<p>Why is the rankings for undergrad business schools so different between Business Week and US News and World Reports?</p>
<p>For Example, Business Week ranks MIT Sloan School of Management #9 while USNews ranks Sloan #2 !?!</p>
<p>Why the large disparity?</p>
<p>Undergrad</a> - BSchools</p>
<p>Best</a> Undergraduate Business Programs - Best Colleges - Education - US News and World Report</p>
<p>I always wondered that. I generally go by the Businessweek Rankings because their numbers seem to have a more comprehensive basis, whereas U.S. News's numbers just sort of appear out of thin air. Plus, I have had a subscription to U.S. News for several years, and I believe 2007 or 2008 was the first year they had business rankings...BusinessWeek has been ranking for quite longer.</p>
<p>I go along with businessweek too, for the same reason as kittastic_neko. Unfortunately, us news ranks my school higher.</p>
<p>i also go by businessweek but the USNEWS rankings appear to the "general" rankings that dont really fluctuate yearly
ex: mit at 2 in USNEWS seems more accurate than 9</p>
<p>im still confused betwn them!!! dont knw which one to believe!!!</p>
<p>Along with the reasons mentioned, Businessweek is named as such because it specifically focuses on business related news. USNews seems more generalized.</p>
<p>While business week seems like it should be more accurate, I feel that US News goes along more with conventional wizdom. Haas and Sloan out of the top 5 is tough to accept for me, yet thats how Business week has it.</p>
<p>Yeah, I would think Sloan to be higher but you have to remember, people at Berkeley can't join Haas until their junior year in college. I'm not sure how one can be a top 5 program for undergrad that only lets students participate for 2 of the 4 years. Now, I really like Haas and I think it's an awesome business school. Top 5 is a little bit of a stretch, though.</p>
<p>-_-</p>
<p>You know why there's such a large "disparity" between the lists? Because that's what happens when two different entities each make their own list. If you and I each made a list of what we thought to be "the best bands", would you be "dumbfounded" if the lists were different?</p>
<p>Well, given that all these schools have detailed numerical statistics, I would think the disparity would be less than what I see.</p>
<p>IMO, brand name is the driving force behind the "quality" of a business school. Wharton is just known as the number one undergrad business school by most people, and I doubt any of them reference USNWR or Business Week when making that claim. </p>
<p>If you actually look at the ranking criteria, Business Week's seems a bit out there. They use student surveys and recruiter surveys to do the ranking. The recruiter survey had a 38% response rate, and I'm pretty sure the student survey had a lower one. They also use SAT scores of students, though I doubt many of these schools release individual SAT data of business students. I know Wharton does not and doubt that the 2 or 3 year programs even have SAT scores for their students. It also doesn't state anything about the ACT, which could hurt midwest schools. Another flaw is the MBA feeder ranking, which doesn't take into account the fact that grads from some business programs do not go to a top 35 MBA program because they do not need an MBA to further their career or they enter another field like law or academia and go to a top 35 school in the new field. </p>
<p>USNWR's numbers might seem to come from nowhere, but I'd say they match perceptions of business people a lot better in terms of prestige.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Yeah, I would think Sloan to be higher but you have to remember, people at Berkeley can't join Haas until their junior year in college. I'm not sure how one can be a top 5 program for undergrad that only lets students participate for 2 of the 4 years. Now, I really like Haas and I think it's an awesome business school. Top 5 is a little bit of a stretch, though.
[/quote]
UVA is ranked #2 but only has two years in its program. Emory and BYU also have 2 year programs yet sit in the top 10 while Haas is out. I am pretty sure though that Haas is considered a stronger business school than those two in many business circles.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Well, given that all these schools have detailed numerical statistics, I would think the disparity would be less than what I see.
[/quote]
Yes, because there's only <em>one</em> way to decide on the relative importance of different numerical statistics. -_-</p>
<p>First off, I wouldn't put too much stock into undergraduate rankings. There are obviously some schools that are heads and shoulders above the rest in terms of the opportunities they provide, but overall it's not that big of a deal. </p>
<p>As for businessweek, I would just like to note that their MBA rankings are a complete joke. It's a pretty clear consensus what the top 3 MBA programs are, those being Harvard (they have at #2), Stanford (they have at #6), and Wharton (they have at #4). I</p>
<p>would look at other information too, such as starting salaries which can give a more clear picture. I used businessweek's own website to sort MBA programs by starting salary. I did not edit the list in any way and didn't pick and choose which schools should go wear. By doing a simple sort, my list, while not perfect, was far better than that of BW (at least from a student's perspective).</p>
<p>you guys have my rolling on the floor laughing....so much speculation and concern over a couple of magazine rankings....eessh....get some sun, or better yet, a girlfriend.</p>
<p>**But when you take a look at starting salary you also
have to take into account the city that the school is
located in. </p>
<p>Cities like NYC and Los Angeles offer their students a
higher starting pay because they have a higher cost of
living there. So purely looking at starting salary isn't
very helpful.</p>
<p>Of the individual breakdowns, I think recruitment is by
far the biggest factor (if you don't have your current
employer paying for your MBA that is).</p>
<p>Just my .02**</p>
<p>To be honest, Haoleboy is absolutely right. I thought rankings were to just give you a general idea of how the schools are...not to over analyze them and debate about which school should get which ranking (LOL)...sounds ridiculous.</p>
<p>Big deal...MIT is #2 instead of #9 oooooooo!</p>
<p>I'll agree that it's foolish to over analyze rankings. However, there are people who use rankings as a large factor to decide what school they go to. Rankings need to be taken with a grain of salt, and if you look at how Business Week does their rankings, they should be taken with a huge grain of salt.</p>
<p>
[quote]
collegeapp09</p>
<p>Yeah, I would think Sloan to be higher but you have to remember, people at Berkeley can't join Haas until their junior year in college. I'm not sure how one can be a top 5 program for undergrad that only lets students participate for 2 of the 4 years. Now, I really like Haas and I think it's an awesome business school. Top 5 is a little bit of a stretch, though.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>The Haas undergrad business program, from what I've known, is intentionally packaged for 2 years. The director of the undergrad program presented it as a mini-MBA or purely professional in essence and approach, that's why they have to be separated from the rest of the undergrad, unless they cross-enroll or work with projects with other departments. </p>
<p>I think this is the real deal, as they've offered the program only to the most prepared students to handle such rigorous but highly rewarding program. It doesn't have to take someone four long years to study business.</p>
<p>Despite that, I wouldn't rank Haas number one as that spot is clearly reserved for Wharton. But I would rank Haas second, and Sloan, Ross, Stern and McIntire as 3rd, 4th, 5th and 6th spots respectively.</p>