<p>the rankings mean nothing, they dont represent how well the recruiting at these schools are, which should be something very important when it comes to business schools.</p>
<p>The idea that Indiana is better than Stern, Ross, and Haas is ridiculous. On average an Indana student is probably inferior to a Stern, Ross, or Haas grad, and this is reflected not only in the SAT scores of the students but also the quality of recruiting at the schools.</p>
<p>Why is it ridiculous? Are you familiar with the methodology used in order to make these rankings?</p>
<p>According to Gourman, Kelley is better than Stern, Ross, and Hass. These rankings are similar to the US News rankings, as collegehelp pointed out in another thread how they only deviate about 4-5 spots. Business Week ranked Kelley ahead of Hass, and only a few behind Ross and Stern. It should be noted too that the man who made these rankings is a UM grad. Whatever school he puts in front of UM he must be certain is better, as you know he likely has some UM bias.</p>
<p>10 years = a lot of change...</p>
<p>Actually, rankings really don't change much over time. Look at how the US News rankings have changed from 10 years ago, they are nearly the same.</p>
<p>um a2wolves, maybe he hates his almamater Lol tats possible. still i know the quality and drive of the kids goin to berkeley and indiana and there is a significant difference, business school is about 2 things when it comes to rankings, Quality and Recruitment/Connections, while i believe indiana's business education quality is close to places like stern, haas, ross, its recruitment is less than the 3 i mentioned. indiana while it is undoubtably top, it is not elite, i tink its a tad bit regional although it has the potential to place at the national level. its got quite a bit to go before its compared to schools like haas or stern</p>
<p>yes haas was ranked below IU in bw, but i think the "average joe student" at stern or mich or cal is probably better than the avg joe at IU simply because IU's admissions standards are much less stringent. Though this is true, the students at the upper tear of IU-Kelley are just as good and are comparable to a top stern, mich or berkley student</p>
<p>"the students at the upper tear of IU-Kelley are just as good and are comparable to a top stern, mich or berkley student"</p>
<p>now that is definitely true, some of the top kids at IU have some impressive resume's and probaly got into or got rejected (the fact that they even applied to those schools means that they had the grades) to the other top business or top schools but decided to go to IU for persoal reasons.</p>
<p>o u misspelled tear, its tier heh heh if i misspelled misspelled please post the write spelling cuz im not sure if i spelled it right.</p>
<p>Overall rankings may stay relatively constant, but individual programs fluctuate.</p>
<p>These rankings are almost 10 years old? Then y even argue about them? They're obviously not right.</p>
<p>I couldn't allow this debate to go on any longer. </p>
<p>Not only are these rankings 10 years old, but the publications ranking different programs authored by Jack Gourman have been repeatedly panned and dismissed by reputable sources, such as The Chronicle of Higher Education. For example, when Mr. Gourman has been asked why he refuses to reveal his methodologies behind his so-called rankings, he has repeatedly said merely that the only people who are concerned with methodology are reporters. That's certainly news, since I know that I am wondering how he came up wtih these rankings. According to the many critiques of the Gourman reports, college officials seem particularly cruious about how Mr. Gourman came up with his results, noting that he has never contacted any of the institutions on his lists for information. In fact, in several of his lists he has included programs or departments that simply don't exist. Maybe there is a reason why there hasn't been a new list for 10 years ...</p>
<p>I think that everyone here would be much better off ignoring these Gourman rankings. Please, though, whenever an unfamiliar source (especially on the Internet) tells you that something is true, examine that data or information cricitally and determine for yourself whether it is worth your time and attention. I'm sure you've heard before that you can't believe everything that you read -- well, that certainly holds true more and more in this information age.</p>
<p>For that matter, I'll be happy to publish my opinions about the best undergraduate programs and sell that list to you at a nice juicy profit. Of course, I won't tell you how I arrived at my rankings.</p>
<p>Here is just one link to an article from The Chronicle of Higher Education about the Gourman Reports:</p>
<p>This guy has a sexual crush on the University of Indiana.</p>
<p>sigh... its Indiana University</p>
<p>So a guy goes out an publishes his opinion on rankings, does more research than any of us on rankings, and "educators" say it's wrong because they are different and he doesn't tell us why they are different? I disagree.</p>
<p>You disagree with what? What research did Mr. Gorman do? No one knows what he did, if he did anything at all other than search his own feelings for answers. Other surveys and rankings that are out there, like U.S. News and World Report's rankings of colleges, professional programs and graduate programs (whether or not you agree with their rankings), the Vault and others all actually take the time to contact the schools, programs or employers in question, and do actual surveys using statistically significant measures to determine their rankings. You may not agree with the weight given to one factor or another, but all of those surveys and rankings put their methodologies out there for anyone to inspect. Do you know what weight Mr. Gourman gave to the quality of the faculty, the breadth of the courses offered, the recruiting and job placement atmosphere or the quality of the student body (however that is measured) at any of his ranked schools? You can't. I can't either because he thinks we are all too dumb to care about or understand why he made his choices -- or, according to Mr. Gourman, because only reporters care about methodologies. The critiques leveled at Mr. Gourman's "rankings" come from a wide variety of scholarly publications, as well as many of the universities that themselves were ranked (including schools that did rather well in his surveys). For whatever reason (I'm thinking money), Princeton Review at some point decided to publish Mr. Gourman's "rankings", which generated a lot more publicity for and acceptance of these rankings than they have ever deserved. </p>
<p>You can believe in Mr. Gourman's rankings as if they are the ten commandments. That's up to you. All I'm suggesting is that many very reliable scholarly sources have suggested that his numbers are nothing but one man's unresearched opinion (save his claim to have made some phone calls to professors). For all I know, his rankings may be right. He may have fabulous intuition and may have come up with the best rankings available. That said, you need to think about what Mr. Gourman presents critically. You need to explore what is behind the claims that someone makes to you. Evaluate the source. You need to make your own decisions based upon facts, using facts that are proven or which have been determined in a manner that provides statistically significant results. Mr. Gourman has given us all nothing but some lists with absolutely nothing to back them up. Blind belief in the business world is not something you find too often - so I would suggest, since this is the Business Major forum, that you think like a businessperson and look very carefully at who and what you are holding up for everyone to admire.</p>
<p>^
i think the op believes in this ranking because it has his Uni in the top 3 in almost every category, just a thought.</p>
<p>^ Thats definitely true.</p>
<p>^ I second that.</p>
<p>The OP is entitled to put his or her faith in whatever system he or she chooses. I just hope that everyone on this board (and on any other board on which the OP wants to tout these rankings) understands that there is no discernible basis for Mr. Gourman's rankings, and Mr. Gourman is proud of that fact. </p>
<p>Just for fun, here are my rankings of the best undergraduate business programs:</p>
<ol>
<li> Cornell</li>
<li> Stern</li>
<li> Baruch</li>
<li> SUNY Albany</li>
</ol>
<p>My methodology was to use my own opinion, which heavily favors schools in New York State (just because that's how I'm feeling today), coupled with some anecdotal evidence I have in my head from my prior experiences with graduates of these schools. Obviously, I'm just trying to prove a point, but at least I let you know how I came upon my ranking so that you can critique it based upon its methodology (oh no, sally, schools in Pennsylvania should really be considered the next time you compile rankings, or sally, how can you possibly post rankings that don't consider whether the professors wear glasses? or sally, really, are you so silly as to think that Cornell AEM is better than Stern? I know lots of graduates of both programs, and in my opinion, the Stern graduates make much better investment bankers). Mr. Gourman gave us no such helpful information.</p>