Manajemen | Fakultas Ekonomi Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji joeb.84.5.269-274

Journal of Education for Business

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

An Efficiency Comparison of MBA Programs: Top
10 Versus Non-Top 10
Maxwell K. Hsu , Marcia L. James & Gary H. Chao
To cite this article: Maxwell K. Hsu , Marcia L. James & Gary H. Chao (2009) An Efficiency
Comparison of MBA Programs: Top 10 Versus Non-Top 10, Journal of Education for Business,
84:5, 269-274, DOI: 10.3200/JOEB.84.5.269-274
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.3200/JOEB.84.5.269-274

Published online: 07 Aug 2010.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 44

View related articles

Citing articles: 3 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: 11 January 2016, At: 22:54

An฀Efficiency฀Comparison฀of฀MBA฀
Programs:฀Top฀10฀Versus฀Non-Top฀10

Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 22:54 11 January 2016

MAXWELL฀K.฀HSU฀
UNIVERSITY฀OF฀WISCONSIN–WHITEWATER฀
WHITEWATER,฀WISCONSIN฀

MARCIA฀L.฀JAMES
UNIVERSITY฀OF฀WISCONSIN–WHITEWATER
WHITEWATER,฀WISCONSIN฀

GARY฀H.฀CHAO
KUTZTOWN฀UNIVERSITY
KUTZTOWN,฀PENNSYLVANIA

ABSTRACT.฀The฀authors฀compared฀the฀
cohort฀group฀of฀the฀top-10฀MBA฀programs฀
in฀the฀United฀States฀with฀their฀lower-ranking฀counterparts฀on฀their฀value-added฀efficiency.฀The฀findings฀reveal฀that฀the฀top-10฀
MBA฀programs฀in฀the฀United฀States฀are฀
associated฀with฀statistically฀higher฀average฀
technical฀and฀scale฀efficiency฀and฀scale฀
efficiency,฀but฀not฀with฀a฀statistically฀higher฀
average฀pure฀technical฀efficiency.฀By฀calculating฀the฀efficiency฀measures,฀the฀proper฀
decision฀variables฀of฀the฀MBA฀programs฀
can฀be฀identified฀and฀improvements฀to฀their฀
efficiency฀can฀be฀made.฀In฀addition,฀the฀
findings฀can฀assist฀prospective฀students฀in฀
selecting฀the฀best฀MBA฀programs฀for฀their฀
educational฀investment.
Keywords:฀DEA,฀efficiency฀scores,฀฀
MBA฀ranking

Copyright฀©฀2009฀Heldref฀Publications

฀

T

he฀ average฀ total฀ cost฀ of฀ attending฀ a฀ top-10฀ MBA฀ program฀ in฀
the฀ United฀ States฀ is฀ approximately฀
$198,300,฀versus฀the฀non-top-10฀counterparts’฀average฀total฀cost฀of฀$123,700฀
(Holtom฀&฀Inderrieden,฀2007).฀Recent฀
findings฀ from฀ the฀ Graduate฀ Management฀Admission฀Council฀(GMAC)฀data฀
show฀that฀“students฀who฀attend฀lowerranking฀ schools฀ experience฀ a฀ better฀
return฀ on฀ investment฀ than฀ those฀ who฀
attend฀higher-ranking฀schools”฀(Holtom฀
&฀ Inderrieden,฀ p.฀ 36).฀ To฀ review฀ this฀
striking฀ finding฀ from฀ another฀ angle,฀
the฀ present฀ study฀ compares฀ the฀ cohort฀
group฀of฀top-10฀MBA฀programs฀in฀the฀
United฀States฀with฀their฀lower-ranking฀
counterparts฀on฀the฀basis฀of฀their฀valueadded฀efficiency.

Print฀ media฀ such฀ as฀ Business฀ Week,฀
Financial฀Times฀ (“Financial฀Times฀publishes฀ 2006฀ global฀ MBA฀ rankings,”฀
2006),฀the฀Wall฀Street฀Journal,฀the฀Economist,฀ and฀ U.S.฀ News฀ &฀ World฀ Report฀
(“Schools฀ of฀ Business,”฀ 2006)฀ all฀ provide฀their฀own฀versions฀of฀the฀B-school฀
rankings.฀ Hiring฀ competent฀ instructors,฀
maintaining฀smaller฀class฀sizes,฀and฀setting฀ competitive฀ entrance฀ criteria฀ are฀
ways฀ top฀ MBA฀ programs฀ have฀ used฀ to฀
improve฀their฀rankings.฀However,฀critics฀
point฀out฀that฀many฀MBA฀programs฀shift฀
the฀balance฀of฀power฀from฀assessment฀of฀
learning฀ outcomes฀ and฀ academic฀ scholarship฀ to฀ obsession฀ with฀ ranking฀ status฀ (Association฀ to฀ Advance฀ Collegiate฀

Schools฀of฀Business฀International,฀2005;฀
Policano,฀2005).฀It฀is฀worse฀that฀because฀
of฀ varying฀ ranking฀ methodologies฀ and฀
data-collection฀processes,฀these฀rankings฀
may฀ not฀ reflect฀ the฀ overall฀ performance฀
and฀ uniqueness฀ of฀ an฀ MBA฀ program.฀
As฀ Tracy฀ and฀ Waldfogel฀ (1997)฀ pointed฀ out,฀ one฀ serious฀ problem฀ with฀ the฀
aforementioned฀B-school฀rankings฀is฀that฀

they฀do฀not฀differentiate฀program฀inputs฀
from฀ outputs.฀ Thus,฀ we฀ believe฀ that฀ in฀
conjunction฀with฀the฀published฀B-school฀
rankings,฀findings฀from฀the฀present฀study฀
could฀ help฀ the฀ MBA฀ program฀ administrators฀and฀applicants฀confidently฀obtain฀
a฀ more฀ comprehensive฀ guideline฀ when฀
they฀assess฀top฀U.S.฀MBA฀programs.
Why฀ do฀ students฀ enroll฀ in฀ an฀ MBA฀
program?฀ Bickerstaffe฀ and฀ Ridgers฀
(2007)฀ identified฀ the฀ following฀ four฀
factors:฀ new฀ career฀ opportunities,฀
personal฀ development฀ and฀ educational฀
experience,฀ increased฀ salary,฀ and฀
networking.฀ However,฀ if฀ the฀ absolute฀
values฀ of฀ those฀ factors฀ are฀ focused฀ on,฀
MBA฀applicants฀may฀fall฀into฀a฀trap฀such฀
as฀ a฀ blind฀ trust฀ in฀ B-school฀ rankings.฀
Top฀ MBA฀ programs฀ can฀ recruit฀ the฀
best฀ students฀ who฀ are฀ more฀ likely฀ to฀
outperform฀students฀from฀the฀other฀MBA฀

programs.฀ This฀ does฀ not฀ necessarily฀
mean฀that฀the฀top฀MBA฀programs฀have฀
done฀ their฀ best฀ to฀ train฀ their฀ students.฀
To฀ better฀ gauge฀ an฀ MBA฀ program’s฀
performance,฀ researchers฀ should฀ resort฀
to฀the฀efficiency฀measurement.
May/June฀2009฀

269

Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 22:54 11 January 2016

How฀ can฀ a฀ program฀ improve฀ its฀
efficiency?฀ One฀ way฀ is฀ to฀ reduce฀ its฀
inputs฀ while฀ improving฀ its฀ outputs.฀
Should฀ a฀ program฀ minimize฀ all฀ inputs฀
and฀ maximize฀ all฀ outputs?฀ Not฀ necessarily.฀ A฀ program฀ may฀ only฀ need฀ to฀
improve฀ its฀ efficiency฀ by฀ focusing฀ on฀
some฀variables฀rather฀than฀all฀of฀them.฀
Specifically,฀ the฀ boundary฀ constraints฀

that฀ correspond฀ to฀ the฀ input฀ or฀ output฀
variables฀ for฀ each฀ MBA฀ program฀ can฀
be฀ identified.฀ This฀ information฀ offers฀
valuable฀guidelines฀for฀each฀MBA฀program฀to฀enhance฀its฀efficiency.
The฀ purpose฀ of฀ the฀ present฀ article฀ is฀
threefold:฀first,฀to฀identify฀less฀efficient฀
MBA฀programs฀using฀the฀data฀envelopment฀analysis฀(DEA)฀technique;฀second,฀
to฀ fill฀ the฀ gap฀ of฀ the฀ current฀ literature฀
in฀ examining฀ whether฀ differences฀ in฀
efficiency฀ exist฀ among฀ the฀ often฀ more฀
expensive฀ top-10฀ U.S.฀ MBA฀ programs฀
and฀ other฀ non-top-10฀ U.S.฀ MBA฀ programs;฀and฀third,฀to฀help฀MBA฀program฀
administrators฀ identify฀ sources฀ of฀ relative฀inefficiency฀so฀that฀they฀can฀improve฀
their฀ programs’฀ value-added฀ efficiency.฀
As฀a฀result,฀this฀proposed฀method฀offers฀
MBA฀ program฀ administrators฀ a฀ useful฀
means฀when฀they฀develop฀strategic฀plans฀
to฀ achieve฀ market฀ competitiveness.฀ In฀
addition,฀the฀findings฀can฀offer฀prospective฀ MBA฀ students฀ another฀ venue฀ to฀
evaluate฀ MBA฀ programs฀ before฀ they฀

submit฀their฀applications.
Literature฀Review
In฀the฀education฀literature,฀a฀number฀
of฀research฀studies฀have฀investigated฀the฀
relative฀ efficiency฀ of฀ various฀ decisionmaking฀ units฀ (DMUs)฀ at฀ the฀ administrative฀levels฀(Ahn,฀Charnes,฀&฀Cooper,฀
1988;฀ Chen,฀ 1997;฀ Haksever฀ &฀ Muragishi,฀1998;฀McMillan฀&฀Datta,฀1998).฀
Bradley,฀ Jones,฀ and฀ Millington฀ (2001)฀
used฀DEA฀to฀evaluate฀the฀efficiency฀of฀
all฀secondary฀schools฀in฀England฀during฀
1993–1998.฀ Mizala,฀ Romaguera,฀ and฀
Farren฀ (2002)฀ used฀ the฀ stochastic฀ production฀ frontier฀ method฀ to฀ assess฀ the฀
technical฀efficiency฀of฀schools฀in฀Chile,฀
but฀it฀is฀worthy฀to฀note฀that฀the฀stochastic฀production฀frontier฀method฀can฀only฀
deal฀with฀single฀outputs฀(Aigner,฀Lovell,฀
&฀ Schmidt,฀ 1977).฀ Recently,฀ Gimenez,฀
Prior,฀and฀Thieme฀(2007)฀exploited฀the฀
DEA฀ method฀ to฀ analyze฀ the฀ technical฀
270฀

Journal฀of฀Education฀for฀Business

and฀ managerial฀ efficiency฀ of฀ education฀
systems฀across฀31฀countries.
Focusing฀ on฀ the฀ U.S.฀ MBA฀ education,฀ Haksever฀ and฀ Muragishi฀ (1998)฀
used฀ DEA฀ to฀ measure฀ value฀ added฀
in฀ an฀ MBA฀ program,฀ and฀ they฀ found฀
that฀ the฀ top-20฀ MBA฀ programs฀ do฀ not฀
necessarily฀ outperform฀ the฀ second-20฀
MBA฀ programs.฀ Colbert,฀ Levary,฀ and฀
Shaner฀ (2000)฀ used฀ DEA฀ to฀ determine฀
the฀relative฀efficiency฀of฀24฀top-ranked฀
U.S.฀ MBA฀ programs,฀ and฀ they฀ argued฀
that฀ the฀ ranking฀ of฀ MBA฀ programs฀ on฀
the฀ basis฀ of฀ DEA฀ would฀ “more฀ completely฀ and฀ accurately฀ represent฀ MBA฀
programs”฀ than฀ the฀ publicized฀ ranking฀ of฀ MBA฀ programs฀ by฀ well-known฀
magazines฀ such฀ as฀ Business฀ Week฀ (p.฀
668).฀ Colbert฀ et฀ al.฀ also฀ extended฀ their฀
study฀ to฀ include฀ foreign฀ MBA฀ programs.฀ Using฀ 7฀ top฀ MBA฀ programs฀ in฀
the฀United฀States฀and฀3฀renowned฀MBA฀
programs฀ outside฀ the฀ United฀ States,฀

Colbert฀et฀al.฀found฀only฀1฀of฀the฀top-10฀
MBA฀programs฀(i.e.,฀Columbia฀University)฀ to฀ be฀ relatively฀ inefficient.฀ More฀
recently,฀Fisher฀and฀Kiang฀(2007)฀evaluated฀ the฀ U.S.฀ MBA฀ programs฀ with฀ a฀
value-added฀ approach.฀ They฀ compared฀
the฀ DEA฀ efficiency฀ rankings฀ with฀ the฀
Business฀Week฀and฀U.S.฀News฀&฀World฀
Report฀ (“Schools฀ of฀ Business,”฀ 2006)฀
rankings฀and฀discussed฀the฀discrepancy฀
found฀ between฀ them.฀ However,฀ Fisher฀
and฀ Kiang’s฀ study฀ did฀ not฀ identify฀ the฀
source฀of฀inefficiency฀related฀to฀the฀less฀
efficient฀MBA฀programs.
Given฀ that฀ the฀ recent฀ GMAC฀ finding฀(Holton฀&฀Inderrieden,฀2007)฀draws฀
new฀ attention฀ to฀ differences฀ between฀
the฀ top-10฀ U.S.฀ MBA฀ programs฀ and฀
the฀ non-top-10฀ U.S.฀ MBA฀ programs,฀
it฀ is฀ time฀ to฀ revisit฀ the฀ MBA฀ ranking฀issue฀by฀comparing฀the฀value-added฀
efficiency฀ between฀ these฀ two฀ cohort฀
groups฀ using฀ the฀ DEA฀ technique.฀ Subsequently,฀ proper฀ decision฀ variables฀ of฀
the฀MBA฀programs฀could฀be฀identified,฀

and฀improvements฀can฀be฀made.

single฀efficiency฀score฀can฀be฀calculated฀
as฀a฀result฀of฀multiple฀inputs฀and฀outputs฀
related฀to฀the฀DMUs.฀DMUs฀often฀refer฀
to฀units฀of฀organizations฀such฀as฀banks,฀
post฀offices,฀nursing฀homes,฀courts,฀and฀
MBA฀ programs,฀ which฀ typically฀ perform฀the฀same฀function฀and฀try฀to฀attract฀
the฀ same฀ type฀ of฀ customers฀ or฀ clients.฀
A฀DMU฀commonly฀uses฀a฀set฀of฀inputs฀
(e.g.,฀ labor,฀ capital)฀ to฀ produce฀ a฀ set฀
of฀ outputs฀ (e.g.,฀ products,฀ profits)฀ to฀
satisfy฀ the฀ needs฀ of฀ its฀ customers.฀ The฀
DEA฀ method฀ was฀ originally฀ developed฀
by฀Charnes,฀Cooper,฀and฀Rhodes฀(1978)฀
with฀ a฀ constant฀ return฀ to฀ scale฀ (refers฀
to฀ the฀ situation฀ in฀ which฀ the฀ proportional฀output฀changes฀are฀subject฀to฀the฀
same฀proportional฀input฀changes),฀and฀it฀
was฀later฀advanced฀by฀Banker,฀Charnes,฀
and฀ Cooper฀ (1984)฀ to฀ include฀ a฀ variable฀ return฀ to฀ scale฀ (refers฀ to฀ allowing฀
each฀ DMU฀ to฀ maximize฀ its฀ level฀ of฀
efficiency฀ without฀ subjecting฀ the฀ proportional฀ output฀ changes฀ to฀ the฀ same฀
proportional฀input฀changes).฀As฀a฀credit฀
to฀their฀developers,฀the฀two฀fundamental฀
DEA฀ models฀ are฀ known฀ as฀ CCR฀ and฀
BCC.฀The฀CCR฀and฀BCC฀formulas฀are฀
provided฀below:
CCR฀Model
Max Θ
Subject to

∑λ x

≥ Θxi 0

∑λ y

≤ yr 0

j

j

j ij

j rj

λj ≥ 0

r = 1, 2, 3,..., s;
j = 1, 2,..., n

BCC฀Model
Max π
Subject to

∑λ x

≥ πxi 0

∑λ y

≤ yr 0

j

j

j ij

j rj

METHOD

∑λ

General

λj ≥ 0

DEA฀refers฀to฀an฀optimization฀method฀of฀linear฀programming฀to฀generalize฀
Farrell’s฀(1957)฀single-input฀and฀singleoutput฀ technical฀ efficiency฀ measure฀ to฀
a฀ more฀ complicated฀ case฀ in฀ which฀ a฀

i = 1, 2, 3,..., m;

j

j

i = 1, 2, 3,..., m;
r = 1, 2, 3,..., s;

=1
j = 1, 2,..., n

where฀ xij฀ and฀ yrj฀ are฀ the฀ amount฀ of฀ the฀
ith฀ input฀ consumed฀ and฀ the฀ amount฀ of฀
the฀rth฀output฀generated฀by฀the฀jth฀MBA฀
program.฀In฀addition,฀m฀is฀the฀number฀of฀

Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 22:54 11 January 2016

input฀variables,฀whereas฀s฀is฀the฀number฀
of฀ output฀ variables,฀ λj฀ is฀ the฀ weight฀ of฀
variables,฀and฀n฀is฀the฀number฀of฀observations฀(n฀=฀58฀in฀the฀present฀study).฀Θ฀
and฀π฀are฀the฀efficiency฀results฀of฀MBA฀
programs฀under฀investigation฀from฀CCR฀
and฀BCC฀models,฀respectively.
DEA฀has฀become฀increasingly฀important฀as฀a฀managerial฀tool,฀and฀new฀applications฀ with฀ more฀ variables฀ and฀ more฀
complex฀ models฀ are฀ being฀ developed.฀
Nonetheless,฀the฀main฀advantage฀of฀the฀
DEA฀ technique฀ remains฀ the฀ same;฀ it฀
allows฀several฀inputs฀and฀outputs฀to฀be฀
considered฀simultaneously฀to฀determine฀
the฀ relative฀ performance฀ of฀ a฀ specific฀
DMU฀to฀that฀of฀its฀peers.
In฀ DEA฀ estimation,฀ any฀ input฀ use฀
greater฀than฀the฀optimal฀amount฀is฀considered฀ unnecessary,฀ and฀ such฀ a฀ DMU฀
would฀ be฀ classified฀ as฀ inefficient.฀ For฀
all฀ DMUs,฀ overall฀ technical฀ and฀ scale฀
efficiency฀ (TSE)฀ refers฀ to฀ the฀ extent฀ to฀
which฀ a฀ specific฀ unit฀ achieves฀ the฀ best฀
overall฀ productivity฀ attainable฀ in฀ the฀
most฀ efficient฀ manner฀ (Banker฀ et฀ al.,฀
1984),฀and฀it฀can฀be฀further฀decomposed฀
into฀ pure฀ technical฀ efficiency฀ (PTE)฀
and฀ scale฀ efficiency฀ (SE).฀ In฀ the฀ context฀ of฀ MBA฀ programs,฀ PTE฀ refers฀ to฀
how฀ efficiently฀ MBA฀ programs฀ use฀ the฀
employed฀resources฀such฀as฀the฀average฀
GPA,฀the฀average฀GMAT฀score,฀tuition,฀
and฀the฀enrolled฀MBA฀students’฀average฀
salary฀ before฀ entering฀ the฀ MBA฀ program.฀ Alternatively,฀ SE฀ represents฀ how฀
productive฀the฀scale฀size฀is.฀It฀is฀the฀ratio฀
of฀TSE฀from฀the฀constant฀return฀to฀scale฀
to฀PTE฀from฀the฀variable-return-to-scale฀
constraint.฀ All฀ efficiency฀ indexes฀ range฀
from฀ 0฀ to฀ 1,฀ and฀ the฀ upper฀ limit฀ means฀
that฀the฀DMU฀operates฀more฀efficiently฀
than฀its฀peers.฀After฀determining฀the฀efficiency฀measurement฀from฀DEA,฀the฀efficiency฀scores฀of฀the฀more฀expensive฀top10฀ U.S.฀ MBA฀ programs฀ and฀ their฀ less฀
expensive฀ non-top-10฀ counterparts฀ are฀
compared฀ using฀ a฀ nonparametric฀ Kolmogorov-Smirnov฀Z฀test.฀Because฀DEA฀
does฀ not฀ have฀ any฀ planned฀ functional฀
form฀relating฀inputs฀to฀outputs,฀it฀would฀
be฀more฀appropriate฀to฀examine฀the฀proposed฀ hypothesis฀ with฀ a฀ nonparametric฀
method฀in฀the฀present฀study฀than฀to฀use฀a฀
parametric฀measure฀such฀as฀a฀t฀test.
MBA฀ programs฀ can฀ be฀ compared฀
solely฀ on฀ their฀ performance฀ (i.e.,฀ the฀
output฀ factors฀ in฀ this฀ study),฀ and฀ it฀
฀

is฀ possible฀ to฀ use฀ a฀ simple฀ approach฀
to฀ determine฀ which฀ MBA฀ programs฀
helped฀ their฀ students฀ acquire฀ a฀ higher฀
salary.฀ However,฀ as฀ we฀ have฀ discussed฀
previously,฀ this฀ simple฀ approach฀ does฀
not฀ shed฀ light฀ on฀ the฀ other฀ part฀ of฀ the฀
equation฀ (i.e.,฀ the฀ input฀ factors).฀ After฀
all,฀top฀business฀schools฀that฀admit฀students฀with฀high฀GPA฀and฀GMAT฀scores฀
are฀ more฀ likely฀ to฀ generate฀ successful฀
graduates.฀ Thus,฀ we฀ contend฀ that฀ the฀
best-performing฀ MBA฀ program฀ should฀
be฀the฀one฀that฀can฀outperform฀its฀peers฀
with฀ the฀ same฀ level฀ of฀ inputs.฀ In฀ other฀
words,฀ the฀ MBA฀ programs฀ should฀ be฀
examined฀in฀terms฀of฀their฀value-added฀
efficiency,฀ a฀ relative฀ index฀ resulting฀
from฀the฀comparison฀of฀the฀inputs฀with฀
the฀outputs.฀The฀highest฀efficiency฀score฀
that฀ a฀ DMU฀ (i.e.,฀ an฀ MBA฀ program฀ in฀
the฀ present฀ study)฀ can฀ possibly฀ obtain฀
is฀ 1,฀ which฀ means฀ the฀ MBA฀ program฀
being฀ compared฀ outperforms฀ its฀ peers฀
and฀can฀be฀considered฀as฀a฀higher฀valueadded฀program.
Variables
The฀ major฀ function฀ of฀ MBA฀ programs฀can฀be฀viewed฀as฀a฀learning฀intermediary฀institution฀that฀bridges฀or฀links฀
MBA฀ students฀ to฀ their฀ future฀ dream฀
careers.฀Such฀a฀viewpoint฀can฀reflect฀the฀
relative฀value-added฀efficiency฀of฀MBA฀
programs฀ in฀ the฀ increasingly฀ competitive฀higher฀education฀environment.฀The฀
inputs฀related฀to฀MBA฀programs’฀major฀
production฀ sources฀ include฀ (a)฀ average฀ undergraduate฀ GPA,฀ (b)฀ average฀
GMAT฀ score,฀ (c)฀ out-of-state฀ tuition฀
and฀ fees,฀ and฀ (d)฀ salary฀ before฀ entering฀ the฀ MBA฀ program.฀ We฀ selected฀
these฀ variables฀ as฀ they฀ were฀ perceived฀
to฀be฀what฀the฀typical฀MBA฀applicants฀
would฀care฀most฀about.฀The฀effect฀of฀the฀
program’s฀gender฀division฀and฀diversity฀
factors฀may฀not฀be฀perceived฀as฀important฀ to฀ an฀ MBA฀ applicant฀ because฀ not฀
many฀human฀resources฀managers฀would฀
consider฀ these฀ as฀ key฀ hiring฀ variables.฀
The฀ business฀ schools฀ can฀ identify฀ the฀
unique฀ characteristics฀ of฀ the฀ incoming฀
students฀ and฀ determine฀ how฀ to฀ satisfy฀ the฀ students’฀ expectations฀ that฀ can฀
become฀the฀output.฀In฀the฀present฀study,฀
outcomes฀ of฀ MBA฀ programs฀ are฀ measured฀by฀(a)฀average฀starting฀salary฀and฀
bonus฀immediately฀after฀graduation,฀(b)฀

employment฀rate฀3฀months฀after฀obtaining฀ the฀ MBA,฀ and฀ (c)฀ aims-achieved฀
ratio.฀Data฀related฀to฀the฀inputs฀and฀outputs฀are฀available฀from฀the฀2006฀issues฀
of฀U.S.฀News฀&฀World฀Report฀(“Schools฀
of฀ Business,”฀ 2006)฀ and฀ Financial฀
Times฀(“Financial฀Times฀publishes฀2006฀
global฀MBA฀rankings,”฀2006).฀Only฀the฀
MBA฀ programs฀ with฀ a฀ complete฀ set฀ of฀
selected฀ input฀ and฀ output฀ factors฀ were฀
incorporated฀ into฀ the฀ analysis;฀ therefore,฀58฀programs฀were฀used.
One฀notable฀limitation฀of฀the฀present฀
study฀concerns฀the฀data฀used฀for฀analysis.฀ Though฀ several฀ additional฀ factors฀
(e.g.,฀industries,฀extracurriculum฀activities,฀ professional฀ licenses,฀ national฀ or฀
international฀ competition฀ experiences)฀
may฀ influence฀ the฀ value-added฀ efficiency฀ of฀ the฀ MBA฀ program,฀ they฀ are฀
not฀ easily฀ quantifiable฀ and฀ thus฀ were฀
excluded฀from฀the฀model.
RESULTS
The฀ analysis฀ of฀ MBA฀ program฀ efficiency฀ includes฀ four฀ input฀ and฀ three฀
output฀ variables.฀ One฀ unique฀ value฀ of฀
the฀ DEA฀ results฀ is฀ its฀ ability฀ to฀ offer฀
a฀ relatively฀ objective฀ benchmark฀ (i.e.,฀
efficiency฀ indexes;฀ see฀ Table฀ 1)฀ that฀
can฀ help฀ MBA฀ program฀ administrators฀
recognize฀ the฀ value-added฀ efficiency฀
of฀ their฀ program฀ by฀ comparing฀ it฀ with฀
other฀competing฀MBA฀programs.
Table฀2฀sheds฀light฀on฀the฀main฀sourc-฀
es฀of฀each฀MBA฀program’s฀inefficiency฀
(to฀save฀space,฀the฀MBA฀programs฀that฀
are฀located฀on฀the฀efficiency฀frontier฀are฀
not฀ shown฀ in฀ Table฀ 2).฀ If฀ the฀ variable฀
is฀ an฀ output฀ factor,฀ the฀ administrator฀
may฀ want฀ to฀ enhance฀ the฀ performance฀
of฀ that฀ output฀ factor.฀ If฀ the฀ variable฀
is฀ an฀ input฀ factor,฀ the฀ administrator฀
may฀ ease฀ the฀ required฀ standard฀ to฀ a฀
certain฀ degree.฀ For฀ example,฀ the฀ DEA฀
results฀ indicate฀ that฀ the฀ University฀
of฀ California–Irvine฀ could฀ improve฀
its฀ value-added฀ efficiency฀ score฀ by฀
maintaining฀ the฀ same฀ level฀ of฀ outputs฀
while฀ relaxing฀ the฀ input฀ requirements฀
for฀ the฀ average฀ undergraduate฀ GPA฀ or฀
the฀ average฀ salary฀ prior฀ to฀ entering฀ its฀
MBA฀ program฀ for฀ potential฀ students.฀
Notably,฀ it฀ is฀ not฀ suggested฀ that฀ MBA฀
program฀ administrators฀ lower฀ their฀
entrance฀ criteria.฀ Instead,฀ the฀ more฀
appropriate฀ interpretation฀ is฀ that฀ an฀
May/June฀2009฀

271

TABLE฀1.฀Pure฀Technical฀Efficiency฀(PTE),฀Technical฀and฀Scale฀Efficiency฀
(TSE),฀and฀Scale฀Efficiency฀(SE)฀฀

Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 22:54 11 January 2016

Rank฀ ฀
1฀
2฀
2฀
4฀
4฀
6฀
6฀
8฀
9฀
10฀
11฀
11฀
13฀
14฀
15฀
15฀
17฀
18฀
18฀
18฀
21฀
21฀
23฀
23฀
23฀
26฀
27฀
27฀
27฀
27฀
31฀
32฀
32฀
32฀
32฀
32฀
37฀
37฀
37฀
40฀
40฀
42฀
42฀
45฀
45฀
45฀
48฀
49฀
49฀
51฀
54฀
54฀
57฀
58฀
60฀
62฀
68฀
83฀

School฀

PTE฀

TSE฀

SE฀

Harvard฀University฀
Stanford฀University฀
University฀of฀Pennsylvania฀
Massachusetts฀Institute฀of฀Technology฀
Northwestern฀University฀
Dartmouth฀College฀
University฀of฀California,฀Berkeley฀
University฀of฀Chicago฀
Columbia฀University฀
University฀of฀Michigan,฀Ann฀Arbor฀
Duke฀University฀
University฀of฀California,฀Los฀Angeles฀
New฀York฀University฀
University฀of฀Virginia฀
Cornell฀University฀
Yale฀University฀
Carnegie฀Mellon฀University฀
Emory฀University฀
University฀of฀Texas฀at฀Austin฀
University฀of฀Washington฀
Ohio฀State฀University฀
University฀of฀North฀Carolina฀at฀Chapel฀Hill฀
Purdue฀University฀
University฀Minnesota,฀Twin฀Cities฀
University฀of฀Rochester฀
University฀of฀Southern฀California฀
Georgetown฀University฀
Indiana฀University฀
University฀of฀Illinois฀at฀Urbana-Champaign฀
University฀Maryland,฀College฀Park฀
Arizona฀State฀University฀฀
Georgia฀Institute฀of฀Technology฀
Michigan฀State฀University฀
Texas฀A&M฀University,฀College฀Station฀
University฀of฀Notre฀Dame฀
Washington฀University฀in฀St.฀Louis฀
Pennsylvania฀State฀University,฀University฀Park฀
University฀of฀Iowa฀
University฀of฀Wisconsin–Madison฀
Brigham฀Young฀University฀
University฀of฀Arizona฀
University฀of฀California,฀Davis฀
Wake฀Forest฀University฀
Tulane฀University฀
University฀of฀Georgia฀
Vanderbilt฀University฀
Boston฀University฀
Rice฀University฀
University฀of฀California,฀Irvine฀
Babson฀College฀
Boston฀College฀
Southern฀Methodist฀University฀
University฀of฀Pittsburgh฀
Case฀Western฀Reserve฀University฀
Temple฀University฀
George฀Washington฀University฀
University฀of฀South฀Carolina฀
University฀of฀Arkansas฀at฀Fayetteville฀

1.000฀
1.000฀
1.000฀
1.000฀
1.000฀
1.000฀
1.000฀
1.000฀
1.000฀
1.000฀
0.984฀
0.960฀
0.999฀
1.000฀
1.000฀
1.000฀
1.000฀
0.954฀
0.999฀
1.000฀
0.972฀
0.994฀
0.979฀
1.000฀
0.980฀
0.980฀
0.995฀
1.000฀
1.000฀
0.977฀
0.979฀
0.996฀
1.000฀
1.000฀
0.978฀
1.000฀
1.000฀
1.000฀
0.952฀
1.000฀
1.000฀
0.961฀
1.000฀
0.954฀
1.000฀
1.000฀
1.000฀
1.000฀
0.970฀
1.000฀
0.993฀
0.991฀
1.000฀
1.000฀
1.000฀
1.000฀
1.000฀
1.000฀

1.000฀
1.000฀
1.000฀
1.000฀
1.000฀
1.000฀
0.984฀
1.000฀
1.000฀
0.999฀
0.980฀
0.953฀
0.994฀
1.000฀
1.000฀
1.000฀
1.000฀
0.947฀
0.956฀
1.000฀
0.968฀
0.972฀
0.960฀
1.000฀
0.965฀
0.961฀
0.990฀
0.996฀
1.000฀
0.977฀
0.970฀
1.000฀
1.000฀
1.000฀
0.975฀
0.975฀
1.000฀
1.000฀
0.907฀
1.000฀
1.000฀
0.934฀
0.993฀
0.955฀
0.976฀
1.000฀
1.000฀
0.985฀
0.944฀
0.930฀
0.954฀
0.921฀
0.985฀
0.965฀
0.945฀
0.965฀
0.975฀
1.000฀

1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
0.984
1.000
1.000
0.999
0.996
0.993
0.994
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
0.993
0.957
1.000
0.996
0.977
0.981
1.000
0.985
0.981
0.995
0.996
1.000
1.000
0.991
1.004
1.000
1.000
0.997
0.975
1.000
1.000
0.953
1.000
1.000
0.971
0.993
1.001
0.976
1.000
1.000
0.985
0.973
0.930
0.961
0.929
0.985
0.965
0.945
0.965
0.975
1.000

Note.฀Analysis฀used฀data฀from฀“Schools฀of฀Business”฀(2006).฀Only฀the฀MBA฀programs฀with฀a฀฀
complete฀set฀of฀selected฀input฀and฀output฀factors฀are฀incorporated฀into฀the฀analysis.

272฀

Journal฀of฀Education฀for฀Business

MBA฀program฀may฀consider฀setting฀up฀
a฀ strategic฀ recruiting฀ plan฀ on฀ the฀ basis฀
of฀ factors฀ other฀ than฀ GPA฀ or฀ salary.฀
There฀ are฀ many฀ other฀ criteria฀ to฀ shape฀
the฀uniqueness฀of฀the฀program,฀such฀as฀
the฀ diversity฀ in฀ work฀ and฀ professional฀
experiences,฀ cultures,฀ and฀ special฀
leadership฀skills.
We฀ used฀ the฀ nonparametric฀ Kolmogorov-Smirnov฀Z฀test฀to฀determine฀if฀
the฀mean฀efficiency฀measures฀related฀to฀
the฀ top-10฀ MBA฀ programs฀ are฀ statistically฀ higher฀ than฀ those฀ related฀ to฀ the฀
non-top-10฀ MBA฀ programs.฀ The฀ Kolmogorov-Smirnov฀Z฀scores฀showed฀that฀
the฀average฀overall฀TSE฀score฀and฀average฀SE฀score฀related฀to฀the฀top-10฀U.S.฀
MBA฀programs฀were฀higher฀than฀those฀
of฀their฀counterparts฀for฀the฀non-top-10฀
U.S.฀ MBA฀ programs฀ at฀ the฀ .05฀ significance฀level฀(see฀Table฀3).฀Alternatively,฀
although฀ the฀ average฀ PTE฀ score฀ in฀ the฀
top-10฀U.S.฀MBA฀programs฀was฀higher฀
than฀ that฀ of฀ the฀ non-top-10฀ U.S.฀ MBA฀
programs,฀ the฀ one-tailed฀ difference฀ is฀
not฀ statistically฀ significant฀ (p฀ =฀ .125).฀
That฀is,฀the฀hypothesis฀that฀top-10฀U.S.฀
MBA฀programs฀have฀a฀higher฀efficiency฀
score฀ including฀ higher฀ TSE,฀ PTE,฀ and฀
SE฀ scores฀ than฀ their฀ non-top-10฀ counterparts฀was฀only฀supported฀partially.฀
Though฀ the฀ findings฀ of฀ higher฀ mean฀
TSE฀ and฀ SE฀ for฀ the฀ top-10฀ U.S.฀ MBA฀
programs฀ do฀ offer฀ supportive฀ evidence฀
to฀the฀thought฀that฀the฀top-10฀U.S.฀MBA฀
programs฀operate฀in฀a฀relatively฀more฀efficient฀manner฀than฀those฀outside฀the฀top-10฀
list,฀it฀is฀worthy฀to฀note฀that฀the฀mean฀efficiency฀score฀differences฀are฀small.฀Thus,฀
potential฀ MBA฀ students฀ should฀ conduct฀
a฀ cost฀ and฀ benefit฀ analysis฀ among฀ the฀
competing฀MBA฀programs฀and฀then฀give฀
more฀ weight฀ to฀ the฀ programs฀ offering฀
opportunities฀to฀excel฀in฀a฀particular฀area฀
of฀ interest฀ (e.g.,฀ accounting)฀ rather฀ than฀
basing฀ their฀ application฀ decision฀ solely฀
on฀ published฀ ranking฀ reports฀ or฀ on฀ the฀
present฀ study.฀ This฀ way,฀ future฀ MBA฀
students฀can฀maximize฀the฀value฀of฀their฀
MBA฀education฀investment.
Conclusions฀and฀
Recommendations
These฀days,฀“more฀and฀more฀business฀
schools฀are฀fishing฀for฀MBAs฀from฀the฀
same฀ applicant฀ pool.฀ To฀ bring฀ in฀ the฀
best฀ catch,฀ each฀ school฀ must฀ position฀

Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 22:54 11 January 2016

its฀boat฀carefully,฀cast฀a฀broad฀net,฀and฀
offer฀ more฀ tempting฀ bait฀ on฀ its฀ hook”฀
(Zupan,฀ 2005,฀ p.฀ 34).฀ That฀ is,฀ deans฀
and฀MBA฀program฀administrators฀need฀
to฀ communicate฀ effectively฀ about฀ how฀
their฀ MBA฀ programs฀ differ฀ from฀ other฀
MBA฀ programs.฀ Without฀ information฀
related฀to฀objective฀efficiency฀measures,฀
the฀existing฀rank฀reports฀from฀the฀media฀
could฀not฀help฀MBA฀program฀administrators฀ make฀ the฀ most฀ appropriate฀ strategic฀decisions.฀The฀worst-case฀scenario฀
is฀ that฀ it฀ could฀ take฀ years฀ for฀ an฀ MBA฀
program฀ to฀ recover฀ from฀ strategic฀ mistakes฀ made฀ because฀ of฀ reallocating฀ its฀
limited฀resources฀solely฀on฀the฀basis฀of฀
competitiveness-ranking฀reports.
The฀ findings฀ indicate฀ that฀ an฀ MBA฀
program฀ with฀ a฀ highly฀ competitive฀ rating฀ tends฀ to฀ correspond฀ to฀ statistically฀
higher฀TSE฀and฀SE.฀For฀MBA฀program฀
administrators,฀there฀are฀many฀potential฀
ways฀ to฀ enhance฀ program฀ efficiency.฀
On฀the฀basis฀of฀the฀findings฀of฀the฀present฀study,฀the฀average฀starting฀salary฀is฀
one฀of฀the฀most฀important฀output฀criteria฀for฀MBA฀program฀administrators฀to฀
improve฀ their฀ programs’฀ value-added฀
efficiency.฀Alternatively,฀the฀variable฀฀of฀
employment฀rate฀3฀months฀after฀graduation฀ may฀ not฀ be฀ as฀ essential฀ for฀ the฀
top฀ MBA฀ programs.฀ Each฀ school฀ can฀
better฀position฀itself฀after฀assessing฀the฀
source฀of฀its฀inefficiency฀and฀the฀unique฀
features฀ of฀ its฀ program฀ (see฀ Table฀ 2).฀
MBA฀ program฀ administrators฀ outside฀
the฀top-10฀list฀may฀want฀to฀spend฀more฀
time฀ in฀ building฀ strong฀ relations฀ with฀
promising฀ global฀ firms฀ that฀ hire฀ and฀
pay฀their฀MBA฀graduates฀higher฀starting฀
salaries฀and฀bonuses.฀Perhaps฀one฀of฀the฀
best฀ strategies฀ for฀ all฀ MBA฀ programs฀
is฀ to฀ pursue฀ the฀ blue฀ ocean฀ strategy,฀
in฀ which฀ MBA฀ program฀ administrators฀strategically฀determine฀what฀makes฀
their฀ programs฀ special฀ in฀ the฀ minds฀ of฀
the฀potential฀MBA฀students฀and฀the฀hiring฀ firms.฀ For฀ example,฀ Simon฀ School฀
promotes฀ its฀ full-time฀ MBA฀ program฀
“in฀economics฀and฀analysis,฀its฀position฀
as฀one฀of฀the฀smallest฀and฀most฀personalized฀programs฀in฀the฀top฀tier,฀its฀high฀
percentage฀of฀students฀from฀abroad,฀and฀
its฀ specializations฀ in฀ technology฀ and฀
healthcare”฀(Zupan,฀2005,฀p.฀39).
The฀ present฀ study฀ focused฀ on฀ the฀
elite฀ U.S.฀ MBA฀ programs฀ identified฀ by฀
U.S.฀News฀&฀World฀Report฀(“Schools฀of฀
฀

TABLE฀2.฀Input฀and฀Output฀Variables฀for฀Improving฀MBA฀Program฀
Efficiency฀
฀

Input฀

Rank฀ ฀
6฀
10฀
11฀
11฀
13฀
18฀
18฀
18฀
21฀
21฀
23฀
23฀
26฀
27฀
27฀
27฀
31฀
32฀
32฀
32฀
37฀
42฀
42฀
45฀
45฀
49฀
49฀
51฀
54฀
54฀
57฀
58฀
60฀
62฀
68฀

School฀

Output฀

State฀ 1฀ 2฀ 3฀ 4฀ A฀ B฀ C

University฀of฀California,฀Berkeley฀
University฀of฀Michigan,฀Ann฀Arbor฀
Duke฀University฀
University฀of฀California,฀Los฀Angeles฀
New฀York฀University฀฀
Emory฀University฀
University฀of฀Texas฀at฀Austin฀
University฀of฀Washington฀
Ohio฀State฀University฀
University฀of฀North฀Carolina฀at฀Chapel฀Hill฀
Purdue฀University฀
University฀of฀Rochester฀
University฀of฀Southern฀California฀
Georgetown฀University฀
Indiana฀University฀
University฀of฀Maryland,฀College฀Park฀
Arizona฀State฀University฀
Georgia฀Institute฀of฀Technology฀
University฀of฀Notre฀Dame฀
Washington฀University฀in฀St.฀Louis฀
University฀of฀Wisconsin–Madison฀
University฀of฀California,฀Davis฀
Wake฀Forest฀University฀
Tulane฀University฀
University฀of฀Georgia฀
Rice฀University฀
University฀of฀California,฀Irvine฀
Babson฀College฀
Boston฀College฀
Southern฀Methodist฀University฀
University฀of฀Pittsburgh฀
Case฀Western฀Reserve฀University฀
Temple฀University฀
George฀Washington฀University฀
University฀of฀South฀Carolina฀

CA฀
MI฀
NC฀
CA฀
NY฀
GA฀
TX฀
WA฀
OH฀
NC฀
IN฀
NY฀
CA฀
DC฀
IN฀
MD฀
AZ฀
GA฀
IN฀
MO฀
WI฀
CA฀
NC฀
LA฀
GA฀
TX฀
CA฀
MA฀
MA฀
TX฀
PA฀
OH฀
PA฀
DC฀
SC฀

X฀
X฀
X฀
฀
฀
X฀
฀
X฀
฀
฀
X฀
฀
X฀
X฀
X฀
฀
฀
฀
X฀
X฀
X฀
X฀
X฀
X฀
X฀
X฀
X฀
X฀
X฀
X฀
X฀
฀
X฀
X฀
฀

X฀
฀
฀
X฀
X฀
X฀
X฀
X฀
X฀
X฀
฀
X฀
฀
฀
X฀
X฀
X฀
X฀
฀
฀
X฀
฀
X฀
X฀
฀
X฀
฀
X฀
฀
฀
X฀
X฀
฀
X฀
X฀

X฀
฀
฀
X฀
X฀
X฀
X฀
X฀
X฀
X฀
X฀
฀
฀
฀
X฀
X฀
X฀
X฀
X฀
฀
X฀
X฀
X฀
฀
X฀
฀
฀
฀
฀
฀
X฀
฀
X฀
X฀
X฀

฀
X฀
X฀
X฀
X฀
X฀
X฀
X฀
X฀
X฀
X฀
X฀
X฀
X฀
X฀
X฀
X฀
X฀
X฀
฀
฀
X฀
X฀
X฀
X฀
X฀
X฀
X฀
X฀
X฀
X฀
X฀
X฀
X฀
X฀

฀
X฀
X฀
X฀
X฀
X฀
X฀
X฀
X฀
X฀
X฀
X฀
X฀
X฀
X฀
X฀
X฀
฀
X฀
X฀
X฀
฀
฀
X฀
฀
X฀
฀
X฀
X฀
X฀
฀
X฀
X฀
฀
฀

X฀
X฀
X฀
฀
฀
฀
฀
X฀
X฀
฀
฀
X฀
฀
฀
฀
X฀
X฀
X฀
฀
฀
฀
฀
X฀
X฀
X฀
X฀
฀
X฀
฀
฀
X฀
X฀
฀
X฀
฀

X
X
X
X
X

X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X

Note.฀Input฀1฀=฀average฀undergraduate฀GPA;฀Input฀2฀=฀average฀GMAT฀score;฀Input฀3฀=฀out-of-state฀tuition฀
and฀fees;฀Input฀4฀=฀average฀salary฀before฀entering฀MBA฀programs;฀Output฀A฀=฀average฀starting฀salary฀
and฀bonus;฀Output฀B฀=฀the฀employment฀rate฀3฀months฀after฀graduation;฀Output฀C฀=฀the฀aims฀achieved฀
ratio.฀X฀denotes฀that฀the฀corresponding฀variable฀is฀a฀bounding฀constraint฀in฀A.฀Charnes,฀W.฀Cooper,฀and฀฀
E.฀Rhodes’s฀(1978;฀CCR)฀and฀R.฀Banker,฀A.฀Charnes,฀and฀W.฀Cooper’s฀(1984;฀BCC)฀models.

Business,”฀ 2006)฀ and฀ Financial฀ Times฀
(“Financial฀Times฀publishes฀2006฀global฀
MBA฀rankings,”฀2006).฀Using฀the฀same฀
method฀discussed฀in฀the฀present฀article,฀
the฀European฀MBA฀program฀administrators฀ may฀ assess฀ their฀ programs’฀ valueadded฀ efficiency.฀ In฀ addition,฀ a฀ trend฀
analysis฀that฀examines฀year-to-year฀variances฀ should฀ be฀ considered฀ in฀ future฀
research฀efforts.฀It฀is฀noteworthy฀that฀the฀
DEA฀ efficiency฀ rankings฀ and฀ existing฀
rankings฀from฀the฀media฀should฀complement฀each฀other฀rather฀than฀act฀as฀a฀substitute.฀Instead฀of฀replacing฀the฀existing฀
rankings฀with฀the฀efficiency฀rankings,฀B-

school฀administrators฀should฀emphasize฀
that฀ the฀ best฀ MBA฀ programs฀ are฀ those฀
that฀ can฀ help฀ MBA฀ students฀ develop฀
their฀ career.฀Two฀ informative฀ indicators฀
would฀ be฀ a฀ higher฀ salary฀ after฀ graduation฀and฀a฀wider฀salary฀gap฀between฀pre-฀
and฀ post-MBA฀ education.฀ However,฀
given฀ the฀ growing฀ international฀ student฀
population฀ in฀ the฀ U.S.฀ MBA฀ programs,฀
B-school฀administrators฀and฀researchers฀
may฀ want฀ to฀ use฀ a฀ purchasing-power฀
parity-weighted฀number฀to฀factor฀in฀the฀
possible฀influence฀of฀a฀weak-U.S.-dollar฀
employment฀ with฀ a฀ similar฀ opportunity฀
in฀ a฀ country฀ with฀ a฀ stronger฀ or฀ weaker฀
May/June฀2009฀

273

Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 22:54 11 January 2016

currency.฀ Further฀ studies฀ are฀ needed฀
to฀ find฀ ways฀ and฀ means฀ to฀ help฀ MBA฀
program฀ administrators฀ identify฀ a฀ more฀
desired฀ input–output฀ mix฀ and฀ further฀
improve฀this฀benchmark฀process.
NOTES
Maxwell฀ K.฀ Hsu฀ thanks฀ the฀ University฀ of฀
Wisconsin–Whitewater’s฀ College฀ of฀ Business฀ &฀
Economics฀ for฀ a฀ research฀ award฀ that฀ led฀ to฀ the฀
completion฀of฀this฀article.
Maxwell฀ K.฀ Hsu฀ is฀ an฀ associate฀ professor฀ of฀
marketing฀in฀the฀College฀of฀Business฀&฀Economics฀ at฀ the฀ University฀ of฀ Wisconsin–Whitewater.฀
He฀ has฀ published฀ two฀ dozen฀ refereed฀ articles฀ in฀
scholarly฀journals฀such฀as฀Applied฀Economics฀Letters,฀ Information฀ &฀ Management,฀ International฀
Journal฀ of฀ Advertising,฀ Journal฀ of฀ Academy฀ of฀
Marketing฀Science,฀Journal฀of฀International฀Marketing,฀and฀Journal฀of฀Services฀Marketing.
Gary฀H.฀Chao฀is฀an฀associate฀professor฀in฀the฀
department฀ of฀ management฀ at฀ Kutztown฀ University.฀ His฀ research฀ interests฀ include฀ supply฀ chain฀
management,฀ the฀ decision-making฀ process,฀ and฀
performance฀evaluations.
Marcia฀L.฀James฀is฀a฀professor฀of฀information฀
technology฀ and฀ business฀ education฀ in฀ the฀ College฀of฀Business฀&฀Economics฀at฀the฀University฀
of฀Wisconsin–Whitewater.฀ She฀ teaches฀ business฀
and฀ professional฀ communication฀ in฀ the฀ MBA฀
program฀ and฀ publishes฀ in฀ the฀ areas฀ of฀ gender฀
communication,฀ corporate฀ propaganda,฀ and฀ corporate฀social-networking.
Correspondence฀ concerning฀ this฀ article฀ should฀
be฀ addressed฀ to฀ Marcia฀ L.฀ James,฀ 800฀ W.฀ Main฀
Street,฀Whitewater,฀WI฀53190,฀USA.
E-mail:฀jamesm@uww.edu

274฀

Journal฀of฀Education฀for฀Business

REFERENCES
Ahn,฀T.,฀Charnes,฀A.,฀&฀Cooper,฀W.฀(1988).฀Some฀
statistical฀and฀DEA฀evaluations฀of฀relative฀efficiencies฀ of฀ public฀ and฀ private฀ institutions฀ of฀
higher฀learning.฀Socio-Economic฀Planning฀Sciences,฀22,฀259–269.
Aigner,฀D.,฀Lovell,฀C.,฀&฀Schmidt,฀P.฀(1977).฀Formulation฀ and฀ estimation฀ of฀ stochastic฀ frontier฀
production฀function฀models.฀Journal฀of฀Econometrics,฀6,฀21–37.
Association฀ to฀ Advance฀ Collegiate฀ Schools฀ of฀
Business฀ (AACSB)฀ International.฀ (2005).฀ The฀
business฀ school฀ rankings฀ dilemma:฀ A฀ report฀
from฀ a฀ task฀ force฀ of฀ AACSB฀ International’s฀
Committee฀ on฀ Issues฀ in฀ Management฀ Education.฀Tampa,฀FL:฀Author.
Banker,฀ R.,฀ Charnes,฀ A.,฀ &฀ Cooper,฀ W.฀ (1984).฀
Some฀models฀for฀estimating฀technical฀and฀scale฀
inefficiencies฀ in฀ data฀ envelopment฀ analysis.฀
Management฀Science,฀30,฀1078–1092.
Bickerstaffe,฀ G.,฀ &฀ Ridgers,฀ B.฀ (2007).฀ Ranking฀
of฀ business฀ schools.฀ Journal฀ of฀ Management฀
Development,฀26(1),฀61–66.
Bradley,฀ S.,฀ Jones,฀ G.,฀ &฀ Millington,฀ J.฀ (2001).฀
The฀ effect฀ of฀ competition฀ on฀ the฀ efficiency฀ of฀
secondary฀schools฀in฀England.฀European฀Journal฀of฀Operational฀Research,฀135,฀545–568.
Charnes,฀ A.,฀ Cooper฀ W.,฀ &฀ Rhodes,฀ E.฀ (1978).฀
Measuring฀ the฀ efficiency฀ of฀ decision-making฀ units.฀ European฀ Journal฀ of฀ Operational฀
Research,฀2,฀429–444.
Chen,฀ T.฀ (1997).฀ An฀ evaluation฀ of฀ the฀ relative฀
performance฀ of฀ university฀ libraries฀ in฀ Taipei.฀
OCLC฀Systems฀&฀Services,฀13,฀164–172.
Colbert,฀ A.,฀ Levary,฀ R.,฀ &฀ Shaner,฀ M.฀ (2000).฀
Determining฀ the฀ relative฀ efficiency฀ of฀ MBA฀
programs฀ using฀ DEA.฀ European฀ Journal฀ of฀
Operational฀Research,฀125,฀656–669.

Farrell,฀ M.฀ (1957).฀ The฀ measurement฀ of฀ productive฀efficiency.฀Journal฀of฀the฀Royal฀Statistical฀
Society,฀Series฀A,฀253–290.
Financial฀ Times฀ publishes฀ 2006฀ global฀ MBA฀
rankings.฀ (2006,฀ January฀ 30).฀ PR฀ Newswire.฀฀
Retrieved฀ December฀ 26,฀ 2007,฀ from฀ ProQuest฀
Newsstand฀database.
Fisher,฀D.฀M.,฀&฀Kiang,฀M.฀(2007).฀A฀value-added฀
approach฀ to฀ selecting฀ the฀ best฀ master฀ of฀ business฀ administration฀ (MBA)฀ program.฀ Journal฀
of฀Education฀for฀Business,฀82,฀72–76.
Gimenez,฀ V.,฀ Prior,฀ D.,฀ &฀ Thieme,฀ C.฀ (2007).฀
Technical฀ efficiency,฀ managerial฀ efficiency฀
and฀ objective-setting฀ in฀ the฀ educational฀ system:฀ An฀ international฀ comparison.฀ Journal฀
of฀ the฀ Operational฀ Research฀ Society,฀ 58,฀
969–1007.
Haksever,฀C.,฀&฀Muragishi,฀Y.฀(1998).฀฀Measuring฀
value฀ in฀ MBA฀ programs.฀ Education฀ Economics,฀6(1),฀11–25.
Holtom,฀ B.,฀ &฀ Inderrieden,฀ E.฀ (2007,฀ January/
February).฀Investment฀advice:฀Go฀for฀the฀MBA.฀
Biz฀Ed,฀36–40.
McMillan,฀ M.,฀ &฀ Datta,฀ D.฀ (1998).฀ The฀ relative฀ efficiencies฀ of฀ Canadian฀ universities:฀ A฀
DEA฀perspective.฀Canadian฀Public฀Policy,฀24,฀
485–511.
Mizala,฀A.,฀ Romaguera,฀ P.,฀ &฀ Farren,฀ D.฀ (2002).฀
The฀ technical฀ efficiency฀ of฀ schools฀ in฀ Chile.฀
Applied฀Economics,฀34,฀1533–1552.฀
Policano,฀ A.฀ (2005,฀ September/October).฀ What฀
price?฀BizEd,฀26–32.
Schools฀of฀Business.฀(2006,฀April฀10).฀U.S.฀News฀
&฀World฀Report,฀140(13),฀59.
Tracy,฀ J.,฀ &฀Waldfogel,฀ J.฀ (1997).฀The฀ best฀ business฀ schools:฀A฀ market-based฀ approach.฀ Journal฀of฀Business,฀70,฀1–31.
Zupan,฀ M.฀ (2005,฀ May/June).฀Angling฀ for฀ applicants.฀Biz฀Ed,฀34–39.