Researchers in marketing have long recognized that current populations of customers can influence the behavior of prospective customers. This paper draws on existing marketing theories to empirically examine how changes in student body demographic segments influence future demand for MBA programs. Using a longitudinal analysis of data spanning 18 years, we find that higher proportion of female students leads to significant increases in future applications. This implies a marketing rationale for business schools in encouraging gender diversity. In contrast, we find evidence of prejudice towards minority and international students among business school applicants. We discuss the results of the analysis in the context of the current affirmative action debate and changes in demographic trends.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
We thank the anonymous reviewers for pointing out this possibility.
We contacted MBA admission offices to ask whether they use any objective affirmative action in their admission decisions, but every school declined to answer this question.
It is worth noting that we find significant positive correlations between group percentage and lagged percentage of that group. The correlation for women is 0.63, for minorities it is 0.37 and for International students it is 0.77. These results are consistent with the idea that students are attracted to programs with more students of similar background. However, given the lack of data on applicant demographics we cannot state with certainty that this is the case.
Armstrong, S. (1995). The Devil’s advocate responds to an MBA student’s claims that research harms learning. Journal of Marketing, 59, 101–106.
Bass, F. (1969). A new product growth model for consumer durables. Management Science, 15, 215–227.
Bertrand, M., & Mullainathan, S. (2004). Are Emily and Greg more employable than Lakisha and Jamal? A field experiment on labor market discrimination. The American Economic Review, 94(4), 991–1013.
Berry, S. T., Levinsohn, J., & Pakes, A. (1995). Automobile prices in market equilibrium. Econometrica, 63(4), 841–890.
Blattberg, R., &Deighton, J. (1996). Manage marketing by the customer equity test. Harvard Business Review, July-August, 136–144.
Business Week. (1997). Levi’s is hiking up its pants; But will the brand’s revamped products and marketing play with turned-off teen? by Linda Himelstein, Dec. 1, 70.
Business Week. (2004). Why African Americans are Shying Away from Top Colleges. by Roger Crockett, June 21, 50.
Clotfelter, C. (1996). Buying the best: Cost escalation in elite higher education. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
David, R., & MacKinnon J.G. (2004), Econometric theory and methods. Oxford University Press
Darity, W., Jr., & Mason, P. (1998). Evidence on discrimination in employment: codes of color, codes of gender. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 12(2), 63–90.
Dube, J. P., Hitsch, G., & Manchanda, P. (2005). An empirical model of advertising dynamics. Quantitative Marketing and Economics., 3, 107–144.
Epstein, R. (2002). A rational basis for affirmative action: a shaky but classical liberal defense. Michigan Law Review, 100(8), 2036–2061.
Fisher, A. (2006). MBA Hiring, Pay Soaring. CNNMoney.com, April 18.
Godes, D., & Mayzlin, D. (2004). Using online conversations to study word-of-mouth communication. Marketing Science, 23(4), 545–560.
Hankins, M. (2001). Broken Dreams: Foreign students are pouring into U.S. business schools, but many recruiters won’t even talk to them. Wall Street Journal, April 30, p. 13.
Heckman, J. J. (1998). Detecting discrimination. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 12(2), 101–116.
Holzer, H., & Neumark, D. (2000). Assessing affirmative action. Journal of Economic Literature, 38(3), 483–568.
Intini, J. (2004). A Brand Reborn: It may not last but, for the moment, Cadillacs are the hipsters’ ride of choice. Maclean’s, 117(8), 36.
Jehn, K., Northcraft, G., & Neale, M. (1999). Why differences make a difference: a field study of diversity, conflict and performance in workgroups. Administrative Sciences Quarterly, 44(4), 741–763.
Kochan, T., Bezrukova, K., Ely, R., et al. (2003). The effects of diversity on business performance. Human Resource Management, 42(1), 3–21.
Marsden, P. (1988). Homogeneity in confiding relationships. Social Networks, 10, 57–76.
McAlexander, J., Schouten, J., & Koenig, H. (2002). Building brand community. Journal of Marketing, 66(1), 38–54.
McPherson, M., Smith-Lovin, L., & Cook, J. (2001). Birds of a feather: homophily in social networks. Annual Review of Sociology, 27, 415–444.
Merritt, J. (2003). B-School: a failing grade on minorities. Business Week, May 12.
Muniz, A., & Guinn, T. (2001). Brand community. Journal of Consumer Research, 27(4), 412–432.
New York Times, The (2011). Mocked as uncool, the minivan rises again. by Nick Bunkley, January 3.
New York Times, The (2012). To enroll more minority students, colleges work around the courts. by Richard Perez-Pena, April 1.
Pelled, L. (1996). Demographic diversity, conflict, and work group outcomes: an intervening process theory. Organization Science, 7(6), 615–631.
Wall Street Journal, The (2003). Corporate Goal: Ethnic Variety, No Quotas. by Matt Murray, June 24.
Wall Street Journal, The (2000). Women’s stagnant M.B.A. enrollment prompts call for changes in new study. by Joann Lublin, May 12.
Wilkins, D. (2004). From ‘Separate is Inherently Unequal’ to ‘Diversity is Good for Business’: the rise of market-based diversity arguments and the fate of the black corporate bar. Harvard Law Review, 117(March), 1548–1615.
Wood, W. (1987). Meta-analytical; review of sex differences in group performance. Psychological Bulletin, 102, 53–71.
All authors contributed equally to the work.
About this article
Cite this article
Lewis, M., Mitra, D. & Yoon, Y. Customer portfolio composition and customer equity feedback effects: Student diversity and acquisition in educational communities. Mark Lett 24, 71–84 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11002-012-9204-3
- Customer equity
- Student diversity