Thomas Vantroys
email: thomas.vantroys@univ-lille1.fr

Yvan Peter
email: yvan.peter@univ-lille1.fr

COW, a Flexible Platform for the Enactment of Learning Scenarios

Open and Distance Learning platforms are more than system delivering pedagogical ressources. They require mechanisms for the enactment and coordination of pedagogical modules and learning activities. A common solution to express learning paths in learning management systems (LMS) can be the use of Educational Modelling Languages (EML). The next step will be the enactment of these models. For that purpose, workflow management system can be used. These systems formerly reserved for highly structured procedures can be used in dynamic and reactive environments such as virtual campuses platforms, thanks to a enhanced flexibility in the execution of models and in the management of exceptions. In this article we shall present COW our flexible workflow engine dedicated to open and distant learning. We will compare EML and workflow approach and see how to pass from a pedagogical modelisation to a workflow modelisation. We shall see how it is possible to organize the pedagogical modules and the learning paths to answer the expectation within the framework of individual courses (lifelong learning orientation) or within the framework of group courses (closer to the traditional face to face learning).

Introduction

The model driven approach is gaining momentum. We can see that with the Model Driven Architecture (MDA) [START_REF]OMG Model Driven Architecture[END_REF] promoted by the Object Management Group [START_REF]Object Management Group[END_REF], which aims to separate the model of a system from its implementation. The main reason is that a change in the technology field, like passing from Java to C#, should not have consequences on the model because models are persistent and implementation are transient. The same approach can be conducted in learning management systems (LMS). The model of a course is independant from its execution platform. To express models, Educational Modelling Languages have emerged like PALO [START_REF] Rodriguez-Artacho | PALO Language Overview[END_REF] or EML [START_REF]Educational Modelling Language[END_REF], and a work on standardization has began in the CEN/ISSS (Information Society Standardization System) [START_REF]Survey of Educational Modelling Languages (EMLs)[END_REF]. The next step is the execution of these models. A possible approach can be the use of flexible workflow systems [START_REF] Vantroys | Un système de workflows flexible pour la formation ouverte et à distance[END_REF], [START_REF] Lin | On Workflow Enabled e-Learning Services[END_REF]. Indeed, the pedagogical sciences teach us to structure and coordinate the learning activities and as explained in [START_REF] Lin | On Workflow Enabled e-Learning Services[END_REF] learning is process-oriented.

Managing the schedule of the activities performed by students can be a daunting task for tutors and teachers especially if there are a large number of students. They have to keep track of each student's progress to provide them with new activities. Workflow systems are dedicated to this kind of work. However, even in case of virtual classroom style of distance learning, one would like to be able to adapt the learning path of a particular student to better fit his needs. This kind of flexibility is unfortunately not well handled by current workflow systems. For this reason, we have decided to start the development of a flexible workflow system dedicated to distance learning. In this article, we will present The work we have done to build a flexible workflow system suited to LMSs and our reflexions about the enactement of Educational Modelling Languages (or more precisely IMS-LD) by our workflow system. We will describe how pedagogical modules and learning paths can be organized to support both individual learning paths (lifelong learning orientation) and group based courses (closer to the traditional face to face learning).

The next section will present more precisely what are the purpose of the EMLs. We will notably see the different category of languages which compose the EMLs. We will emphasize on IMS Learning Design (IMS-LD) which is, from our perspective, one of the best approach to describe a learning scenario. Then in section 4 we will present workflow systems in general and more precisely the modelisation aspect in the standard of the Workflow Management Coalition (WfMC). After that, we will present COW, our flexible workflows system dedicated to the enactment of learning scenario. We will explain the base requirements and how we realize them.Section 7 will show the existence of a common concepts between learning flow and work flow and so the links we can weave in order to transform an IMS-LD scenario into a workflow process. Then we will present how the course models are instantiated and enacted. Section 9 will conclude our paper by summarizing our contribution and by reviewing the perspectives.

Educational Modelling Languages

Presentation

Teaching is not just delivering information. Current platforms focus more on delivering pedagogical resources than on the pedagocial aspect of learning. Standardization efforts are now moving from content delivery ressources to Educationnal Modelling Languages (EML).

We take as definition for an EML the one provided by [START_REF]Survey of Educational Modelling Languages (EMLs)[END_REF]:

"An EML is a semantic information model and binding, describing the content and process within a 'unit of learning' from a pedagogical perspective in order to support reuse and interoperability"

EMLs groups together many languages with differents aims. There are languages designed to express questionnaire and assesment like the Tutorial Markup Language (TML) [START_REF] Brickley | Towards an open question-interchange framework[END_REF] or the IMS Question & Test Interoperability (IMS-QTI) [START_REF]IMS Question & Test Interoperability: An Overview[END_REF].

We will explain more in details the IMS Learning Design Specification because it is for us the language offering the most easy way to express a learning path in a pedagocial neutral way. Futhermore, it seems on a good way to become a de facto standard.

IMS Learning Design Specification

The IMS Learning Design Specification (IMS-LD) [START_REF]IMS Learning Design Information Model[END_REF] was published at the end of january 2003. It is based on the work done by the Open University of Netherlands on Educational Modelling Language [START_REF]Educational Modelling Language[END_REF]. This language expresses the "learning flow", i.e., how the different learning activities are linked and the resources they use. A Learning design describes how learning objectives can be reached. As shown in Fig. 1, the core elements are activity, environment, role and method.

the central point of IMS-LD is the activity. An activity defines the work to do within an environment. An activity is assigned to a role. -The environment defines the learning objects which can be digital or not and the services provided like a chat or a forum. -The role specifies the participants of a learning-design. The roles are divided in two groups, learner and staff. These roles can be sub-typed. -The method determines the global objectives and the prerequisites to begin the learning-design. It also contains the play which defines the learning process, i.e., the sequence in which the activities are made and the corresponding roles. A play is defined as a theatrical play with acts.

Requirements for learning scenarios enactment

As explained in the above section, EMLs are becoming a common way to express learning scenarios because they focus on the pedagogical aspect, more than on the resource aspect. They also offer some great advantages like reusability and the use of high level concepts that can be understood and manipulated easily by a teacher. However, enacting these scenarios in a software platform is still an issue. What are the main requirements for this ? First, the system must be fully compliant with one or more EMLs but this is implicit. The two main problems are the possibility to redefine a part of the scenario during its execution and moreover to enable the users to participate in the changes. This is necessary because it is sometime difficult to fully express a scenario in details and some parts can change to adapt to the execution context. The context can evolve globally, changing laws for example, or locally, adapting to the need and the difficulties of a student. This is also in agreement with the work done in the field of CSCW and with Activity Theory [START_REF] Gégrory Bourguin | Beyond the Interface: Co-evolution Inside Interactive Systems -A Proposal Founded on Activity Theory[END_REF] which promote a user-centered and tailorable platform where the user is able to redefine the model and the execution behavior The others requirements from our point of view are a support for cooperation, notably during the changing phases and support for standardised pedagogical ressources (like LOM and SCORM). One category of software platform that can handle all these requirements can be flexible workflows systems. So in the next section, we will present theses systems.

Workflow systems

Presentation

To define a workflow, we use the following definition from [START_REF]The Workflow Reference Model[END_REF]:

"Workflow is concerned with the automation of procedures where documents, information or tasks are passed between participants according to a defined set of rules to achieve, or contribute to, an overall business goal."

Usually, workflow systems are used in administrative domain where procedures are well defined and don't suffer exception or dynamic redefinition. This is mainly due to the fact that original workflows systems were heavily monolitic non flexible systems. Current trend in workflow research try to resolve this problem by working on flexible and dynamically redefinable system at run-time.

The workflow reference model

The workflow reference model is a standard from the Workflow Management Coalition (WfMC) whose aim is to promote the use of workflow through standardization and interoperability. This standard does not define the workflow engine itself but rather its interfaces as shown in figure 2. In a certain way, standardization in the e-learning domain follows the same principle, the LMS are not defined but all the elements used by an LMS are, like pedagogical ressources or EML. The workflow interfaces are the following:

Interface 1 defines an XML language called XPDL (XML Process Definition Language) [START_REF]Workflow Process Definition Interface -XML Process Definition Language[END_REF] to define process models regardless of the enacting platform.

It enables the use of different modelling tools as long as they can output XPDL; Interface 2 is used by client applications to access the workflow services; Interface 3 defines how the workflow engine can instantiate tools used in activities and get results from them; Interface 4 defines an XML language for workflow interoperability. It enables one engine to create subprocesses in another engine and get the results;

Interface 5 is used by administration and monitoring tools to interact with the workflow.

In order to compare workflow modelling and IMS-LD, we will now present the XPDL. -Process defines the way to achieve a common goal, i.e., the path between the differents activities. It determine the execution context (overall description, input values, . . . ). This element is the container of all the other entities of the metamodel. -Activity defines the work to realize; There are three types of activities. Subflow activity allows to execute another sub-process, block activity consist of an activity set which is an aggregation of activities and transitions and atomic activity is the real work to do. At the execution time, this work is transformed into work items which are executed by participants and/or applications.

XPDL

-Transitions are the links between different activities. They define the control flow inside the process;

-Relevant Data are the data used and produced by the process and the activities. This data can be linked with the data of the enterprise, as for example an LMS system; -Participant represents a human, role or group to whom work items are assigned. Participant can be linked with the organizational model of the enterprise.

After the presentation of EMLs and workflow systems, we will now present our platform for the enactment of learning scenarios. [START_REF] Brickley | Towards an open question-interchange framework[END_REF] The COW platform COW (Cooperative Open Workflow) is a flexible workflow system developped in the Trigone laboratory which aims to enact learning path in LMS.

Requirements

This work has been driven by the following requirements:

-Support different learning styles. The workflow must be able to handle both individual and group work even within the scope of a single process; -Support collaborative activities. We believe that collaborative learning can be a way to enhance the learning experience and strengthen learners' motivation; -Support dynamic redefinition of the learning path. A tutor should be able to add activities for example if he detects a weakness in the learners knowledge.

There are even some times when one does not even know beforehand the activities that will be needed; -Support for reuse of existing course and activities models. It will be easier for pedagogical engineers to build course modules from existing parts. So we would like to provide predefined models (or skeletons) and also keep track of the models that have been modified during a course.

From a technical point of view, we would conceive a "learning scenario enacting component" which can be included within existing LMS. And for more interoperability, we would also following the existing standards for the implementation of the workflow engine. In the next sections, we describe the work done in the Cooperative Open Workflow to meet these requirements.

Workflow Architecture

The implementation respects the Workflow Management Facility specification [START_REF]Workflow Management Facility[END_REF] of the OMG and the workflow reference model of the WfMC [START_REF]The Workflow Reference Model[END_REF].

Workflow Management Facility The Workflow Management Facility (WMF) [START_REF]Workflow Management Facility[END_REF] standardizes the architecture of the workflow engine. It has been defined by the Object Management Group (OMG) in accordance with the reference model of the WfMC. This standard defines entities such as WfProcess and WfActivity or WfResource which correspond to the elements described in a process model like XPDL. We have made an implementation of the interfaces proposed in th WMF with extensions to support collaborative activities and enhance the reuse of models.

an open micro-kernel architecture For the implementation, we have chosen a micro-kernel architecture. Our kernel offer the base fonctionnality of a workflow system. It was build using the MetaObject Protocol (MOP) [START_REF] Kiczales | Bobrow -The Art of the Metaobject Protocol[END_REF]. This approach to obtain flexibility is also used in CSCW [START_REF] Bourguin | Un support informatique à l'activité coopérative fondé sur la Théorie de l'activité : le projet DARE[END_REF]. We can realize two types of modification in COW at run-time, the process model and the engine behavior.Process modification consist in adding/deleting/changing activities and transitions. These changes can be realized for one person or for a group of learner. Behavior modification consist in adapting the strategy to local context, like how react when an exception occurs ? The solutions can be stop the activity or send an e-mail, . . . . Thanks to this architecture, we can easily developp specific components to adapt the engine to specific needs. The integration within LMS systems is realised with webservices approach. Each interfaces of our sytem is accesible by using the SOAP [START_REF]XML Protocol specification[END_REF] protocol.

User aspects Although we don't focus on user interaction with a a workflow engine, we have realised for demonstration purpose, a multi-channel access to our system. The engine outputs information in an XML format that we can transform to support multiple presentation such as HTML, WML or even VoiceXML using XSL stylesheets. A more detailled presentation can be found in [START_REF] Vantroys | Workflow and Mobile Devices in Open Distance Learning[END_REF].

Workflow systems in virtual campuses

There are few virtual campused that use a workflow engine to schedule learning activities. We review two of them hereafter.

Flex-el

The Flexible e-learning system (Flex-eL) [START_REF] Lin | On Workflow Enabled e-Learning Services[END_REF] has been realized by the Distributed Systems Technology Center (DSTC) [12] and the university of Queensland in Australia. It consists of a distance education platform supported by a flexible workflow system. The focus of this work is on supporting the learning process rather than technology with the aim of designing a new learning environment to support new ways of learning. There a learning process for each student. This allow an easy way to adapt the learning path to the real need. Groups of students are dynamically constructed. The project started in march 2000 and the environment is currently tested at the University of Queensland in a course of a Master of Information Technology. According to the authors the first results seem positive since there are few abandons.

Campus Virtuel

The virtual campus platform named Campus Virtuel [START_REF] Viéville | Learning Activities in a Virtual Campus[END_REF] developed by Archimed SA [START_REF] Archimed | [END_REF] also integrates a workflow system to handle the activities of a course module (figure 4). A teacher or tutor can break his course into activities and associate the documents to use to each activity. The system is backed by an Electronic Documents Management System to manage and provide the pêdagogical ressources in the different activities. The system is limited by the fact that it cannot handle individual work since every student in a group must have terminated the current activity to be able to access the next one, even though some of the activities could be realized individually.

Linking Educational and Workflow Modellings

To enact a learning model in a workflow system, we have to translate IMS-LD into XPDL. As we have described in the above sections the metamodel of the two languages, we can now draw links between the entities. A simplified view of the links between IMS-LD and XPDL is given in Fig. 5.

The concept of activity is relatively identical. We have a direct link between an activity in IMS-LD and an activity in XPDL. Some attributes of Activity IM S-LD , like learning-objectives cannot be translated directly because these notions do not exist in a standard workflow system. To solve this problem, we used an element of the XPDL named extended attribute, designed to add specific vendor information in the XPDL. Hence, we avoid the loss of information during the transformation. And these information can be used by the LMS.

The concept of activity-structure is not exactly an activity-set because there isn't a self aggregation link for activity-set, i.e., an activity-structure can contains links to other activity-structure while the activity-set can not contain links to other activity-sets. In order not to lose this link, an activity-structure which contains link to another activity-structure is mapped to a workflow process.

The environment in IMS-LD can be links to workflow applications and to workflow data. The services are applications.

The role IM S-LD can be mapped to participant XP DL with a role type. The informations of the method IM S-LD , including play IM S-LD , are partially mapped to process XP DL and transitions XP DL .

To use IMS-LD models in our platform, we are implementing a transformer to pass from IMS-LD to XPDL which is the language used by COW. The rules of transformations have been realized by using XSLT, because the two languages are based on XML. Now, we will explain how models are enacted in COW.

Course models and instances

The main function of the workflow system is to schedule the activities of a pedagogical module. Such a module is attended by a group of students (ranging from 1 to n).

In the sequel, we will take a course in physics as an example of the modelling of a module. This module is broken into four activities described hereafter:

course learning activity associated to the role learner ; exercises activity associated to the role learner ; exercise correction activity associated to the role tutor ; discussion about the module activity associated to the role learner and tutor. Since some parts of the module can be realized at his own rythm by each student, one has to take in into account so as to enable flexibility in the schedule of the activities. There are two ways to manage the schedule of the activities for a group of students :

-In the first mode, an activity is terminated only when all the students have terminated it. In such a way, the activities of a whole group are synchronised. Even though it is very close to traditional face to face learning, it does not take benefit of distance learning mode; -The second mode identifies the parts of a module that can be realized autonomously. This way each student can progress at his own rythm inside a group with some activities giving a synchronization point to the group.

These two modes are supported in COW by the mean of sub-processes. In our scenario, the teacher decides that the three first activities can be realised individually by each student. These activities are then modelised into a single process. The process corresponding to the whole module is then composed of two sequential activities (see figure 6). The first one being in fact a reference to the individual work sub-process and the second one corresponding to a synchronous discussion beetwen the members of the group.

Collaborative activities To handle collaborative activities, we have made some modifications to XPDL and the WMF to introduce the notion of workitem. A workitem is an atomic piece of work and an activity is composed of workitems. In the simplest case, there is only one workitem in an activity. However, within a collaborative activity, there can be more workitems. A workitem is attributed to a role, so if multiple actors have the same role, there will be an instance of the workitem for each of them in the activity. Resources are allocated to the workitems rather than the activity. In our example the discussion activity could be done with a chat tool but the learners and the tutor may not have the same rights on the tool since they do not have the same roles.

Time constraints Management of time constraints is an important aspect of learning activities. This is particularly true for group based learning where there must not be too much lag between the learners. COW supports the notion if deadlines which correspond to the time at wich an activity must be started or completed. It also support the notion of limit which defines the minimal and maximal duration of an activity. When a stop deadline of a maximum limit is reached, the workflow engine suspends the activity. It can then use different policies to handle the case. For example, the system can terminate the activity authoritavely or notify the tutor who will take a decision about it. These behaviors can be dynamically change at run-time to be adapted to a changing context by the tutor.

Course instance

The creation of a process instance requires an instance model which describes the mapping of roles to actual users and of resources to tools. The mappings can be global to the model or defined on an activity basis. This separation between process model and instance data allows for a better reuse of models. Figure 7 illustrates the workflow operation. Taking the process and activities models and isntance data, the workflow engine will create a subprocess for each learner. These subprocesses contains the three activities that can be performed individiually and each activity contains only one work item. The third activity is performed by the tutor role will have three workitems to do from different processes. When all subprocesses are ter-minated, the engine will create a collaborative activity with one workitem for each learner and one for the tutor.

Conclusion and outlooks

In this paper, we have presented how it can be possible to execute IMS-LD models by using a workflow approach. We have compared the two metamodels and realized the mapping between them. Thanks to this comparison, we fave realized a model transformer to translate IMS-LD into XPDL, that will allow us to enact IMS-LD models with COW, our flexible workflows engine designed for the educational field. From our point of view, this approach is interesting because we use the concepts of two different worlds. We think workflow technology is a great tool for the management of learning activities inside a virtual campus. Our engine is currently being integrated within the Campus Virtuel from the Archimed Company for their next relesase which will enable us to start realistic experimentations.

There is still some unresolved problems and questions. How the prerequisite can be handled by the workflow system as a constrainst between different process models and knowing these prerequisites and the wishes of a student, how can we automaticaly construct a learning path ? When we dynamically change the process model, our system saves changes in XPDL. In order to show the modification to a pedagogical engineer we must export XPDL into IMS-LD, but we haven't yet realize this transformation. Our future work will try to answer these questions and considering the use of an MDA approach to generate the implementation of the learning paths from the IMS-LD models.

Fig. 1 .

 1 Fig.1. IMS-LD MetaModel from[START_REF]IMS Learning Design Information Model[END_REF]

Fig. 2 .

 2 Fig.2. WfMC reference model[START_REF]The Workflow Reference Model[END_REF]

Fig. 3 .

 3 Fig.3. XPDL MetaModel from[START_REF]Workflow Process Definition Interface -XML Process Definition Language[END_REF]

Fig. 4 .

 4 Fig. 4. Course model in the Campus Virtuel

Fig. 5 .

 5 Fig. 5. Links between IMS-LD and XPDL

Fig. 6 .

 6 Fig. 6. Modelling of a pedagogical module

Fig. 7 .

 7 Fig. 7. course instantiation

Acknowledgements

Research on workflow system has been funded by Archimed SA (http://www.archimed.fr).


Guillaume Carton

Stéphanie Dameron

HIGHER EDUCATION IN MANAGEMENT: THE CASE OF FRANCE

When compared to the social sciences, the science of management is an altogether new field in France.

. Until the 1960s, most knowledge of business management belonged primarily to practitioners and consultants.

It was only in 1955 that the first master's degree in management was offered by a public university, followed by Pierre Tabotoni's creation of the first institute for business management (Institut d'Administration des Entreprises, IAE).

The late-sixties saw public policy aimed at the development of management studies in higher education, which specifically led to the birth of the University of Paris-Dauphine in 1968. This university would ultimately focus largely on organisation management. Meanwhile, the French Foundation for Management Education ("FNEGE") was created and eventually came to play a leading role in the creation of a core of professors in the field of management by financing doctoral degrees for French students in the United States.

The institutionalisation of management as an academic field in the French higher education system came in 1969, when France developed a specific national commission to evaluate management faculty and specific management degree programs. From 1969 through the 1980s, French business schools

and universities experienced a continuous rise in the number of students enrolled in business management classes and programs. Today, 14% of all students in France pursue management studies in some capacity, either at public universities or in business schools. At master's level, the figure is higher, with an estimate close to 20%. As a result, this educational sector maintains a high level of social visibility.

However, this overview of the evolution of the institutionalization of management study is incomplete, as the label "management education" covers a diverse offering of educational courses and structures, including economics and management programs. To a similar point, universities often do not distinguish between such programs. Yet, as of 1975, the field of management and business studies obtained its own career track for university professors, spinning off from the "Economics and Business" category that had prevailed until then, after having itself spun off from the "Law and Economics" category. In this sense, Management and Business Studies is sometimes viewed institutionally as the daughter of Economics and the grand-daughter of Law in Francea view that tends not to please management faculty, especially after enrolment went dramatically down in Economics and up in Business studies. Indeed, this ended up leaving cohorts of faculty in economics with plenty of time for research while their colleagues in management and business studies were loaded with demand for teaching.

In the first section of the chapter, we describe the two main suppliers of management educationpublic universities and business schoolsand their strategies. In a second section, we analyse the management profession, its attractiveness as well as the challenges that it will face in the coming years. Thirdly, we consider the demand side of the system, looking at students', executives' and firms' expectations and demands for business schools and universities. We then move on to consider the role that regulatory bodies play within the sector. Finally, we conclude by detailing the main challenges that management education faces in France.

THE SUPPLY OF HIGHER EDUCATION IN BUSINESS

There are two main suppliers of management education in France: business schools and universities.

While the formers have historically been the main suppliers of masters-level and executive education, and the latters have had a monopoly on doctoral degrees, the distinction between the two in terms of supply has partly blurred over time.

"Grandes Ecole" business schools

Business schools were the first suppliers of structured education in management. The French "Grandes Écoles" have historically awarded master's level degrees following two years of preparatory classes, a degree program called the "Programme Grandes Écoles," which is generally listed in the FT rankings as "Master of Science in Management." Nevertheless, business schools have diversified their offerings over the last decade, and now offer programs including bachelor's degrees, master's degrees, MBA and DBA if not the doctoral degrees for some of them, and also provide programs for executive education.

Thus, while the "Master of Science in Management" was once the sole management offering in French business schools, more and more business schools now offer bachelor's degree programs. Such programs are either three or four years in length (based on the US model) and tend to feature high levels of internationalization. While some schools have offered bachelor's programs for a long time (i.e. ESSEC has had a bachelor's degree program since 1975 but recently reshaped it under the label "Global Bachelor in Business Administration"), others have used the opportunity to take over a competitor (e.g., in 2015, EMLyon took over the campus of a business school in Saint Etienne; ESCP Europe did the same with Novancia in Paris in 2016).

Business schools also offer three types of master's degrees:

-The most renowned degree that business schools offer is the general master's degree, which in French is called the 'Programme Grandes Écoles', more recently called the "Master in Management" (and recently integrated into the FT ranking, cf. Appendix 1). This program takes three years to complete, and features an entrance examination that requires students to attend two years of preparatory classes that are run by the country's most prestigious high schools. Over the past decade, an increasing number of schools have also opened themselves to "parallel admissions." Other schools (e.g. IESEG) have developed a 5-year program that students begin directly after completing their 'baccalauréat', the French equivalent of a end of high-school diploma.

-Business schools also offer specialised master's degrees that take one or two years to complete (following a bachelor's degree). For these programs, students typically come from public universities or engineering schools, and admissions are based on academic criteria.

-MBAs are also offered, and are typically intended to attract international students and young managers who already have 3-5 years of work experience. Some business schools also offer doctoral degree programs in management (e.g., HEC), while others (e.g., ESCP Europe), have created relationships with public universities, or (e.g. ESSEC or Insead) have launched their own PhD programs, the visibility of which enables them to recruit candidates internationally and prepare them for the international job market in academia.

Finally, business schools offer executive education programs, such as specialized executive programs, executive MBAs and DBAs. Within this landscape, INSEAD is distinct in that it cultivates its difference, operating as an international, globalized school that stays away from being too deeply embedded in the French institutional context. Insead focuses on the MBA, executive Education and the PhD program.

The leading French business schools are members of the "Conférence des Grandes Écoles" which boasts 219 members: 40 of these focus on management, 145 others on engineering, 14 are foreign universities, and the remaining 20 focus on other disciplines. This Body that was founded in 1973 plays an important role in the management education sector. Most notably, it aims at promoting the "Grandes Écoles" system on both a national and an international level, and acts as a porte-parole to government policy-makers and the research community at large.

French business schools play an important role in delivering management education in France. While they account for 52% of the country's management students (excluding economics and economics/management programs -Repères et références statistiques sur les enseignements, la formation et la recherche, Ministère Enseignement Supérieur & Recherche, 2016), they are the most visible French supplier of management education at the international level, as they dominate the rankings of the European market for the Master's of Science degrees in Management (Appendix 1).

That being said, however, French business schools are more diverse than they may initially appear.

While a decade ago business schools were almost exclusively recruiting students after they had completed preparatory classes, these schools now recruit 53% of all their students through parallel admissions (excluding executive education), i.e. students coming out of other parts of the French higher education system or from other countries. While the number of students admitted after having completed preparatory classes has increased over time, the number of parallel admissions and international admissions has also increased at a higher rate, except for the very best schools that seek to maintain their highly selective admissions processes and thus continue to rely on recruitment linked to preparatory classes (Le [START_REF] Monde | Classement des classements » 2016 des écoles de commerce : le résultat final[END_REF].

In an effort to meet international standards and to implement strategies aimed at receiving international recognition and identifying new revenue streams, French business schools recently began undertaking a number of structural changes. A majority of the Faculty members must now hold PhDs so as to meet both the expectations of accreditation bodies (AACSB) and national requirements.

Business schools also do their best to give visibility to their faculty's research. Accordingly, these institutions now hire professors that have demonstrated the ability (or potential) to publish in highly ranked journals; however, such international research professors are rare, and are in turn expensive.

(This is particularly so in Business Schools that have put in place financial incentives per publication.

Such schemes increase the cost of those professors who significantly publish). Indeed, leading business schools attempt to make themselves attractive by offering competitive salaries and favourable work conditions. More specifically, new professors are often able to dedicate more time to research during the first few years of their appointments, are incentivized on publications and these new stars or stars -to-be are often better paid than the more senior faculty members who hired them.

On average, the cost of a French student in any discipline in tertiary education amounts to more than €14,500 a year, both in public or private institutions (Regards sur l'Education, OCDE, 2016). To cover this cost, business schools cannot rely on state funding as universities and engineering schools do.

They instead have three main sources of revenue. The first stems from the tuition paid by students and the tuition of executive education programs. On average, this revenue source amounts to €10,000 per year per student, and for leading business schools, accounts for around 60% of the budget. Secondly, companies fund business schools using various methods: paying for executive education, funding chairs, donations, material gifts, gifts to foundations, among others. Thirdly, while Chambers of Commerce and Industry previously funded large portions of the operational budget for "consular" business schools, their doing so has lessened over time, and now accounts for on average less than 10% of business schools' budgets.

To secure necessary operational funding, leading business schools accordingly pursue two main business strategies. The first consists of developing their brand/name on an international level so as to both broaden their faculty and student recruitment base and differentiate themselves from their national and European competitors. The second strategy consists of tapping new sources of funding.

Business schools pursue these strategies in various ways. While in the 2000s accreditations (AACSB, EQUIS, AMBA) gave a competitive edge, what is now at stake is a business school's ability to move up in the European rankings (cf. Appendix 1). Business schools accomplish such upward mobility in the following three ways:

Mergers and acquisitions

The last decade was witness to numerous mergers and acquisitions within the business school French market, which together have allowed business schools to reach supposedly a critical mass in Europe.

A central aim of many of these mergers and acquisitions has been to propel the schools involved upwards in the rankings, and in turn, to improve faculty and student recruitment. For instance, in 2009, Ceram Nice and ESC Lille formed Skema; in 2013, Bordeaux and Marseille merged to form Kedge, while Reims and Rouen formed Neoma; and finally, 2016 saw Grenoble Ecole de Management and EMLyon announce a strategic alliance. Some such alliances were failures; for example, in 2012, France Business School took a gamble by merging Amiens, Brest, Clermont-Ferrand, Poitiers and Tours, only to dissolve the merger 3 years later (Cour des Comptes, 2017a).

Campuses abroad

While more than 3,000 students go abroad thanks to their schools' exclusive international relationships with counterparts, several business schools are now developing campuses abroad to better cater to their own students. About 10,000 students benefit from stays at such campuses every year (Ramanantsoa & Delpech, 2016). ESCP Europe, for example, has been developing a series of European campuses in Paris, London, Berlin, Madrid, Turin and Warsaw since the 2000s. Other schools have followed suit, be it Skema with its campuses in the USA, China and Brazil, or ESSEC's locations in Paris, Singapore, Morocco and Mauricius. This issue of differentiation is sensitive. It is possible to identify strategic groups within the French business school arena (this can be confirmed through international rankings -see Appendixes 1 and2).

Yet, it is difficult for business schools to differentiate themselves in terms of program offerings [START_REF] Mangematin | A note on the Evolution of French Management Scholarship, 1994-2014[END_REF]. This is because each business school relies on a flagship "Grandes Écoles" program (with the clear exception of INSEAD, focusing on the MBA, executive education and the PhD, and recruiting faculty and students from and for the international market). A school's ability to differentiate itself from others in turn lies in its executive program offerings. Only the best schools can offer expensive executive education. This is even more critical given that this type of "exed" usually takes place primarily in Paris. Other schools are thus forced to content themselves with a more regional presence.

All in all, French Business schools use among six strategies available for pursuing new revenue sources:

-The development of executive education: the bulk of the market is mainly situated in Paris and in its main business district although there are opportunities across the country as well.

-The increase of tuition levels: because Chambers of Commerce are increasingly (financially) disconnected from business schools, tuition levels have risen in recent years as business schools have attempted to compensate for their heightened costs. Some periodically argue that a tuition ceiling has been reached. Yet, soon after, some schools simply pass beyond what was considered to be a ceiling and the increase cycle starts again as other schools follow suit.

-Increased support from alumni: Some business schools have undertaken fundraising campaigns. As an example, HEC Paris raised some 112 million € over the 2008-2013 period, a level unprecedented in French tertiary education in management. In 2015, the school hired Peter Todd the former dean of the faculty of management at McGill University, known to be a specialist in fundraising campaigns.

-Increased support from corporations, especially through the creation of chairs: some schools have developed thematic chairs that are funded by corporations.

-The development of bachelor's degree programs to secure additional revenue: This strategy necessitates little investment as it relies on competences that the school already possesses.

-Turning to online education: in order to cater to new modes of learning, and in the hope of possibly cutting costs, some business schools are experimenting with online learning by investing not so much in MOOCs (difficult to monetize, hence mainly a marketing tool) but rather in distant and blended learning. If these new modes of learning require significant investments, they also make it possible to reach out for additional audiences thus increasing revenues, while cutting costs by reusing the same materials in several locations and for several years, especially if this is coupled with some regular updates in ways that provide good amortization of the investments.

Management Education and research in universities

Universities in France are public and offer management education degrees basically for free (between €184 and €256 in 2016 depending on the students' level), despite the average per-student cost to the university being of the order of €14,500, slightly above the European average. However, the situation of each university is very specific and the structure of management education differs greatly from one university to another.

Universities can combine three different modes of organisation for management education:

-The teaching of management can be the responsibility of a department or institute that itself offers programs such as the "Master in Management."

Management teaching can be conducted by institutes, such as an IAE, which themselves remain relatively autonomous within their respective university. The IAE's network consists of 32 institutes that together host nearly 47,000 students per year (including exed -www.reseau-iae.org).

-Management can be taught through an alternative program not specifically dedicated to teaching management per say, such as economics or health or political science, etc.

-The University of Paris-Dauphine is a special case, as it has been dedicated to organisation studies and decision sciences (based on a multidisciplinary approach) since its creation in 1968. As a result, a large number of its 10,000 students are in fact enrolled in one of its various management programs.

French universities have the advantage of being accreditated to deliver national (or "ministerial") diplomas, i.e., diplomas accreditated by the Ministry of Education. Undergraduate degrees can be specialised in management or, more often, combined with other disciplines, such as those related to economics. Moreover, universities hold a quasi-monopoly on doctoral programs and Habilitation known as HDR (required to supervise PhD students).

There are now approximately as many faculty members working in universities as there are in business schools (2,000 facultyequivalent to full professors and associate professors-cf. Ministère Enseignement Supérieur & Recherche, 2015). Nonetheless, the university may not represent the main supplier of management research, especially given that the incentives to publish are less important for faculty at universities than they are for those at business schools. This is in sharp contrast to what prevailed 30 years ago, when, relatively speaking, universities were more active in management research than most business schools.

A university is funded in three ways. State grants make up the majority of a university's funding.

Among other things, this includes the salaries (faculty and support staff) that are paid for by the State.

Since 2009, part of the grant allocated by the ministry to a university's budget is determined based on its level of activity and performance. A second source of income is made up of registration fees paid by the students and other profitable university programs, including "exed". However, it should be noted that most publicly owned universities are not free to raise their own registration fees for national degree programs. In some cases, this constraint is somehow circumnavigated by coupling a master's degree with a university specific diploma, the fees of which are decided locally by the university board. Finally, the third form of funding may be provided by municipalities and regions supporting their local universities.

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<INSERT FIGURE 12.1 HERE>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Obviously, the mass inflow of students in management programs at universities led to a classical funding shortage that stands as a critical and sensitive issue. This resource shortage is being addressed by universities through the implementation of various legal provisions. For example, since 2007, universities have gained autonomy: they are being allowed to manage the entirety of their budgets.

Consequently, universities now have the right to hire scholars on private contracts. Furthermore, universities can receive tax-free funds by creating foundations that can in turn create partnerships with companies. As tuition fees are regulatedand almost insignificantin France, some universities, as previously mentioned, have also circumnavigated the constraint, managing to increase the tuition fees, especially at the master's level. Finally, following business-schools' strategy, some universities have chosen to develop continuous education programs (such as executive MBAs and executive master's degrees) thus increasing their financial resources and in turn awarding better compensation to their faculty. As a specific public semi-university / semi-Grande Ecole dedicated to life-long continuing education, Cnam (the Conservatoire National des Arts et Métiers) has consistently been focused on offering the full range of degrees (Bachelor-License, Master, MBA, DBA, Doctorate, HDR) via evening classes and distant and blended learning.

Management programs in French HE may still increase their international influence, especially for the universities. In the face of competition with French business schools and an increasing number of other European management institutions, French universities may choose to develop their international legitimacy in management education and widen their recruitment base. This implies attracting both French and foreign students. Similarly, there are only a few universities that have chosen to pursue international accreditations, such as the IAE of Aix-en-Provence, Cnam or the University of Paris-Dauphine. It seems that the implementation of the Bologna processsigned in 1998 and 1999 by 38 European countries with the aim of bringing European educational offerings in line with the "Licence-Master-Doctorate" (LMD) standardwas not enough to spur French universities management programs into competition with other similar European programs. In comparison, several French business schools were then much more visible as the Bologna process led to the creation of specific international rankings recknozing the legitimacy of other programs than the MBA (e.g. FT rankings of the Msc in Management in Europe launched in 2004). Regarding the universities, the impetus for seeking international visibility came not only from the Bologna process that both opened up opportunities and created new competitive pressures but also from the rankings, and particularly from the Shanghaï ranking as far as the Ministry for HE is concerned.

Before these developments, universities were not used to promoting their "brand" to strengthen their international reputation and visibility. As in other countries, academics (professors and deans) were not used to "selling" their own institution. A typical example of this is the Sorbonne brand: while historically an internationally known name, the Sorbonne brand was not actively marketed, reinforced and leveraged. Similarly, in order to establish themselves on the international stage, and also to further their joint activities and pool resources, universities and some other higher education institutions, including Grandes Ecoles, have been invited to join "academic communities" or institutional groups, known today as COMUEs ("associations of universities and higher education institutions", in French, Students who pass the national examination called "baccalauréat" at the end of high school can enter the public university of their choice where they live. With the exception of medical degrees, universities only have the right to be selective for admission into their master's programs (Table 12.1).

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<INSERT TABLE 12.1 HERE>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

THE FACULTY The Faculty in Universities

Scholars at universities are mainly civil servants whose career path is regulated by national State standards and committees. There are three levels of professorship at public universities in France: full professor ("professeur"), associate professor ("maître de conférences -Habilitation à Diriger des Recherches"), and assistant professor ("maître de conferences"). The difference between an associate professor and an assistant professor is that the former has the right to supervise PhD students. All three levels are tenured. The number of faculty positions in management at universities has increased dramatically over the last thirty years, but while this number continues to rise, this growth has slowed in the last ten years following the initial growth in demand.

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<INSERT TABLE 12.2 HERE>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<INSERT TABLE 12.3 HERE>>>>>>>>>>>

The number of job opportunities for professorship position is now 2.9 times lower than the number of qualified PhD students in management, compared to a figure of 3.6 in economics, where it is thus even more difficult to find a university position (versus 1.3 in law). Indeed, to apply for a professorship position at university, one must hold a Doctorate and be qualified by a national committee (CNU -Commision Nationale des Universités). After being hired, scholars must remain in their position for two years before quasi-automatically receiving tenure, with a few exceptions only.

Until recently, the system tended to limit faculty movement between institutions. For instance, universities' recruitment of their own PhD graduates was rather common. Today, explicit policies against inbreeding are in place in many universities. However, once recruited, scholars are expected to remain at the same university for at least three years, though with a few exceptions.

In order to become associate professor at a public university, an assistant professor must pass the habilitation, or HDR for "habilitation à diriger des recherches." This qualification step does not lead to a degree, but rather qualifies the candidate to supervise PhD students. A successful candidate must demonstrate his/her ability to open up and investigate new research themes without the supervision that prevailed during the doctoral work. This means showing the interest, consistency and scope of his/her research, and the ability to publish on his/her own. The habilitation thesis is presented and defended orally in front of a jury composed of full professors from at least two different universities. This process is somehow easier than its German counterpart, but does not carry the same prestige.

However, the most prestigious means for an assistant or associate professor to become a full professor ("professeur agrégé du supérieur" or "professeur des universités") is to pass the "agregation," a competitive national exam with a limited number of seats, given once every other year or so. Roughly, among about 1500 assistant and associate professors in management, about 100 would take the exam every two years, competing for about 20 positions offered across France. This track is currently being called into question, as it implies that universities having opened a position end up being allocated a professor according to his/her ranking after the competitive exam, regardless of the fit between the university, the department, the specific position offered and the professor appointed (concretely the one ranked first chooses his/her favourite position among those offered, then the second chooses among the remaining positions and so on as so forth). A parallel track is currently developing, whereby associate professors are qualified by the CNU (see above) and are then interviewed for positions offered in their discipline.

The pay of associate and assistant professors is in large part linked to seniority. The salary automatically rises every 34 months as the professor moves up the salary grid. For university professors, the evaluating committees at the university and national levels (the CNU) are involved in the decision of whether or not to have a professor to move up categories in the salary grid.

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<INSERT TABLE 12.4 HERE>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

The national public rules for academic recruitment and career paths tend to create a closed system that is hard understand for the outside. Internationalisation and the emergence of an international job market for management professors will eventually reach this public system, however slow the process may be. Recent trends already suggest a shift. As mentioned, some universities adopted noninbreeding policies. Moreover, as universities have managed their total payroll since 2007, one may expect that some will choose to recruit part of their faculty on a private contractual basis. Legally they already have the right to do so, as the University of Paris Dauphine does, but institutional inertia is still rather prevalent in most of the universities.

The Faculty in Business Schools

Most French Business Schools are free to set the level of compensation for their faculty. While until recently, the prestige of a full university professor enabled universities to defend their position, topranked business schools today increasingly attract the brightest young PhDs. At a business school, a professor's salary at the beginning of his/her career is generally higher than it would be at a university, at least by European standards, particular those that regularly top the rankings. On top of the salary, there may be extra hours paid for specific contributions, bonuses stemming from the incentive scheme attached to starred publications, and non-monetary components of the work package such as less of a teaching load for young faculty to facilitate the flow of his/her publications. At business schools, professors may be under more pressure to deliver but can in return expect more of a package which they can negotiate according to their priorities, preference and specific capabilities.

While the pay scale at the beginning of one's career is less attractive in the university system than it is in business schools, the pay of a university full professor at the end of his/her career plus the academic freedom attached to the position makes it a good option compared to most of the Business Schools.

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<INSERT TABLE 12.5 HERE>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

According to Basso and colleagues (2004), the business school system is marked by greater opacity and is determined largely by individual negotiations, while within universities, the system is still largely determined by seniority, visibility and peer evaluation, all of this within a pre-set work package and pre-set pay grids.

THE DEMAND FOR HIGHER EDUCATION IN BUSINESS

Demand for undergraduate and graduate degrees

Early-stage management students form an extremely heterogeneous group and come from a diverse variety of backgrounds. This heterogeneity is perceptible when one considers the knowledge to which they have access and the professional opportunities that they can anticipate. In 2015, almost 340,000 students pursued management education (in the broad sense of the term) in higher education, either at a university or in a business school (Ministère Enseignement Supérieur & Recherche, 2016). This represented approximately 14% of the almost 2,500,000 students in all higher education in France. This figure is higher when one focuses on master's degree programs. The number of management students going to business schools has almost doubled in the last decade, while in the university that figure only increased by 17% during the same period. This corresponds to the student growth rate in higher education (Ministère Enseignement Supérieur & Recherche, 2016) meaning that proportionally the overall growth of management students is largely due to the development and growth of business schools over the last ten years.

While tuition fees in public universities are almost non-existent, tuition fees at business schools continue to increase. The access to loans for such fees is facilitated by banks anxious to attract this client base. Students can also benefit from grants: state grants, grants for study-abroad opportunities, and grants given by business schools based on achievement and social criteria. For instance, 20% of HEC Paris' students from the "Programme Grandes Écoles" are grant recipients (hec.fr). By law, internships in management must be paid when they exceed two months. That said, as it is now standard to have mandatory internships as part of training curriculum, the number of available internships and their duration are both increasing, thus representing a significant new source of revenue for students. The apprenticeship system is also on the rise, has been encouraged by governmental incentives, and is in turn becoming another significant source of funding for both universities and business schools. For example, between 25% and 30% of students in each graduating class pursue apprenticeships during the ESSEC's "Programme Grandes Écoles" (essec.edu). Such programs consist of one year of apprenticeship training between the second and the third years of the program. All of this has consequences for students' behaviour, who come to consider themselves as clients or even consumers rather than students, and consequently demand a return on their investment. This is especially evident when one considers the "salary upon exit" variable, which is present in almost all the rankings that students look at before entering (or even applying to) a business school.

The nature of the teacher-student relationship is also greatly affected by such tendencies. While Business Schools have been increasingly operating on a market mode, inevitably they have been confronted to similar behaviors among their public.

Students are also sensitive to the international recognition that their diplomas receive (or fail to receive) and thus demand classes in English. It thus comes as little surprise that in Europe, French students are the second largest participant group (after participants from Spain) in the Erasmus+ program (European Commission, 2013). Similarly, business schools send almost 3,000 students abroad to non-French universities every year, and 10,000 of their students spend time at French campuses situated abroad. In comparison, universities send about 12,000 management and economics students abroad every year. As a whole, without accounting for delocalized French campuses, management students represent about a third of all French students that spend time abroad during their studies (Ramanantsoa & Delpech, 2016).

Demand for Continuous and Executive Education

The global market for continuing education in France is worth roughly 13 billion euros, of which 400 million euros (only) goes to institutions of higher education (Germinet, 2015). Continuous and executive education accounts for an average of 12% of the budget for local business schools: between 17% and 25% for ESCP Europe, EMLyon and ESSEC; up to 45% for HEC; and 86% for INSEAD (L 'Express, 2011). Obviously, there is a link between the professional hierarchical position of the participants and the corresponding revenue in the institutions that they attend. This means that continuing education in management needs to be segmented, the executive education, sometimes known as ExecEd, being just the high end of the market. As we saw, much of high-level continuous education is centralized in the Paris region , leading French business schools based elsewhere to have set up offices within or around Paris.

Participants in continuing education programs have an economic and strategic weight that directly affects the system. Firstly, as these participants are paying for an educational service, in return they demand a high-level of service that meets their expectations and the price paid. This includes not only the course contents and the perceived quality of the lecturers, but also the quality of orientation, catering, accommodation, and logistical and administrative support. Furthermore, these participants bring their corporate experience into the classroom where that they can share and compare with that other participants. Hence the importance of the quality of the recruitment. The participants come equipped with highly-specialized knowledge, while being afforded the opportunity to once again feel intellectually challenged. This creates an opportunity for a potential high-level enrichment both for participants and lecturers, but it may also represent a significant risk in terms of destabilisation and "de-legitimisation" for the latter. This may lead some lecturers to adopt a facilitating stance, exploiting the wealth of experience present in the classroom, staying away from bringing too much input. Some other lecturers may want to call more upon their research and their knowledge of the academic literature to push more content in. In a way, research is one of the business school's assets that stands as the keystone of their reputation and that contributed to attract the participants. If this is the case, a lecturer limiting himself/herself to facilitating discussion would be a source of disappointment. Yet, a lecturer focused on deep dives into his/her research and the academic literature on a very narrow topic of specialty would also be a source of disappointment for participants. Clearly in between these two extermes, there is plenty of margin of maneuver. Yet, we observe that many business schools call upon affiliated or adjunct or teaching faculty, i.e. non-permanent research faculty to cater for the ExecEd. This is an issue as the participants may feel that they do not receive what they believed they paid for or their employer paid for. This issue is sensitive if participants are in a position to evaluate the offerings of the institution that they attend, which can reinforce or alter the image of that school in the corporate world.

Demand from companies

Companies in France can be said to be more and more involved in the life of institutions of higherlearning in management: they are present at recruiting fairs and make donations so as to fund students through scholarships. They also take part in teaching activities, including the development of syllabi or encouraging some of their managers to teach some classes as well. The relationship between institutions of higher education and companies is strongly determined by geography (FNEGE study, 2003). Hence, Parisian business schools benefit significantly from their proximity to the headquarters of large corporations. This is another reason for some business schools to have established offices in Paris, as was the case with EMLyon in 2016.

The actual monetary contributions from the corporations to higher education institutions come in a variety of forms:

• One is a tax (taxe d'apprentissage), paid by corporations, which institutions can collect.

• Business schools and universities also develop corporate chairs. This is often the first step towards the creation of foundations set-up to collect corporate donations.

• Direct donations to the schools are a category that is yet to be fully exploited, apart from a small number of leading business schools that have launched successful alumni fundraising campaigns (mainly HEC, ESSEC).

THE REGULATORY BODIES

Regional, National and Supra-National Regulation

The Chambers of Commerce and Industry (CCI) Generally speaking, business schools are not fully independent. Most of them have been historically controlled by a CCI. Some were even a department of a CCI. Most of these schools depend on the CCI not only for their budget and their premises but also for their administrative staff. The CCI therefore played and in many cases still play a central role in the structure and governance of the schools.

Founded by Napoleon Bonaparte in 1803, the Chambers of Commerce and Industry are publicly owned entities governed by the law of April 9, 1898, and fall under the supervision of the Ministry for Industry and Trade. Their role is "analysing economic fabric, supporting corporations, taking part in regional planning, and managing developments." The initial and continuing training of administrative workers is a priority for the CCI and accounts for 25% of their total budget (cci.fr).

CCI are not per se regulatory bodies for the Business Schools. They have been more of a source of funding and a governing body. The CCI have seen their financial resources decrease over the past ten years. One of the main sources of revenue for the CCI is the professional tax (IATP) that is growing below inflation rate. Moreover, the CCI are no longer allowed to collect the "taxe d'aprentissage" that they had been collecting up until March, 2004. As a result, the CCI have significantly limited the growth of subsidies to the Business School that they support. Hence, many schools are becoming more independent, either by becoming an association, or, as HEC Paris did in 2016, by becoming an Etablissement d'Enseignement Supérieur Consulaire (ESSC), a status that allows business schools to enlarge their funding sources.

Ministries

French Business schools and universities are controlled by two separate ministries. Business schools are under the supervision of the Ministry of the Economy and Finance while universities depend on the Ministry of National Education, Higher Education and Research. In the new "Licence-masterdoctorate" structure, business schools need state accreditation if they wish to label their "diplome Grande Ecole" as "master's" or if they want to award "doctorates", while universities naturally award national, i.e., state-recognized, diplomas. The relationship between business schools and universities is thus closely tied to this question of degree awarding and national accreditation.

Quality Assessment

Management education in France is increasingly subject to heavy quality-regulation. When taken together, the power that these regulators have and the definition of common European and/or global standards have arguably pushed business schools and universities in similar directions with some form of strategic convergence. The principle bodies that specifically assess the quality of universities and business schools are:

• HCERES : In 2014, the High Council for the Evaluation of Research and Higher Education (HCERES) replaced the French Evaluation Agency for Research and Higher Education (AERES). HCERES evaluates universities and research units and publish the results of their evaluation.

• The international accreditation bodies play an increasingly significant role, notably in ensuring international visibility for institutions. The accreditation process is initiated through a request by the institution, which itself then finances the process. The accreditation bodies initially appeared to equip Business Schools with quality insurance processes. Yet, this soon became a marketing tool, leading to the surprising triple crown as three agencies share the accreditation "market" in France:

▪ The Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business ("AACSB") is an American agency that accredits management education institutions. Created in 1916, the organisation is made up of 775 accredited members. At the end of 2016, 22 French business schools had received the AACSB accreditation. ▪ The Association of MBAs ("AMBA") is the accreditation that was created in the United Kingdom in 1967. The association only certifies programs, typically MBAs or DBAs, and not the institutions themselves. Amba is active on the five continents. 22 French business schools are now accredited.

• Lists of starred Journals: There are several lists of journals that co-exist in France. Some are set-up by a business school for their own needs, some are made up by non-French journal (such as the FT list), others are made available for researchers, universities and business schools by public or para-public bodies. The economy-management section of the national evaluating committee for scientific research, which is related to CNRS (Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, a very large public research body with 13 000 researchers and 13 000 support staff), has classified management journals using four categories. Francophone publications for the most part are relegated to the fourth and lowest category as if quality research could only be found in non French journals. The Fondation National pour l'Enseignement de la Gestion des Entreprises (FNEGE) has also released a list of management journals in which French publications are more visible. Although very much debated, these lists have a high influence on researchers' publishing behaviour given the salary incentives set up by Deans for business school professors. These lists are also used by the national media to build their rankings.

• Business School rankings: The media play an important role in establishing or degrading the reputation of a business school. The Financial Times's international ranking of MBAs is certainly the most well-known ranking, and certainly has the greatest influence in France. At the time of writing, few French programs had found their way into this ranking: only four French MBAs were ranked over the hundred listed in 2016: INSEAD's MBA took 1 st place, HEC 15 th , Edhec 84 th , and Grenoble Ecole de Management 94 th . However, the more positive ranking performance for Masters of Science in Management, itself launched by the Financial Times in 2004, has highlighted the specificity of European master's programs in comparison with the American's MBAs. Thanks to the Bologna's process and the MSc ranking system, French business schools' program offerings are now visible internationally (Appendix 1).

French magazines also publish annual rankings for business schools and French university courses (Appendix 2).

• Professional associations and magazines. These associations typically reward the best articles and the best theses of the year. In doing so, they contribute to the creation of standards. They are backed by a scientific committee, typically the reading committees of academic journals, with specific editorial lines.

Today, competition between institutions is in large part mediated by these regulating authorities (ministries and CCI) and quality evaluation bodies (HECRES, accreditation agencies, the media). It clearly suggests that third parties play a very important role in the way the competitive arena of Business Schools and universities operates.

Conclusion

Most French Business Schools have chosen to play by the rules of the game that were imported from North America in the competitive arena of Management Education and Research. While Insead has been and remains a very special case, being located in France but reaching out for the world, HEC was probably the trigger that led most of the best business schools of the country to follow the same strategy: investing heavily in research to increase the flow of publications in starred journals, hiring young faculty with strong potential for publications, milking executive education, setting up a foundation to raise money, etc.

In this context, the heightened European recognition of the French "Masters of Science in Management" has given rise to a renewed energy and motivation within French institutions of management education. While a handful of Business Schools do compete at the European and international level, others feel that they need to join forces or grow in size to reach what they see as the threshold size that will hopefully allow them to exist in the international and European ranking systems. In this respect, the setting-up of COMUEs generates cooperative relationships between

  3. Developing MBAs for the international market and executive education for the domestic market Many schools have developed MBA programs to improve their international recruitment, as was the case with INSEAD, HEC, ESSEC and ESCP Europe. Other smaller business schools have launched MBA programs too. These are often sector-oriented (for instance, some are dedicated to the luxury sector or to information and communication technology), while others are specialized in a specific discipline. For instance, ESC La Rochelle has developed a MBA dedicated to tourism management. In parallel with such moves, business schools have also developed executive education programs and enlarged the range of such programs. Grenoble School of Management, for example, recently launched a DBA program intended for executives. France remains a rather centralized country with many French based multinationals being headquatered in Paris. Hence, to recruit executives from French corporate offices, many business schools are renting or have bought offices in Paris (as was the case with EMLyon in 2016).

  Communauté d'Universités et d'Etablissements). The goal of such grouping is to unite French universities and schools under stronger brands, much as the OxBridge model does for colleges. For instance, PSL (Paris Sciences et Lettres) consists of a gathering of 22 higher education institutions under the same brand and common governance system (e.g. the University of Paris-Dauphine, École Normale Supérieure d'Ulm, École des Mines), and in turn allows for greater visibility in the Shanghai ranking system. However, a number of challenges remain, such as common governance, comparable programs, students and faculty recruitment and the budget process (Cour des Comptes, 2017b). With the exception of the University of Paris-Dauphine and Science-Po Paris (the latter has launched a School of Management and Innovation in 2016), both have the special status of a "Grand Etablissement," French public universities have no or little control on student selection and fee setting.

▪

  The European Foundation for Management Development ("EFMD") offers the EQUIS standard, created in 1997. Its main aim is the improvement of the quality of management education. At the end of 2016, 18 French institutions had been accredited, and of those institutions, only two are universities: Aix-Marseille Graduate School of Management (IAE) and the University of Paris-Dauphine.

«

  universities and business schools, especially on the research side, what could be a new landscape for HE in France may open up new possibilities to develop assets to compete in the international setting. References Studies La notion de PRES, texte sur la structuration de la recherche et de l'enseignement supérieur en France », text adopted by the Conférence des Présidents d'Université (CPU) of 21 October 2004 « La coopération européenne en matière de garantie de qualité dans l'enseignement supérieur, proposition de recommandation », P. Navatte, CPU, October 2004 « Scenarios 2003-2012 », The Open University, internal report kindly provided by Brenda Gourley, Vice Chancellor, The Open University, Milton Keynes, UK « Prospective 2015 des établissements de gestion. Cinq scénarios pour agir. » Thomas Durand & Stéphanie Dameron, FNEGE study, 2005