Manajemen | Fakultas Ekonomi Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji joeb.80.1.17-24

Journal of Education for Business

ISSN: 0883-2323 (Print) 1940-3356 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vjeb20

The Meaning of Quality: Expectations of Students
in Pursuit of an MBA
Molly Inhofe Rapert , Scott Smith , Anne Velliquette & Judith A. Garretson
To cite this article: Molly Inhofe Rapert , Scott Smith , Anne Velliquette & Judith A. Garretson
(2004) The Meaning of Quality: Expectations of Students in Pursuit of an MBA, Journal of
Education for Business, 80:1, 17-24, DOI: 10.3200/JOEB.80.1.17-24
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.3200/JOEB.80.1.17-24

Published online: 07 Aug 2010.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 90

View related articles

Citing articles: 16 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=vjeb20
Download by: [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji]

Date: 12 January 2016, At: 22:22

Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 22:22 12 January 2016

The Meaning of Quality:
Expectations of Students
in Pursuit of an MBA

R

MOLLY INHOFE RAPERT
University of Arkansas
Fayetteville, Arkansas

ANNE VELLIQUETTE

University of Utah
Salt Lake City, Utah

SCOTT SMITH
Central Missouri State University
Warrensburg, Missouri

JUDITH A. GARRETSON
Louisiana State University
Baton Rouge, Louisiana

ecently, business educators celebrated the 100th year of the MBA
degree at a time when graduate business
programs have been receiving accolades
from a diverse set of constituents: students, faculty members, corporations,
industries, and even journalists. A survey conducted by Accountemps found
that 80% of top executives say that a
graduate business degree is critical to
achieving senior management rank
(Yerak, 2000). Currently there are many

career placement opportunities for
MBAs; these openings are being fueled
by the demand from traditional recruiting sources (Weisul, 2000), as well as
the growing attractiveness of the
lifestyles associated with small business, entrepreneurial ventures, and
Internet opportunities (Daniels, 2000).
A wide range of companies claim that
MBA students provide the same value
as much more experienced and expensive professional consulting firms
(Haynes & Setton, 1998).
In recent years, this opportunity-rich
situation has received the kind of praise
that it did in the early 1980s (Hahs,
1999). Elinor Workman, director of
MBA career services at the University

ABSTRACT. In this study, the
authors combined qualitative and
quantitative methods to explore the
meaning of quality in students’ selection and evaluation of an MBA program. Results of the study indicate

that students adopt a holistic
approach, placing importance on a
wide variety of issues that extend
beyond the classroom learning setting.
The study confirms the importance of
constant examination of the expectations of key stakeholders in the educational process. The authors provide a
dual-method approach for such
examination.

of Chicago’s Graduate School of Business, stated, “This is absolutely the best
MBA recruitment year I’ve ever seen in
terms of numbers and caliber of job
offers” (Lord, 1997, p. 80). Similarly,
Paul Danos, dean of Dartmouth’s Amos
Tuck School of Business Administration, concluded that “coming to a major
MBA program is the best bargain for
anyone with ambitions I’ve ever seen”
(Lord, 1997). From a firm’s perspective,
MBA graduates maintain the greatest
retention value because they are the primary source of highly ambitious knowledge workers (Sandweiss & Lewin,

2000). The MBA programs of study

continue to be the most popular
approach to management education
(Yang & Lu, 2001).
Nevertheless, there are mixed reviews
regarding this century-old degree. Concern over the quality of education has
been debated frequently (Karathanos,
1999). Increased competition among
educational providers is forcing business
schools to become much more flexible,
innovative, and challenging in their offerings (Ponzurick, France, & Logar, 2000;
Reingold & Schneider, 1999). Although
many universities have responded,
reengineering their courses and programs, many others lag behind (Hatfield
& Taylor, 1998; Yerak, 2000). Universities are struggling with tight budgets,
increased competition for resources, and
time constraints placed on faculty members trying to keep abreast of technological and operational changes in this fastpaced environment (Richards-Wilson,
2002). Yucelt (1998) maintained that
MBA programs are not preparing students to deal with a global business environment, a diverse work force, and environmental and ethical issues.

Much like resolutions evoked by New
Year’s Eve celebrations, the centennial
September/October 2004

17

Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 22:22 12 January 2016

celebration of the MBA degree evokes
introspective questioning: Are institutions and educators providing a quality
educational experience? In this research
project, we had three objectives. First,
we sought to examine a variety of specific aspects of an MBA program by
exploring the effectiveness of the implementation of each aspect via student
perceptions. Second, we explored the
relationships between these five specific
aspects and seven different measures of
graduate student satisfaction. Third, we
examined student perceptions of a quality graduate program. Specifically, we
investigated (a) how students who enter

a graduate program in business define
quality and (b) what quality themes in
the program emerge that might be used
to improve both the assessment and
delivery of performance. To achieve our
third objective, we used content analysis
of narrative descriptions of quality provided by program participants. Hence,
we approached the three objectives
through both quantitative and qualitative perspectives, which provided us
with a unique profile of education-based
quality in MBA programs.
Why Is Quality So Hard
to Capture?
Providing a quality graduate program
is a difficult and ever-changing task. To
begin, the expectations of external constituents may vary widely. Educational
institutions are scrutinized on the basis
of the benefits that they provide to businesses, organizations, and communities
through graduates (Sculley, 1988). The
complexity arises largely from the

wide-ranging diversity of those who are
drawn to enroll in such programs.
Today’s MBA students have experienced a wide range of academic subjects. It is not uncommon to find cohorts
with undergraduate degrees and/or work
experience in diverse specialties such as
health, music, political science, and language. In addition, in those MBA programs that mandate work experience as
a prerequisite, students have gained
exposure to the workings of functional
areas, perhaps solidifying their likes and
dislikes of accounting, marketing, and
other business areas. Such students have
chosen to interrupt whatever path they
18

Journal of Education for Business

were traveling to invest their time, energy, and money in graduate study. Their
standards are high, and their expectations are focused and diverse.
Hence, we affirm that the meaning of
quality is personal, strongly grounded in

the previous experiences and future
hopes of each individual student. For
some, the search for a quality graduate
program entails evaluating how challenging the academic environment is. Others
place a strong emphasis on team-oriented
activities. Some associate quality with
rigorous analytical skills, whereas others
seek conceptual clarity and enhanced oral
communication (Ulinski & O’Callaghan,
2002). Some equate quality with breadth
of knowledge, and others seek depth in
particular areas.
Yet quality is often assessed with standard items based on predetermined components of quality. Although such assessments provide valuable insight, perhaps it
is time to examine the meaning of quality
from the students’ perspectives. How do
they delineate quality? What themes
emerge both within and across cases?
What implications arise for the paths that
students take when they explore quality
levels?

Identifying Potential Meanings
of Quality
In the pursuit of the meaning of quality in education, the extant literature
provides numerous suggestions. Across
most settings, a quality education is
associated with learning the tactics and
developing the intuition needed to perform in a job situation, along with
developing leadership, communication,
and interpersonal skills (Adrian &
Palmer, 1999). Others have suggested
that the goal of today’s reengineered
MBA curricula is to mold well-rounded
team players through interdisciplinary
courses and real-life learning experiences (Lord, 1997). Indeed, some
researchers have proclaimed that learning at its best comes with hands-on
experience, which should be intensively
incorporated into MBA programs
(Haynes & Setton, 1998; Wilson, 1999).
Teamwork and hands-on experience
have become so prevalent in MBA programs that it is not enough simply to

include these approaches; faculty mem-

bers must aggressively provide welldesigned and enforced environments for
maximizing the team experience
(Michaelsen & Razook, 1999).
A recent study of marketing faculty
members concluded that educators are
working hard to develop discussionoriented class cultures, make increased
use of emerging technologies, and
place a greater emphasis on helping
students strengthen their communication and decision-making skills (Smart,
Kelley, & Conant, 1999). Creativitybased initiatives are receiving increased
attention (Driver, 2001). Consistent
support exists for defining quality in
terms of rapport, interaction, feedback,
evaluation, and student learning (Abrami & d’Apollonia, 1991). Followers of
the Students’ Evaluation of Educational
Quality (SEEQ) approach would add
enthusiasm to organization, breadth,
and value of assignments and material
as markers of a quality course (Guolla,
1999).
Student-Based Delineations
of Quality
Clearly, quality is difficult to implement and capture in a meaningful sense.
Given the forces that place intense,
sometimes conflicting pressures on the
providers of MBA programs, it becomes
incumbent upon us to reflect on what
quality means in today’s world. Although
all stakeholders provide important
insight into the meaning of quality in
business education, in this study we
focused on students as the narrative
source for delineating quality perceptions. Students immersed in MBA programs are the only direct, daily observers
of institutional quality. Hence, they are
an invaluable source of judgment information for quality expectations and performance (Seldin, 1980). Students are
the ultimate customer, for whom scholastic satisfaction is imperative (Guolla,
1999; O’Brien & Deans, 1995). The
quality of the education that they receive
plays a critical role in their acquiring and
sustaining a competitive advantage in the
workforce (Hampton, 1993). We must
understand the expectations of students
to provide the best opportunities for
practical business degrees that are rich in
academic discipline.

Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 22:22 12 January 2016

Do students have the capability of
evaluating performance as it relates to
experiential knowledge? According to
many academics, students have conspicuous assets as judges of educational
quality (Seldin, 1980). Studies regarding
teaching quality ratings by students are
plentiful, because nearly all universities
conduct end-of-term evaluations in their
courses (Clayson, 1999; McKeachie,
1999; Whitworth, Price, & Randall,
2002). Universities usually develop these
surveys to gather quantifiable information and hard data about teaching effectiveness. We built on this foundation in
this study; however, our aim was to
examine the quality of the program
rather than the quality of any particular
faculty member. The quantitative items
reflect the core quality attributes
described in the literature.
More interesting, though, is our
study’s narrative component, which
allows us to explore quality meanings
free of any preconceived frame of reference. Both quantitative and qualitative
research techniques work well in certain
situations and are limited in others
(Deshpande & Webster, 1989; Smircich,
1983). A combination of the two
approaches seems most logical for
developing a wider and deeper perspective of a latent construct such as quality
perceptions (Rapert, Garretson, Velliquete, Olson, & Dhodapkar, 1998). To
this end, in this study we combine the
deep understanding of thematic developments with the predictive value of
exploring quantitative relationships.
The convergence of techniques yields a
more comprehensive understanding of
what quality is and how it is interpreted.
Method
The research project was targeted at a
cohort of 38 students completing their
graduate business program at a southeastern, public university during the 2002
academic semesters. Surveys from the
student sample were completed in paper
form in a classroom setting. Although the
sample size was small, we capitalized on
the opportunity to examine a full set of
MBA participants who had progressed
through the program as one cohort.
Hence, students in this group were
exposed to the same recruiting efforts,

classroom experiences, and placement
opportunities. Examining quality interpretations in this single, relatively homogeneous population serves to minimize
extraneous sources of variation while still
providing a wide range of quality orientations. Out of the cohort of 38 students,
36 chose to participate in the study,
resulting in a response rate of 95%.
We developed all scaled items specifically for this research project and used
previous approaches in the literature as a
foundation for scale development. We
developed a 22-item scale encompassing
7 dimensions for perceptions of quality.
We used a 7-item scale to assess performance. For all scales, we used a 5-point,
Likert format ranging from 1 (strongly
disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Psychometric assessments of the measures
revealed that all scales were reliable and
valid. Detailed information about the
scale items, reliability, and validity measures can be obtained from the contact
author. Finally, students were asked to
reflect on their perceptions of what constitutes a quality graduate program. Students described in narrative form what
“quality” meant to them with regard to
graduate education opportunities.
Findings
The Quantitative Findings: Research
Objectives 1 and 2
In Table 1, we provide a summary of

the means and standard deviations of the
seven summated scales of course characteristics. Course participants indicated
that the program’s strongest emphasis
was placed on team-oriented skills; this
factor was followed by a participatory
environment and clearly defined expectations and goals. With respect to performance outcomes, students expressed
strong satisfaction with the improvement
in communication skills, increased willingness to take initiative, and enhanced
interpersonal skills.
The data in Table 2 allow for an
examination of the relationships between evaluations of course characteristics and the seven performance questions. Overall satisfaction with the
program was related to all characteristics and was associated most strongly
with an emphasis on building skills,
beneficial feedback processes, and a
participatory environment. Amount of
knowledge gained was associated with
all characteristics of the program, and
most strongly with skill orientation, participatory environments, and feedback
processes. Willingness to recommend
the program to others also was correlated with all seven characteristic-based
aspects, most strongly with skill orientation, expectations, and feedback
processes. Willingness to choose the
program again was related to all quality
elements, whereas improved communication skills were related to program
emphasis on skills and feedback

TABLE 1. Summated Scales and Satisfaction Items
Scales
Expectations
Respect for diversity
Integrated program
Skill orientation
Participatory environment
Feedback
Team orientation
Overall satisfaction
Improved communication skills
Improved interpersonal skills
Willingness to take initiative
Gained great knowledge
Recommend program
Choose program again

M

SD

4.11
3.89
3.86
3.95
4.25
3.54
4.29
3.88
4.18
3.97
4.00
3.94
3.85
3.79

.70
.90
.85
.76
.62
1.20
.67
.91
.52
.87
.95
1.07
.93
1.09

Note. All items for summated scales and satisfaction items were measured on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).

September/October 2004

19

TABLE 2. Relationship Between Quality Elements and Satisfaction Outcomes

Expectations
Respect for diversity
Integrated program
Skill orientation
Participatory environment
Feedback
Team orientation

Overall
satisfaction

Learned
a great
deal

Recommend
program
to others

Choose
program
again

Improved
communication
skills

Improved
interpersonal
skills

Learned
to take
initiative

.482**
.464**
.345*
.735**
.497**
.598**
.392*

.443**
.350*
.366*
.750**
.493*
.484*
.421**

.591**
.454**
.425*
.713**
.469**
.524**
.481**

.455**
.593**
.402*
.510**
.514**
.376**
.459**

.140
.064
.253
.471**
.237
.302**
.020

.139
.513**
.369*
.340*
.332*
.059
.221

.473**
.413*
.433*
.622**
.495**
.502**
.199

Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 22:22 12 January 2016

*Significant at the less than .05 level. **Significant at the less than .01 level.

processes. Improved interpersonal skills
were related to respect for diversity,
integrated program material, skill orientations, and participatory environments.
Finally, learning to take initiative was
related to all characteristic aspects
except for emphasis on teams.
Thematic Interpretations via Content
Analysis: Research Objective 3
We explored the emergence of quality
dimensions via the narrative descriptions
provided by participants completing a
graduate business program. We established coding guidelines to delineate the
components of a quality MBA program.
First, we undertook an extensive literature review, focusing on identification of
the key issues of importance to graduate
students. Focus group participants
included a group of MBA students who
were not part of the original sample. Of
the 38 students within the cohort, 32 participated. We combined the results from
this focus group with the factors grounded in the literature to form an initial
framework for guiding the coders. This
initial framework served merely as a
starting point, and we ultimately refined
and elaborated it through both a review
of the literature and coding progress.
Three authors of the present article,
who were experienced in contentanalysis coding techniques, participated in the narrative data analysis. As
a preliminary test, the coding team
examined a random sample of five
comments, identifying the need for
team discussion and clarification of
the coding process. A second coding
attempt resulted in consensus of the
20

Journal of Education for Business

themes contained in the sample comments. The remainder of the coding
analysis process focused on the delineation of themes provided by the MBA
comments.
To provide a thematic description of
the diverse interpretations, the coders
reviewed each student’s statements that
emphasized some aspect of quality.
Through several iterations, 11 themes
emerged. Coders extensively discussed
these themes, searching for commonalities that would allow for the most accurate representation of the domain. We
present the resulting 2 metathemes and
11 themes in Table 3. For each theme,
we provide samples from participating
graduate students.
In Table 4, we summarize the prevalence of each theme in the interpretive
schema of the graduate students. Seventyfive percent of the students reported that
the primary component of a quality graduate business program is “encouraging
intellectual growth.” “Integration with the
business community” was emphasized by
53% of the students, and 41% focused on
“devoted and knowledgeable faculty.”
These statements reflect the existence of
a particular dimension of quality within
the respondents’ narrative. In addition, we
examined the relative emphasis placed on
each statement. The data in Table 4
include each coder’s interpretation of the
degree to which each theme was emphasized by the students. The coders used a
5-point, Likert-type scale ranging from 0
(not emphasized at all) to 4 (emphasized
to a great extent). To begin this process,
all coders individually coded five
responses, met together to see a preliminary example of how the responses might

look, and then individually performed the
rest of the coding. From this perspective,
a high value indicates that the respondents placed a great deal of emphasis on
a particular aspect, limiting quality to perhaps one or two components. A smaller
value indicates that the particular aspect
was one of many factors that the respondent identified in the narrative. Hence, the
“mean” column of Table 4 summarizes a
within-case perspective, whereas the
“percentage” column summarizes an
across-case perspective. Focusing on the
mean column, we see the same pattern
emerge. “Encourages intellectual growth”
was generally identified as the primary
component of quality, with an average
within-case emphasis of 3.34. “Availability of financial aid” was generally
identified as a minor component of quality, one of many reported in within-case
responses, with an average of 1.42.
Conclusions and Implications
As we noted in the introduction, quality in higher education is considered a
critical variable by a multitude of constituents, including business leaders,
corporations, industries, legislators,
communities, and, most importantly,
students. Existing student evaluation
research illustrates that the perceived
quality of educational experiences
directly affects overall satisfaction with
programs (Guolla, 1999; O’Brien &
Deans, 1995; Seldin, 1980). Thus, if
educational programs are striving for
higher satisfaction ratings from their
students as well as employers, they must
continue to determine what constitutes
quality from a student’s perspective and

TABLE 3. Metathemes and Themes Established via Content Analysis
Accompanied by Examples From Student Narratives
Metatheme/theme
In-class environment
Encourages intellectual
growth

Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 22:22 12 January 2016

Overall professionalism

Specialized training and
instruction

Generalized/integrated
training and instruction
Teamwork and group
dynamics
Devoted and knowledgeable faculty members

Classmate and faculty
intimacy

Outside-class environment
Integration with business
community
Career preparation
services
Availability of financial
assistance
Program clarity

Example

Graduate-level mentality throughout the entire program with a focus on analytically stimulating
material rather than merely numerous assignments
(i.e., busywork)
Encouraging the development of both logical reasoning and creativity in the classroom
Communication skills (oral, written, and presentation)
Training in social etiquette skills to be prepared for
professional settings/meetings
Opportunity to develop an emphasis in one (or a few)
particular content and/or methodological areas
Training to be an expert or specialist in one particular business area rather than a generalist who can
do a little of everything, but nothing extremely
well
Numerous electives in a variety of business content
areas
Illustration of how each content area relates to others
Specific focus on teamwork with training in the
motivation and management of teams/groups
Recognizing, respecting, and relating to differences
and diversity in a workplace environment
Well-trained and experienced faculty members
focused on effective teaching rather than just publishing
Faculty members with a substantial amount of realworld business experience and applied knowledge
Small classes that allow for close and comfortable
relationships with classmates
Close relationships with professors willing to provide
personal attention, guidance, and feedback to
students
Opportunities to engage in real-world experiences
and networking with businesses
Exposure to guest speakers and field trips to businesses
Focused efforts on job placement
Job enhancement through career-related activities
Institutional prestige as a placement aid
Opportunity for graduate assistantships or jobs with
funding attached
Opportunity for financial assistantships, scholarships,
and/or funding; obtaining MBA with minimal debt
Clearly stated program goals outlining requirements
necessary to complete the degree
Open lines of communication between administration, faculty members, and students

implement strategies to improve students’ educational experiences. As such,
our goal in this research was to extend
the standard, quantitative end-of-term
student evaluation measures, which currently dominate in the domain of education quality assessment. With the addition of a qualitative, case-by-case

approach to exploring students’ perceptions of the quality of a program as a
whole, this research contributes to the
business education literature in several
ways. First, a qualitative approach
allows for a rich, thematic description of
a diverse set of student interpretations
of quality, which is overlooked when

quantitative research forces a predetermined frame of reference and set of
variables. Second, this research both
identifies and supports the importance
of quality dimensions established in the
literature, illustrating the impact of
those domains across various satisfaction and performance outcome measures for MBA-level programs. Furthermore, this study introduces dimensions
of quality not previously identified in
the existing student evaluation literature. As a result, the present study presents a new approach as to how students
conceptualize quality that may influence their satisfaction with a graduate
business program.
Implications of Quantitative Evidence
As evidenced by the quantitative portion of the study, the in-class experiences (including clearly defined/communicated expectations and team
orientation) represent important quality
dimensions. In addition, the positive
correlation of the seven quality elements with satisfaction measures illustrates the way in which the dimensions
contribute to various aspects of satisfaction. This information can be beneficial
in two different ways. First, it shows
how specific outcomes of satisfaction
may be improved through increased
emphasis on the quality dimensions
with which they are associated. For
example, the results suggest that if
attempts are made to improve students’
communication skills, emphasis should
be placed on skill-oriented tasks while
also improving the feedback mechanisms. Similarly, evidence suggests that
if a program aims to improve students’
overall satisfaction, level of learning,
and recommendations to others, it
should focus on enhancing all seven
quality domains identified in this study.
Second, the results may serve as a useful guide for programs interested in taking smaller-scaled initiatives to improve
quality. Often, programs may be in a
position to focus on addressing one or
two specific elements of quality. The
results demonstrate which elements of
quality could provide the greatest overall
improvement in terms of satisfaction
measures affected. For example, a graduate business program may be contemSeptember/October 2004

21

Implications for Business Education

TABLE 4. Percentage of Students Reporting and Means/Standard
Deviations

Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 22:22 12 January 2016

Metatheme/theme
In-class environment
Encourages intellectual growth
Devoted and knowledgeable faculty members
Classmate and faculty intimacy
Generalized/integrated training and instruction
Overall professionalism
Specialized training and instruction
Teamwork and group dynamics
Outside-class environment
Integration with business community
Career preparation services
Program clarity
Financial assistance

%

M

SDa

75
41
38
38
34
22
16

3.34
2.10
1.93
1.75
1.81
1.57
1.53

1.81
1.60
1.57
1.34
1.37
1.28
1.31

53
28
25
13

2.44
1.66
1.61
1.42

1.71
1.35
1.33
1.14

a

To capture the extent to which the theme was emphasized, respondents used a 5-point scale in
which 0 = not emphasized at all and 4 = emphasized to a great extent. The percentage represents
the percentage of students who indicated the importance of each theme. The mean is the degree to
which each theme was emphasized.

plating initiatives to implement either
skill-orientation or team-orientation
strategies. According to our results,
attempts to improve the skill-orientation
element would be the optimal choice,
because the program would reap the benefits of heightened evaluations across
all—rather than only three—satisfaction
measures. Overall, this study provides
additional evidence that programs that
implement strategies directed to improve
perceived quality can enhance specific
satisfaction benefits.
Implications of Qualitative Evidence
As revealed by the narrative comments in the qualitative portion of the
study, two metathemes of quality
emerged. Although the existing dimensions of quality identified in the literature
primarily focus on the in-class environment, the narrative comments suggest
that quality be conceptualized in both inclass and out-of-class environments. For
example, in our examination of the inclass environment, we found that numerous students commented on the importance of all seven established domains of
quality, emphasizing the benefits that
they receive from courses during their
program. In addition to mentioning the
existing quality domains, students indicated that a quality program allows for a
more specialized academic concentra22

Journal of Education for Business

tion. Several subjects noted that, during
the program, they developed a true interest in a particular subject or field and that
they would have benefited from an
opportunity to develop that interest further by taking additional advanced courses in that area.
Most interesting is the second theme
that emerged from the narrative comments concerning quality gained from
environments outside of the class. Experience outside of the classroom included
integration with the business community,
career preparation services, availability
of financial assistance, and program clarity. Students mentioned that as they progressed through the program, they realized the importance of a program’s job
enhancement efforts. They also indicated
that if a program failed to provide them
with helpful job-placement services or
with exposure to business people and
real-world business problems, the program was inadequate and adversely
affected their overall satisfaction. This
result indicates that students evaluate a
program holistically—that is, they consider not only the issues of established
expectations, skill development, and
small, intimate classes, but also external
elements outside of the classroom that
enhance their in-class experiences. Their
narratives describe how such experiences
are vital to their overall development,
intellectual growth, and confidence.

This research offers insightful directions for both administrators and faculty
members involved with MBA programs
in areas such as recruiting, advertising,
career placement, and retention efforts.
First, given the interesting delineation
and diversity of quality interpretations
offered by the students in this study, our
results indicate that educators must go
beyond their traditional end-of-term
quantitative assessments of quality and
satisfaction. This is even more important in light of the core competencies
being developed by so many programs.
A wide variety of program perspectives
is now available to students, including
programs that emphasize experiential
learning, those that concentrate on
team-building skills, and others that
emphasize international issues. Accordingly, it becomes important for all programs to conduct similar qualitative
research to determine more accurately
their students’ needs and perceptions as
well as the drivers that attract students
to each individual program.
Second, on the basis of these results
and the students’ holistic interpretation
of quality, we conclude that an emphasis on quality throughout all aspects of
the program is warranted. Improving
the experiences outside of the classroom seems to be a goal appropriate
for administrators of graduate programs, given their traditional role in
graduate programs. For example,
administrators may improve students’
perceptions of quality by enhancing
program clarity. The words “program
clarity” do suggest clear requirements,
but they also signify “understood by
all.” Students mentioned that although
administrators may be familiar with the
requirements, faculty members are
often left out of the process. Yet,
because faculty members are often
more familiar and accessible to students, they are frequently the recipients
of program-related questions. Consistent with the strategic consensus and
customer-orientation literatures (Hartline, Maxham, & McKee, 2000),
administrators should ensure that all
individuals involved with a program
are aware of its requirements and procedures to promote accurate dissemi-

Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 22:22 12 January 2016

nation of information to students.
Simultaneously, administrators could
improve clarity by encouraging the students to communicate with those in the
program administrative offices. Also,
all communications (Web-based
sources, information packets, promotional brochures, recruiting efforts)
should be designed to support the
vision and core competencies of the
program consistently.
In addition, administrators also may
improve quality by cultivating an environment conducive to improved realworld learning experiences. As noted by
student narratives, students desire initiatives that increase their contacts with the
business community and job-placement
opportunities. To even further heighten
the perceived quality of the program,
administrators could ask students to participate in the decision process regarding
which business professionals should be
invited to campus. Administrators could
formulate a list of potential speakers and
events and distribute those lists to classes for student input. These ideas represent only a few of several possible
strategies administrators can take to
improve experiences outside of the
classroom, and thus improve this component of quality.
Faculty members appear to be appropriate facilitators to address the quality
issues inside of the classroom. According to the data that emerged from both
the quantitative and qualitative portions
of this study, students believed that a
substantial portion of a program’s quality is derived from the in-class environment. Students apparently expect both
graduate-level rigor and dedicated faculty members willing to apply such high
standards in the classroom. It is fair for
students to hold such expectations;
however, faculty members often may
provide material that is perceived as less
challenging only because they are
unaware of students’ previous training.
As such, it appears that the acquisition
of useful student information enables
faculty members to prepare more adequately for their courses, thus presenting a course that is more in line with
students’ expectations. To acquire such
information for course modification,
faculty members could establish benchmarks at the beginning of each course

with information from surveys and
quizzes that measure students’ current
level of understanding of specific material. Given the results, they could then
make adjustments to the course requirements and material. This process would
allow faculty members to better gauge
current knowledge levels and establish
rigorous, yet reasonable expectations. It
would also illustrate the faculty members’ dedication to students, which is a
concern often expressed by students.
Consistent with existing literature,
our results also indicated that students
desire a comfortable environment in
which to refine both individual and
teamwork skills. Faculty members
should encourage a participatory environment that allows for students to
develop close and comfortable relationships with classmates and instructors.
Students apparently also value teamwork. However, because they often are
required to work in numerous groups
outside of class during a semester, additional group work outside of class may
not be the most viable option. Perhaps
faculty members could incorporate
smaller in-class group assignments and
presentations into their course structure.
Thus, students would gain the advantages of communication skills without
the inherent disadvantages of scheduling conflicts. Overall, a focus on
improving students’ experiences both
inside and outside of the classroom
should contribute to higher perceptions
of program quality and, in turn, raise
levels of student satisfaction.
Limitations and Future Research
Although this research extends existing knowledge regarding the domains of
quality for an MBA program, additional
research is warranted. First, this study
was limited to one graduate program
with a relatively small sample size; thus,
one would expect variation in results
when the items in this study are administered to participants in MBA programs
of different size, scope, and emphasis.
We encourage replication of this study
in various MBA programs. In addition,
this study provides exploratory research
on the relationships between specific
program characteristics and quality performance outcomes. An expansion of

this study to investigate various other
program characteristics that we did not
explore would certainly be encouraged.
Furthermore, the findings show that
domains of quality are not limited to the
in-class environment. Rather, students
revealed both in-class and outside-class
environments as crucial to determining
the quality of a program. Thus, it
appears that measurement of quality
should include items that capture both
dimensions. Further research that
refines a scale to incorporate both of
these quality measures would prove
useful for those evaluating a program.
Drawing from the satisfaction literature (Szymanski & Henard, 2001),
research could further explore quality
with pre- and postsatisfaction studies
(Kim, Markham, & Cangelosi, 2002).
Often, students’ expectations of quality
from a program may differ before and
after they enroll in it. By measuring
quality during both stages, administrators and faculty members would have
more accurate information regarding
how to meet and exceed expectations of
quality at these various stages. Further,
expectations play a pivotal role in shaping and guiding the experience (Chonko,
Tanner, & Davis, 2002). Such future
research that addresses issues related to
program quality and satisfaction will
continue to provide both administrators
and faculty members with programenhancing information. Finally, we
should recognize that students represent
only one portion of the “customer base”
of educational institutions (Scrabec,
2000); hence, assessment of the quality
perceptions of all types of stakeholders
must be carried out.
REFERENCES
Abrami, P. C., & d’Apollonia, S. (1991). Multidimensional students’ evaluations of teaching
effectiveness—Generalizability of “N = 1”
research: Comment on Marsh. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83(3), 411–415.
Adrian, C. M., & Palmer, G. D. (1999). Toward a
model for understanding and improving educational quality in the principles of marketing course.
Journal of Marketing Education, 21(1), 25–33.
Chonko, L. B., Tanner, J. F., & Davis, R. (2002).
What are they thinking? Students’ expectations
and self-assessments. Journal of Education for
Business, 77(5), 271–281.
Clayson, D. E. (1999). Students’ evaluations of
teaching effectiveness: Some implications of
stability. Journal of Marketing Education,
21(1), 68–75.

September/October 2004

23

Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 22:22 12 January 2016

Daniels, C. (2000). So where do you want to
work? Fortune, 141(8), 562.
Deshpande, R., & Webster, F. E. (1989). Organizational culture and marketing: Defining the
research. Journal of Marketing, 53(1), 3–15.
Driver, M. (2001). Fostering creativity in business
education: Developing creative classroom environments to provide students with critical
workplace competencies. Journal of Education
for Business, 77(1), 28–33.
Guolla, M. (1999). Assessing the teaching quality
to student satisfaction relationships: Applied
customer satisfaction research in the classroom.
Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 3,
87–97.
Hahs, D. L. (1999). What have MBAs done for us
lately? Journal of Education for Business,
74(4), 197–201.
Hampton, G. M. (1993). Gap analysis of college
student satisfaction as a measure of professional
service quality. Journal of Professional Services
Marketing, 9(1), 115–128.
Hartline, M. D., Maxham, J. G. III, & McKee, D.
O. (2000). Corridors of influence in the dissemination of customer-oriented strategy to customer contact service employees. Journal of
Marketing, 64(2), 35–50.
Hatfield, L., & Taylor, R. K. (1998). Making business schools responsive to customers: Lessons
learned and actions. Marketing Education
Review, 8(2), 1–8.
Haynes, P., & Setton, D. (1998). McKinsey 101.
Forbes, 161(9), 130–135.
Karathanos, D. (1999). Quality: Is education
keeping pace with business? Journal of Education for Business, 74(4), 231–235.
Kim, D., Markham, F. S., & Cangelosi, J. D.
(2002). Why students pursue the business
degree: A comparison of business majors across

24

Journal of Education for Business

universities. Journal of Education for Business,
78(1), 28–32.
Lord, M. (1997). Business: After a slowdown in
the early 90’s, demand for MBAs is soaring.
U.S. News and World Report, 122(9), 80–81.
McKeachie, W. J. (1999). Teaching tips: Strategies,
research, and theory for college and university
teachers (10th ed.). Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Michaelsen, L. K., & Razook, N. M. (1999). Making
learning groups effective. Selections, 16(1), 28–35.
O’Brien, E. M., & Deans, K. R. (1995). The position of marketing education: A student versus
employer perspective. Marketing Intelligence
and Planning, 13(2), 47–52.
Ponzurick, T. G., France, K. R., & Logar, C. M.
(2000). Delivering graduate marketing education: An analysis of face-to-face versus distance
education. Journal of Marketing Education,
22(3), 180–187.
Rapert, M. I., Garretson, J., Velliquette, A., Olson,
J., & Dhodapkar, S. (1998). Domains of qualitybased strategies: A functional perspective. Journal of Professional Services Marketing, 17(2),
69–82.
Reingold, J., & Schneider, M. (1999, October 18).
The executive MBA your way. Business Week,
p. 88.
Richards-Wilson, S. (2002). Changing the way
MBA programs do business—Lead or languish.
Journal of Education for Business, 77(5),
296–300.
Sandweiss, D., & Lewin, D. (2000). Interviews
with part-time MBAs point the way for retaining executive track managers. Employment
Relations Today, 27(1), 35–45.
Scrabec, Q., Jr. (2000). A quality education is not
customer driven. Journal of Education for Business, 75(5), 298–300.
Sculley, J. (1988, March/April). A perspective on

the future: What business needs from higher
education. Change, 20, 41.
Seldin, P. (1980). Successful faculty evaluation
programs. Crugers, NY: Coventry Press.
Smart, D. T., Kelley, C. A., & Conant, J. S. (1999).
Marketing education in the year 2000: Changes
observed and challenges. Journal of Marketing
Education, 21(3), 206–216.
Smircich, L. (1983). Concepts of culture and
organizational analysis. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 28(3), 339–358.
Szymanski, D. M., & Henard, D. H. (2001). Customer satisfaction: A meta-analysis of the
empirical evidence. Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science, 29(1), 16–35.
Ulinski, M., & O’Callaghan, S. (2002). A comparison of MBA students’ and employers’ perceptions of the value of oral communication
skills for employment. Journal of Education for
Business, 77(4), 193–197.
Weisul, K. (2000, May 22). How to snag an MBA.
Business Week, p. F8.
Whitworth, J. E., Price, B. A., & Randall, C. H.
(2002). Factors that affect college of business
student opinion of teaching and learning. Journal of Education for Business, 77(5), 282–289.
Wilson, L. (1999). The MBA focus firm: Learning
at its best. Baylor Business Review, 17(2), 16.
Yang, B., & Lu, D. R. (2001). Predicting academic
performance in management education: An
empirical investigation of MBA success. Journal
of Education for Business, 77(1), 15–20.
Yerak, B. (2000, September 25). As dot-coms
fall, MBA’s coming back: Attitudes change as
century-old degree evolves. USA Today, p. 8B.
Yucelt, U. (1998). Comparative study of students’
perceptions on quality of MBA programs. Journal of International Marketing and Marketing
Research, 23(1), 27–33.