<p>How accurate are these rankings?</p>
<p>Also, which global MBA ranking list would be the most reliable?</p>
<p>FT is certainly more reliable than the WSJ rankings. </p>
<p>However, I still think the most reliable is USNews, with Businessweek being #2, although granted, USNews ranks only US programs, and BW separates the US programs from the international programs. </p>
<p>Nevertheless, I don't think that anybody seriously believes that Kellogg is only the 17th best B-school in the world (and 12th in the US), yet that is what FT would have you believe. NYU is good, but I don't think that even the students there really believe that they are really 10 places better than Kellogg is.</p>
<p>Back in my day NYU students certainly would have thought they were better than Kellog in Finance. Marketing is another story though; just the reverse actually.</p>
<p>Don't know about now.</p>
<p>But generally, business schools are not necessarily monoliths; there may be different programs that are considered stronger/weaker at a particular school.</p>
<p>So FWIW you might want to give some consideration to your particular interests, in addition to checking these overall "rankings". I'd imagine that in overall rankings, lopsided programs are dinged for being lopsided, either overtly or effectively.</p>
<p>Actually, now that I've looked at them, those rankings aren't terribly inconsistent with my own impressions for Finance specifically. And it wouldn't surprise me if something called "Financial Times" had that slant.</p>
<p>monydad, that's actually was I was looking for, the most reliable financial rankings (most recruited schools for finance firms would be exaclty what I'm was looking for).</p>
<p>The reason why I'm searching for a global rankings is because I live in Canada and would like to compare the Canadian MBA programs with the the rest of the world. Canada doesn't rank schools so it it's a little more difficult to grasp where they stand. I know that Ivey, Rotman, and Schulich are for the most part top 3, but where do they stand when compared globally within the world of finance?</p>
<p>If it's the finance specialty that you are looking at specifically, then the FT rankings are a bit better, although I would still say that the USNews and BW finance sub-rankings are more accurate, for US schools anyway. For example, I find it hard to believe that a place like MITSloan would not be regarded more highly when it comes to finance. I would think that it has to be regarded as better than Tuck. </p>
<p>The biggest weakness of the FT ranking is that it bases much of its methodology on salary increases. This screws over those B-schools that happen to admit a lot of people who were making relatively large salaries in the first place, as then these people don't have a lot of room to 'increase'. I would imagine that engineering-oriented B-schools like MITSloan get hurt by this because it admits lots of relatively highly-paid engineers. </p>
<p>It also hurts those schools that send lots of their grads to lower-paying specialties. Again, MITSloan gets hurt here because many of Sloan's grads take jobs in operations or manafacturing management that are not particularly high-paying for MBA grads (but tend to offer high quality of life). Northwestern Kellogg gets hurt here also because many Kellogg grads take jobs in marketing which has historically been one of the lower paying specialties (but also offers a high quality of life). </p>
<p>However, personally, I think the differences between the top schools are so. For example, at MITSloan and HBS, I would say that anybody who wanted a finance job and put in the work to get it almost certainly got one. It may not have been with the best firm, it may not be in the location you desire, it may not be the exactly the department that you want, but you can probably get an finance offer from somebody somewhere.</p>
<p>I C. In your opinion, or if you have stats regarding this topic, which Canadian MBA program is considered the best possible choice for students looking for careers in Bay St. Ibanks, high profile consulting, etc.</p>
<p>I think York, Toronto, and Western Ontario represent the top tier. It's hard to say that any of those 3 are better than the others.</p>
<p>The FT and WSJ are both mediocre rankings. I agree with Sakky in that the USNWR and BW have the best rankings but I tend to prefer BW.</p>
<p>Even BW has some strange anomalies from time to time. For example, the latest BW ranking places HBS at #5. I think that's a pretty difficult position to defend. And this year wasn't the first time this has happened - HBS has been ranked #5 a few times. In one year, Stanford was ranked #11, and in another year, MIT was ranked #15. Cornell was once ranked as low as #18. All of these are strange anomolies. </p>
<p>USNews has swings too, but not so wild as to place MIT as #15, Stanford #11, and Cornell as #18. This is why I consider USNews to be a more reliable business school indicator.</p>
<p>I C. Unfortunately for me, I'm looking to see where Canadian MBA programs stand in comparison with the of the world. And with my luck of course, USnews doesn't offer this info. :(</p>
<p>recruiters are aware of school rankings and can tell you that they do not use usnews. WSJ and bW would be the ones that are used</p>
<p>WSJ is a terrible ranking. I mean, seriously, how many people are really going to choose to get their MBA at North Carolina instead of Harvard? How many people seriously believe that Carnegie Mellon (ranked #2) is 11 places better than Harvard (ranked #13)? </p>
<p>In general, I would not use a ranking that relies too heavily on recruiters. Let's face it. What recruiters really want aren't really good people, but rather good people who are willing to work at low salaries in grunt jobs at whatever location the company wants them to go to. Stanford, for example, always gets screwed in the WSJ ranking because Stanford MBA's want high salaries and generally don't want to leave Silicon Valley. They also have a strong penchant for tech startups, or for sexy consulting/finance jobs. Obviously most recruiters don't like to hear this, and so they tend to mark Stanford down accordingly. But this isn't a weakness of Stanford, this is actually a strength. By the same token, Harvard MBA's are notorious for demanding high salaries and demanding powerful jobs (and getting them). Again, this is not something that recruiters really like to hear. But that's Harvard for you. </p>
<p>I think a far better way to measure B-school quality is the quality of the jobs that the graduates get. Who really cares about whether the recruiters are happy? The recruiters can be as upset and frustrated as hell, but if the graduates from certain schools can get the jobs that they want anyway, then that's all that really matters. The primary task of a B-school is not to satisfy the recruiters, but rather to satisfy the students. Obviously you don't go around upsetting the recruiters unnecessarily, but the fact is, making recruiters upset is inherent to providing a good B-school experience. Places like HBS, Stanford, MIT, Columbia, Haas make lots of recruiters upset, but it doesn't matter because they can get good jobs for their students.</p>
<p>I have to agree with Sakky on this one. The WSJ is a joke. So is the FT and Forbes. Their rankings are way too limited. The two main MBA rankings that make sense are BW and the USNWR. Both have their irregularities, but by and large, they make sense.</p>
<p>possibly you guys should talk to some head hunters and hr managers, you would find out that their rankings do not come from us news, bw yes, but mainly wsj. This is coming from my mom who deals with some of the biggest names in the business. They know the good schools, they know the top quarter and they are not going to look at any rankings to see how they vary year after year to decide who they should give preference too. Harvard will obviuosly always have its name, its prestige, but its business school shouldnt be ranked number 1. Maybe you want to contest they have the highest salaries, but in total compensation that goes to stanford. I cant find some of the articles i read before about the harvard MBA program, but i will look. They have great faculty, but that doesnt mean its the best program. I was taught be an olympic swimmer, but in the end, he was the crappiest coach i ever had. </p>
<p>You make it seem like Harvard is an all mighty god or something. The fact is harvard's business school isnt that great, what it has however is a name, that is it.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Maybe you want to contest they have the highest salaries, but in total compensation that goes to stanford
[/quote]
</p>
<p>You just disproved your very point right there. Stanford (like Harvard) also gets shafted by WSJ. There was one year where Stanford was ranked somewhere in the 40's by WSJ. Come on, does anybody seriously believe that Stanford is ranked in the 40's? </p>
<p>
[quote]
The fact is harvard's business school isnt that great, what it has however is a name, that is it.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>But in business-school settings, it's the name that matters. Normally I would tell people to shy away from pure prestige, but B-schools are a different ball game, where the prestige of the school really is the main reason why you go. </p>
<p>Look, I'll put it to you this way. The major consulting firms like McKinsey tend to hire more HBS grads (adjusted for student population) than any other B-school does. When it comes to major banks, HBS is one of the most highly represented B-schools. HBS has the most top executives in the Fortune 500. Certainly a heck of a lot more than, say, North Carolina or Carnegie Mellon, 2 schools that are ranked higher than HBS. </p>
<p>Look, nobody is saying that HBS is a perfect school that no problems. Indeed, I have written several posts about its problems. But all B-schools have problems. North Carolina has problems. Carnegie Mellon has problems. They all have problems. I would say that very very few people who are admitted to both HBS or Carnegie Mellon are going to choose Carnegie Mellon. Ask yourself, why is that? Are these people being stupid in choosing a school that is supposedly worse? </p>
<p>So the question is not whether HBS has problems. The question is whether HBS is, on the aggregate, better than Carnegie Mellon or North Carolina. I would love to hear some arguments that those 2 schools are better, on the aggregate than HBS. I agree that for some minority of people, they may be better. But on the whole? I think that's a tough row to hoe.</p>
<p>I have had first hand experience with MBA recruiters. My understanding is that they prefer the US News and Business Week and NOT WSJ. The Wall Street Journal rankings are skewed simply because the sample size of recruiters that they poll and that reply is tiny. In addition the WSJ ranking format often dings schools like Harvard and Stanford because their students' don't give some of these recruiters much time (they already know where they are going to be working) and are perceived as "stuck up" and thus are penalized. The other major problem with the WSJ ranking is that they allow the recruiters who they poll to pick only their 3 favorite MBA programs to rank instead of ranking all schools. This is statistically very bias and so schools that may be top 10 schools don't get an accurate vote because of this WSJ ranking structure. </p>
<p>US NEWS and the Financial times have the most relevant and in depth criteria upon which they rank schools.</p>
<p>I have serious issues with the FT too, mostly because of how much it keys upon characteristics such as "salary increase" or "value for money" - as determined by how much you have to give up in earnings potential by going to that B-school. This effectively punishes those schools that just happen to admit a lot of students who are already relatively highly paid. After all, if you are already quite well paid before you start B-school, then there isn't much room for your salary to "increase", so any school that admits you will be punished according to FT.</p>
<p>Furthermore, I don't particularly see why the FT methodology includes things like percentage of women faculty or percentage of international faculty/international students. Honestly, why should this matter? For example, if your faculty consists of lots and lots of women, that automatically makes you a better school? According to FT, it does. There is something highly sexist about that. If you have lots and lots of international faculty and/or international students, then that automatically makes you a better school? That just serves to boost all of the European schools. After all, lots of European schools are in countries like Switzerland that have small populations, and so by their very nature they are simply going to have lots and lots of students and faculty members who are not citizens of the country in which the school resides. What it basically does is that it effectively punishes the United States for just having a big population. </p>
<p>I also see that the FT weighs the doctoral rankings of the B-schools. Uh, why? This is supposed to be an MBA ranking, not a doctoral ranking. Who cares how good or bad the doctoral part of the B-school is? There are plenty of highly respected business schools that, by choice, don't even have a doctoral program. Dartmouth Tuck is an prime example. Why should Tuck be punished because it chooses not to run a doctoral program? What does that have to do with the quality of the MBA program? </p>
<p>There is no doubt that USNews has some anomalies too. So I think the real proof of a particular ranking is what the final results are. The notion that Northwestern Kellogg is only the #17 best MBA program in the world, and only #12 in the US, being ranked lower than NYU, Michigan, or Yale, is highly highly dubious to me.</p>
<p>I agree with Sakky on this one. FT, Forbes and WSJ all seem very flawed. I like BW and the USNWR.</p>
<p>Michigan State U is 1st in Job placement ? WHAT</p>