<p>Also, I wonder if they take into account that Haas students not only had to get into berkeley, but also had to do well for two years before they even get a shot at the business school.</p>
<p>this was their first ranking ever, cut them a little slack....nobody is perfect at first..</p>
<p>"The use of public school In-state prices totally skews some data"</p>
<p>PRICE is NOT factored into the ranking, it's informational.</p>
<p>read the methodology.</p>
<p>METHODOLOGY:</p>
<p>When BusinessWeek launched the world's first ranking of MBA programs in 1988, we created a groundbreaking method of measuring the satisfaction of the two main B-school constituencies: students and recruiters. For our first ranking of undergraduate business programs, we adapted that methodology and added new features to help students and parents with college searches. Advertisement</p>
<p>But first we needed to narrow the field. We screened 1,400 U.S. colleges and universities for business programs that are accredited by the Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business and that met three criteria based on test scores, selectivity, and the number of students from the top 10% of their high school classes. Of the more than 90 schools meeting those benchmarks, 84 agreed to participate.</p>
<p>The centerpiece of our ranking is a survey of about 100,000 undergraduate business students at those 84 programs. In November, with the help of Cambria Consulting in Boston, we asked each of those students to complete a 50-question survey on everything from the quality of teaching to recreational facilities.</p>
<p>We also surveyed students at one institution that declined to participate in the ranking: University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School. Using publicly available sources to locate e-mail addresses, we attempted to contact 1,464 Wharton business majors. The school's opposition to the ranking resulted in a lower, but still adequate, response rate for the school. Overall, 21,789 students completed our survey, for a response rate of 22%. At Wharton, only 172 students did, for a response rate of 12%.</p>
<p>In addition to surveying students, BusinessWeek polled nearly 2,000 corporate recruiters for companies that hire thousands of business majors each year. We asked them to tell us which programs turned out the best graduates and which schools have the most innovative curriculums and most effective career services.</p>
<p>To learn which schools' graduates get the plum jobs, we also asked each institution to tell us the median starting salaries for their most recent graduating class. In addition, we culled our 2000, 2002, and 2004 MBA surveys to create a "feeder school" measure showing which schools sent the most grads on to 35 top MBA programs from previous BusinessWeek rankings.</p>
<p>Finally, we created an academic quality gauge of five equally weighted measures: average SAT scores, full-time faculty-student ratio, average class size, the percentage of business majors with internships, and the hours students spend every week on schoolwork.</p>
<h2>The student survey counted for 30% of the final ranking, with the recruiter survey contributing 20%. Starting salaries and the MBA feeder school measure count for 10% each. The academic quality measure contributes the remaining 30%.</h2>
<p>SO, Business Week surveyed 2000 corporate recruiters. it doesn't get more real than this.</p>
<p>I'm curious why people think certain schools were either over or underrated. Alexandre, may be the exception since he seems to know what he's talking about, but as far as everyone else, it seems to me that preconceived perceptions of schools are the basis of all these posts. I want to see real reasons why Emory and ND are overrated. Not "OMG... Stern and Ross and Haas are better, no contest because 1. I go there. 2. USNWR. 3. etc." So, please enlighten me, who here knows more about the undergrad programs at each of these schools, esp. those that are apparently over or underrated, than Business Week!<br>
With that said, I think most people are upset at Business Week because they interpret this ranking as a measure of prestige, which it is not. Stern is still more prestigious than Emory/ND (for now), but apparently it may not be better.</p>
<p>Emory and ND are overrated compared to some others because of avg salaries and job recruitment. Nobody on Wall Street will tell you Emory is where they for business. I actually didn't have as much a problem with ND as I did with Emory (as I pointed out specifically in my earlier post).</p>
<p>Actively recruited by GS, what more do you want?</p>
<p>Whereas Stern is actively recruited by every major Wall Street firm, as well as many of the smaller banks (thanks to its location). You can't seriously be implying that recruitment at Emory is better.</p>
<p>"I'm happy to say we became a target group for GS on April 14, 2006".</p>
<p>That's great but many schools ranked below it do too. The actual ranking even says "Emory: Students rave about well-rounded education but feel that the school attracts few top recruiters outside of the Southeast."</p>
<p>It is quite safe to say that (example: Stern) gets much more respect from such companies yet is ranked lower.</p>
<p>i agree, the pre-conceived perception did it.</p>
<p>maybe URichmond REALLY DOES have great professors, they could be even more dedicated than that of MIT. you can't just assume URichmond must have *****tier professors just because URichmond isnt known as an "elite" school.</p>
<p>Emory, ND are both well recruited by wall street firms. again, southern boy networks.........</p>
<p>on the other hand, the IB placement of Berkeley is lacking (go read their profile).</p>
<p>"Emory, ND are both well recruited by wall street firms. again, southern boy networks.........
"</p>
<p>Well recruited compared to some schools ranked lower than it? No. That is what I mean by overrated. You can't tell me Emory is better at getting people into GS and the like than Stern when it was recognized by GS only THIS year.</p>
<p>This ranking is bunk.</p>
<p>^ I kind of agree. Too many major mistakes to be considered better than USnew's ugrad top 5.</p>
<p>also, this ranking also takes into academic factors into account. Emory may have smaller classes, more dedicated professors, well-constructed curriculum.......etc. Even though NYU's placement is better, Emory can make it up by offering better business education.</p>
<p>
[quote]
on the other hand, the IB placement of Berkeley is lacking (go read their profile).
[/quote]
</p>
<p>You do realize there is more to business than i-banks, right?</p>
<p>"You do realize there is more to business than i-banks, right?"</p>
<p>well you guys were arguing over IB placements at the time i posted it.</p>
<p>I agree, this ranking shouldnt be taken as a ranking in term of placement, it's rather an overall assessment of these undergraudate business institutions.</p>
<p>Well then I would argue that Businessweek's methodology for ranking is flawed. People go to business school TO GET jobs and to get recruited and make money. This should be a HUGE portion of the ranking.</p>
<p>what about learning, AcceptedAlready? Getting recruiters to come is one part, educating students to be skilled, resourceful, experienced, and ethic future business leaders is ALSO VERY IMPORTANT.</p>
<p>Is USNEWS ranking based on placements? NO. It's based on bschool deans' assessments/ratings.</p>
<p>i personally think you can't judge these schools by numbers (1,2,3,4), what rankings give is a division of leagues. for example, Wharton is in the top league, the next 12-15 schools are in the second league, the next 20-25 schools are in the third league. </p>
<p>when you have a hard time deciding which school to go to out of 2 schools in the same league (UVA and Michigan for example, or Georgetown and Stern), your decision should be based on fit and financial situation.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Well then I would argue that Businessweek's methodology for ranking is flawed. People go to business school TO GET jobs and to get recruited and make money. This should be a HUGE portion of the ranking.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Agreed. What bumped Emory up was its student assessment - it ranks #1 in the "Student Surveys" category. It's great that the students love their school so much, and that definitely should be a part of the ranking. But I don't think it's a good idea for a supposedly objective ranking to be so heavily influenced by people within the schools. At the very least, it leaves it open for easy manipulation - students could give their schools all A's and bump it up in the ranking.</p>
<p>For my part, when I was looking at undergrad b-schools, I was much more concerned about what companies thought. Lack of serious recruitment outside the Southeast would be a huge turnoff for many students.</p>
<p>"what about learning, AcceptedAlready?"</p>
<p>Learning is based more on the individual than the institution a majority of the time. We are not comparing community colleges here. You can't tell me you would learn less at Haas or Tepper (size of 60 last year mind you with 1:5 student-fac ratio) than at Emory. Also, who is to say what "learning" is? Perhaps Stern teaches you the real world of COMPETITION and INDEPENDENCE which one might argue really matters in the real world while a Catholic School teaches you ETHICS and TEAMWORK which is also valuable in the real world. Who is to say WHAT matters more? It depends on the individual and is VERY subjective.</p>
<p>I'm glad kids love Emory so much but things that are so subjective such as educational quality among top colleges should not play a major role ESPECIALLY when most kids go into Ugrad business to make money. Therefore instead of forcing us to read just the placement and avg salaries, businessweek should've just revamped their ranking.</p>
<p>"when I was looking at undergrad b-schools, I was much more concerned about what companies thought."</p>
<p>Then read the placement ratings ONLY in the BW ranking.</p>
<p>Also read the footnotes and realize that Emory's reputation on Wall St. is not as good as that of NYU, but its reputation in Southeast could be better than that of NYU.</p>