A SHORTER,CHEAPER MODEL
By Della Bradshaw and Michael Jacobs
Where Insead leads, others follow. These days, one-year MBA programmes are growing in prominence and quality across Europe and Asia.
In 2004, there were just six one - year programmes ranked in the top 50 of the Financial Times global rankings; in 2009, 15 of the top 50 programmes ran for 12 months or less; Insead still runs the shortest programme at 10? months. Over the same period the number of two - year programmes in the top 50 dropped from two-thirds (33) to less than half (23).
But while one - year programmes are de rigueur in Europe, US schools have been slow to adopt the model. This is because there is little demand for shorter programmes, says Tom Robertson, dean of the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania. "The US is a two-year market," he says. "If we saw the evidence that the market was moving away from two years, then we would lead the way."
But others are not so convinced. When Robert Sullivan joined the newly formed Rady School at the University of California in San Diego, he hoped to set up a one-year degree but was stifled by the university system. His view is straight forward. "No-one ever said it takes everyone two years to become a leader; this didn't come down from the mountains."He believes there is one specific reason why US schools stick with the two-year programme: "If you move to a one-year MBA it upsets the revenue model."
Prof Sullivan believes some of the top US schools will soon offer one-year, full-time degrees. Indeed, he points out, Stanford and MIT Sloan already teach the one-year Sloan programme. He argues that such degrees would sit well alongside the two-year MBA, which has been targeted increasingly at younger students. This year at Harvard Business School, for example, 47 per cent of entering students earned their undergraduate degrees in the past three years. The average age of students at Insead, by comparison, is 29.