: 2015-16 AACSB BSQ Employment Module. Note: All data are from AACSB-accredited schools, and N=number of schools reporting salary data.

I was surprised to note that, with a few exceptions, there was relatively little difference between the average starting salaries reported by public versus private schools, at both the high and low ends of the spectrum. It was mainly at the doctoral level that institutional control appeared to make any significant difference, and it is entirely probable that this is at least partially an effect of the small sample size of schools reporting at that level.

The only other place where there was any significant difference was at the high end of the starting salaries for graduates of generalist business master’s programs. Given how little real effect institutional control appears to have as a differentiating factor for starting salaries at other levels, however, I suspect that there are other factors at work. Look for my next post, in which I will explore some of them.

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]. 

Re(Designing the B-School Curriculum)

By Elliot Davis

Business schools are preparing students for the future of work, iterating and redesigning their programs to get out ahead of industry trends and develop content that carries both immediate relevancy while also offering lasting, even lifetime, value. This is certainly a tall order, but is a challenge that many business schools have taken on. The recently concluded Curriculum Conference: Re(Invest+Think+Design) explored ways in which a curriculum may be redesigned to balance these needs. As a precursor to this conference, AACSB hosted three symposia on the topic of Redesigning the MBA. The symposia agendas focused on a number of topical areas relevant to the MBA, including items such as managing in a global context, leadership development, innovation and creativity, critical thinking and communication skills, and experiential learning.  We reached out to the attendees of those symposia years later, to check-in and see what changes had been made to their programs following their time at the event.

What we found was quite intriguing. Seventy-four percent of those surveyed indicated that they had attended the symposium because their school was either considering or in the midst of an MBA redesign. As such, it was not surprising that since attending the symposia, 64 percent of respondents reported changes made to their MBA curriculum and/or program (86 percent of those stating that the symposium impacted the redesign). When asked what changes were made, 81 percent of respondents noted changes had been made to course or program content; 41 percent shared that changes had been made to their program’s architecture (which would consist largely of formatting changes, e.g., changing credit hour requirements); and 37 percent mentioned changes in pedagogical approach (such as new modes of teaching delivery).  

Many of the content-related changes involved the creation of a new set of coursework, including business plan capstones, professional development (and "soft" competency development) activities, and case competitions. Some schools have sought to close the gap between academe and industry. For instance, a school in India noted the creation of a program that partners students with businesses for their final term, with the student working in an internship-like capacity. A U.K.-based university has developed a module designed for the student's personal career development, focusing on self-reflection and post-graduation planning.

With respect to architectural changes, schools reported a wide range of outcomes, from tweaks to entire overhauls of their programs. Some of the reported changes were more minor in nature, such as a school in Canada that gave MBA students the option of waiving two courses if they would instead complete a project. A more significant change came from a school in India, which changed from a trimester system to a semester system, along with redesigning several existing courses and introducing a new foundations program for incoming students. Several schools reported reducing the credit-hour requirement on “core” coursework, or essential classes, while increasing elective credit-hour requirements. Changes of this sort may be aimed at providing students with added flexibility in catering their studies to their own preferences and career aspirations.

The pedagogical changes were just as varied, with schools implementing new modes of delivery, such as online and distance-learning courses. Additionally, there has been a growth in focus on creating learning environments and objectives that are experiential in nature. One school in Oceania mentioned a changed pedagogical approach to teaching through the introduction of an experientially based strategic consulting program. A school in Canada introduced a preparatory math and Microsoft Excel (spreadsheet software) “boot camp,” designed to ensure that all students have an equal footing in these areas.

If you are interested in learning more about what other schools are doing within their curriculum and what should be done to better prepare your school’s programming for the future, keep your eye on the Curriculum Development Series. Until then, what has your school been redesigning in the curriculum? 

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.]

 

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?

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?

Exec Ed Rise Continues

By Elliot Davis

In a April 2011 blog entry entitled "Exec Ed on the Rise", my colleague Juliane Iannarelli cited data from The International University Consortium for Executive Education (UNICON) that suggested that greater emphasis on non-degree granting executive education programs was underway. Two years later, UNICON has released findings from their most recent annual membership survey. The data collected both by UNICON, and through AACSB's own annual Business School Questionnaire (BSQ), provides an answer to the question Juliane proposed in her 2011 blog entry, "Are we seeing the beginning of a larger trend toward greater emphasis on non-degree, executive education?"

The Consortium, consisting of nearly 100 business schools worldwide, again provided several indicators for sustained growth. Of the survey respondents, 82 percent experienced growth in 2011-12, with 49 percent of schools reporting revenue growth of more than 10 percent. Additionally, 94 percent of executive education providers expect their revenue to grow in 2012-13.

The survey’s results suggest that the growth of executive education was stymied for a time due to the global economic downturn, but it is beginning to rebound with significant continued growth expected for the coming year. Driving this forecast is a resurgence of interest among employers in investing in talent development, and an acknowledgment that such investments are ultimately good for their companies’ bottom lines.

UNICON chair Melanie Weaver Barnett, the chief executive education officer at the Stephen M. Ross School of Business at the University of Michigan, explains that “companies are beginning to invest in their people again, and our survey suggests that this investment might accelerate in the year ahead.”

AACSB's own data also confirms this assertion. Using a controlled set of 409 AACSB-accredited member schools completing the BSQ in all years from 2005 to 2013, the 2005-06 year saw 38.9 percent of AACSB-accredited schools supporting non-degree granting executive education center, institutes, or facilities. This percentage has grown to 44.1 percent for the 2012-13 year. While growth has not been constant from year to year, we are still observing a positive trend line.

Figure 1. Percent of AACSB-accredited schools supporting non-degree executive education center, institute, or facility, controlled for schools reporting in all years.

Source: AACSB International, Business School Questionnaire 

With the 2013 Accreditation Standards now in place, AACSB's commitment to the quality of executive education has never been more pronounced. Standard 14 refers exclusively to executive education, defined therein as educational activities that do not lead to a degree but have educational objectives at a level consistent with higher education in management. With this standard, all AACSB-accredited schools must ensure that their executive education programs have the appropriate processes in place to ensure high quality in meeting client expectations and continuous improvement in executive education programs.

The growth and accompanying changes within the realm of executive education should prompt those interested in pursuing it to review all pertinent factors. Emerging considerations such as level of customization, mode of delivery, and need for international perspective are all worthy of deliberation. 

Moving forward I expect business schools to continue innovating in executive education, creating novel partnerships with business, incorporating fresh insights from research, and leveraging technological advances to enhance learning and assessment. The economic downturn may have slowed the growth of these programs temporarily, but the recent gains indicate that accelerating growth is on the way.

Growth in Accessibility of AACSB-Accredited Online Degrees

By Colin Nelson

Much has been said regarding management education offered online, including in the archives of our own blog. While it is certainly very much up for debate whether MOOCs will all take over instruction of basic classes, or if virtual campuses will come to replace brick-and-mortar, the one thing that no one can deny is that online education is increasing in popularity and availability:

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

Note: This table includes data from a controlled set of 480 accredited schools that responded to the AACSB Business School Questionnaire (BSQ) in all five years. Please note that each school may have more than one fully online program at each given level.

480 AACSB-accredited schools, representing 34 countries and territories worldwide, participated in each of the last five annual BSQ surveys. Figure 1 (above) shows the numbers of these schools that reported offering one or more of their degree programs, at any level, in a fully online delivery format has grown by nearly 43% over the past five years. Obviously, much of that growth comes at the MBA level, while the gains in numbers of bachelor’s and specialized master’s programs offered fully online were more modest.

One notable exception to this trend is online doctoral programs. As of this writing, no AACSB-accredited school has ever reported a fully online doctoral program on the BSQ. There are, however, AACSB-accredited schools offering blended/hybrid or distance-learning doctoral programs, so who’s to say what the future may bring?

Interestingly, the regional breakdown of which schools offer their programs in the fully online format is far from even. Although schools in Northern America made up approximately 87% of the controlled set represented here, they consistently made up more than 95% of those who reported offering fully online MBA or specialist master’s programs, and 100% of those offering fully online bachelor’s programs. By contrast, there are as yet no African or Asian respondents that report fully online programs at any level, and there were none in Oceania prior to the 2010-11 survey year.

This regional concentration is at least partly a function of greater historical participation in the BSQ in Northern America. However, since the regional concentration of schools offering fully online programs remains several percentage points higher than the regional concentration of BSQ participants in all years, participation is clearly not the only contributing factor.

Given the origins of the Internet itself in the region, for example, schools in Northern America have also had the most time and opportunity to develop the virtual infrastructure necessary to make offering fully online programs feasible. Additionally, since fully online education makes geographical location largely a moot point from the perspective of potential students, the location of the offering institution probably matters less than it would for other modes of delivery.

Now, it very well may also be that schools in regions other than Northern America are underreporting their programs, or are simply underrepresented in the BSQ thus far. The number of BSQ participants outside Northern America has grown steadily over the past five years, however, and is up 45% in 2011-12 versus 2007-08. This will be a trend worth continuing to watch, particularly as our global participation grows larger and larger.