Text # 2 - Fuqua faculty committee report on Executive MBA

Fact Checker uses a Google blog, and it seems impossible to reproduce or copy the report and its supporting charts and pictures. FC will be glad to send you a PDF text.

Committee Members: Jennifer Francis, Jeannette Song, Rick Staelin, Vish Viswanathan, Bill Boulding
(ex-officio)

Committee Charge: The China EMBA Design Committee (hereafter “the Committee”) was charged with identifying design options for an executive MBA (EMBA) program to be delivered in China that would satisfy three criteria:

(1) Meet or exceed our quality standards for degree programs

(2) Enhance, or do not harm, the quality of our research activity

(3) Have long-term financial viability.

We assume that China EMBA program participants would be part time students who are employed in full time positions.

Committee Review: The Committee had access to various pieces of information including detailed planning documents, financial projections prepared by Fuqua/Duke administration, and two market
research reports – one prepared by BCG (Boston Consulting Group) about two years ago which looked at a number of key decisions including the market for 30-35 year olds interested in a part time MBA, and another (more focused on the
business degree market generally as opposed to the EMBA market specifically) prepared by China Marketing Research (CMR) several months ago. The CMR report is appended to this report. In addition,
the Committee received, or expects to receive, information from the following direct and indirect sources:

(1) Two members of the Committee (Jennifer Francis and Rick Staelin), working with about 20 other faculty and staff members, designed a market research study to discern employer views and perspectives about an EMBA program in China.

The results of this market research arrived as we were finalizing this report. We provide a summary of the results pertinent to this report in the Appendix.

Two members of the Committee (Jennifer Francis and Rick Staelin) are also members of the former associate dean committee (fADC). Members of the fADC met with faculty by area to gather their
input about programmatic activities in China.

We spoke one-on-one with faculty or staff who wished to provide input. More generally, we considered the opinions and perspectives of many people who spoke or wrote to us concerning their views about the nature of the market, the nature of logistical challenges, and other matters relevant to the proposed program

Committee Recommendation: The Committee prepared two China EMBA proposals: Proposal I is a stand alone degree that assumes no other residency programmatic activities in Kunshan; Proposal II is
predicated on the existence of residency-based MMS degree in Kunshan.

Both proposals are attached,
along with the Committee’s supporting reasoning. We provide a summary of the financial projections for the EMBA program prepared by Fuqua/Duke administration; these projections are not specific to either proposal.

The Committee recommends, on a vote of 3 to 1, that we not go forward now with Proposal I. The main reasons for not going forward are that this proposal is too similar to our current EMBA offerings. The Committee did not restrict attention to delivery of an EMBA in Kunshan; we considered China more broadly,
and specifically, potential delivery of the program, or portions of the program, in Shanghai.

Duke planning documents for Kunshan provide for 3-year coverage of losses for a Fuqua-MMS degree delivered in Kunshan, but for only 1-year of loss coverage for a Fuqua-EMBA degree delivered in China. Thus, after the first year, Fuqua would be responsible for covering 100% of the losses on any EMBA activities done in China.

The CMR survey focused more on the MMS program than on the EMBA program. We felt it was appropriate to obtain specific market research pertinent to the EMBA market. This report was received just prior to our last meeting; the findings are summarized in the Appendix. We attach a copy of the full research report.

CCMBA and GEMBA, it is not that differentiated from other competitive offerings, and the demand for
English language programs is currently limited. As a consequence the majority view is that Proposal I is too financially risky for Fuqua to take on at this point in time. Thus, the recommendation is for further investigation of demand to see if we can locate firms that will provide substantial guarantees of support in terms of sending qualified students.

The Committee voted 4 to 0 in support of further consideration of Proposal II, recognizing that recommending further consideration of Proposal II is contingent on moving forward with considering a
four term residential MMS program located in Kunshan. The Committee felt that Proposal II is more innovative, would not cannibalize our current EMBA offerings, and would be differentiated from other
local options. Thus our recommendation would be to wait until there is a decision on MMS. If positive, we suggest a faculty committee flesh out Proposal II more fully and build a detailed business model that
reflects costs and benefits.

Situational Analysis
Competition

There appear to be at least nine major English language competitive EMBA programs, all located in
major cities, i.e., Shanghai, Beijing, and Hong Kong. Table 1 shows that, the average tuition is about $75,000 (the Kellogg/HKUST tuition includes room and board). No English language program has
multiple sections. In contrast the stand-alone Tsinghua program which is taught in Mandarin has multiple
sections. The formats of these programs differ, from 2.5-day modules, to 4-day modules, to week-long modules. Many take their students overseas at least once, some more than once. The total number of
instruction days (for the entire program) is approximately 60-70 days.

Our analysis suggests that none use distance education in any meaningful way. In terms of ranking, the top programs are CEIBS, Kellogg/HKUST, and Insead/Tsinghua. At least four competitive programs located in Shanghai.

Customers (Potential students)

The BCG report provided the committee notes that the popular press believes there is demand for top tier EMBA programs while tier 3 business schools in China are witnessing a softening of demand. (This view was supported by a email survey of HR directors in China that the committee was given that indicated an increase demand for EMBA education.) BCG also noted that a high quality (and thus high priced)
EMBA program of the sort Fuqua would deliver would have to overcome two customer barriers related to tuition and language.

This is due to the fact that the Chinese EMBA market is very price sensitive: there are many lower quality, and inexpensive, EMBA options. The BCG report also indicates a lack of ready access to financing for students who want to pursue top quality EMBA’s without company sponsorship.

For the most part, Chinese firms are not willing to provide financial support.

According to a Fortune report, 18% of Chinese firms were willing to provide over $7,500 support. (The HR survey reported that 34 of the companies surveyed provides financial support to its employees to pursue an EMBA degree.)

Second, an EMBA program that Fuqua would offer would be delivered in English; current estimates indicate that less than 10% of college graduates speak English.
To estimate the size of the EMBA market, we looked at the number of Chinese that took the GMAT (in English). This last year 30,200 Chinese took the GMAT, up from 10,000 in 2006. Of this total, 7% were
31 years or older. It is not clear where these older students sent their test scores but we know 8,000 of the
Chinese test takers took the test outside China indicating that about 25% of these students were already out of the country.

Also we know that less than 8% of the Chinese nationals send their scores to a Chinese (lost words)

Our current WEMBA (weekend MBA) program is about 63 days of residency plus about 12 weeks of distance education. GEMBA
has 65 residency days and even more weeks of distance education.

(The total number of GMAT scores sent to China was 3,252, down from 3,933 the year
before. Chinese citizens accounted for 44% of this total or 1,743 scores, of which 84% sent their scores to
the U.S., Hong Kong or Canada. )

BCG (Boston Consulting), after adjusting for persons going overseas for their degrees and persons not able to afford the tuition, predicts there are about 340 potential candidates that might be
interested in Fuqua’s EMBA. The bottom line is that the potential pool of candidates who a) speak English, b) want to say in China to get an MBA, and c) have the resources to pay for a high quality
program is limited. It is not clear when if at all this situation will change. One committee member feels strongly that the demand for EMBA programs will grow. The committee also considered the goals of
students enrolling in Chinese EMBA programs.

Based on our analysis, including discussions with a number of faculty who have taught in Chinese EMBA programs we concluded that many of the students
are seeking networking opportunities (as opposed to learning opportunities). Consistent with this objective, they are not accustomed to doing homework. (As an aside, this latter characteristic is
sometimes also found in our GEMBA students). The market research study that we commissioned will investigate the goals of those enrolling in Chinese EMBA programs. (See the Appendix for a summary of this report.)

Finally we note that the different market research reports mention that Chinese students a) view Chinese Universities as inferior to western Universities and b) believe distance education is not of high quality.

These perceptions could impact our ability to attract high quality students.

Fuqua should have a state of the art facility by 2012 located in Kunshan. According to the BCG report,
most of the people they interviewed expressed a strong location preference for Shanghai (or Beijing). This
was particularly true for the EMBA market compared to the full time daytime market.

The BCG report also indicated that in the long run a nearby large city location “might be okay” for executives, noting that
students can drive to Kunshan from Shanghai in less than two hours. Also there is now good train service
between the domestic airport and the city of Kunshan.

Thus, students who might fly in for an EMBA
program would have easy access to the campus (probably less than 45 minutes total travel time). With this noted a few of the committee observed that the last time we located our residency in a location outside the major city center ( i.e., when we taught classes at the airport location in Frankfurt for CCMBA and
GEMBA), there was strong opposition, both from the students and the faculty even though the teaching facility was “state of the art”.

Finally, if the EMBA program were in fact very regional and taught as an evening program (see option 2), the Kunshan campus would need to be supplemented with a location closer to most students, i.e., one located in Shanghai.

This person states “that China is in a transient state right now, every day is different; therefore we need to take a dynamic view instead of relying too much on the current market information. The three criteria our committee is charged to evaluate the China opportunity seems unrealistic to suit the current state of the China EMBA market.

With China’s continued rapid economic development and its sheer size, there is a considerable growth potential for the high-quality EMBA education in years to come.

We may consider the following factors:
a. The entire business world is paying attention to China and thinking about how to explore the opportunities in China,
especially the future growth inland. More and more multinationals will be expected to expand into China in those areas,
which will generate a great need for management talents.

b. Many first generation Chinese successful entrepreneurs are near retirement age and are now starting to make their succession plans. It is very likely the new leaders will be those educated overseas with western MBA degrees. These new leaders will likely support their middle managers attending western MBA programs in China to save time from overseas traveling and at the same time keep close contact with day-to-day businesses. These younger generations
should feel more comfortable speaking English.

c. As China’s economy gets more developed, picking the lower hanging fruits will no longer be sufficient. Therefore, all
local enterprises, state-owned or private, will need more structured management to sustain the businesses and growth.
Therefore the need for professional managers will increase, so the demand for EMBA will rise.

4 Fuqua faculty have demonstrated both the ability to design and deliver high quality programs outside the U.S. and the willingness to do so (for example, travel to India, China or other remote locations and be away for as long as two consecutive weeks). Fuqua faculty are also experienced in delivering courses to managers who employed full time, using several distinct formats, i.e., WEMBA (blocks of 2 days every other week with little distance education), CCMBA (blocks of 5½ days followed by distance education)
and GEMBA (blocks of two weeks followed by distance education).

Our quality standards require about 24 to 30 “contact” hours per course. For the daytime and WEMBA programs delivery is face-to-face; for CCMBA and GEMBA delivery is about 18 hours face-to-face, with
the rest provided via distance.

While most instruction (that is, 50% to 80%, depending on the program) at Fuqua is delivered by full time tenure track faculty, we have found it advantageous to use two types of adjunct faculty: POP’s (e.g., Russ Morgan in marketing, Tony O’Driscoll in strategy, and Joe Leboeuf in management) who are excellent
teachers and former Fuqua faculty who are known to have excellent teaching skills (e.g., Nikos Vettas, Stacy Wood). We anticipate that these additional resources would be available for any EMBA program.

Fuqua’s capability to develop and deliver a China EMBA program is also affected by its current financial health, since any China EMBA program will not be financially supported by Duke University after year 3
(it will receive 50% support in years 1-3).

The Fuqua School has lost money over the last 4 years and according to the latest forecast that we could get from Admissions, enrollments for next year’s EMBA classes (e.g., CCMBA, GEMBA and WEMBA) and our local MMS program will not meet the forecasted projections.

Consequently, it will be hard to meet the forecasted balanced budget put forth for next year.
All this leaves the School with dwindling financial reserves. Consequently, the School has limited, or no, ability to absorb losses from a China EMBA program.

Situational Analysis Summary

A Fuqua China EMBA program would compete with existing English language EMBA programs in the Shanghai area. Probably the strongest of these offerings is CEIBS which has a current enrollment of 58
students. The total market for high quality China EMBA programs, in the long run, appears to be strong if
one reads the popular press or even looks at projections of future economic growth in China.

Current demand for the type of program Fuqua could offer is currently limited by language and funding. The latter
point is particularly important given the high price of any of the high quality EMBA programs.

The formats of the different programs vary considerably; some look like weekend programs, others tend to teach in blocks of a week. None have as much instruction time (in total) as our existing EMBA programs, although it is hard to equate our distance education to face to face instruction. Also, student perceptions of
local offerings is lower than those of western schools and even here the western schools located in China have lower perceptions that the home institution.
Based on the above, we developed two different proposals for a Fuqua EMBA program that would be taught in Kunshan starting in 2013.

Proposal I: Stand alone China EMBA
This proposal considers delivery of an EMBA program in China, without regard to any other activities undertaken in Kunshan.
Each course would be taught over two, non-contiguous, one-week periods. There would be no distance element to the program, except as discussed below for pre-work prior to each week. Each one-week
period would consist of two courses each having six, 3.5 hour class sessions. Thus, each week would have about 18 hours of contact time (after accounting for breaks), for a total contact time across the two non-contiguous weeks of about 36 hours. Students would be expected to prepare 10-15 hours for each
class prior to each week. During the “residency” week, it would be further expected that students would
prepare 3 hours per day per class. The two non-contiguous weeks would, ideally, be separated in time by 3-5 weeks, during which time students would be able to practice skills learned in week one and prepare for skills taught in week two.

The Committee did not deliberate what amount or types of homework or
assignments students would be expected/encouraged to prepare/submit during the period between the two
residency weeks.

The Committee did not discuss the specific courses that would be included in the China EMBA program.

We assumed that they would be similar to what is offered in our existing EMBA programs. The Committee focused on thinking about the delivery of core courses; although we did not specifically
contemplate the issue of elective offerings in a China EMBA program, we think it would be straightforward to offer choice, over a suitably small set of elective courses, taught in one-week periods.

(Including electives increases the cost of the program). Thus, we might assume each elective is a “half course elective” relative to our current full course elective offerings. Such half-course elective options have been offered in peer competitor programs, and appear to be successful in those programs. Total
contact hours (after accounting for breaks) would be 18 hours for these electives, similar to the number of
contact hours in CCMBA. We believe this is enough time to get across some of the basic ideas of an elective course. Also by dividing up the electives into half courses, we can in effect give the students the option of taking 8 different offerings, albeit with some cost implications.

• We considered and rejected a distance component. We rejected the idea of shortening the residency periods and substituting with some distance components for two reasons: (1) concerns
about potential cannibalization and brand distinction from our existing successful CCMBA program; and (2) market research suggests that Chinese executives view programs with distance components as inferior to those that are taught face to face.

• While offering each course over two contiguous weeks would be more efficient for faculty and program staffing, as well as less expensive (due to lower travel costs), we rejected combining the
two week periods for two reasons. First, there are brand image considerations because such a term structure would resemble a “light” version of our current GEMBA offering, which consists
of a two-week residency period followed by eight weeks of distance learning. Second, based on information gathered about the ability of non-native English speakers to absorb material, we do not believe it is possible to teach 100% of the course content delivered in other programs in a
contiguous two-week structure. Our estimates (derived from conversations with faculty who have taught courses in such a format) suggest that at most 50-60% of course content is possible in a
contiguous two-week structure. Thus, either we “water down the content” or we extend the time.

We believe that by separating the two week periods by 3-5 weeks, we allow for sufficient absorption time to achieve delivery of 100% of course content.

• Most competing EMBA programs in China are run over an extended weekend format: for example, one course taught over four, 8-hour days of teaching. It is not unusual for these programs to require little or no homework or advance preparation. Our understanding is that these programs are marketed to, and demanded by, Chinese executives who largely view the EMBA
6 There was debate among the Committee members concerning the number of contact hours per course, especially
given the fact that the norm at Fuqua is between 24-30 contact hours per course. We decided, however, that if the
program Fuqua wished to deliver was a high quality, rigorous EMBA degree, that objective would be best served by
providing a longer face-to-face instruction period than competitor programs.

Further, the Committee believes that
more contact hours (ideally with some separation in time) is preferred for non-native English speakers. We discuss
these issues more fully later in this section.

(garble) program as an opportunity to network. This market segment does not appear to view the EMBA as a rigorous degree.�� We do not believe that it is Fuqua’s comparative advantage to deliver a “networking” type degree; our comparative advantage lies in rigorous (and research enlightened) course content and delivery7.
��

We do not believe that it is in Fuqua’s best interests to offer a non-rigorous EMBA.

Doing so would harm the strong brand image associated with existing Fuqua EMBA,
MBA and MMS programs – all of which deliver highly rigorous coursework.
�� We do not believe a rigorous course can be taught to non-native English speakers, who are also working professionals, over a four-day time period.

Concerns with Proposal I:

• The likelihood that the proposed China EMBA would cannibalize applications to the existing CCMBA (Cross Continent MBA) seems high. There are also concerns with brand image if the proposed China EMBA is
inferior to existing Fuqua EMBA degrees.

• It is not clear that there is current demand for a rigorous, English-language, EMBA program in China. Analysis of the EMBA market suggests that most competitor EMBA programs adopt the networking model of courses taught over very short periods and little to no homework assigned.
In addition, it seems the most dominant EMBA programs in China are those taught in Mandarin, not in English.

• Based on all available evidence, we do not believe that Chinese executives would pay the premium rates for the proposed EMBA degree. We do not have sufficient data to evaluate the non-Chinese demand in China (i.e., ex-pat demand) for such a program.

Proposal II: China EMBA in conjunction with residency MMS program in Kunshan
This proposal considers delivery of an EMBA program in China, in conjunction with a residency-based MMS degree, undertaken in Kunshan. That is, this proposal assumes a solution to the problem of having
Fuqua faculty available over a 6-week period to teach classes.

The Committee spent less time on the specifics of this proposal because its feasibility depends on the delivery of a residency MMS degree in China. We provide a rough outline of what we think might be
possible under such a condition.

Each course in the Proposal 2 China EMBA would be taught in a combined weekend and evening format.

For example, students might take two courses per term in a format as follows:

3-hour classes each Saturday-Sunday weekend 1, followed by two weeks of Wednesday/Thursday evening 3-hour class,
followed by same weekend schedule for Saturday-Sunday, followed by two weeks of
Wednesday/Thursday evening classes. Total contact time would be roughly 24 hours (3 hours per class times eight class sessions); this amount could be increased by extending the weekend class schedule to
have 4 hour class sessions (yielding total contact time of 28 hours).

Many variants of a schedule that
combines weekend and evening classes are possible. Students would be expected to prepare prior to class meetings, in the same proportions and amounts we expect of other Fuqua EMBA programs. We

With this noted, it may be necessary to recognize that potential students want to network. This makes it all the more important to matriculate students who have high managerial positions and work for “important” companies.

8 We are aware that two courses in our current WEMBA program (Leadership and GMI) are taught over two, 4-day weekends, with some distance following. We do not believe that model can be applied to China given differences in English language skills between the two groups and, as explained elsewhere in this report, we believe that the China EMBA market views distance education as inferior..
7
recommend that the program either be taught entirely in Shanghai, or in a combination of evenings in Shanghai and weekends in Kunshan. We anticipate that demand for this program would come from
Shanghai, in which case it would make the most sense to bring the evening classes to this group (rather than have them travel to Kunshan).

• This structure would create a regionally-focused EMBA offering in China which we believe would be a distinctly different offering from existing Fuqua EMBA degrees. We are uncertain about the extent to which this regional EMBA would (1) compete successfully with existing Shanghai EMBA programs and (2) be viewed as a competitor to our CCMBA program.

• Failure to deliver a high quality program over this structure and to this market would harm our
brand image.

• If the weekend-evening EMBA structure is considered further, we advise that specific research be
conducted to understand the market for such a program. Specifically, which students would it draw? Where would they like to take classes? How much would they pay?

To gain the most from linking a China EMBA program to a China MMS program, the two courses taught each term in the China EMBA program would be the same two courses offered in the MMS-Kunshan program, with the content and approach adjusted to meet the needs and experience of each student group.

Without a link between the teaching in the two programs, there is no gain for considering the two programs together. To make the scheduling link workable, faculty would be expected to teach in Kunshan during the day, and in Shanghai on one or more evenings during the week (and possibly the weekend). The Committee did not view the matching and logistical issues as insurmountable, but at the
same time, we did not work out all details, so do not likely understand all challenges that will exist.

Concerns with Proposal II:

• Proposal II relies on residency MMS program in Kunshan.

• The additional design work for Proposal II is not insubstantial. Coursework in the two programs

(MMS-Kunshan and China EMBA) would need to be coordinated such that faculty members in
residence in Kunshan for period X would teach necessary coursework in both the MMS and EMBA programs. Note that this does not imply that all courses are the same, as a given faculty member might teach one course to MMS students and different course to the EMBA students.

• We are not able to estimate the demand for a rigorous, English-language, EMBA program, with this type of weekend-evening structure, in China. The proposed program would clearly be tied to the Shanghai market, where there are competitor programs in place. The Committee recommends
therefore that further research be conducted to discern Shanghai demand.

• It is not clear to us that Chinese executives would pay the premium rates for the proposed EMBA degree. We also do not have sufficient market data about the non-Chinese demand in China (i.e.,
ex-pat demand) for such a program. This is the same concern expressed for Proposal I.
Summary of financial projections for China EMBA

Attached to this report is an excel spread sheet showing assumptions and projections for enrollments, tuition, percent scholarship and percent of tenure track faculty. Our best guess—and it is a guess – is that initial enrollment will be 35, increasing to 50 over four years.

We have set the tenure track faculty
percentage at 60% to reflect our belief that we need to keep the quality high and this requires substantial
attention from our tenure track faculty.

We have also used the administration’s assumption that faculty will receive 1.5 courses credit for teaching a full course, i.e., flying to Kunshan twice and teaching each time for 6 days. (We estimate 12 days in the classroom and 4 days traveling.)

Using these numbers, the program would not contribute to fixed costs and overhead until the third year when projected enrollments reach 45 students. The analysis does not consider the costs of program staff, TA’s and applicable costs of
the Kunshan campus. With these costs added, the breakeven figure would be much higher. We suggest a much more detailed business plan be prepared before any final determination is made with respect to
offering the EMBA degree.
FSB EMBA FY12 FY13 FY14 FY15 FY16 FY17
Tui tion $ 75,000 $ 78,000 $ 80,000 $ 82,000 $ 85,000
Number Students ‐ First year 35 40 45 50
Number Students ‐ Second year 35 40 45
Number of sections (80 per section max) 1 1 1 1
Number of courses ‐Fi rs t year 12 12 12 12
Number of courses ‐Second year 8 8 8
Number of courses (3x4 terms + electives)
Program Cos ts (% of Tui tion) 10% 10% 10% 10% 10%
Faculty Cost Tenure Track incl. fringes (per course) $ 100,000 $ 100,000 $ 100,000 $ 100,000 $ 100,000
Faculty Cost Adjunct (per course) $ 40,000 $ 40,000 $ 40,000 $ 40,000 $ 40,000
Faculty Tenure Track ‐ % of courses taught 60% 60% 60% 60% 60%
Faculty Adjunct ‐ % of courses taught 40% 40% 40% 40% 40%
Students ‐ % Chines e 70% 70% 65% 60% 60%
Students ‐ % Other As ian 20% 20% 25% 30% 30%
Students ‐ % Other Int'l 10% 10% 10% 10% 10%
Scholarship % ‐ Chinese 20% 20% 20% 20% 20%
Scholarship % ‐ Other Asian 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Scholarship % ‐ Other Int'l 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Marketing $ ‐ % MMS vs . EMBA vs . Undergrad 40% 40% 40% 40% 40%
Donations
Revenue:
Tui tion $ ‐ $ ‐ $ 2,047,500 $ 3,100,000 $ 3,587,500 $ 4,143,750
les s : Scholarships ‐ ‐ (286,650) (403,000) (430,500) (497,250)
Total Net Revenue ‐ ‐ 1,760,850 2,697,000 3,157,000 3,646,500
Variable Program Expenses:
Program Cos ts (Course Material s , etc.) ‐ ‐ 204,750 310,000 358,750 414,375
Total Variable Program Expenses ‐ ‐ 204,750 310,000 358,750 414,375
Contribution Margin $ ‐ $ ‐ $ 1,556,100 $ 2,387,000 $ 2,798,250 $ 3,232,125
Step Program Expenses:
Facul ty Compensation ‐ ‐ 1,272,000 2,120,000 2,120,000 2,120,000
Facul ty Travel /Living/Vi sa/TT Research ‐ ‐ 220,800 368,000 368,000 368,000
Marketing ‐ 80,000 80,000 70,000 60,000 50,000
Total Step Program Expenses ‐ 80,000 1,572,800 2,558,000 2,548,000 2,538,000
FSB EMBA Contribution $ ‐ $ (80,000) $ (16,700) $ (171,000) $ 250,250 $ 694,125
9
Table 1
List of Competitive Programs
Institution Location Enrollment Tuition Days of Education
CEIBS Shanghai 58 $73,650 68
Washington U/Fudan Shanghai 45-50 $73,650 78 ?
Rutgers/Dalian Shanghai/Beijing 40 $51,000 70
USC/Jiao Tong Shanghai $73,000 71
INSEAD/Tsinghua Beijing 51 $80,000 55
Tsinghua (Manderin) Beijing many sections $69,500 36
CUHK(Manderin) Beijing
Beijing Univ
Guanghua EMBA Beijing 100 $50,500 64
Kellogg/HKUST Hong Kong 50 $153,900 100-110
Chinese Univ of
Hong Kong/UNC Hong Kong
Univ. of Western
Ontario Hong Kong 64
10
Appendix
Summary of the major findings from the new EMBA market study
1. The survey-sampled global companies located in China appear to be willing to sponsor EMBA
students. Most potential EMBA students expect their company to provide substantial support.
2. Kunshan is not a bad location for those in Shanghai or Beijing. However, it is viewed less favorably
by those who live in Guangzhou.
3. Four days/month is about as long as people want to attend classes. This involves 2 days/month that
the person takes off from work and two days of a weekend once each month.
4. Duke name is not strong among 35-40 year old managers.
5. There are really two different markets in terms of what is viewed as important. One is the Chinese
student who is looking for networking, the other is the ex-pat working in China who is looking for
general business skills.
6. Most EMBA students feel they have enough soft skills. However, employers feel there is a need to
provide such skills to EMBA students.
7. The perception is that joint programs are of higher quality than Chinese business programs, but still
lower than western programs in the U.S. The perception is that faculty who come over to China do
not take the teaching seriously and do not have the necessary contacts.
Implications of the new EMBA market study for our report
We discussed the above findings in relation to our report. We find point 1 to be more encouraging than
indicated by prior evidence, although it was noted that the firms interviewed were all major international
firms that typically send employees to EMBA programs. What was surprising, however, was that most of
the students interviewed also felt they would get funding. Point 2 is more positive on Kunshan than prior
studies, and provides some support for this location. Point 3 gives us some concern with respect to our
Proposal I, but is not an issue with respect to Proposal II. With respect to networking (Point 5), it again
points out the need to attract highly placed students from major firms. It also supports charging a
substantial tuition, since high price signals high quality. Point 7 reinforces the idea that we need to staff
the program with highly qualified faculty, who will be perceived as such by the Chinese market.
11