MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2948361992 · doi:10.17705/1cais.04441

Impact of MBA Programs’ Business Analytics Breadth on Salary and Job Placement: The Role of University Ranking

2019· article· en· W2948361992 on OpenAlexaff
Maryam Ghasemaghaei, Bhushan Kapoor, Ofir Turel

Bibliographic record

VenueCommunications of the Association for Information Systems · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicBig Data and Business Intelligence
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSalaryRanking (information retrieval)AnalyticsJob placementMedical educationComputer scienceManagementPsychologyData sciencePolitical sciencePedagogyMedicineInformation retrievalEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Although many business schools have started to offer business analytics programs and courses for their MBA students, they lack understanding about how these efforts translate into job market gains for their graduates and whether all business schools have a level playing field. To bridge this gap, we use signaling theory to investigate the impacts that the business analytics breadth (BAB) level and university ranking of MBA programs have on graduates’ future employment success in terms of salary and job placement. We collected and analyzed data on business analytics-relevant courses that the top 89 business schools in the United States according to Bloomberg (bloomberg.com) offered. Our findings show the vital role of university ranking in determining the efficacy of BAB to produce job market gains for students: university ranking moderated the effect of business analytics offerings on post-graduation salary and job placement. These findings provide interesting insights for researchers and business schools interested in understanding the return on investment in business analytics programs.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.332
Threshold uncertainty score0.207

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.035
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.228 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCommunications of the Association for Information SystemsSame topicBig Data and Business IntelligenceFrench-language works237,207