Business schools receive funding for their operational activities from a variety of sources. Although the sample size is limited (this section is optional within the BSQ Finances Module data collection), the findings reveal meaningful variation across a consistent sample of institutions and regions, reflecting how schools differ in their reliance on tuition revenue, government support, institutional allocations, grants and contracts, private gifts, endowment income, and other funding sources.

Median and Average Total Operating Funds by Region

Globally, median operating funds at AACSB-accredited schools increased over the five-year period from 24 million USD to 27 million USD, representing 13 percent growth.

Growth has been particularly pronounced in the EMEA region, where schools reported a 28 percent increase over five years. Most recently, median operating funds in EMEA reached 78 million USD, more than three times the median in the Americas (24 million USD) and over five times that of Asia Pacific (14 million USD).

The similarity in average and median values in both EMEA and Asia Pacific suggests that these figures are broadly representative of schools in the sample and reflect a relatively balanced distribution. In contrast, the Americas sample appears more skewed, with some institutions reporting substantially higher operating funds that pull the average upward. This pattern may also be influenced by the larger sample size in that region.

Median and Average Total Operating Funds by School Size

Segmenting the data by school size provides a more balanced comparison across the sample. It also highlights the differences in operating funds available to support activities at small, medium, and large schools.

While the gap between large schools and their small and medium counterparts is not unexpected—large schools report median operating funds that are three and a half times those of medium-sized schools and nearly seven times those of small schools—a more notable finding is the 13 percent five-year median growth among large schools, compared with relative stability among small and medium institutions.

Additionally, the wider gap between the median and average operating funds for large schools suggests greater dispersion within this group, indicating that a subset of highly resourced institutions may be driving up the average. In contrast, the average and median operating funds for small and medium schools are relatively similar, pointing to a more even distribution of resources within those groups.

Beyond total funding levels, the composition of sources for these revenue streams offers additional insight.

Average Percentages of Operating Fund Sources by Region: 2020–21 vs. 2024–25

This chart illustrates the composition of funding sources for 2020–21 and 2024–25, based on the average percentage of total operating funds that schools receive from each source.

Globally, tuition and fee revenue remains the largest source of operating funds, accounting for an average of 67 percent of schools’ operating funds in 2024–25. The reliance on tuition and fees is consistent across all three regions.

Although the regional representation in the sample is uneven, some noteworthy patterns emerge. In both Asia Pacific and EMEA, reliance on tuition has increased over the five-year period, nearing an average of 75 percent of schools’ operating funds in those regions. In contrast, tuition dependence in the Americas sample has declined slightly. Schools in the Americas show signs of greater revenue diversification, with comparatively larger shares coming from university allocations, government appropriations, and the use of unspent reserves.

Non-degree education shows measurable growth in Asia Pacific, where reliance on this source has increased from an average of 5 percent to 11 percent of total operating funds.

Average Percentages of Operating Fund Sources by School Size: 2020–21 vs. 2024–25

Examining this distribution by school size reveals additional patterns. While schools of all sizes rely primarily on tuition and fee revenue, this dependence is most pronounced among small schools, where tuition accounted for 72 percent of operating funds in 2024–25. Notably, this represents a considerable decline from five years earlier, when tuition accounted for 81 percent of operating funds for small schools in this sample.

Large schools maintain the most diversified funding structures, drawing comparatively greater shares of revenue from a broader mix of sources.

In this section, we shift the focus from where operating funds originate to how they are allocated. Examining expenditure patterns provides insight into the most resource-intensive areas of business education and offers perspective on institutional priorities. From instructional investment and personnel commitments to research activities, facilities operations, and student support, these categories illustrate how financial resources are translated into operational practice.

Median and Average Total Expenditures by Region

Globally, the median expenditures at AACSB-accredited schools have shown measured growth over the past five years, increasing by 11 percent. As with operating funds, average expenditures are significantly higher, reflecting substantial variation in spending levels across schools in the sample. For example, in 2024–25, the reported total expenditures ranged from 2 million USD to 362 million USD, indicating the wide dispersion in institutional scale and resource capacity.

As in the previous section, regional sample sizes are imbalanced, so comparisons should be interpreted with caution. That said, a similar pattern emerges: EMEA stands out with considerably higher expenditure levels than the other regions and shows the most significant growth over the period (43 percent), while expenditures in the Americas and Asia Pacific have remained relatively steady.

Comparing operating funds and expenditures suggests that, overall, schools are spending less than they receive in funds. Globally, spending growth has not fully outpaced revenue growth, with average expenditure rising 19 percent, versus a 24 percent increase in average operating funds over the same period.

Median and Average Total Expenditures by School Size

A view by school size mirrors the patterns observed in operating fund levels. Based on median figures, large schools report expenditure levels nearly three times those of medium-sized schools and more than seven times those of small schools. Large schools have also experienced 18 percent growth over the period, while expenditures among medium and small schools have remained relatively stable.

Average Percentages of Operating Fund Uses by Region: 2020–21 vs. 2024–25

Similar to the analysis of operating fund sources, this chart illustrates how schools, on average, allocate their expenditures across key functional areas. The data reflect both salary and non-salary expenses.

As expected, the largest share of expenditures is directed toward degree programs and instructional activity. In the Asia Pacific sample, this share has increased 6 percentage points over the past five years, with an average of 53 percent of total expenditures allocated to degree programs and instruction.

In EMEA, facility operations and maintenance account for a larger share of expenditures than in other regions. In contrast, schools in the Americas allocate more of their spending to compensation and benefits, as well as scholarships, relative to their regional peers.

Average Percentage of Fund Uses by School Size: 2020–21 vs. 2024–25

Again, examining the data by school size provides a more balanced basis for comparison, as the sample sizes within each group are more comparable. While degree programs and instructional activity represent the largest expenditure category across all school sizes, the concentration of spending in this area is notably higher in small schools, which allocate a significantly greater average share of their funds to instruction than their medium and large counterparts.

Operating Budgets

Budget tightening remains top of mind for business school leaders globally, influencing decisions across infrastructure investment, faculty and staff development, student-focused initiatives, and other strategic priorities.

This section focuses on trends in business school operating budgets, which represent the amounts schools have allocated to their operations. This differs from operating funds, which reflect the actual revenue a school receives from various sources. As discussed in the previous section, operating funds capture the money generated or received through sources such as tuition, institutional allocations, and other funding streams.

AACSB data indicate substantial variation in operating budgets across schools, by region, institutional size, and other structural factors. Despite this variability, the median operating budget among schools in our sample has remained relatively stable over the past five years, hovering around 20 million USD.

Median and Average Operating Budget by Region

While the overall median has remained steady, regional differences are significant. For example, in 2024–25, schools in EMEA reported a median operating budget of approximately 39 million USD, considerably higher than their counterparts in Asia Pacific, where the median operating budget was approximately 16 million USD.

The average budgets follow a broadly consistent trend across years; however, the notable gap between the mean and median suggests considerable variability within regions. This gap indicates that a subset of schools with particularly large budgets is pulling the average upward, reflecting the uneven distribution of financial resources among institutions.

The following box-and-whisker plot provides a controlled comparison of institutions reporting budget data in both 2020–21 and 2024–25, including regional views. These visualizations illustrate the distribution of operating budgets among AACSB-accredited schools.

Distribution of Operating Budgets by Region: 2020–21 vs. 2024–25

• Compared to regional peers, EMEA demonstrates greater variation among the middle 50 percent of institutions, reflected in a larger interquartile range (taller box). The extended whiskers further suggest that some schools fall well above or below this central range. These patterns point to a large range of institutional budget amounts within the region, alongside a 30 percent increase in the median operating budget over the five-year period.
• Asia Pacific, by contrast, shows a more compact distribution, indicating relatively consistent budget levels across institutions and overall stability in operating budgets across the five-year period.
• The Americas, representing the largest sample size, shows a substantial number of high-budget outliers, with the upper end reaching nearly 350 million USD in 2024–25. Median operating budgets grew by 13 percent over five years. While the interquartile range shows only modest change, the widening spread among outliers suggests increasing divergence at the upper end of the distribution.

Distribution of Operating Budgets by School Size: 2020–21 vs. 2024–25

Examining operating budgets by school size offers a more accurate picture of financial conditions among comparable institutions and reveals meaningful differences across size categories. As expected, large schools report substantially higher median budgets (approximately 45 million USD) than their medium- and small-school counterparts—more than three times that of medium-sized schools and more than seven times that of small schools in 2024–25. Large schools also experienced stronger growth over the five-year period, with median budgets increasing by 19 percent, compared to 7 percent growth among medium schools and a slight 1 percent decline among small schools.

Budget variability also increases with school size. Larger schools exhibit a higher range of operating budgets among peers, while small schools tend to cluster within a compact range, suggesting small schools have more consistent operating models and resource levels.

Distribution of Operating Budget by Parent Institution and Business School Relationship: 2020–21 vs. 2024–25

Another useful perspective is to examine how operating budgets differ depending on the relationship between a business school and its parent institution, specifically whether the school operates as a standard academic unit within a parent university, as a semi-autonomous unit, or as an independent business school. While the samples are not evenly represented, with most schools classified as standard academic units, these charts illustrate how relationship type is associated with differences in both the scale and variability of operating budgets.

Standard academic units, which represent the largest share of the sample (550 institutions), tend to cluster at lower budget levels and exhibit a relatively compact distribution. Although median budgets increase over time, operating levels remain more consistent across institutions than in more autonomous structures.

In 2024–25, independent business schools reported median budgets of approximately 57 million USD—nearly twice those of standard academic units. Their distribution also extends further at the upper end, reaching roughly 356 million USD, reflecting greater variation among the largest independent schools.

Semi-autonomous units fall between the two groups in both scale and variability. Median budgets rise over the five-year period, and the middle range shows moderate dispersion, suggesting steady growth without the same upper-end scale observed among independent schools.

Resource Allocation Models

A business school’s resource allocation model defines how financial resources are distributed across its internal departments and, where applicable, how the parent university allocates funds to the business school and other academic units. These models are shaped by factors such as geographic location, institutional structure, and financial governance practices. Two of the most common approaches are responsibility-centered management (RCM) and central administration management (CAM).

• RCM is a decentralized budgeting model in which academic units manage their own revenues and expenses. This approach encourages financial accountability, entrepreneurial decision-making, and operational autonomy, but it can also lead to resource competition between departments.
• CAM is a centralized model in which financial control remains at the university level, ensuring alignment with institutionwide priorities and promoting financial stability. However, this approach can limit flexibility at the departmental or school level, potentially slowing innovation and responsiveness.
• Hybrid models also exist. Some schools apply one allocation model internally within the business school and another in their financial relationship with the parent university. In other cases, institutions combine elements of both centralized oversight and decentralized financial responsibility.

In recent years, RCM has gained attention as a model that can increase transparency, accountability, and efficiency by linking revenue generation to unit-level spending decisions. Under this approach, departments are encouraged to manage resources strategically, pursue new revenue opportunities, such as increased enrollment or external funding, and invest in initiatives that support academic priorities. However, implementation can be complex and may introduce challenges related to coordination and equity across units.

The data show that, although CAM remains the most prevalent approach, many business schools operate under hybrid models that combine centralized oversight with RCM-style incentives. The two charts that follow illustrate the share of schools, by school size, using different allocation models and whether any shifts have emerged over the past five years. This includes models applied within the business school itself (across internal units such as departments, programs, or centers), as well as, for schools affiliated with a parent institution, models used to allocate resources between the business school and the parent university.

Resource Allocation Models Within Business School by School Size: 2020–21 vs. 2024–25

Regardless of school size, CAM has been the dominant internal allocation model, particularly among small schools. While similar proportions of schools across size categories report using an RCM model, a hybrid or combination approach is more prevalent among large schools, suggesting greater structural complexity and a need for more flexible resource allocation mechanisms at scale. The composition of the models used has changed little over the past five years, although medium-sized schools are increasingly relying on CAM models within their internal units.

Resource Allocation Models Between Business School and Parent Institution by School Size: 2020–21 vs. 2024–25

When examining standard academic units and semi-autonomous schools affiliated with a parent university, CAM models also dominate, especially among small schools. However, RCM or hybrid models are more common in resource allocation between business schools and their parent institutions than within internal units, which may reflect different strategic and performance-driven considerations in these financial relationships.

Understanding how funds move between business schools and their parent universities provides insight into the financial role these schools play within their institutions. Net flow of funds refers to the financial relationship between a business school and its parent university, specifically whether the school generates surplus resources for the institution or receives net financial support from it.

The calculation considers total revenue generated by the business school, its operating expenditures, any additional funds added to the school’s direct control, and any unused funds retained from generated income. Together, these elements determine whether funds flow outward (positive) to the parent institution or inward (negative) to support the business school, and whether the school functions primarily as a revenue generator, a cost center, or a financially balanced unit within the institution.

• A positive net flow indicates that the business school contributes more financially to the parent university than it receives.
• A negative net flow indicates that the parent university provides net financial support to the business school.
• A net flow of zero reflects a balanced financial exchange between the two entities.

A year-to-year comparison of schools reporting these data shows little change in the overall pattern of net fund flows. Nearly three-quarters of schools report a positive net flow, indicating that they generate more revenue than they use for their operations, with the surplus transferred to the parent university. In contrast, nearly 20 percent of schools report a negative net flow, or receive more financial support from the parent university than they contribute.

Net Flow of Funds Distribution by Annual Comparison: 2023–24 vs. 2024–25

The following box plot provides a clearer view of the distribution of net flow amounts within this sample, illustrating the large range of financial relationships between business schools and their parent institutions. For example, in 2024–25, outliers ranged from a positive net flow of nearly 179 million USD to a negative net flow of nearly 42 million USD.

However, year-to-year trends remain relatively stable, with comparable interquartile ranges across the period and only a modest increase in the median net flow, from 6.5 million USD to 7.2 million USD. This steady flow suggests that, despite a few extreme cases, the overall financial relationship between business schools and their parent institutions has remained largely consistent over the past year.

Net Flow of Funds by Annual Comparison: 2023–24 vs 2024–25

Taken together, these trends illustrate the central financial role that many business schools play within their institutions. While business schools occupy a spectrum of financial positions, from revenue generators to strategic investment areas, the data indicate that the majority of schools function as net contributors.

In most cases, business schools not only are self-sustaining but also generate surplus resources that support broader university operations. This outcome is often attributed to strong enrollment in business programs, relatively higher tuition pricing compared to other disciplines, and lower infrastructure costs compared to fields such as medicine or engineering, which require significant investment in labs and specialized equipment.

At the same time, the presence of schools with negative or balanced net flows highlights the diversity of institutional models and investment strategies across the landscape.

Endowments

Endowments at business schools are invested financial assets that provide long-term support, often funding faculty positions, scholarships, research initiatives, and other strategic priorities. Because these funds are typically invested and maintained over time, they can offer a measure of financial stability beyond annual operating revenues.

The presence and size of endowments vary widely across regions and institutional characteristics. For example, newer schools may not yet have built a significant base of philanthropic gifts needed to establish an endowment. In other cases, schools operate in regions where higher education philanthropy is less established, or endowment funds may be managed centrally by a parent university rather than the business school. Several of these dynamics are reflected in the distribution of endowment amounts reported by AACSB-accredited schools.

Total Endowment Distribution by Region: 2020–21 vs. 2024–25

Regionally, the distribution of endowment amounts differs significantly. A majority of schools in Asia Pacific and EMEA report having no endowment—57 percent and 70 percent, respectively—while schools in the Americas are more evenly distributed across a wide range of endowment levels.

Total Endowment Distribution by School Size: 2020–21 vs. 2024–25

By school size, larger schools are more likely to report having no endowment, and the distribution of endowment ranges is more evenly spread. In contrast, small schools are more concentrated within the 1 million to 20 million USD range, with a notable share (38 percent) reporting endowments between 5 million and 20 million USD in 2024–25.

Total Endowment Distribution by Parent Institution and Business School Relationship: 2020–21 vs. 2024–25

When examining the relationship between business schools and their parent universities, the majority of independent and semi-autonomous business schools report having no endowments, a contrast to schools that operate as academic units within a parent university. It is worth noting that most of the independent schools in this sample are in EMEA, suggesting that this pattern reflects regional differences in fundraising practices or institutional structures.

Trends Among Schools With Endowments

The following charts, which focus only on schools that report an endowment greater than zero, highlight several trends that have emerged over the past five years. However, the sample is heavily represented by schools in the Americas, which may shape the overall patterns.

Median and Average Total Endowments by Region

Overall, median endowment amounts have steadily increased over the past five years. However, much of this growth has been driven by schools in the Americas, while endowment levels in other regions have remained relatively stable over the same period. Median endowments in the Americas rose by 53 percent, reaching 26 million USD in the most recent reporting year.

The following box plot illustrates the distribution of endowment amounts by region, highlighting notable differences in overall endowment activity rather than serving as a direct comparison between regions. Schools in the Asia Pacific and EMEA samples are more heavily concentrated in the lower ranges, while schools in the Americas show much higher endowment levels. The box plot also highlights notable outliers in Asia Pacific and EMEA, including one school in EMEA reporting an endowment of 423 million USD in 2024–25.

In the Americas, the range of endowment amounts is considerably greater, with the largest reported endowment exceeding 1 billion USD and overall growth observed at the upper end of the distribution.

Total Endowments by Region: 2020–21 vs. 2024–25

School Size and Endowments

While it is not surprising that larger schools generally report higher endowment values than smaller schools, examining trends by school size provides additional insight into how schools differ in this area of funding. Across all size categories, median endowments have shown steady growth over the past five years, with small schools demonstrating minimal change.

Median and Average Total Endowments by School Size

As noted previously, larger schools are more likely to report having no endowments. However, they also exhibit the greatest scale in endowment amounts, particularly at the higher end of the distribution. In contrast, medium and small schools tend to have fewer institutions with very large endowments, but their endowment levels are more concentrated and similar among peers.

Total Endowments by School Size: 2020–21 vs. 2024–25

Fundraising

Fundraising remains an important component of a business school’s financial sustainability and a continued priority for many deans. While not all schools report data on donations and fundraising, limiting the analysis, AACSB’s available data offer insight into how the composition of business school donations is evolving.

3-Year Average in Donation Funding

Notably, the average share of alumni donations decreased over the three-year period, from nearly half of all donations (46 percent) to 29 percent.

In contrast, organizational giving, including contributions from corporations, private charitable foundations, and public organizations, increased over the same years. While alumni giving remains the single largest contributor category, the composition of donations appears to be shifting toward greater reliance on institutional and organizational donors rather than individuals.

This shift may signal a strategic pivot in fundraising toward larger, partnership-based contributions, or it could reflect changing alumni-giving patterns amid broader economic pressures and evolving donor priorities.

Tuition and fees are a major source of operating revenue for business schools, and they remain a critical area of focus for institutional leaders. At the same time, rising tuition costs have become a growing concern in many regions: Students increasingly cite affordability challenges, and institutions continue to question the long-term sustainability of tuition as a primary source of revenue. These pressures are occurring alongside broader shifts in higher education, including changing student demand, growing competition from alternative providers, and the ongoing expansion of online learning options.

To better understand how institutions are navigating these dynamics, this section examines tuition trends at AACSB-accredited schools across both online and face-to-face programs. Using AACSB data, the analysis highlights recent patterns in tuition levels across regions, degree types, delivery formats, and student residency categories.

Undergraduate tuition data are reported on a per-year basis, while master’s-level figures reflect tuition for the full program. In addition to examining three-year trends in average tuition levels, the analysis also explores the distribution of tuition across institutions to better understand variation in pricing strategies and how these distributions may be shifting over time.

Undergraduate Tuition Trends

3-Year Trend in Average Undergraduate Tuition: Americas

Key Observations

• Overall tuition trends: Average undergraduate tuition has remained relatively stable over the past three years across both face-to-face and online programs, particularly for in-state students. Tuition for out-of-country students shows slightly more variation across regions. For this group, face-to-face tuition saw minimal growth in the Americas and EMEA, while online tuition declined slightly in EMEA. In Asia Pacific, average online tuition for out-of-country students increased modestly over the same period.
• Regional pricing differences: Undergraduate tuition for face-to-face programs remains significantly higher in the Americas than in other regions. In 2024–25, average in-state tuition in the Americas was more than twice that of Asia Pacific and over two and a half times that of EMEA. Despite higher overall tuition levels, the price differential between in-state and out-of-country students is smaller in the Americas. Out-of-country tuition averages about 57 percent higher than in-state tuition in the Americas, compared to roughly 144 percent higher in Asia Pacific and 113 percent higher in EMEA. This likely reflects differences in higher education funding models, where domestic students in many Asia Pacific and EMEA systems benefit from government subsidies or regulated tuition levels, while international students are charged closer to market rates.
• Online versus face-to-face pricing: Average pricing differences between online and face-to-face undergraduate programs vary across regions. In the Americas, online programs are generally more cost-efficient than face-to-face options. In Asia Pacific, online tuition levels are nearly equivalent to face-to-face tuition, and the cost was slightly higher for in-state students in 2024–25. In EMEA, online tuition is roughly comparable to face-to-face costs for in-state students but significantly lower for out-of-country students.

We also examine the distribution of tuition pricing across degree levels for both face-to-face and online programs and across different student residency types. The box plots below illustrate where tuition costs are more variable or more tightly clustered among AACSB-accredited schools. We present a two-year comparison (2022–23 vs. 2024–25) to assess whether the distribution of tuition pricing has shifted over time.

Undergraduate Tuition Distribution

Undergraduate Face-to-Face Tuition Distribution: 2022–23 vs. 2024–25

• Tuition for face-to-face undergraduate programs shows greater variability for out-of-state and out-of-country students compared to in-state students, with higher overall tuition levels for these groups, as expected.
• There is a substantial gap in median tuition between in-state and out-of-country students in face-to-face programs, with median tuition for out-of-country students more than twice as high.
• Across all student types, the distribution shows a slight upward shift over the two-year period, suggesting that some higher tuition values are pushing the middle portion of the distribution upward; however, median tuition levels have increased only slightly.
• In contrast, online undergraduate tuition costs are more tightly clustered across student types, indicating greater uniformity in pricing within the online market.
• Over the two-year comparison, in-state online tuition has remained relatively stable, while median tuition for out-of-state and out-of-country students has increased slightly, potentially influenced by a small number of higher-priced outliers in the 2024–25 data.

MBA Tuition Trends

3-Year Trend in Average MBA Tuition: Americas

Key Observations

• Overall tuition trends: Average MBA tuition has remained relatively stable over the past three years, particularly in the Americas, where both face-to-face and online program prices show little change. Asia Pacific and EMEA show more movement over the same period. In Asia Pacific, tuition increased slightly, rising by 12 percent for in-state students in face-to-face programs and by 17 percent for out-of-country students in online programs. In EMEA, face-to-face MBA tuition grew incrementally across student types, while online tuition declined, falling by 19 percent for in-state students and 24 percent for out-of-country students.
• Regional pricing differences: MBA tuition levels remain substantially higher in the Americas than in other regions. In 2024–25, average face-to-face MBA tuition for in-state students in the Americas is 26 percent higher than in EMEA and 75 percent higher than in Asia Pacific. Differences are even more pronounced for international students. While average tuition levels for in-state, out-of-state, and out-of-country students are relatively similar in Asia Pacific and EMEA, face-to-face MBA programs in the Americas charge out-of-country students an average of 24 percent more than in-state students.
• Online versus face-to-face pricing: Pricing by delivery mode varies across regions. In Asia Pacific, online MBA programs are, on average, more expensive than face-to-face programs. In contrast, online programs tend to be priced lower in the Americas and EMEA. In the Americas, face-to-face MBA tuition for in-state students is 48 percent higher than for online students, while in EMEA the difference is even greater, with face-to-face programs costing about 77 percent more than online programs.

MBA Tuition Distribution

MBA Face-to-Face Tuition Distribution: 2022–23 vs. 2024–25

• MBA tuition covers a large range across institutions for both face-to-face and online programs. For face-to-face programs, reported tuition ranges from 0 USD to nearly 200,000 USD for out-of-country students.
• The zero-tuition values appear in only a very small number of cases, all from institutions in the EMEA or Asia Pacific regions, and likely reflect unique institutional circumstances.
• Median tuition for both face-to-face and online MBA programs has remained relatively stable across student residency types between 2022–23 and 2024–25, suggesting generally consistent pricing strategies.
• A modest upward shift is visible in the distribution for out-of-country students, indicating some increases in tuition levels for this group.
• In 2024–25, the median tuition for out-of-country students in face-to-face programs was approximately 25 percent higher than it was for face-to-face in-state students

Master’s Specialist Tuition Trends

3-Year Trend in Average Master’s Specialist Tuition: Americas

Key Observations

• Overall tuition trends: Average tuition for master’s specialist programs is generally lower than MBA tuition across all regions and delivery formats. Over the past three years, tuition levels have remained largely stable across regions for both face-to-face and online programs. One notable exception is in Asia Pacific, where online tuition for in-state and out-of-state students increased by about 60 percent during the period, while average tuition for out-of-country online students remained unchanged.
• Online versus face-to-face pricing: Differences between online and face-to-face tuition are more modest for master’s specialist programs than for MBAs. For example, in 2024–25 in the Americas, a face-to-face specialist program for in-state students cost about 29 percent more than its online counterpart. In other regions, tuition differences between delivery formats are minimal, with little variation in average program costs across online and face-to-face options.

Master’s Specialist Distribution

Master’s Specialist Face-to-Face Distribution: 2022–23 vs. 2024–25

• Compared to MBA programs, median tuition for master’s specialist programs in 2024–25 was substantially lower for in-state face-to-face students—approximately 61 percent lower.
• In contrast, median tuition levels for online specialist programs are more comparable to those of MBA programs.
• Tuition for online specialist programs shows fewer outliers than face-to-face programs, suggesting greater uniformity in pricing across institutions.
• Over the two-year period, median online tuition for specialist programs has declined slightly across student types.
• Median tuition for face-to-face specialist programs, however, remained relatively stable between 2022–23 and 2024–25.