New MBA Ranking of the Top 50 Schools
There are significant and telling flaws in every MBA ranking, no matter where it comes from or how it is put together. The vast disparities in rank across the major rankings shows that where a school ranks is more a function of the methodology than any overall indication of quality. That’s why we carefully studied the pros and cons of each ranking, weighted each of them based on their authority and credibility, and then used all of those inputs to come up with our own ranking.
The beauty of this methodology is that each of the five major MBA rankings—BusinessWeek, U.S. News & World Report, Financial Times, Forbes, and The Economist—are brought together for the very first time. By blending these rankings using a system that takes into account each of their strengths as well as their flaws, we’ve come up with what is arguably the best and most reliable ranking of MBA programs ever published. This composite index also naturally accommodates some of the wild disparities that you find from one survey to the next. Consider the University of California’s excellent Anderson School of Management. The Economist ranks it 50th, well behind L.A. rival the University of Southern California and the University of Notre Dame. The Financial Times puts UCLA at 33rd. BusinessWeek rates it 14th, U.S. News at 15th, and Forbes at 19th. Those are some pretty big differences of opinion on UCLA’s Anderson School. We think it’s the 16th best school in the U.S., a rank that is the sum total of all of them, adjusted for the authority we believe the major rankings have. For our critique of the major rankings and the reasoning behind the weights we applied to each, see our ranking of the rankings.
Harvard, Stanford, Chicago, Wharton |