<p><a href="http://www.businessweek.com/bschools/04/%5B/url%5D">http://www.businessweek.com/bschools/04/</a></p>
<p>Looks like the midwest king's Northwestern and Chicago own. I usual look at BW more then USnews because I think its a better source.</p>
<p>Don't forget Michigan at #6</p>
<p>Definitely do not forget Michigan! Hehe. Historically, according to BW, Northwestern is #1, Chicago is #4 and Michigan is #5. And don't forget Canegie Mellon, Indiana (Kelley), Michigan State (Broad), Notre Dame, Ohio State (Fisher), Penn State (Smeal), Purdue and Washington U. The Midwest certainly does well. At least 10 of the top 30 MBA programs are Midwestwern.</p>
<p>I like BusinessWeek slighty better than the USNWR, but I think the best result is when you combine the two...historically. If you do that, you get a 3-way tie for #1 between Harvard, Kellogg and Wharton, a two way tie for #4 between Chicago and Stanford and a three-way tie for #6 between Columbia, Michigan and MIT. Dartmouth and Duke round up the top 10. UVA, Cornell and UC-Berkeley over around #10.</p>
<p>Personally, I think that BW loses a lot of credibility with some of the rankings it publishes, particularly in how it measures HBS. I mean, come on, seriously, HBS is not the #5 business-school in the country. According to BW, Chicago is ranked #2, but I think we would all have to concede that only a minority of people are going to turn down HBS for Chicago. Don't get me wrong - Chicago is a fine school. But to say that it really is 3 places higher than HBS? I think that's a stretch. I think it's safe to say that there are more people at Chicago who would rather be going to HBS, but didn't get in, than there are people at HBS who would rather be going to Chicago, but didn't get in. </p>
<p>I would also point to the example of Northwestern-Kellogg. Again, don't get me wrong, Kellogg is a great business school. But as you may have noticed from BW's historical rankings, Kellogg has beaten both HBS and Stanford in each and every single year since there has been a ranking. Kellogg is good, but I don't think it's THAT good, to the extent that it deserves a complete 9-in-a-row sweep over both HBS and Stanford. Kellogg is a good school and you could make a case that maybe Kellogg might beat Stanford and HBS in certain years, but to say that it has beaten both of those schools in every single ranking since the ranking existed - I think that's pushing it. Again, I would point out that there are probably more students at Kellogg who would rather be at HBS or Stanford than there are students at HBS or Stanford who would rather be at Kellogg. At best, you could say that the numbers are equal. But certainly, it's not like Kellogg is really so much better than HBS and Stanford as to warrant a complete sweep.</p>
<p>Sakky, you are actually wrong in your assumption. I have known several of Kellogg MBAs, including 2 cousins. All of them turned Harvard and/or Stanford down in favor of Kellogg. ALL OF THEM. Kellogg is one of the top 3 MBA programs in the nation...Stanford is not. Stanford is on par with Chicago.</p>
<p>And why is it that you have no problem with Harvard and Stanford sweeping Kellogg according to the USNWR but you have an issue with Kellogg sweeping Stanford and Harvard according to BW? </p>
<p>I agree that BW ranks Harvard a little lower than than warranted...but only by a couple of spots, and only this year. Historically, Harvard is #3 according to BW. </p>
<p>USNWR is equally fishy. Ranking Kellogg #5 or #6 is it does is just as fishy as ranking Harvard #5. </p>
<p>I always say that combining the historic averages of the USNWR and BW is the way to go. That way, you get the ranking I have below, which I think are pretty accurate:</p>
<h1>1 Harvard, Kellogg and Wharton</h1>
<h1>4 Chicago and Stanford</h1>
<h1>6 Columbia, MIT and Michigan</h1>
<h1>9 Dartmouth</h1>
<h1>10 Duke</h1>
<p>How am I wrong? Did I say that there are no people who would turn down Harvard or Stanford to go to Kellogg? What I said is that there are not as many as vice versa. </p>
<p>I'll put it to you this way. I probably know 15 or so HBS students or graduates, ALL of which turned down Kellogg. I also know 6 Stanford MBA graduates who ALL turned down Kellogg. What do have to say about that?</p>
<p>I have no problem with Harvard and Stanford sweeping Kellogg in USNews, because I believe that both Harvard and Stanford are better than Kellogg. Again, don't get me wrong, I think Kellogg is a fine school - but I believe that Stanford and Harvard are better. The yield numbers bear this out. The numerical admissions criteria bear this out - Stanford students have a higher incoming GMAT and GPA than do Kellogg students. Stanford has the lowest admissions percentage of all B-schools. Stanford admissions officers consider HBS to be Stanford's true competition, not Kellogg. </p>
<p>But fair enough, you and I can disagree about how good Stanford is. That's not the issue. The issue is that you must concede that there are anomalies in BW. </p>
<p>I would also point out that not only is BW's rating of HBS rather fishy, but the fact that BW's rating are so volatile is also very fishy. Whatever else you might say about USNews, they are more stable than are the ratings of BW. For example, you may dislike Stanford, but what exactly happened in the year 2000 to merit a #11 ranking for them? How exactly is it that Chicago can be ranked #10 in 2000, but then move up 8 spots in 2 years to become #2 in 2002? Tuck has been ranked anywhere from #3 to #16, and then back to #10 - what happened there? Do you really think that the true rankings really swing that much? </p>
<p>All of this chips away at the credibility of the BW rankings, and hence, overall, I would say that BW is less reliable than USNews. That's not to say that USNews is perfect, as all ratings are flawed, but it seems that BW is more flawed than USNews is. At the very least, I would not say that BW is any better than USNews is. And that's my basic point. I have seen no reason to believe that BW is any more reliable than USNews, and much reason to think that it is less reliable.</p>
<p>Sakky, I disagree with both BW and USNWR some of the times. Both aim to sell magazines above all else, so they sometimes like to stir things up. I said it many times before, I will say it again, taken together and historically, you get a better, more reliable rating. BW that you seem tho say is inconsistant has, histocially speaking, ranked Kellogg and Wharton at #1, Harvard at #3, Chicago at #4, Michigan at #5, Stanford at #6, Columbia at #7, MIT at #8, Dartmouth at #9 and Duke at #10. USNWR has ranked Harvard and Stanford #1, MIT #3, Wharton #4, Kellogg #5, Columbia #6, Columbia #7, Dartmouth #8, Michigan #9 and Duke #10. Personally, I hardly see a difference. One cannot even make an arguement for how #1 is better than #10 and since both publications have the exact same top 10, I would say they are pretty even. I don't know what's wrong with having KEllogg and Wharton at #1 rather than Harvard and Stanford. </p>
<p>The reason I like BW better is because it really tells you what corporate America thinks. Much more so that the USNWR. Stanford has some talented students, as talented as Harvard, Wharton and Kellogg students. But its faculty is roughly 2-3 times smaller than the latter 3. With the exception of Technology, Stanford really isn't amazing at any Business field. Kellogg rules in Marketing and General Management/Strategy. Wharton rules in Finance. Harvard rules in General Management. When you ask the top recruiters to name you their top hunting grounds, most of the time, you will here Harvard, Kellogg and Wharton.</p>
<p>Well, again, this is where we disagree. You say that BW says what corporate America thinks? Really? So corporate America really thinks that HBS is #5? In fact, your own quote says that Harvard is a top hunting ground for top recruiters, yet there is HBS at #5. How exactly does that jive with your assertion that BW says what corporate America thinks? And again, Tuck was ranked as high as #3 (in '88) and #16 (in the year 2000), so are you saying that in 1988, corporate America really thought that Tuck was the #3 business school in the country, but in the year 2000, corporate America considered Tuck to really be #16? If not, then tell me again how you think that BW tells you what corporate America really thinks? Perhaps you'd like to modify your statement?</p>
<p>And let's talk about your assertion that Stanford isn't amazing at any business field save Technology, and about how Kellogg rules in General management. Well, since you like BW so much, let's look at BW's own specialty rankings. Unfortunately, I don't have access to the 2004 or 2002 BW specialty rankings. But I have found the ones from 1988-2000. According to BW, your favorite ranking, Stanford actually beats Kellogg in General Management in 2 out of the 6 years (in 1996 and 1990) that the BW rankings were out. Yes, that's right, in General Management. So how exactly does that jive with your assertion that Stanford is not good at General Management? If Stanford was really not amazing at General Management, then Stanford should never have been able to beat Kellogg in that category ever, right? Yet what do I see here in these historical BW specialty rankings? Hmmm, very interesting. </p>
<p>Remember, you're the one who said that BW tells you what corporate recruiters think. I didn't say that. I'm just following your logic. </p>
<p><a href="http://www.bschool.com/bw-specialty.html%5B/url%5D">http://www.bschool.com/bw-specialty.html</a></p>
<p>And here, again, is the USNews specialty ranking for 2005, in General Management. What do I see here - Stanford is ranked higher than Kellogg in General Management? Hmmm, how's that? I thought you said that Kellogg was a powerhouse in General Management and Stanford isn't amazing in anything except Technology. Yet once again, here's Stanford beating Kellogg in one of Kellogg's supposed core strengths. </p>
<p>And I would also question your comment that Stanford's faculty is small compared to that of HBS, Wharton, and Kellogg. What does that have to do with anything? Sure, Stanford's faculty is small. On the other hand, Stanford's student body is also small - in fact, about a half to a third of the size of HBS, Wharton, and Kellogg. Hence, on a per-capita basis, it's all a wash, especially when you factor in all the part-time/executive MBA students at Kellogg and Wharton (and after all, why shouldn't those part-time/executive-MBA students be counted, for they are taking up teaching resources). In fact, when you factor those students in, Kellogg literally has almost 4 times the total number of MBA students as Stanford does - so it ought to have 4 times the faculty size. </p>
<p>I completely fail to see what sheer size has to do with anything. It's not about the total number of resources you have available, it's about the resources you have available per capita. As an individual student, who cares about whether your school has lots of resources if you have great difficulty in getting access to any of them because they are always being taken up by other students? What you care about is what resources you, as an individual, can get. This is why, from an undergraduate level, I think even you would agree that the Michigan undergraduate program is not as good as, say, Princeton's, even though the total resources available at Michigan may well be larger than that at Princeton, simply because while Michigan has lots of resources, it also has lots and lots of undergraduates trying to access those resources. </p>
<p>In summary, you still have not shown me any reason why I should trust BW any more than USNews. I do not see any compelling evidence that BW is any better than USNews is, and in fact, much evidence that it is not so. USNews is flawed, but BW is at least as equally flawed, and probably more so.</p>
<p>Sakky, I am not trying to convince you of anything. But I want the people who come on this forum to be well informed. I find the USNWR to be as flawed as BW. I never said BW was perfect. But of the two, I tend to prefer BW. If I had the choice, I would combine the historic averages of the two.</p>
<p>I agree that both have flaws. However, my point is that I still have seen no reason to think that BW is less flawed than USNews. Both are flawed, but it seems to me that BW is more flawed. The intense fluctuations of the BW rankings calls it into question - true B-school quality does not fluctuate as much as BW would have you believe. </p>
<p>Combining historic averages is a reasonable thing to do, but if you do so, then you have to combine the historic averages of both BW and USNews, not just BW. I used to have the historic averages of USNews, I will post it once I find it again.</p>
<p>One can certainly point to both having flaws. Which one is more flawed is really up to the individual. Rankings are not an exact science. I would very much like to see the historic rankings of the USNWR. I have a feeling that Harvard and Stanford would be tied for 1, with Harvard probably having the slight edge. Wharton and MIT would be 3 and 4. Northwestern would be 5. Columbia and Chicago would be 6 and 7. Dartmouth would be 8. Michigan and Duke would probably round up the top 10. But when you find the link, share it with us.</p>