<p>Columbia is #8 and thats quite respectable--give it a rest.
When you say things like the following:
These rankings are trash,
it makes you sound like a pouting homer.</p>
<p>Something like saying:</p>
<p>Dartmouth undergrad is the greatest (because thats where I went undergrad, ha-ha), but both the Wall Street Journal and Forbes are trash when ranking Dartmouth Tuck #1 and Columbia #8 (after-all, Im at Columbias b-school now, not Dartmouth Tuck, oy vey). </p>
<p>I must agree with Slipper on this occasion. I personally love Michigan (shocking) and the WSJ seems to love Michigan too! hehe But ranking Michigan #1 or #2 as an MBA program is suspecious at best. Same goes for Tuck. Ross and Tuck are definitely excellent programs, top 10 to be sure (possibly even top 5), but they are not top 3. </p>
<p>Wharton, Kellog and HBS are the top 3 and should all be ranked among the top 5. </p>
<p>Stanford, MIT, Chicago, Columbia, Michigan and Dartmouth come next in no particular order.</p>
<p>
[quote]
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:
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I think its logic is pretty clear. First of all, there're 3267 recruiters, but how many graduates from Harvard, Sloan, Stanford or Wharton? The more prestigeous your school, the more people will try to get you, and thus the more people you'll end up turning down and "****ing off".</p>
<p>
[quote]
I think its logic is pretty clear. First of all, there're 3267 recruiters, but how many graduates from Harvard, Sloan, Stanford or Wharton? The more prestigeous your school, the more people will try to get you, and thus the more people you'll end up turning down and "****ing off".
[/quote]
</p>
<p>You make it sound so black and white; either the recruiter gets the kid or ends up being *<strong><em>ed. You and I know that it's far from the case. A recruiter from Merrill Lynch is not going to be *</em></strong>ed off to the point that he marks the school down because a Harvard MBA chose elsewhere. There are tons of viable candidates from other schools. I still think the logic is weak.</p>
<p>UT-McCombs has dropped to the regional list- due to perceived uneven quality of the students. I agree that this can be a problem with some of the strong programs at big state U's. The top of the pile is great- but the bottom isn't so hot.</p>
<p>I'm sure the WSJ ranking is correct for what it is, in that on a recruiter satisfaction standpoint, places like HBS, MITSloan, and Stanford do rank lower than do places like Dartmouth or Michigan. </p>
<p>But the question is, would that change your in where you would go. For example, how many people would honestly turn down HBS to go to Tuck?</p>
<p>Actually Sakky, what corporate recruiters thik would definitely influence where I would go for my MBA. That is not to say it is my first criterion, but it is certainly my second (the first being fit). I personally do not care what other students applying to Business school think since applicants are far more ignorant and far less influencial than corporate recruiters. </p>
<p>This said, I believe the WSJ is not reliable. Michigan and Tuck belong anywhere between #4 and #10...but not in the top 3.</p>
<p>However, as has been pointed out before, corporate recruiters are themselves a skewed bunch. They give students a lowball offer, they get laughed at, and they get ticked, so they give the school a low ranking. </p>
<p>I think a far more reliable indicator is not whether the recruiters are satisfied, but whether they keep coming back. HBS grads are well known for arrogance and for ticking off recruiters, and recruiters have said this numerous times. But so what? They keep going back there to recruit, and HBS grads usually garner, on average, one of the top, if not THE top compensation packages of all the B-schools. Furthermore, they tend to have one of the lowest unemployment rates. The recruiters can be ticked off at HBS grads as much as they want, but the fact that they keep coming back for more indicates that obviously something good is happening.</p>
<p>The point is, the purpose of a B-school is not to make corporate recruiters happy. I'm sure that recruiters would love it if a B-school were to convince all their newly minted elite MBA's to take jobs for 50k a year. The goal of a B-school is to get good jobs for their students, and as long as that goal is accomplished, then it doesn't matter whether the recruiters enjoy the place or not. </p>
<p>Actions speak louder than words. If the recruiters REALLY hated HBS, they wouldn't keep coming back and they wouldn't be offering the salaries that they do.</p>
<p>Sakky we finally agree on something! I don't want an MBA anyway, but if I did... This ranking would NEVER make me consider going to Tuck over HBS. Plus Dartmouth is in NH and I have no desire for that.</p>
<p>Tuck is a great school with some very legitimate strengths, but it isn;t the number one school (I would have said a similar comment if Columbia were #1). A great school, sure, but Stanford, Wharton, and HBS are the top three. Any ranking that has had stanford as low as #44 just has no credibility in my book.</p>
<p>Ivy_Grad, I don't believe that Stanford is in the same league as HBS and Wharton...Kellogg, on the other hand, is. And The European 3 are also not in the same league as HBS and Wharton. In my opinion:</p>
<p>GROUP I
Harvard Business School
Northwestern University (Kellogg)
University of Pensylvania (Wharton)</p>
<p>GROUP II
Columbia Business School
INSEAD
Massachusetts Institute of Technology (Sloan)
Stanford Buisness School
University of Chicago Business School
University of Michigan-Ann Arbor (Ross)</p>
<p>GROUP III
Carnegie Mellon University (Tepper)
Cornell University (Johnson)
Dartmouth College (Amos Tuck)
Duke University (Fuqua)
IMD
London Business School
New York University (Stern)
University of California-Berkeley (Haas)
University of California-Los Angeles (Anderson)
University of Virginia (Darden)</p>
<p>Many on this forum confuse popularity with actual quality. They say that since most people, given the choice between attending program X or program Y, would chose program X, therefore program X must be better than program Y.</p>
<p>Alexandre, I can't say I disagree with most of your tiered rankings (though I disagree w/you re: Northwestern). I also think that INSEAD and Stanford belong in Group I:</p>
<p>GROUP I
Harvard Business School
University of Pensylvania (Wharton)
Stanford Graduate School of Business
INSEAD</p>
<p>GROUP II
Columbia Business School
IMD
Northwestern University (Kellogg)
Massachusetts Institute of Technology (Sloan)
University of Chicago Business School
University of Michigan-Ann Arbor (Ross)</p>
<p>GROUP III
Carnegie Mellon University (Tepper)
Cornell University (Johnson)
Dartmouth College (Amos Tuck)
Duke University (Fuqua)
London Business School
New York University (Stern)
University of California-Berkeley (Haas)
University of California-Los Angeles (Anderson)
University of Virginia (Darden)</p>