<p>I can't find the link yet...</p>
<p>Here is the top 10:</p>
<p>1) Harvard
1) Stanford
3) Wharton
4) Sloan
4) Kellogg
4) Chicago
7) Tuck
7) Haas
9) Columbia
10) Stern</p>
<p>And here is the link: <a href="http://grad-schools.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/grad/mba/search%5B/url%5D">http://grad-schools.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/grad/mba/search</a></p>
<p>Wow, some real shockers on that list.</p>
<ol>
<li>UCLA</li>
<li>Michigan, Yale, Cornell, Duke, Virginia</li>
<li>CMU</li>
<li>Texas</li>
<li>UNC</li>
<li>Indiana</li>
<li>USC</li>
<li>ASU, Georgetown</li>
<li>Emory</li>
<li>U-Rochester, Washington (St Louis)</li>
<li>Ohio State, Minnesota</li>
<li>BYU, GA Tech, TX A & M, Wisconsin</li>
<li>Purdue</li>
<li>Boston College, Notre Dame, U-Florida, Washington</li>
<li>Illinois</li>
<li>Maryland</li>
<li>Boston University, Michigan State, Penn State, Rice</li>
<li>SMU, UC Davis, UC Irvine, Vanderbilt</li>
<li>Babson</li>
<li> Georgia</li>
<li>Iowa</li>
</ol>
<p>It's interesting to see the cluster of big 10 schools around 30 ish...</p>
<p>The biggest issue for Big 10 schools, and schools outside the Northeast or a centralized area of the Southwest (Southern->Middle Northern-ish California basically), is that they're always going to fall behind the schools in the aformentioned geographic regions because of relation to industries, which relates directly to everything from incoming class to postgraduate job opportunities to the incoming classes. With the exception of the top 5 or so, the quality of teaching at the top 30 is supposed to be relatively similar. I can't see a lot of those schools with the exception of Michigan (and NW and UChicago, but they're a given) ever getting much higher than they currently are.</p>
<p>wasn't UC-Irvine's business school just opened 2-3 years ago? How are they already so high? And how is Yale as high as Michigan? Michigan's program blows (or at least should blow) Yale's program out of the water....</p>
<p>:</p>
<p>My bad...I made a mistake in the list...</p>
<ol>
<li>UCLA</li>
<li>Michigan, </li>
<li>Yale</li>
<li>Cornell, Duke, Virginia</li>
<li>CMU</li>
<li>Texas</li>
<li>UNC</li>
<li>Indiana</li>
<li>USC</li>
<li>ASU, Georgetown</li>
<li>Emory</li>
<li>U-Rochester, Washington (St Louis)</li>
<li>Ohio State, Minnesota</li>
<li>BYU, GA Tech, TX A & M, Wisconsin</li>
<li>Purdue</li>
<li>Boston College, Notre Dame, U-Florida, Washington</li>
<li>Illinois</li>
<li>Maryland</li>
<li>Boston University, Michigan State, Penn State, Rice</li>
<li>SMU, UC Davis, UC Irvine, Vanderbilt</li>
<li>Babson</li>
<li>Georgia</li>
<li>Iowa</li>
</ol>
<p>tetrishead- I disagree. There are plenty of top 20 schools (Michigan, Cornell, Dartmouth, UNC) that are highly rated despite their location. I think that as the world gets "smaller", transportation gets easier and faster and the world trends towards electronic business, the location of a school will be less and less of a factor. This will allow competitive schools who embrace and innovate towards future trends to sneak up on traditionally top universities and eventually someone will come from out of nowhere and crack the top 20. Meanwhile, complaisant schools will start to fall. Granted, this won't happen overnight, but just as political parties, countries and empires rise and fall, the same is true in EVERY competitive situation. Remember, these aren't liberal arts schools we're talking about. The top B-schools are some of the brightest and severely competitive and innovative people on the globe.</p>
<p>For what it's worth, Iowa is actually tied with Georgia for 49th.</p>
<p>Good to see SMU in the top 50. That was a glaring omission from last year's list.</p>
<p>As for the top 20, it isn't much different than last year. Sure, 1 or 2 schools fell a good amount and 1 or 2 moved up, but overall not much of a difference.</p>
<p>What do you think about the 51st school in the ranking-Temple? I got accepted there for MS in Finance but I am not sure how good it is...Do you think it deserves its 51st position?</p>
<p>
[quote]
There are plenty of top 20 schools (Michigan, Cornell, Dartmouth, UNC) that are highly rated despite their location
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I agree and I would actually say that the most prominent example of all is Wharton. Let's be honest - Philadelphia hasn't been as innovative in terms of business or technology as places like NYC, the SF Bay Area, Chicago, or Boston. But that doesn't really seem to matter when it comes to Wharton. , for the number of Wharton grads who actually stay in Philadelphia to work is almost zero.</p>
<p>Don't believe me? Take a gander at the statistics. Only a miniscule 1.6% of Wharton grads stay in Philadelphia to work after graduation. For God's sake, that's less than even the percentage who decided to go to Dallas (2.2%). {Strange, isn't it?}</p>
<p>What do you all think about full-time programs vs working professional programs… the end result?</p>
<p>I have been accepted to Xavier which is ranked 16th among Part-Time MBA programs in the US News & World Report 2009 rankings. I’d like to go Full-Time, but Xavier does not have a “Full-Time” program (although you can still take a full-time schedule). I plan to concentrate in Finance and Ohio State (my other option) was ranked 17th for that specialty in the 2009 US News Rankings. My biggest concern with Xavier is name recognition despite being in a large city (Cincinnati). I don’t feel like a lot of people know much about the school and because of that Ohio State might have a slight edge. However, Ohio State’s program is more expensive so you pay for the name recognition. I feel the quality of education will be about the same and I already have associate and bachelor degrees from Ohio State.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I am amazed at how obsequiously people follow the rankings. In applying and attending both UG and MBA, I had no more than a vague idea of what the “published” rankings from any source were and certainly wasn’t making any decisions based off them.</p>
<p>Michigan should be ranked higher than Dartmouth.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Based on what? Michigan is not better by any major measure (avg GMAT, acceptance rate, avg salary, alumni giving, career placement, etc).</p>
<p>Where are you going to be working to make $200,000 coming out of Wharton?</p>
<p>To the question about full time v. part-time programs, and part-time rankings. Most employers don’t follow the rankings of the part-time programs. It’s the full time rankings they pay attention to. </p>
<p>But it depends on where a school falls within the rankings as well. The employers who care about rankings tend to care only about the top schools, and/or about the best ranked schools in their region. A school that is ranked 51st could just as well be ranked 70th, for all many employers care. </p>
<p>It can, however, matter what a school’s name is like in a region. As you’d mentioned, you fear that no one in that region knows that MBA program, and that you thus may be at a disadvantage to students coming out of Ohio State. That is something to think about. You’ll need to do some local research on that one.</p>
<p>Wow, 51st? Not bad, but still shafted.</p>
<p>tomslawsky’s list has many errors.
Wisconsin is 28, Uminnn 33 for two.</p>