<p>Businessweek is not very credible anymore in my opinion. Their ugrad ranking is also very questionable with stuff like Brigham Young over Berkeley Haas. </p>
<p>I recommend Us News and Wall Street Journal (which bases its ranking on RECRUITERS opinions) which is really what matters.</p>
<p>Actually, US News doesn't consider recruiters at all. Perhaps you're confusing them with Business Week, which does indeed have recruiters as a component in their rankings. US News is a survey among deans, senior faculty, etc. on a 1-5 scale.</p>
<p>I'm fairly sure Accepted was referring to the WSJ rankings when he said that.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I'm fairly sure Accepted was referring to the WSJ rankings when he said that.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>The WSJ does not do undergraduate business school rankings. They only rank MBAs.</p>
<p>They also put Northwestern well above Harvard, which you seemed to have a problem with in an earlier post:</p>
<p>
[quote]
Anyone who knows the first thing about MBA programs can tell you that's bull. Chicago at #2? Realistically speaking it's not even top four. The premier school for management (i.e. Harvard) at #5? Noting that, it's not surprising to see some oddities (to put it mildly) in the undergrad rankings as well. US may have a simpler methodology but they do a better job of minimizing severe over- or underrankings.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Whoops, that WSJ is outdated. Here's the new one:</p>
<p>I was referring to the MBA rankings of WSJ since that is what Banana was talking about in the post above mine. Also, yes I was referring to the WSJ rankings that used recruiter opinions. I thought that was clear because of the ()...</p>
<p>Businessweek is very reliable folks. It is the WSJ that is not that reliable. bananainpyjamas, you say that the BW MBA rankings are total "bull". Can you tell me which MBA program on the BW ranking is more than 3 or 4 spots out of order? I personally cannot find a single one.</p>
<p>The USNWR MBA rankings are also very reliable. Like the BW ranking, some programs are 3or 4 spots out of order, but that is no tragedy. </p>
<p>The WSJ is whacky! LOL! Listen, I love the fact that they rank Ross #1 or #2, but let us be honest, can HBS and Stanford truly be ranked out of the top 10 as they are almost annualy according to the WSJ? I can see them being ranked #3 or #4 or #5, but never out of the top 5.</p>
<p>I didn't say "total bull." That would imply that I have a problem with the whole thing. I think the BW ranking is bull in the sense that ranking Chicago above Wharton/Stanford/Harvard is just as ridiculous as how the USNWR used to rank Penn and Duke above Stanford and MIT. Granted, you're right in that Chicago's only about 3-4 spots off, but they're important spots. :p </p>
<p>Looking at historical data, things were pretty similar in 2002. And in 2000? Chicago was actually underranked at #10, but Stanford at #11 takes the cake.</p>
<p>EDIT: I will say I think the MBA rankings are better than their undergrad ones though. Suffice to say I have major issues with the methodology of the latter, but that was covered in a rather extensive argument back when they were released. :p</p>
<p>Alex: How are the WSJ MBA rankins unreliable if they use current recruiter opinions? Are the recruiters wrong? I agree with banana that businessweek's MBA rankings may be a bit better than their ugrad though both are questionable. BYU > Berkeley is one of the worst ranking jokes ever.</p>
<p>AcceptedAlready, the WSJ ranks Harvard and Stanford at #14 or #15, that is ridiculous. Everybody knows they are both top 5 MBA programs. </p>
<p>I definitely agree that BW's BBA rankings were out of whack this year. But that is to be expected for a first time out. Expect some major tweaking for the next BW BBA rankings. </p>
<p>I think there are two very reliable ways to rank MBA programs:</p>
<p>1) The average BW MBA historic rankings.</p>
<h1>1 Kellogg</h1>
<h1>2 Wharton</h1>
<h1>3 Harvard BS</h1>
<h1>4 Chicago BS</h1>
<h1>5 Michigan-Ross</h1>
<h1>6 Stanford BS</h1>
<h1>7 Columbia BS</h1>
<h1>8 MIT-Sloan</h1>
<h1>9 Dartmouth-Tuck</h1>
<h1>10 Duke-Fuqua</h1>
<p>2) Averaging the most recent BW MBA rankings with the most recent USNWR rankings:</p>
<h1>1 Harvard BS, Kellogg, Stanford BS and Wharton (average raw ranking, #3)</h1>
<h1>5 Chicago (average raw ranking, 4)</h1>
<h1>6 MIT-Sloan (average raw ranking, #6)</h1>
<h1>7 Columbia BS (average raw ranking, #7)</h1>
<h1>8 Michigan-Ross (average raw ranking, #8)</h1>
<h1>9 Dartmouth-Tuck (average raw ranking, #10)</h1>
<h1>10 Duke-Fuqua (average raw ranking, #11)</h1>
<p>I'd say both come to the same conclusion.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Alex: How are the WSJ MBA rankins unreliable if they use current recruiter opinions? Are the recruiters wrong?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Yes, the recruiters are wrong. This is something that I have been saying numerous times on CC. The purpose of a business school is not to please the recruiters. The purpose is to please the GRADUATES. Remember, what the recruiters want are not necessarily the best graduates. What they want are the best graduates who are also willing to work for the lowest possible pay and who will willingly take any low-end job without complaint. If it was up to the recruiters, they would have all their MBA's working for minimum wage in some podunk location where nobody else wants to work. That would make the recruiters VERY happy, but that obviously wouldn't make the students happy at all. </p>
<p>If the students are getting excellent jobs for high pay, then why should it matter how happy the recruiters are? In fact, the recruiters SHOULD be unhappy, because it means that the recruiters are having to fight to get the graduates to come work for them. They obviously don't want to have to fight, but that's their problem. </p>
<p>The prototypical school to which this applies is HBS. Recruiters have long complained about the fact that HBS grads ask for too much money, that they're too hard to please, that they demand too much power and too many perks, that they won't agree to work for you unless they get the exact job they want, etc. In other words, recruiters tend to get extremely frustrated in trying to recruit HBS grads. But why is that a bad thing? That is actually a GOOD thing, because it basically means that HBS grads know they have lots of options so they make the recruiters go through the wringer. They don't have to take the first thing that comes along. They have the luxury of knowing that they can sit and wait for the exact job that they want. </p>
<p>Stanford too has always had a historical problem with recruiters because recruiters express frustration that they can't get the graduates to leave Silicon Valley. The graduates want to stay there, often times to start companies or otherwise demand to work only in the Bay Area offices of a particular firm, or else they won't work there. But why is that a bad thing? That's a GOOD thing - because students find that they like the Bay Area and want to stay there, and they (more importantly) they know that they have the power to demand to stay there. For example, if you're an MBA grad at San Jose State, you might have to take a job outside the area as it may be the only good job you may get. But a Stanford grad feels more in control, so he may spurn recruiters over and over in order to get the a job in the Bay Area. That tends to tick off recruiters, but so what? </p>
<p>The point is, the incentives of recruiters and students are not aligned, and in many ways, actually oppose each other. Students want to get the highest pay possible, with the most power and the most desirable location. Recruiters want to pay as little as possible and find people who won't complain and won't jump ship and who are willing to work in the worst locations (because they have no other options).</p>
<p>The proof of the pudding is in the eating. Recruiters may get ticked off by HBS and Stanford grads. But they keep coming back anyway. So clearly those schools have to be pretty good. So who cares if the recruiters are ticked off? If the recruiters keep giving the graduates top jobs anyway, that's all that really matters.</p>
<p>
[quote]
1) The average BW MBA historic rankings.</p>
<h1>1 Kellogg</h1>
<h1>2 Wharton</h1>
<h1>3 Harvard BS</h1>
<h1>4 Chicago BS</h1>
<h1>5 Michigan-Ross</h1>
<h1>6 Stanford BS</h1>
<h1>7 Columbia BS</h1>
<h1>8 MIT-Sloan</h1>
<h1>9 Dartmouth-Tuck</h1>
<h1>10 Duke-Fuqua
[/quote]
</h1>
<p>Those are more understandable, but still, what's up with Stanford? :confused:</p>
<p>
[quote]
I definitely agree that BW's BBA rankings were out of whack this year. But that is to be expected for a first time out. Expect some major tweaking for the next BW BBA rankings.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Hope that tweaking includes giving less weight to student surveys.</p>
<p>bananainpyjamas, Stanford's ranking is not that far off if you use the historic ranking. Try to remember that there is virtually no difference between #1 and #10, so whether Stanford is ranked #4 or #8 really doesn't matter. I personally think Stanford is slightly overrated. Its faculty and curriculum aren't as good as Wharton's and Harvard's. I'd say Stanford at best should be #4, maybe #5. Personally if I were to rate the top 20 MBA programs, I would rate them as follows:</p>
<h1>1 Kellogg, HBS and Wharton</h1>
<h1>4 Chicago and Stanford</h1>
<h1>6 Columbia, MIT-Sloan and Michigan-Ross</h1>
<h1>9 Cal-Haas, Dartmouth-Tuck, Duke-Fuqua</h1>
<h1>12 CMU-Tepper, Cornell-Johnson, NYU-Stern, UCLA-Anderson, UVa-Darden and Yale</h1>
<h1>18 Emory, Indiana-Kelley, UNC-Kenan Flagler, UTA-McCombs</h1>
<p>Alex, your undying bias notwithstanding, I think we're around the same era and in my experience in applying, attending and recruiting for b-schools, I never saw Stanford regarded that lowly or Michigan regarded that highly. If I was going to do a tier set similar to your, it would go more like this:</p>
<ol>
<li>Stanford, Harvard, Wharton</li>
<li>Kellogg, Tuck, UChicago, MIT, Columbia</li>
<li>UMichigan, UVA, Duke, Cal/Berkeley</li>
<li>Cornell, Yale, NYU
16+. Don't really know anything about any others.</li>
</ol>
<p>
[quote]
Yes, the recruiters are wrong. This is something that I have been saying numerous times on CC. The purpose of a business school is not to please the recruiters. The purpose is to please the GRADUATES. Remember, what the recruiters want are not necessarily the best graduates. What they want are the best graduates who are also willing to work for the lowest possible pay and who will willingly take any low-end job without complaint. If it was up to the recruiters, they would have all their MBA's working for minimum wage in some podunk location where nobody else wants to work. That would make the recruiters VERY happy, but that obviously wouldn't make the students happy at all.</p>
<p>If the students are getting excellent jobs for high pay, then why should it matter how happy the recruiters are? In fact, the recruiters SHOULD be unhappy, because it means that the recruiters are having to fight to get the graduates to come work for them. They obviously don't want to have to fight, but that's their problem.</p>
<p>The prototypical school to which this applies is HBS. Recruiters have long complained about the fact that HBS grads ask for too much money, that they're too hard to please, that they demand too much power and too many perks, that they won't agree to work for you unless they get the exact job they want, etc. In other words, recruiters tend to get extremely frustrated in trying to recruit HBS grads. But why is that a bad thing? That is actually a GOOD thing, because it basically means that HBS grads know they have lots of options so they make the recruiters go through the wringer. They don't have to take the first thing that comes along. They have the luxury of knowing that they can sit and wait for the exact job that they want.</p>
<p>Stanford too has always had a historical problem with recruiters because recruiters express frustration that they can't get the graduates to leave Silicon Valley. The graduates want to stay there, often times to start companies or otherwise demand to work only in the Bay Area offices of a particular firm, or else they won't work there. But why is that a bad thing? That's a GOOD thing - because students find that they like the Bay Area and want to stay there, and they (more importantly) they know that they have the power to demand to stay there. For example, if you're an MBA grad at San Jose State, you might have to take a job outside the area as it may be the only good job you may get. But a Stanford grad feels more in control, so he may spurn recruiters over and over in order to get the a job in the Bay Area. That tends to tick off recruiters, but so what?</p>
<p>The point is, the incentives of recruiters and students are not aligned, and in many ways, actually oppose each other. Students want to get the highest pay possible, with the most power and the most desirable location. Recruiters want to pay as little as possible and find people who won't complain and won't jump ship and who are willing to work in the worst locations (because they have no other options).</p>
<p>The proof of the pudding is in the eating. Recruiters may get ticked off by HBS and Stanford grads. But they keep coming back anyway. So clearly those schools have to be pretty good. So who cares if the recruiters are ticked off? If the recruiters keep giving the graduates top jobs anyway, that's all that really matters.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>This is an excellent post.</p>
<p>Anyone who wants to get a better understanding of the dynamics between "theoretical" rankings vs. how things play out in the real world, please read and re-read.</p>
<p>As Sakky points out, any b-school ranking that would rank the universally accepted top / elite b-schools (e.g. HBS / Wharton / Stanford) outside the Top 3-5 is simply measuring the WRONG (or irrelevant) things.</p>
<p>For the most part, the top grads from HBS / Wharton / Stanford are the ones in control. They have the best options, they are the most sought after, they have the strongest negotiating leverage, they are the ones in demand. The simplest analogy would be a no. 1 draft pick for the NFL (or NBA, etc.) - even though this draft pick hasn't spent a single day in uniform or a single day "working" - for the most part, they have tremendous leverage - even when dealing with powerful franchises (whether it's the New York Yankees or Goldman Sachs). By contrast, an MBA graduate from a second tier school has virtually NO leverage - it's generally a "take it or leave it" situation with most firms.</p>
<p>"#1 Kellogg, HBS and Wharton</p>
<h1>4 Chicago and Stanford</h1>
<h1>6 Columbia, MIT-Sloan and Michigan-Ross</h1>
<h1>9 Cal-Haas, Dartmouth-Tuck, Duke-Fuqua</h1>
<h1>12 CMU-Tepper, Cornell-Johnson, NYU-Stern, UCLA-Anderson, UVa-Darden and Yale</h1>
<h1>18 Emory, Indiana-Kelley, UNC-Kenan Flagler, UTA-McCombs"</h1>
<p>For MBA schools I'm actually going to agree with this kind of tier. Michigan again is a bit too high but that is something to be expected from a biased Alex :).</p>
<p>Rank/School Peer
assessment
score
(5.0 = highest)
1 University of Pennsylvania (Wharton) 4.8
2 Massachusetts Inst. of Technology (Sloan) 4.6
3 University of CaliforniaBerkeley (Haas) * 4.5
University of MichiganAnn Arbor * 4.5
5 Carnegie Mellon University (PA) 4.2
New York University (Stern) 4.2
U. of North CarolinaChapel Hill (Kenan-Flagler) * 4.2
University of TexasAustin (McCombs) * 4.2
9 Univ. of Southern California (Marshall) 4.1
University of Virginia (McIntire) * 4.1
11 Indiana UniversityBloomington (Kelley) * 4
12 Cornell University (NY) 3.9
Purdue Univ.West Lafayette (Krannert) (IN)* 3.9
U. of IllinoisUrbana-Champaign * 3.9
Univ. of MinnesotaTwin Cities (Carlson) * 3.9
Univ. of WisconsinMadison * 3.9
Washington University in St. Louis (Olin) 3.9
18 Emory University (Goizueta) (GA) 3.8
Ohio State UniversityColumbus (Fisher) * 3.8
Pennsylvania State U.University Park (Smeal) * 3.8
University of Arizona (Eller) * 3.8
22 Michigan State University (Broad) * 3.7
Univ. of MarylandCollege Park (Smith) * 3.7
University of Notre Dame (IN) 3.7
University of Washington * 3.7
26 Arizona State University (Carey) * 3.6
Babson College (MA) 3.6
Georgetown University (McDonough) (DC) 3.6
University of Florida (Warrington) * 3.6
30 Boston College (Carroll) 3.5
Case Western Reserve Univ. (Weatherhead) (OH) 3.5
Texas A&M Univ.College Station (Mays) * 3.5
University of Georgia (Terry) * 3.5
Wake Forest University (Calloway) (NC) 3.5
35 Brigham Young Univ.Provo (Marriott) (UT) 3.4
Georgia Institute of Technology * 3.4
Southern Methodist University (Cox) (TX) 3.4
University of ColoradoBoulder * 3.4
University of Iowa (Tippie) * 3.4
40 Boston University 3.3
Syracuse University (Whitman) (NY) 3.3
Tulane University (Freeman) (LA) 3.3
University of Arkansas (Walton) * 3.3
University of Pittsburgh * 3.3
Univ. of South CarolinaColumbia (Moore) * 3.3
Virginia Tech (Pamplin) * 3.3
47 Bentley College (MA) 3.2
College of William and Mary (VA)* 3.2
CUNYBaruch College (Zicklin) * 3.2
Florida State University * 3.2
George Washington University (DC) 3.2
Georgia State University (Robinson) * 3.2
Miami UniversityOxford (Farmer) (OH)* 3.2
Univ. of MissouriColumbia * 3.2
University of Oklahoma (Price) * 3.2
University of Tennessee * 3.2
57 Auburn University (AL)* 3.1
Rensselaer Polytechnic Inst. (Lally) (NY) 3.1
Santa Clara University (Leavey) (CA) 3.1
University of Alabama (Culverhouse) * 3.1
University of Kansas * 3.1
University of Kentucky (Gatton) * 3.1
Univ. of NebraskaLincoln * 3.1
University of Oregon (Lundquist) * 3.1
University of Utah (Eccles) * 3.1
66 Baylor University (Hankamer) (TX) 3
DePaul University (IL) 3
Louisiana State U.Baton Rouge (Ourso) * 3
North Carolina State U.Raleigh * 3
Northeastern University (MA) 3
Pepperdine University (Graziadio) (CA) 3
Rochester Inst. of Technology (NY) 3
United States Air Force Acad. (CO)* 3
University of Connecticut * 3
University of IllinoisChicago * 3
Univ. of MassachusettsAmherst (Isenberg) * 3
77 Clemson University (SC)* 2.9
Iowa State University * 2.9
RutgersNew Brunswick (NJ)* 2.9
San Diego State University * 2.9
Temple University (Fox) (PA)* 2.9
University at BuffaloSUNY * 2.9
Univ. of CaliforniaRiverside * 2.9
University of Denver (Daniels) 2.9
University of Miami (FL) 2.9
University of Richmond (Robins) (VA) 2.9
87 American University (Kogod) (DC) 2.8
Colorado State University * 2.8
Fordham University (NY) 2.8
Lehigh University (PA) 2.8
Loyola University Chicago 2.8
Marquette University (WI) 2.8
Oklahoma State University * 2.8
St. Louis University 2.8
Texas Christian University (Neeley) 2.8
Texas Tech University (Rawls) * 2.8
University of AlabamaBirmingham * 2.8
University of Delaware * 2.8
University of Louisville (KY)* 2.8
University of Mississippi * 2.8
U. of North CarolinaCharlotte (Belk) * 2.8
University of San Diego 2.8
University of TexasDallas * 2.8
Villanova University (PA) 2.8
Washington State University * 2.8
106 George Mason University (VA)* 2.7
James Madison University (VA)* 2.7
Kansas State University * 2.7
Loyola Marymount University (CA) 2.7
University of Cincinnati * 2.7
University of Houston (Bauer) * 2.7
University of TexasArlington * 2.7
Univ. of WisconsinMilwaukee * 2.7
Virginia Commonwealth University * 2.7
Washington and Lee University (VA) 2.7
116 Ball State University (IN)* 2.6
California State U.Los Angeles * 2.6
Creighton University (NE) 2.6
Drexel University (LeBow) (PA) 2.6
Hofstra University (Zarb) (NY) 2.6
Northern Illinois University * 2.6
Ohio University * 2.6
Oregon State University * 2.6
Pace University (Lubin) (NY) 2.6
RutgersNewark (NJ)* 2.6
San Jose State University (CA)* 2.6
Seton Hall University (Stillman) (NJ) 2.6
Southern Illinois U.Carbondale * 2.6
SUNYAlbany * 2.6
SUNYBinghamton * 2.6
Trinity University (TX) 2.6
University of Central Florida * 2.6
Univ. of Colo.Colorado Springs * 2.6
University of Dayton (OH) 2.6
University of Memphis (Fogelman) * 2.6
Univ. of MissouriKansas City (Bloch) * 2.6
University of New Mexico (Anderson) * 2.6
University of San Francisco (McLaren) 2.6
West Virginia University * 2.6
Wichita State University (Barton) (KS)* 2.6
141 Bowling Green State University (OH)* 2.5
Cal PolySan Luis Obispo * 2.5
Florida International University * 2.5
Gonzaga University (WA) 2.5
John Carroll University (OH) 2.5
Kennesaw State University (Coles) (GA)* 2.5
Kent State University (OH)* 2.5
Loyola College in Maryland (Sellinger) 2.5
Loyola University New Orleans (Butt) 2.5
Mississippi State University * 2.5
RutgersCamden (NJ)* 2.5
Seattle University (Albers) 2.5
St. Joseph's University (Haub) (PA) 2.5
University of AlabamaHuntsville * 2.5
University of ColoradoDenver and Health Sciences Center * 2.5
University of Idaho * 2.5
Univ. of MissouriSt. Louis * 2.5
University of NebraskaOmaha * 2.5
University of NevadaLas Vegas * 2.5
University of New Hampshire (Whittemore) * 2.5
U. of North CarolinaGreensboro (Bryan) * 2.5
University of North Texas * 2.5
University of Rhode Island * 2.5
University of South Florida * 2.5
University of Tulsa (OK) 2.5
Xavier University (Williams) (OH)</p>
<p>
[quote]
"#1 Kellogg, HBS and Wharton</p>
<h1>4 Chicago and Stanford</h1>
<p>
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I don't agree that Kellogg is better than Stanford. Stanford's yield is significantly higher, its outgoing salary is also significantly higher, and it is probably the only school that gives HBS serious competition. HBS administrators have stated in Q&A sessions that the one school that challenges them the most for cross-admits is Stanford. I believe HBS still holds the cross-admit edge over Stanford, but it is a smaller edge than they hold over every other B-school, for which the lead is fairly decisive. By the same token, I believe Stanford administrators have also said that they consider their strongest competition to come from HBS. It's like Pete Sampras vs. Andre Agassi in the late 90's, when each considered the other to be his most feared and respected rival. </p>
<p>The point is, Kellogg does not seem to enter this rivalry. The most telling statistic to me is the yield rate. Kellogg only yields 55-65% of its admittees, when Harvard yields 87-90% and Stanford yields 78%. If Kellogg really were that good, you would expect Kellogg to yield more of its admittees. </p>
<p>I think some people here have gone nuts over ranking. I mean, the schools you are arguing are all great schools and no one can really say that it’s better than the other. I'm applying to business school (Haas, Chicago, Stanford, MIT-Sloan among others) and have had the chance to interview some of the admissions officials of some of the schools you're arguing about but even them could not really say they are the best or they are number one. I’m dropping off Wharton and Dartmouth because I didn’t like schools. It’s just a personal reason. </p>
<p>Kellogg, HBS, Wharton, Chicago, Stanford, Columbia, MIT-Sloan, Michigan-Ross, Cal-Haas, Dartmouth-Tuck, Duke-Fuqua, Cornell-Johnson, NYU-Stern, UCLA-Anderson, UVa-Darden and Yale = they all great schools. Please leave like that.</p>
<p>FWIW, I do not recall feeling that any prospective MBA hire from any school had any leverage over us whatsoever, at the two firms I worked at where I was part of the hiring process (investment bank & a trading firm). Most of the people we interviewed did not get offers.</p>