Berkeley #1 for PhD programs, Stanford #1 for Professional schools

College Search & Selection
81

<p>


</p>

<p>You know, considering that the primary driver of UT Austin's graduate and undergrad (especially) programs not being ranked higher is due to state law that sets minimum thresholds for in-state residents (90+% in-state for undergrads, something like 80% for law, etc.), thereby leading to decreased selectivity and an inherently regional focus, it's actually quite sad that Yale's SOM (a university with no such forced regional requirements) is ranked so closely to begin with. Really sad, actually. </p>

<p>It would also be interesting to see what UT law could do if they could throw off the 80% in-state shackle and become as selective as the other universities it competes with. No one really ever argues faculty quality is the issue keeping it outside, but right at the front door of the "Top 14".</p>

<p>It's funny how many people like the_prestige, who bash schools like UT forget this simple fact. The fact that it's even remotely in the same league with schools in the top tier, while having its hands tied behind its back in admission decisions, as well as with state funding, is cause to question just how great some of the private schools ranked above really are. I mean if they aren't completely blowing it out of the water in reputation rankings (the fact we can even have this debate in the first place!), and have to rely on other criteria like admissions selectivity, etc. to show they're better... just makes you think.</p>

82

<p>go on then, hate me.</p>

83

<p>the_prestige,</p>

<p>Who's hating what now?</p>

84

<p>
[quote]
Anyway, I have no idea how MBA programs will be ranked in the distant future.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Indeed. I propose a wager regarding the "distant future".</p>

<p>Let's take the Top 5 most widely recognized b-school rankings:
- Businessweek
- USNWR
- WSJ
- FT
- Forbes</p>

<p>(if you want to add another, such as the Economist, I'm open to that as well)</p>

<p>Let's speak about this in 2010. Starting with 2006 rankings as a base ('05 rankings for those rankings that did not release '06 - i.e. Forbes and Economist), if the average (mean) rankings for SOM is lower in 2010 than it is in 2006 (and let's be clear that when we say "lower" we mean that a No. 2 ranking is "lower" than a No. 1 ranking), then I'll agree to retire my handle - if it is higher, then you retire yours -- why don't we call it a gentlemen's bet?</p>

<p>I mean if you are so confident that Yale is going nowhere fast and hasn't done anything but run around in circles for the last 20 years, you should jump at this chance to make me look foolish.</p>

85

<p>JWT86,
I know UT-Austin has an instate quota for undergrads. I didn't know that they have one for graduate programs. Do you have a reference?</p>

86

<p>"The latest stats (2005) have totally different numbers (e.g. Citigroup-5, McKinsey-5) -- so what years did you use? 1975 for Yale and the best year ever for UTA?"</p>

<p>No, I used Business Week stats from their 2006 MBA rankings. </p>

<p><a href="http://www.businessweek.com/@@nd3iYoYQawFuSR4A/bschools/06/full_time_profiles/yale3.htm%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.businessweek.com/@@nd3iYoYQawFuSR4A/bschools/06/full_time_profiles/yale3.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p><a href="http://www.businessweek.com/@@nd3iYoYQawFuSR4A/bschools/06/full_time_profiles/texasaustin3.htm%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.businessweek.com/@@nd3iYoYQawFuSR4A/bschools/06/full_time_profiles/texasaustin3.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>I don't understand why you so often accuse me of manipulation. I tend to stick to facts. But you are quite right, I should have extracted the information from the programs' websites. Either way, there is still no difference one way or the other. The difference in stats between the 2005 class and those used by BW (probably 2004 figures) are pretty similar. </p>

<p>The_prestige, I have no desire to make anybody look foolish. I personally don't agree with the FT, WSJ or Forbes. Those three rankings are useless as far as I am concerned, and lest we forget, one of those rankings (WSJ) has my beloved Ross at #1! I personally think the USNWR and BW are the only two reliable MBA rankings availlable, and in neither of those two rankings has Yale SOM shown a significant improvement in the last 20 years. But if you wish to make a gentleman's bet, it has to be reasonable. Yale could easly be ranked a spot or two (on average) higher in 2010 than it is today. That still won't make it a great B-School. If BW and the USNWR both have Yale SOM ranked well in the top 15 by 2010, I will concede that Yale SOM is on the move. But if Yale SOM is barely ranked between #15 and #20 as it today, then you lose. </p>

<p>And one more thing. Why are you so protective over Yale? I'd understand if I were bashing the school, but I always list Yale (along with Harvard, MIT, Princeton and Stanford) as one of the top 5 undergraduate institutions in the US. I perfectly acknowledge Yale's Law school as the #1 program in the nation. I always list Yale's Humanities and Social Sciences among the very best. But like all universities, Yale has its limitations. Sure, its limitations are limited, but they are limitations nonetheless. Yale's SOM is not a top rated MBA program and Yale's college of Engineering is average.</p>

87

<p>


</p>

<p>I can't find a general grad school requirement right now (perhaps it's only the professional schools?), but this is according to the law school:</p>

<p>"In addition, the Texas Legislature has limited nonresident enrollment to 35% of the student body."</p>

<p><a href="http://www.utexas.edu/law/depts/admissions/application/index.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.utexas.edu/law/depts/admissions/application/index.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>I thought it used to be 20%... If so, at least they have loosened in this regard.</p>

88

<p>
[quote]
If BW and the USNWR both have Yale SOM ranked well in the top 15 by 2010, I will concede that Yale SOM is on the move. But if Yale SOM is barely ranked between #15 and #20 as it today, then you lose.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Hold on there. If you disagree to comparing aggregate rankings, fine. If you want to pick and choose the rankings you want to include. So be it. </p>

<p>But, you are now slightly moving the goalposts. Now you are saying that Yale must be ranking from #1 to #14. But you kept insisting all along that Yale is in no way a "Top 15" program (which, by definition, includes the #15 spot) and that it would not be in the near future. So to be fair, you must include the #15 position. (Please do not make me do a search, cut and paste the numerous times you have stated flat out that Yale is not and will not be a Top 15 program).</p>

<p>Remember, I'm not claiming that Yale is a Top 5 or even Top 10 MBA program RIGHT NOW. I have stated clearly in the past that Yale was on the move and that in 5-10 years time it would challenge for a Top 10 position. But we aren't even speaking about 5-10 years time, we are talking about 3 years from now... and for Yale to break into the Top 15 (by your own strict definition - i.e. which rankings) would be an accomplishment.</p>

<p>So, are you willing to concede that if BW and USNWR have Yale ranked within the Top 15 by 2010, that you will concede that you were incorrect.</p>

<p>
[quote]
And one more thing. Why are you so protective over Yale?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I'm not being protective. If you go back to my previous posts (for example the FT ranking thread I started in the MBA forum) you will see that I was only making a number of observations (some which I have been claiming for a while now). I thought that it was noteworthy, for example, that the FT ranking had Yale's SOM ranked no. 10 (not to mention the fact that FT's Global MBA ranking (unlike others) INCORPORATES foreign / international programs such as INSEAD, et. al. taking up spots -- i.e. making the list even more competitive). </p>

<p>I found it particularly noteworthy since you, conversely, have always felt the need to demote Yale's b-school in your discussions / rankings. I don't even have a dog in this fight as I've never attended Yale -- though I do take notice when a b-school is on the move. Nothing more, nothing less.</p>

<p>And this goes to the heart of the matter. I say it's on the move, you say it's been sitting still since the 80s.</p>

<p>Time will tell.</p>

89

<p>5 years from now - Yale's b-school may move up a couple of notches (more likely, it will move up and back down as US News "adjusts" their criteria), but it's going to be tough (those other schools currently ranked 3-4 spots above Yale aren't going to be sitting on their hands either).</p>

<p>The "easiest" US News rankings for a professional school to move up in is in medicine - where the amount of research $$ play a significant role in the make-up of the rankings.</p>

90

<p>
[quote]
5 years from now - Yale's b-school may move up a couple of notches (more likely, it will move up and back down as US News "adjusts" their criteria), but it's going to be tough (those other schools currently ranked 3-4 spots above Yale aren't going to be sitting on their hands either).

[/quote]
</p>

<p>It's very true that trying to break into Top 10 territory will not be an easy task, as those current occupants will most certainly do their utmost to maintain their positions.</p>

<p>But when your program is ranked somewhere south of No. 274 (as some people claim), it just might be possible to rise from the depths of oblivion.</p>

91

<p>
[quote]
Why shouldn't engineering be classified as a professional program? Call me old-fashioned, but there was a time you have to pass a standard exam and be certified to put the title P.E. on your name card.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>The term "professional degrees" is normally used to refer to graduate degrees that are awarded upon completion, beyond a initial bachelor's degree, of coursework and, possibly, associated practical training, without any major original research requirement. That's typically the case in the US of law (J.D.), medicine (M.D.), and business (M.B.A) degrees.</p>

<p>By contrast, the ordinary post-bachelor's course of study in engineering in the US takes the form not of a professional degree, but rather of a PhD program where, following a short initial coursework component, the focus is mostly on the completion by the student of a substantial original research, normally in a narrow and specialized topic, leading to a scholarly thesis that must represent a relevant contribution to current knowledge in the field and whose results should be publishable in external forums (like peer-reviewed journals). </p>

<p>Even though most engineering PhD's in the US eventually acquire considerable breadth and depth of knowledge in their fields, the goal of a PhD program in engineering properly isn't really to turn out P.E's (professional engineers), but rather to train scholars for a future , possibly life-long career in research and teaching .</p>

92

<p>
[quote]
the goal of a PhD program in engineering properly isn't really to turn out P.E's (professional engineers), but rather to train scholars for a future , possibly life-long career in research and teaching.

[/quote]

bruno,
Are you an engineer? I am. I have two master degrees in engineering, both from the University of Michigan. In your opinion, did I earn a "professional" degree?</p>

<p>In my days, the majority of the engineers who decided to attend graduate school finished with a master degree. Only those with aspirations in the academia continued for a PhD, and they were in the minority. In fact, at ChE in UofM, we used to have a standing joke that the dept should reserve a seat for American PhD candidates. Btw, many engineers with PhD degrees do work in the industry and get certified as P.E. And I have a lot more friends with engineering PhDs working in the petroleum and computer industries than in research centers or universities ... and these guys are certainly not doing research.</p>

93

<p>The_prestige, I am not moving the goal posts. I do not expect Yale to be ranked between #1 and #14 in both the BW and the USNWR. I expect Yale to improve markedly. Right now, it is ranked #15-#20, so it is clearly not a top 15 program. To be a clear top 15 program, the average ranking of a program in both publications should be among the top 15. Right now, the top 15 are:</p>

<p>TOP 10 PROGRAMS:</p>

<h1>1 HBS (#4 according to BW and #1 according to USNWR, average ranking of 2.5)</h1>

<h1>1 Wharton (#2 and #3, average ranking of 2.5)</h1>

<h1>3 Chicago (#1 and #6, average ranking of 3.5)</h1>

<h1>3 Kellogg (#3 and #4, average ranking of 3.5)</h1>

<h1>5 Stanford (#6 and #2, average ranking of 4)</h1>

<h1>6 Sloan (#7 and #4, average ranking of 5.5)</h1>

<h1>7 Haas (#8 and #7, average ranking of 7.5)</h1>

<h1>8 Ross (#5 and #11, average ranking of 8)</h1>

<h1>9 Columbia (#10 and #7, average ranking of 8.5)</h1>

<h1>10 Fuqua (#9 and #11, average ranking of 10)</h1>

<h1>10 Tuck (#11 and #9, average ranking of 10)</h1>

<p>TOP 15 PROGRAMS:</p>

<h1>12 Anderson (#12 and #10, average ranking of 11)</h1>

<h1>13 Stern (#14 and #13, average ranking of 13.5)</h1>

<h1>14 Darden (#15 and #13, average ranking of 14)</h1>

<h1>15 Johnson (#13 and #16, average ranking of 14.5)</h1>

<p>TOP 20 PROGRAMS:</p>

<h1>16 Tepper (#16 and #16, average ranking of 16)</h1>

<h1>17 Yale SOM (#19 and #15, average ranking of 17)</h1>

<h1>18 Kenan Flagler (#17 and #20, average ranking of 18.5)</h1>

<h1>19 McCombs (#18 and #20, average ranking of 19)</h1>

<h1>20 Kelley (#18 and #23, average ranking of 20.5)</h1>

<p>Each ranking has its own quirks of course, so those average rankings aren't 100% accurate, but Yale SOM has neither improved or deteriorated over the last 20 years and is not quite considered a top 15 program. For me to concede that Yale is on the move, it would have to improve its average ranking concretely by 3 or more spots.</p>

94

<p>Alex, you are a Top 15 program or you are not.</p>

<p>If Yale's BW+USNWR average = or > 15 than you should concede. For example, using the table you posted above, if it is currently ranked no. 17 by your definition, than it needs to jump 2 spaces -> not 3 top be considered a Top 15 program.</p>

<p>If your decide to tweak your definition of a "Top 15" program by excluding any MBA program that gets ranked outside the Top 15 by either BW or USNWR (despite its average) -> e.g. Cornell Johnson's average comes out to 14.5 but this also includes a 16 rank --> than should Johnson be considered a Top 15 program or not? You decide. </p>

<p>In fact, ironically, Ross shouldn't be a "Top 10" program either by that "exclusionary" clause since Ross' ranking also includes a no. 11 ranking. </p>

<p>So what will it be? </p>

<p>A) Average of the two regardless, OR
B) Average + the exclusionary clause?</p>

<p>If it is going to be "B" than I should expect that you should accept that Ross is not a bonafide Top 10 MBA program.</p>

95

<p>The-prestige, I was probably unclear. What makes Cornell #15 and Yale #17 etc... is not the actual value of their average rankings but the fact that 14 MBA programs have higher average rankings than Cornell and that 16 MBA programs have higher average rankings than Yale SOM. When I look at rankings, I always consider them relative to other programs, since all programs improve over time. The only way a program can truly become better is if it improves at a faster pace than other programs. </p>

<p>Like I said, rankings have their quirks (Columbia and Michigan have had low rankings according to USNWR and MIT and Stanford have had low rankings by BW), which is why it is always good to average rankings. </p>

<p>At any rate, it doesn't take a mathematician to figure out that Yale hasn't improved in 2 decades. The rankings have been quire consistant in Yale SOM's case. Since 1993, Yale SOME has been ranked between #15 and #20 according to the USNWR and between #19 and #22 according to BW. Actually, Yale did crack the top 15 according to BW in 2002, but it dropped back to its rightful place in 2004. That is why I said "concrete". In other words, a program must do well over a few a couple of years. We've all seen programs spike for a year or two. For a program to establish itself it needs to perform well consistantly. </p>

<p>As for the bet, I am not sure how we can come up with an equitable solution. Your claim is that Yale is going to become a top 10 MBA program in the near future. Mine is that it is not yet a top 15 program and that there is no clear evidence that it is improving vis-a-vis other MBA programs. I guess the improvement has to be gradual. If Yale SOM is to become a top 10 MBA program from its current spot of #15-#20, it will have to first become a #10-#15 program. For now, I would see Yale being rate consistantly among the top 15 in both the BW and USNWR as a start.</p>

96

<p>
[quote]
Your claim is that Yale is going to become a top 10 MBA program in the near future. Mine is that it is not yet a top 15 program and that there is no clear evidence that it is improving vis-a-vis other MBA programs. I guess the improvement has to be gradual. If Yale SOM is to become a top 10 MBA program from its current spot of #15-#20, it will have to first become a #10-#15 program. For now, I would see Yale being rate consistantly among the top 15 in both the BW and USNWR as a start.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Absolutely incorrect.</p>

<p>I never claimed that SOM would become a Top 10 program in the "near future". I have said that in 5-10 years time it could vie for a Top 10 spot -- and that out of the programs outside the current Top 10, that it makes a strong case to be one of those on the outside looking in to do so in about 5-10 years time. This is entirely different than saying "it will be a Top 10 program next year". So please don't put words in my mouth or twist them.</p>

<p>And of course if it is to vie for a Top 10 spot it will first need to become a bonafide Top 15 school. This is where you and I disagree. You believe that SOM is NOT a Top 15 school whereas I believe that it makes a strong case. You say it doesn't take a mathematician to figure out it hasn't gone anywhere, yet you arrive at that conclusion looking at your narrow chosen definition.</p>

<p>So let's just take a look at some of these MBA rankings: USNWR already ranks it no. 15, FT ranks it no. 10, Forbes ranks it no. 5, WSJ ranks it no. 9. According to those rankings, SOM is already a Top 15 program and has risen quite steadily over the last 5-10 years - how else do you explain that 4 out of 5 of the major MBA rankings has SOM ranked in the Top 15 (3 out of 5 ranking it in the Top 10)? Can you explain this? If we average all 5 major rankings (BW, USNWR, FT, WSJ and Forbes), lo and behold, Yale's average comes out to: 11.6. (oh btw, Ross' average comes out to 12.2 - so we can't really call it a Top 10 school can we) ... Can we call that mathematician please?</p>

<p>Also, its funny how you ONLY want to take a look at USNWR and BW (both rankings which give Ross the most generous rankings by far - gee big surprise, wouldn't want to use that 12.2 average would we - and both rankings which rank Yale relatively lower than the other ones) - but be that as it may - YOU think its not a Top 15 program and I think it is. Frankly speaking, more MBA rankings are on my side than on yours.</p>

<p>So let's stop for a little bit of a reality check for a moment: it is YOU who wants to CHERRY PICK two specific rankings and use that as the DEFINITIVE measuring stick -- which is fine, as long as we both agree that you have already shied away from accepting the broadest measure of MBA rankings out there. I mean if you are so right, what are you afraid of? Why not use all of the major MBA rankings? Could it be possible that they are right are you are wrong? Is it even remotely possible? Worried that the mathematician might slam dunk a little reality into your equation?</p>

97

<p>GoBlue81,</p>

<p>There's no such thing as certified MBA. Most engineers, other than civil, don't get their PE. On the other hand, a lot of geologists get the professional geologist (formerly registered geologist) certification eventually. Does that mean geology is "professional" field? Then what about psychology? Is that professional field too? How about we bring up those top-ranked schools in education, journalism, and music (conservatory) also if we are going to include engineering? </p>

<p>Let's just stay with the professional schools in the most common sense (Law/Medicine/Business).</p>

98

<p>The_prestige, I have always only supported BW and USNWR when it comes to MBA rankings. I have always mocked other rankings, even the Economist and WSJ, both of which rank Ross among the very best. But even if we don't "cherry pick", Ross is still ranked above Yale. You need help with your mathematics. </p>

<p>Forbes: Yale #5, Ross #26
<a href="http://www.forbes.com/lists/2005/95/Rank_1.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.forbes.com/lists/2005/95/Rank_1.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>FT: Yale #8, Ross #12
<a href="http://rankings.ft.com/rankings/mba/rankings.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://rankings.ft.com/rankings/mba/rankings.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>WSJ: Ross #1, Yale #9
Couldn't find the link, but that's according to WSJ's latest ranking, published in September of 2006.</p>

<p>Economist: Ross #7, Yale #15
<a href="http://mba.eiu.com/index.asp?layout=2002rankings%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://mba.eiu.com/index.asp?layout=2002rankings&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>BW: Ross #5, Yale #19</p>

<p>USNWR: Ross #11, Yale #15</p>

<p>Average ranking: Ross #10.2, Yale 11.8</p>

<p>Even without the Economist,
Average ranking, Ross #11, Yale #11.2</p>

<p>But like I said, I don't really trust the other rankings, even those that praise Ross. Just look at the absurdities:</p>

<p>Forbes: Kellogg #10, Sloan #18, Fuqua #20
WSJ: Wharton #7, HBS #14, Stanford #18
FT: Kellogg #11
Economist: Wharton #12, Sloan #13, Fuqua #18</p>

99

<p>The B-school rankings, other than that listed by USNWR and BW, are somewhat laughable.</p>

100

<p>
[quote]
The_prestige, I have always only supported BW and USNWR when it comes to MBA rankings. I have always mocked other rankings, even the Economist and WSJ, both of which rank Ross among the very best. But even if we don't "cherry pick", Ross is still ranked above Yale. You need help with your mathematics.</p>

<p>Forbes: Yale #5, Ross #26
<a href="http://www.forbes.com/lists/2005/95/Rank_1.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.forbes.com/lists/2005/95/Rank_1.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>FT: Yale #8, Ross #12
<a href="http://rankings.ft.com/rankings/mba/rankings.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://rankings.ft.com/rankings/mba/rankings.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>WSJ: Ross #1, Yale #9
Couldn't find the link, but that's according to WSJ's latest ranking, published in September of 1006.</p>

<p>Economist: Ross #7, Yale #15
<a href="http://mba.eiu.com/index.asp?layout=2002rankings%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://mba.eiu.com/index.asp?layout=2002rankings&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>BW: Ross #5, Yale #19</p>

<p>USNWR: Ross #11, Yale #15
Even without the Economist,
Average ranking, Ross #11, Yale #11.2

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Au contraire mon frere. You are the one who needs help with your mathematics. Your numbers are wrong.</p>

<p>Please see the actual FT PDF link for the 2007 MBA rankings (heck, its even in your own FT link):
<a href="http://media.ft.com/cms/9753d360-a6ee-11db-83e4-0000779e2340.pdf%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://media.ft.com/cms/9753d360-a6ee-11db-83e4-0000779e2340.pdf&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>You will see clearly that FT's ranking for Ross is no. 19 (not 12 as you claim - in fact I have no idea where you came up with 12, Ross previous rankings were 16 and 14).</p>

<p>So let's DO THE MATH for Ross:</p>

<p>BW: 5
USNWR: 11
FT: 19
WSJ: 1
Forbes: 26</p>

<hr>

<p>5+11+19+1+26 = 62
62 / 5 = 12.4</p>