[转帖]rate the MBA ranking

zenghao

Business Week:
The 1st of the important international rankings, Business Week concentrates mainly on US schools and only ranks the top 10 schools outside the US (plus another 10 that were “considered” for ranking). The international schools are not covered in the same depth as the American schools although the editors try to understand the communications problems this poses for the non American schools.

Business Week surveys recruiters and students and applies the same weighting to both (45% of the survey weighting) with the remaining 10% based on information supplied by the schools. The rankings are based on 2 surveys, two years apart to lessen the swings that are common in some of the other rankings.

Business Week’s focus is on the quality of the education experience although they can be somewhat subjective.

Rating: B+


Wall Street Journal:
Second in importance only to Business Week among American rankings, the Wall Street Journal surveys only recruiters (mainly American and most of them are centred in the New York area). Although the methodology is impeccable, the small sample size can cause big changes in rank from year to year. And the difference between being in the middle of the pack and the bottom can be caused by a difference of only 10 points.

Schools complain that they don’t understand how the WSJ’s rankings can change so dramatically from year to year and they feel a rise or a drop in the WSJ rankings doesn’t mean as much as it can with some of the others.

Rating: C-


Forbes:
A late comer to the major American publications ranking business schools and their programs, Forbes surveys alums and measures the return on investment, or ROI, experienced by MBA graduates after 5 years. The survey calculates a “five-year MBA gain” by determining average post-MBA compensation minus the costs of attending business school (tuition and foregone salary). The Forbes survey doesn’t carry much weight (except for advertising purposes of course).

Rating: C-



The Economist
Although published by the same company, the difference between the Economist’s rankings and those of the Financial Times are as different as night and day. Where the FT rankings are considered to be the bench mark by which other international rankings are judged, the Economist’s are considered to be poorest and least reliable of all of those published by major international publications.

The schools provide lists of names of alumni to the Economist who may or may not be contacted for opinions and information. The problem lies with the numbers as well as the methodology. For example, a small school with less than 50 people in the MBA program can be ranked on the basis of information from as few as 10 alumni, a number so far below statistical reliability it defies belief. If, as the Richard Ivey School of Business claims, the Economist insisted on listing the school against its wishes and used outdated information because the school was not participating in the survey, then the ranking is not only suspect, it is patently false.

Rating: F


The Financial Times:
The Financial Times rankings are with out a doubt, the most comprehensive, all encompassing and truly international of all the major rankings. It is the Gold standard by which other rankings are measured. FT works with the schools to ensure that as much relevant information as possible is included in the survey. In fact, some feel that the survey may have too much information. Never the less, the Financial Times MBA survey and ranking provides the interested observer with more decision making information than any other survey of its type.

FT surveys alums for information on starting and entrance level salaries, % employed after 3 months, job mobility, and career progression. While even FT doesn’t cover all the bases (it does not survey schools in India for example), it is the best independent source for information on the top international business schools available.


Rating: A+