<p>"that's according to WSJ's latest ranking, published in September of 1006."</p>
<p>I think they need to update their ranking... haha =p</p>
<p>The_prestige, we are talking about US based MBA programs. FT ranks Ross #12 among US MBA programs. My math is just fine, Michigan still outranks Yale SOM among US MBA programs. </p>
<p>But I am pretty sure we agree that with the exception of BW and the USNWR, the other MBA rankings are absurd. If one were to look at the average of the other 4 MBA rankings, Tuck would be #1, Columbia #2, HBS #6, Kellogg #7, Yale #8, Ross #11 and MIT #13!!!</p>
<p>
[quote]
The_prestige, we are talking about US based MBA programs. FT ranks Ross #12 among US MBA programs. My math is just fine, Michigan still outranks Yale SOM.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Oh, are you making up your own rankings now? Alex, Michigan is ranked no. 19 by FT. Period. You know, I find it curious we are now arguing Yale vs. Michigan. According to you Ross is a definitive Top 10 b-school and Yale is lucky to be considered a Top 15 b-school - and more likely is a Top 20 school. </p>
<p>And yet, the rankings demonstrate, if anything, that they are neck and neck - save a decimal point or two.</p>
<p>At any rate, I figure at this point we should let the results speak for themselves. As I said before, time will tell.</p>
<p>The_prestige, you are only making yourself look ridiculous by trying to find every loophole imaginable to prove a point that is completely incorrect. You should learn to concede when you are wrong. Humility and good sportsmanship are virtues where I come from.</p>
<p>Alex,</p>
<p>Why should I concede anything? As it is clear to see for anyone here, the MBA ranking averages (and not just the selective averages) for Yale SOM and Ross come out neck-and-neck - not matter how you slice or dice it. They are separated at best by a point and at worst they are down right identical - 11 or 12 it's the same ballpark.</p>
<p>Who looks ridiculous? Someone who claims continually that Ross is a definitive Top 10 MBA program, and yet the broad ranking averages demonstrate it is just beyond that range. Yale, on the other hand, a school YOU claim to be merely a Top 20 MBA program BUT, some how, miraculously, SOM comes out with a similar average to Ross. I mean, come on, 11 or 12, its a matter of a point or decimal points.</p>
<p>You should learn to concede the FACTS. Humility and good sportsmanship have nothing to do with the the virtues of FACT.</p>
<p>Alright the_prestige, I concede that you are right. Yale SOM is on par with Ross and Sloan and Tuck is the #1 MBA program in the nation. You are right, and I was wrong.</p>
<p>Furthermore, I find it odd you are accusing me of lack of humility when, as a moderator, you clearly are so pro-Michigan (on any and every issue, angle, argument, etc.), frankly, it's downright embarrassing. And poor sportsmanship? Have I lied? Have I cheated? Have I played "dirty"?</p>
<p>I have backed up my statements with facts whenever necessary or possible. I don't think I have stepped out of bounds in presenting my case.</p>
<p>Is it frustrating because I am such a fierce opponent? Is it frustrating because I am a stubborn opponent? I'm not going to give an inch when I think I'm in the right, why should I? To be a "good sport"? Sorry, I'm not here to earn congeniality points.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Alright the_prestige, I concede that you are right. Yale SOM is on par with Ross and Sloan and Tuck is the #1 MBA program in the nation. You are right, and I was wrong
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I presume this is the model of "good sportsmanship".</p>
<p>The_prestige, I have no issue with a ferocity, stubborness etc... I actually enjoy a good debate. And I always concede when I am wrong. If you have read my posts over the course of the last couple of years, you would know that I am always ready to admit when I am wrong. You also should know by now that I am not pro-Michigan. Where have I misled or unduly upgraded Michigan's stature? I am entirely neutral and I always back my points with valid and reliable sources.</p>
<p>My issue here is that you are resorting to rankings that most people know are completely off to prove a point. The WSJ, FT, Forbes and Economist rankings are amusing, but they are also unreliable. Any MBA rankings that have HBS at #14, Stanford at #18, Wharton at #12, Ross at #26, Sloan at #18, Kellogg at #11 are not entirely reliable, no more than any MBA rankings that have Ross and Tuck at #1, Yale at #5 or Stern at #6. I have always said as much, even before this debate. Since you and I do not agree on the validity of those rankings, we cannot find a common ground. According to your definition, Tuck is #1 among MBA programs and Yale is already a top 10 MBA program, equal to Ross and Sloan. I see no point in continuing this debate since we cannot agree on what constitutes a reliable ranking.</p>
<p>
[quote]
According to your definition, Tuck is #1 among MBA programs and Yale is already a top 10 MBA program, equal to Ross and Sloan.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Absolutely incorrect.</p>
<p>Let's look at the most widely recognized **MBA rankings<a href="the%20most%20recent%20rankings">/b</a>:</p>
<p>*- USNWR<a href="'07">/b</a>
*- FT<a href="'07">/b</a>
*- BusinessWeek<a href="'06">/b</a>
*- WSJ<a href="'06">/b</a>
**- Forbes<a href="'05%20-%20last%20released%20ranking">/b</a></p>
<p><a href="there%20is%20a%20simple%20reason%20to%20exclude%20the%20Economist%20-%20it%20doesn't%20include%20the%20two%20best%20b-schools,%20HBS%20and%20Wharton%20in%20its%20ranking%20-%20but%20I%20will%20incorporate%20a%20separate%20one%20including%20the%20Economist%20-%20for%20that%20ranking,%20I%20will%20be%20forced%20to%20use%20HBS%20and%20Wharton's%20average%20without%20the%20Economist">i</a>*</p>
<p>So, taking those rankings, computing their averages: how do they shake out?</p>
<p>MBA Ranking Averages (BW, USNWR, FT, Forbes, WSJ - sans Economist)
1 Wharton 3.00
2 HBS 3.20
3 Chicago 5.40
4 Columbia 5.40
5 Dartmouth 6.40
6 Stanford 7.20
7 Kellogg 8.40
8 MIT 10.60
9 Yale 11.60
10 Haas 12.00
11 Ross 12.40
12 NYU 13.00
13 Duke 15.00
14 Virginia 15.00
15 UCLA 15.40
16 Cornell 16.60
17 UNC 18.20
18 CMU 18.80
19 UTA 30.20
20 Indiana 31.80</p>
<p>MBA Ranking Averages (BW, USNWR, FT, Forbes, WSJ + Economist)
1 Wharton 3.00
2 HBS 3.20
3 Chicago 5.50
4 Dartmouth 5.83
5 Columbia 6.00
6 Stanford 6.67
7 Kellogg 7.33
8 MIT 11.00
9 Haas 11.67
10 Ross 11.67
11 NYU 12.00
12 Yale 12.67
13 Virginia 14.83
14 UCLA 15.33
15 Duke 16.67
16 Cornell 16.67
17 CMU 20.00
18 UNC 20.17
19 UTA 33.50
20 Indiana 35.67</p>
<p>
[quote]
My issue here is that you are resorting to rankings that most people know are completely off to prove a point. The WSJ, FT, Forbes and Economist rankings are amusing, but they are also unreliable.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Um, yeah, any SINGLE ranking can be unreliable. So that's why I proposed looking at the AVERAGE.</p>
<p>and, btw, those averages shake out pretty decently (except for the fact that Stanford is a bit low and Dartmouth is a bit high), you've got HBS and Wharton on top, as they should be. 7 out of the 8 positions are occupied by the MBA Group of 7 (HBS, Wharton, Stanford, MIT, Kellogg, Chicago, Columbia) - so what is big the problem here? Could it be that Ross doesn't quite make quite the strong case you present (i.e. not quite the bonafide Top 10 claims you've made). Could it be that Yale actually starts looking surprisingly strong (i.e. looking a helluva lot stronger than a Top 20 has been)? Could it be that Kellogg is starting to look a bit overrated (as I've been claiming)? Could it be all of those things?</p>
<p>So tell me again, how, "according to me" Tuck is no. 1? As anyone can plainly see your charge is completely without merit, basis or fact. In this instance, you have completely twisted things around and present them as fact. When did I ever say Tuck was no. 1? Please post a link to when I said that. When did I ever say that any single MBA ranking (regardless if it had Tuck or Ross no. 1 or not) was the best definition? Anyone who can read can plainly see that the last few posts were clearly discussing AVERAGES of the broadest MBA rankings possible. </p>
<p>I hope you have the decency and honor to at least admit that your accusation about me claiming or defining Tuck being no. 1 was flat out incorrect.</p>
<p>The Economist does include HBS and Wharton. HBS is #5 and Wharton #12. </p>
<p>As for your statement in BOLD BLUE, "I hope you have the decency and honor to at least admit that your accusation about me claiming or defining Tuck being no. 1 was flat out incorrect."</p>
<p>Again, I am resorting to basic first grade arithmetics. You are quite correct in saying that Tuck isn't #1. It is actually #2 according to your formula. Tuck has the second highest average ranking if you look at the 6 rankings combined. That's your creation mind you...you are the one who thinks we shouldn't be cherry picking. </p>
<p>The Economist:
Wharton #12 (#17 in the World)
Harvard #5 (#7 in the World)
Tuck is #1 (#2 in the World)</p>
<p>Forbes
Wharton is #2
Harvard is #7
Tuck is #1</p>
<p>WSJ
Wharton is #7
Harvard is #14
Tuck is #2</p>
<p>FT
Wharton is #1
Harvard is #4
Tuck is #7 (#9 in the World)</p>
<p>USNWR
Wharton is #3
Harvard is #1
Tuck is #9</p>
<p>BW
Wharton is #2
Harvard is #4
Tuck is #11</p>
<p>Average ranking for Wharton: 4.5
Average ranking for Tuck: 5.2
Average ranking for Harvard: 5.8</p>
<p>And the_prestige, attemtping to discredit me won't work. I do not discredit you, you should not attempt to dicredit me.</p>
<p>Alex, </p>
<p>You mix and match old data and then convolute them for your own purposes - who uses 5 year old data -- esp. when new data is available? The fact of the matter is, the latest Economist (2005) ranking does not include HBS and Wharton in their survey. This is a good enough reason to exclude them in MBA ranking discussions. But EVEN then, if you wanted to include them, I have already incorporated the latest 2005 rankings in my averages above? Why go back to 2002? There is absolutely no good reason.</p>
<p>I have done a bonafide average ranking in my last post which clearly shows that Tuck is NOT no. 1. The averages simply do not work out that way. Even your selective years ranking CAN'T GET THERE.</p>
<p>SO PLEASE ADMIT THAT TUCK IS NOT NO. 1. You can't force it to get their. Even your tricked up, dumbed down, selective year ranking - CAN'T GET THERE. You, sir, are a flat out liar. UNBELIEVABLE. Otherwise, using consistent data, from consistent years (again why the old data?) PLEASE SHOW US HOW TUCK IS NO. 1?</p>
<p>Let me ask you, WHY DO YOU USE ECONOMIST DATA THAT IS 5 YEARS OLD? Why can't you use the latest data? You do this all of the time - you pick and choose data from the years that suit your argument? </p>
<p>I could do the same thing, but I, as a person OF HONOR and not a flat out dirty liar, have disclosed in my last rankings I used every available latest ranking post -- I use the LATEST DATA POSSIBLE. And please spare all of us your sanctimonious BS about "good sportsmanship" is a virtue where you come from --> your last post shows that you lie, flat-out.</p>
<p>Why make up your own convoluted ranking (making up your own rankings saying Tuck is no. 7 when in reality it is no. 9 and so forth) and mix and match years? to prove what? and even then YOU can't even get Tuck to get to no. 1? Why do you not address 99% of the things I say in my last post? Why do you wholly ignore the average rankings I did which uses the latest rankings?</p>
<p>You don't play fair Alex. You are deceitful. I hope this is plain for everyone to see. There is no reason to use old data when the latest data exists, unless it is to suit your argument.</p>
<p>In short, why are you so short on character?</p>
<p>I can see why you guys are confused. Even though the link says "2002rankings", the article clearly states that it is the 2006 ranking. Click on it and see for yourself.</p>
<p>According to 2006 Rankings of The Economist:
Tuck is #2
Stanford is #3
HBS is #7
Ross is #9
Wharton is #17
Yale is #24</p>
<p>I stand corrected - I did not click on the link. I will admit when I am wrong.</p>
<p>However, Tuck still doesn't average out to get to No. 1.<a href="even%20when%20he%20makes%20up%20his%20own%20rankings%20like%20changing%20Tuck's%20FT%20ranking%20from%209%20to%207%20and%20changing%20Tuck's%20Economist%20rankings%20as%20well,%20I%20mean%20just%20leave%20all%20the%20rankings%20as%20they%20are,%20if%20you%20stay%20CONSISTENT,%20things%20will%20all%20work%20out%20in%20the%20end">/color</a>. </p>
<p>I don't understand why [color=red]Alex cannot admit when he is wrong.</p>
<p>I admitted I was wrong the_prestige in post 111. Tuck is #2, not #1. So with your system, Tuck is better than HBS, Stanford and Kellogg. Anyway, as I said, it is pointless to continue this debate since we do not agree on the basics. I just cannot support a system that ranks Tuck #2, Yale on par with Ross and Sloan.</p>
<p>I agree that MIT, Yale and Ross are not on par - that we can agree on:</p>
<p>MIT > Yale > Ross</p>
<p>
[quote]
I agree that MIT, Yale and Ross are not on par - that we can agree on:</p>
<p>MIT > Yale > Ross
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Hi the_prestige,</p>
<p>Not to argue with you as I haven't attended any single MBA program. But I'm just curious to know the reason why you strongly favor Yale over Ross for business school. Have you gathered any information from the recruiter?</p>
<p>My current belief is that these MBA rankings are mostly evaluated based on their program instead of the placement of their students on their jobs. But I think the prestige of a business school mainly comes from its access to alumni network and job placement. In this respect, I do hear that Michigan has better reputation than Yale on average.</p>
<p>But regardless of what I've said, I would like to know the very main reason why you think Yale is more prestigious that Ross for business school.</p>
<p>Alexandre and the_prestige, after just reading the entire thread, I find you both quite entertaining. I wish you had live webcams so we could see your reactions after reading each other's posts. Who needs reality TV? ;)</p>
<p>Well, I am a stunningly handsome fellow.</p>
<p>I hope people don't get the wrong idea. I actually like Alexandre a lot. He is intelligent and adds a ton of value to CC. We have our disagreements of course (and they center around similar themes) - and these arguments get heated (they tend to get the best of me at times I'll admit) and borderline personal (which they shouldn't), but I respect him nonetheless.</p>
<p>^^ get the wrong idea, eh? It's hard to believe you after this debate. =p</p>