<p>Top 10 US MBA Programs</p>
<p>01) Stanford GSB
02) Dartmouth Tuck
03) HBS
04) Chicago Booth
05) UPenn Wharton
06) Columbia
07) Cornell
08) Northwestern Kellogg
09) UVA Darden
10) Yale SOM</p>
<p>**Top Non-US MBA Program<a href="1%20year">/B</a>
01) INSEAD</p>
<p>**Top Non-US MBA Program<a href="2%20year">/B</a>
01) London Business School</p>
<p>interesting to see wharton so low…and dartmouth so high??</p>
<p>what do they base their rankings on?</p>
<p>and while we’re on the topic, which rankings do you all feel are best? forbes? usnews? financial times?</p>
<p>Yeah, Tuck is a bit high, Wharton a bit low. Please refer to the website link as to methodology.</p>
<p>other observations:</p>
<ul>
<li>Yale SOM ranked in the Top 10 (validating a prediction i made a few years back - i recall people telling me i was totally out of my mind for suggesting the possibility that SOM would be considered a Top 10 program)</li>
<li>Cornell / UVA surprisingly strong showing</li>
<li>As mentioned previously, Tuck a bit high, Wharton a bit low and MIT way low (no. 14)</li>
<li>Haas ranked lower than Tuck and Yale (outside the Top 10) - RML, any comments? </li>
</ul>
<p>As for which is “the best” MBA ranking? I’m not sure any ONE ranking is the best. I think when you average out the top ones: USNWR, Businessweek, FT, Economist, Forbes, WSJ, etc. it gives you a general idea of the top programs. Rankings in general (as discussed ad nauseum on this board) can be highly subjective and flawed (e.g. the WSJ ranking uses recruiting as its main criteria and have had Stanford and Harvard ranked outside the Top 10, etc.)</p>
<p>this set of rankings is BS. usnews is the most accurate. the only rankings people even care about are usnews and bweek. ft, eiu, wsj, and forbes have been marginalized by both recruiters and applicants.</p>
<p>No ranking is perfect. A key litmus test for an MBA ranking, however, is if it has HBS / Wharton / Stanford in its Top 5, which it does.</p>
<p>sloan #14 is way off</p>
<p>cornell #7 is also kind of ridiculous</p>
<p>Another worthless ranking.</p>
<p>Hm, these rankings look way off, but still lightyears better than their undergrad rankings.</p>
<p>don’t shoot the messenger.</p>
<p>Few of us on here are qualified to rate faculty quality since we don’t have the background to read their research- I took a couple PhD classes in the operations department of our business school and a PhD finance and econometrics class. </p>
<p>I don’t really respect Management professors and most Marketing profs- I don’t think they do serious, quantitative research. That’s why I’m not a big fan of the HBS case study method and think most of the content at Tuck, Darden, Yale, Kellogg and Stanford GSB is pretty light weight. That said, Stanford has Duffie and Singleton, and NWU has an overlap with their top notch IEMS group.</p>
<p>In terms of the best research articles determined by professional awards (Fellows of the Econometrics Society, INFORMS), I’d say Sloan, Chicago, NYU, Wharton, Columbia and Carnegie Mellon are among the strongest. How this trickles down to MBAs, I’m not sure.</p>
<p>Don’t think anyone was trying to rank the faculty’s research, few in business school care much about that.</p>
<p>It may very well be that Carnegie Mellon has better researchers than say Tuck. But how many people would use that as criteria to attend the former over the latter?</p>
<p>the prestige, nobody take this ranking seriously. </p>
<p>Dartmouth-Tuck isn’t superior to Harvard and Wharton. Chicago isn’t superior to Wharton. Kellogg is definitely a top 4 (top 5 at least) business school for MBA. Cornell, UVa-Darden and Yale aren’t superior to Duke and Berkeley-Haas. </p>
<p>This ranking fails.</p>
<p>actually its yet another ranking that demonstrates that Haas is NOT a top 10 MBA program.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well, let me provide a partial defense. First off, research doesn’t have to be quantitative to be ‘serious’. I am agnostic as to the method. Just because a research paper has numbers and formulas in it doesn’t make it good. One can certainly produce highly serious, yet still qualitative research. It’s difficult to be sure, but still possible. The notion that management research must be quantitative to be serious has, in my opinion, greatly hobbled the ability of management scholars to study relevant topic, for it pushes those scholars to only study those subjects for which you can obtain numbers. </p>
<p>Secondly, trust me, there are numerous highly quantitative researchers in management and marketing at Harvard and the other schools you mentioned. The HBS cases have practically nothing to do with actual research; they are an entirely separate class of publications. </p>
<p>However, I completely agree with you that the connection between management research and MBA education is weak at best - I would take it further to say that the two are orthogonal. Nobody reads management research papers - certainly practitioners don’t - and most of them are not actually actionable.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And how are we going to validate that claim of yours when all your sources are highly questionable? USNews – the bible of business school league table – says Berkeley-Haas is now a top 10 business school. I would rather take USNews’ than the Forbes’ one. I think even the dean of the business school where you went to would easily agree with me.</p>
<p>I think any ranking that doesn’t have HBS and Stanford in the top 3 is already suspect. Personally, I would go Stanford/HBS 1A/1B. The weird thing is that I know more people who have gotten into HBS and denied from Stanford (than vice versa). The reason probably is that HBS has a huge MBA class. </p>
<p>I work in the Corporate Transactions group for a well-known company. We deal with mergers, acquisitions, due diligence, and tend to technical accounting issues. We work with various divisions on material trnsactions. My Company only hires top MBAs for a number of their divisons (Business Development, Treasury, Strategic Planning, etc.). </p>
<p>From my personal experience, I have found the best rounded MBA students from Stanford, Harvard, Haas, Anderson, Columbia MIT and Tuck. The majority of Wharton/Kellogg grads have impressed me, but there have been a few that left me scratching my head. I’ve had hit and miss experiences (more misses though) with London School of Economics, University of Chicago (some good ones though), NYU, and USC. It’s no complete reflection on these schools as they are all reputable and strong in certain niches. </p>
<p>If I had to rank a top 10 as a recruiter, I would have HBS/Stanford/Anderson/Columbia/Haas/Sloan/Tuck. I would also include Wharton and Kellogg. That leaves one left. </p>
<p>These rankings are not always complete. If one wants to go to finance, Wharton would probably be a better option than UCLA, and so forth.</p>
<p>Just to make this clear: The Forbes rankings are based on the return on investment achieved by graduates from the class of 2004.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It is simply too bad that Haas graduates from the class of 2004 have proven, unlike all other classes at Haas, to be a failure. Surely if the Forbes ranking would have targeted the class of 2003 or 2005 Haas would be #1.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>what’s your point?</p>
<p>data from the Class of 2004 would yield you 5-year ROI figures today, what’s wrong with that? Makes perfect sense to me.</p>