How come some lesser names business schools are ranked higher and have higher starting salaries?

<p>than top tier schools on the business week rankings? makes no sense</p>

<p>give us some examples. Also business week’s rankings are crap</p>

<p>Most top business schools do not offer undergraduate programs.</p>

<p>UPenn Wharton
Stanford
Georgetown McDonough
Cornell Dyson
UVA
U Chicago</p>

<p>are probably the top business programs that offer undergrad programs</p>

<p>followed by Villa Nova, Boston College, Binghamton, Fordham, Syracuse, etc</p>

<p>Some examples would be notre dame at number 1, brigham young at 13, southern methodist at 21. All this while better schools like USC, illinois, and wisconsin are in the 30s range. Why is this? Also Illinois dropped around 15 ranks in one year?? I don’t understand.</p>

<p>I don’t think that Stanford or UChicago offer undergraduate business. I’m not big into rankings (and I don’t put a lot of stock in the Business week rankings).I’d put schools like UPenn-Wharton, Cornell - Dyson, UMichigan -Ross, Notre Dame - Mendoza, UVA, UT-Austin - Mccombs, NYU - Stern toward the top of my list. Many other excellent schools are around as well (Carnegie Mellon, BC, Lehigh, BYU to name but a few).</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Why do you assume USC, Illinois, and Wisconsin are “better schools” than those others?</p>

<p>The short answer to your question is that rankings are meaningless. You will have every opportunity for an outstanding business education at USC, Illinois, or Wisconsin. Or you could do even better at Alabama, George Washington, or Bryant.</p>