<p>1 Dartmouth College (Tuck)
2 University of Michigan (Ross)
3 Carnegie Mellon University (Tepper)
4 Northwestern University (Kellogg)
5 Yale University
6 University of Pennsylvania (Wharton)
7 University of California, Berkeley (Haas)
8 Columbia University
9 University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill (Kenan-Flagler)
10 University of Southern California (Marshall)
11 University of Virginia (Darden)
12 Massachusetts Institute of Technology (Sloan)
13 University of Chicago
14 Harvard University
15 Stanford University
16 New York University (Stern)
17 Duke University (Fuqua)
18 Cornell University (S.C. Johnson)
19 University of California, Los Angeles</p>
<p>This list is of course far more biased than any other, because it is a poll from recruiters, who tend to dislike schools like Harvard, Sloan, and Wharton because of recruiting difficulty.</p>
<p>Dartmouth #1 in Forbes also...hmmm.</p>
<p>Forbes August 2005</p>
<p>Forbes ranked Tuck #1 in the magazine's biennial ranking of MBA programs in the U.S. and abroad. The survey compared 111 schools according to the return on investment students can expect from attending their MBA programs.</p>
<p>
[quote]
This list is of course far more biased than any other, because it is a poll from recruiters, who tend to dislike schools like Harvard, Sloan, and Wharton because of recruiting difficulty.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>3,267 recruiters are biased against Harvard, Sloan, and Wharton?</p>
<p>is this a joke, UPenn wharton at #7, Chicago at #13, Yale at 5, GIVE ME A BREAK PPL. and dartmouth is not a top 5 business school, top 10.</p>
<p>These rankings are whacked.</p>
<p>is this a joke</p>
<p>These rankings are whacked.</p>
<p>Interesting and poignant analysis fellas. You two have it all over the likes of Forbes and the Wall Street Journal lol</p>
<p>USNews and Business Week seem to be around the same par on the rankings. These rankings are way different.</p>
<p>USNews isnt that a Mort Zuckerman rag? Isnt he a Wharton grad, 1961? I wonder </p>
<p>Penn #4 in USNews? My, my.</p>
<p>Ill bet cha' Wharton B-school is well represented where it counts too.</p>
<p>Probably a coincidence.</p>
<p>Ross will get the National crown back next year,
and
Yes, We are going to win the Rose Bowl also.</p>
<p>GO BLUE!</p>
<p>Not after that ND performance. :D</p>
<p>These rankings are trash. Bball has it right, Tuck is a top 10-12, not close to #1. Any ranking that has Harvard out of the top 5 has little credibility with me.</p>
<p>I like that WSJ went straight to the recruiters to decide what schools they felt were best. Your end product (the students) should be reflective of your school and it's the recruiter that makes that judgment. They know if kids from a certain school lack operational skills or if another school produces kids with great finance skills but lack teamwork or leadership.</p>
<p>Rankings have conditioned us to associate quality of student with ranking. We associate the best in business with Harvard or Wharton, but that isn't always the case. Dartmouth MBA students are hardly any different in potential or capacity as Harvard/Wharton students. It doesn't surprise me that Tuck is #1, they probably have a great program that trains their students to be well rounded. </p>
<p>"According to the Journal, respondents to the survey "repeatedly praised Tuck graduates for their character, teamwork, and strong skills in finance and consulting." On the academic front, recruiters named Tuck among the top schools in strategy, marketing, and operations management. Tuck was also recognized for excellence in recruiting ethical graduates."</p>
<p>Great to see basis behind the ranking. It's a definite breath of fresh air.</p>
<p>
[quote]
These rankings are trash. Bball has it right, Tuck is a top 10-12, not close to #1. Any ranking that has Harvard out of the top 5 has little credibility with me.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Please elaborate. I really want to see the logic behind why you think Tuck is not a top 10 school and why this ranking is trash. You know very well that you have no basis for your remarks. Unless you happen to be a recruiter at a major firm (then I apologize), I highly doubt you have enough exposure (or any) to top 10 b-school grads to conclusively say that Tuck grads are inferior and don't belong.</p>
<p>"The newer rankings, The Financial Times, Forbes, and the Wall Street Journal, are essentially specialty rankings which weight specifically chosen criteria very heavily to produce different results. The end results have some similarities with US News and BusinessWeek, but also produce many curious outcomes for individual schools and are more useful for the data they collect than the rankings they produce. A summary of the methodology issues with these rankings:"</p>
<p>Wall Street Journal - Based entirely on recruiter satisfaction </p>
<p>**Recruiters who tend to be unsuccessful at attracting interest from students at top schools tend to give those schools poor marks <a href="inversely%20correlates%20program%20quality%20and%20graduate%20choices">/b</a>"</p>
<p>It also explains why the Forbes ranking is bogus: Unreliable and incomplete data: self-reporting bias; penalizes schools with high entering salaries (inversely correlates program quality and applicant salary)</p>
<p>OH MY GOD GUYS WHO CARES. Dartmouth's number 1, Harvard's number 14? All my preconcieved notions of "prestige" are coming tumbling down around my ears! I'm worked my whole life so that I could go to Harvard Business School--you better not tell me I'm not gonna be number 1! </p>
<p>Ranked 14th out of hundreds, even thousands, of business schools? Harvard's really slacking off. It better pick it up.</p>
<p>That was all sarcasm, by the way.</p>
<p>GRR WHERE IS UT-AUSTIN McCOMBS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!</p>
<p>Fortunately (or unfortunately), 'recruiters' are not the hiring managers
who make top hiring decisions or key promotion decisions :-)</p>
<ul>
<li>future head honcho</li>
</ul>
<p>
[quote]
"The newer rankings, The Financial Times, Forbes, and the Wall Street Journal, are essentially specialty rankings which weight specifically chosen criteria very heavily to produce different results. The end results have some similarities with US News and BusinessWeek, but also produce many curious outcomes for individual schools and are more useful for the data they collect than the rankings they produce. A summary of the methodology issues with these rankings:"</p>
<p>Wall Street Journal - Based entirely on recruiter satisfaction</p>
<p>Recruiters who tend to be unsuccessful at attracting interest from students at top schools tend to give those schools poor marks (inversely correlates program quality and graduate choices)"</p>
[/quote]
</a></p>
<p>First off, that website was put together as a project by business school graduates (most likely from Harvard, Wharton, or Sloan) so I question the validity and secondly, their logic is very weak - at least in regards to WSJ. If you look at it statistically, you're assuming that a very large proportion of the 3,267 recruiters essentially "slammed" or had negative feelings against Wharton, Harvard, and Sloan. For Harvard to be #14 that means either:</p>
<p>a) A large proportion of recruiters felt the students weren't as great as advertised and thus ranked them outside of the top 10. </p>
<p>b) A large proportion of the recruiters had bitter feelings towards Harvard and undeservedly ranked them outside of the top 10 on purpose. </p>
<p>I may be giving the benefit of the doubt here, but I think that the likelihood of A happening is far greater than B. I can't imagine how these Harvard graduates acted to irk these recruiters to a point where they marked them down on purpose. These are professionals we are talking about here, not high school teenagers.</p>
<p>............edit</p>