<p>Just saw this on CNN.com</p>
<p>What is the ranking schema used here? According to the numbers reported here (and/or in some cases not reported), Tuck (Dartmouth) and Haas (Berkeley) are ranked well below what their performance suggests....I guess the ranking must reflect something other than performance in this area...</p>
<p>I don't know their data source on salary or the date 2005, 2006??) but the numbers look out of date. Wisconsin 2006 grads salary data is $10,000 higher than shown.</p>
<p>Employment Statistics
Class of 2006
(Interim data as of 5/1/06)</p>
<p>Full-time Annual Base Range
$38,000 — $120,000
Median: $85,000
Mean: $82,399</p>
<p>
[quote]
What is the ranking schema used here? According to the numbers reported here (and/or in some cases not reported), Tuck (Dartmouth) and Haas (Berkeley) are ranked well below what their performance suggests....I guess the ranking must reflect something other than performance in this area...
[/quote]
</p>
<p>From the website:</p>
<p>How we pick the 50 Best:
To choose the 50 Best Business Schools for Getting Hired, Fortune and its partner QS analyze information from QS's TopMBA Scorecard, which includes data on 111 top accredited U.S. business schools. TopMBA Scorecard is an online tool designed to help students search MBA programs to find the best one for them. For this list, schools are ranked based equally on their reputation with recruiters and on their strength of career placement, based on a search by a student looking to study in a full-time MBA program in the United States.</p>
<p>To determine schools' recruiter ratings, QS surveyed 445 HR managers responsible for MBA hiring at their company. Recruiters are asked to name the international business schools from which they would prefer to hire MBAs, and which they consider to be the most reputable. The schools' scores are then converted into an index number of 0 to 100, where 100 is the top-scoring MBA program.</p>
<p>To determine schools' career placement strength, QS surveyed top MBA schools and asked them what percent of their students are employed within 3 months of graduation (accounting for 20% of their career-placement score), the average number of employment offers per student (another 20% of the career-placement score) and students' average salary on graduation (60% of the career-placement score).</p>
<p>QS is one of the foremost providers of independent information on higher education around the world and also runs the QS World MBA Tour. For more information, go to <a href="http://www.topmba.com%5B/url%5D">www.topmba.com</a> or e-mail <a href="mailto:topmba@qsnetwork.com">topmba@qsnetwork.com</a>.</p>
<p>So, this ranking would favor the MBA programs that are heavily focused in finance and consulting? (MBAs in the financial industry would likely be compensated more than those in the marketing industry)....and remember there is a flaw in averaging salaries; it would be more useful if they presented a median or range of salaries.</p>
<p>My guess it skews against small schools too: Stanford, Tuck/Dartmouth, Haas/Berkeley, MIT</p>
<p>In favor of the large: Wharton, Harvard, Chicago</p>
<p>Based on an unscientific sample of recruiters that do a lot of hiring for companies, I have found the bigger schools are considered easier/better 'cause they get more recruits for less incremental effort. Since half of this is based on recruiter surveys, it could work. Also some schools feed more into industries that actually have dedicated recruiters, whereas other feed more into smaller companies that don't have formal recruiters. I wonder how they normalize for that.</p>
<p>hey BedHead, i guess you also noticed Yale tied with Haas...</p>
<p>I'm not sure where this new mystical M7 comes from in looking at MBA programs; maybe it's to try to match the T14 for law schools, which does seem to be more consistent. I never heard of it when I was applying and Tuck did and apparently still does average higher starting salaries than Kellogg, Columbia, MIT, UChicago, is consistently as hard to get into as any of those and from my and my friends' IB analyst classes didn't seem any less respected. I felt in my limited sample size that everyone I knew who ultimately went to UChicago had been rejected from Tuck.</p>
<p>The data used appear to be 2005 data</p>
<p>the_prestige: ha, I think you know my position on rankings. Each one deserves scrutiny and skepticism; perhaps none should be given that much weight. The published stats indicate that Haas reasonably outperformed SOM. So the "blackbox" of the survey I guess accounts for the rest, in terms of these rankings. </p>
<p>But rather than focus on Haas/Yale, what about Dartmouth's position? How can a school that garnered a good number of offers per student and among the highest of salaries be put well below other schools that didn't perform as well? I mean these are some of the barest ranking measures. What they did publish undercuts the methodology of the ranking, IMO. On those basic parameters, Dartmouth should be 3, no? Oh yeah, because for certain schools the numbers weren't published (or perhaps even disclosed) we can't tell, and because the rest of the rankings are done through an occult survey, we'll just have to take their word for it. I'd at least like to know what questions were asked.</p>
<p>I have been close enough to the process to know that there's a whole "user-friendliness" element to the recruiting process that some schools do better at and that could result in the numbers on their survey, but on the face of things students probably care about two things in terms of hiring outcomes: do I have options? am I getting well-compensated?</p>
<p>Looking at these numbers, to the extent they're published, these rankings seem really at odds with the basic premise of the survey itself.</p>
<p>According to the published numbers alone, Fuqua would go way down, Tuck way up (it only has one school getting higher average salaries), Haas way up (four schools are above it) -- but of course even that is an incomplete or unfair picture since some schools apparently didn't report scores.</p>
<p>The_Prestige: This looks like a survey flimsy enough to match Yale with Haas. ; ) But seriously, another question is how relevant is one year's worth of data?</p>
<p>Oh and of course you would argue for using 2006 data, since Yale's on its inexorable march upward, no?</p>
<p>BedHead, take it easy dude... your initial reaction was correct... it was just a small joke.</p>
<p>gellino,</p>
<p>Average salary needs to be looked at with proper context. 95K in Chicago worths more than 100K in NYC or California. Also, schools that have more grads into marketing instead of investment finance would have slightly lower averages. You really don't know how those going to the <em>same</em> areas compare. We do know that the schools you mentioned did have better recruiter ratings than Tucks.</p>
<p>The_prestige: Gotcha. ; )</p>
<p>Sam Lee: But you don't know where a schools' recruits go after graduation necessarily, at least by the data here. Also, why does Tuck have poorer recruiter rating? Is that a reflection of being far? being smaller? not being as professional in terms of the recruiting apparatus? not having students of the profile the recruiter wants?</p>
<p>By the only available objective measure, Tuck is one of the best. The other things are subjective and not sufficiently disclosed, IMO.</p>
<p>Yes, that's true too. I am aware of that.</p>
<p>And now...it's gone. Shoddy journalism...</p>
<p>Does someone know on which places where Babson and BU on this ranking?</p>