<p>US News Ranking
<a href=“Businessweek - Bloomberg”>Businessweek - Bloomberg;
<p>Harvard 1
Stanford 2
Penn-Wharton 3
NorthwesternKellogg 3
MIT-Sloan 5
Chicago-Booth 5
Berkeely-Haas 7
Dartmouth-Tuck 8
Columbia 9</p>
<p>Yale 10
NYU-Stern 11
Duke-Fuqua 12
Michigan-Ross 13
UCLA-Anderson 15
Virginia-Darden 15
Cornell-Johnson 17</p>
<p>The Economics
[Which</a> MBA | The Economist](<a href=“http://www.economist.com/business-education/whichmba/]Which”>WhichMBA?)</p>
<p>Berkeley-Haas 1
Chicago-Booth 2
Harvard 3
Dartmouth-Tuck 4
Stanford 5
Penn-Wharton 6
NYU-Stern 7
NorthwesternKellogg 8
MIT-Sloan 9
Columbia 10</p>
<p>Virginia-Darden 11
Michigan-Ross 12
Yale 13
Duke-Fuqua 14
Cornell-Johnson 15
UCLA-Anderson 28</p>
<p>The 2009 QuantNetwork Ranking of US Business Schools
[QuantNetwork</a> - Financial Engineering Forum - 2009 QuantNetwork Ranking of US Business Schools](<a href=“http://www.quantnet.com/business-schools-rankings/]QuantNetwork”>http://www.quantnet.com/business-schools-rankings/)</p>
<p>Harvard 1
Stanford 2
Penn-Wharton 2</p>
<p>Berkeely-Haas 4
NYU-Stern 4
NorthwesternKellogg 6
Chicago-Booth 7
Dartmouth-Tuck 8
Columbia 8
MIT-Sloan 10
Duke-Fuqua 10
Michigan-Ross 10</p>
<p>Yale 13
UCLA-Anderson 14
Cornell-Johnson 15
Virginia-Darden 16</p>
<p>Financial Times
[Business</a> school rankings and MBA rankings from the Financial Times](<a href=“http://rankings.ft.com/businessschoolrankings/global-mba-rankings]Business”>http://rankings.ft.com/businessschoolrankings/global-mba-rankings)</p>
<p>Penn-Wharton 1
Harvard 2
Columbia 3
Stanford 4
MIT-Sloan 5
NYU-Stern 6
Chicago-Booth 7
Dartmouth-Tuck 8
Yale 9
NorthwesternKellogg 10
Duke-Fuqua 11
Michigan-Ross 12
Virginia-Darden 13
UCLA-Anderson 14
Berkeley-Haas 15
Cornell-Johnson 16</p>
<p>Wall Street Journal Top MBA
<a href=“http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/MB_07_Scoreboard.pdf[/url]”>http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/MB_07_Scoreboard.pdf</a></p>
<p>1 Dartmouth College (Tuck)
2 University of California, Berkeley (Haas)
3 Columbia University
4 Massachusetts Institute of Technology (Sloan)
5 Carnegie Mellon University (Tepper)
6 University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill (Kenan-Flagler)
7 University of Michigan (Ross)
8 Yale University
9 University of Chicago
10 University of Virginia (Darden)
11 University of Pennsylvania (Wharton)
12 Northwestern Univ1ersity (Kellogg)
13 Duke University (Fuqua)
14 Harvard University
15 University of California, Los Angeles (Anderson)
16 Cornell University (Johnson)
17 New York University (Stern)
18 University of Southern California (Marshall)
19 Stanford University</p>
<p>Forbes
[Best</a> Business Schools - Forbes.com](<a href=“Forbes List Directory”>Forbes List Directory)</p>
<p>1 Dartmouth (Tuck)
2 Stanford
3 Harvard
4 Virginia (Darden)
5 Pennsylvania (Wharton)
6 Columbia
7 Chicago
8 Yale
9 Northwestern (Kellogg)
10 Cornell (Johnson)
11 NYU (Stern)
12 Duke (Fuqua)
13 UC Berkeley (Haas)
14 Texas-Austin (McCombs)
15 UNC (Kenan-Flagler)
16 Iowa (Tippie)
17 MIT (Sloan)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is by far the worst MBA ranking. Harvard, Stanford and Wharton are all ranked outside the top ten…</p>
<p>prodigal – not sure what your point is, other than “EVERYBODY knows that can’t be right!”… to which I agree.</p>
<p>Just to have some fun at Berkeley’s expense (being a Stanford + UCLA guy), RML’s posted rankings illustrate how absurd the variance in ranking position is:</p>
<p>Berkeley is: 7, 1, 4, 15, 2, 13.</p>
<p>Begs the question what exactly each of these publications is measuring and how it weights the measures.</p>
<p>If you think the Wall Street Journal is bad, the Forbes rankings is worse.</p>
<p>Could you do this same thing the OP is asking from UF?</p>
<p>
Alex, do you have any proof to back up your assertion that graduates of the top state schools are less intent on pursuing MBAs than students at Duke, Northwestern, and Yale? At face value, this seems like an absurd statement that has no basis whatsoever. Michigan LSA students are no different than regular Duke or Yale students. They all want to be a variation of doctors, lawyers, professors, bankers, marketing associates, non profit workers, researchers, etc. etc. There’s no reason that one school would be decidedly more “pre-law” or “pre-med” than another school.</p>
<p>You always seem to be making this “lack of interest” excuse to explain the poor performance on a PER CAPITA BASIS of the top state schools (UCB, UMich, UVA, etc.) against their private counterparts. What do you suppose that regular liberal arts grads of the top public schools ACTUALLY WANT TO DO?</p>
<p>Even if you take away ALL the specialty schools in Michigan including Ross and Engineering, Duke and Yale still have an undergraduate population that is 3 TIMES SMALLER and they still place more graduates into Harvard Biz. If that isn’t domination, then I don’t know what is.</p>
<p>Per capita is meaningless in this case. Some schools are far more pre-professional than others. Schools like Cal, Chicago and Michigan are nowhere nearly as pre-professional as schools like Dartmouth or Duke. I obviously have no data to prove this, but then again, the enrollment figures certainly seem to support my theory. Consider this:</p>
<p>1) Graduate school admissions committees do not differentiate between candidates from top 5 public universities and top 15 (but not top 5) private universities. I have spoken to several deans of admissions at major programs, including Wharton, Kellogg, Yale Law, JHU Medical etc…</p>
<p>2) Some schools simply do not have many pre-MBA students. Take Chicago. It has a similar per-capita enrollment number at HBS as Michigan. Cal, JHU and WUSTL also. </p>
<p>I do not know why some schools are very pre-professional while others are not. At Michigan, roughly 30% of students are interested in non-business careers, whether it is Dentistry, Pharmacy, Education, Academe, Architecture, Performance/Music, Athletics etc… Another 20% or so are keen on careers in Technology and Research. Another 30% are premed or prelaw. Only 20% or so of Michigan students seek careers in Business, roughly half of them envolving their family business or their own entrepreneurial ventures. I am fairly certain that schools like Cal, Chicago, Cornell etc… are very similar. At schools like Dartmouth, Duke or Penn, I am certain that the figures are significantly different, with over 30% of the students seeking corporate placement and careers. There is a significant difference between 10% and 30%. I have no source to prove this, but I have known enough students at different universities to have a pretty good idea of the makeup and culture of different student bodies.</p>
<p>I will also admit that a smaller percentage of students are qualified to pursue careers and graduate school at the highest levels. At schools like Columbia or Dartmouth for example, I would estimate that 50% of the students have the ability to even consider such careers/graduate school options. At Cal or Michigan, it is more like 25%. I have never denied that there is a small difference in the makeup of the student body. Public universities are larger and serve the state and will therefore admit a larger cross-section of students.</p>
<p>But clearly, any student can and will accomplish as much, have access to the same resources, be exposed to the same intellectual vitality and receive the same quality education at a top public university as she/he would at a top private university. The fact that Cal and Michigan do as well (ON A PER CAPITA BASIS) as Chicago, Johns Hopkins, WUSTL and several elite LACs (such as Bowdown, Carleton, Claremont McKenna, Haverford, Middlebury, Pomona and Swarthmore) proves that.</p>
<p>And while we are asking for proof LDB, you have yet to provide me with exact placement figures of Duke undergrads into major BB IBanks and MCs.</p>
<p>It’s possible, only if you stay at the very top of your class at the UofM. Smart people can make it from anywhere.</p>
<p>“Schools like Cal, Chicago and Michigan are nowhere nearly as pre-professional as schools like Dartmouth or Duke…At schools like Columbia or Dartmouth for example, I would estimate that 50% of the students have the ability to even consider such careers/graduate school options. At Cal or Michigan, it is more like 25%.”</p>
<p>It’s wrong to assume that students’ preference for professional school is unchanging. The assumption that pre-professional oriented students turn a school pre-professional doesn’t hold up. I think the case is a school with superb professional opportunities (Princeton, Dartmouth, Columbia, etc.) turn their students pre-professional instead. The vast majority of the students I know at many Ivies expressed a desire to study science (chemistry, physics, etc.) and engineering (chemical, biomedical, etc.) if they didn’t get into an Ivy. If they wanted to get a history degree, it was to be a professor, not a banker, that’s before they attended an Ivy. But once they did get into an Ivy, most invariably end up wanting to go into finance, medicine, and law. I think it has more to do with going with the flow and making the most of the opportunities offered by the prestige of your school than with who’s more pre-professional and who’s not.</p>
<p>“It’s possible, only if you stay at the very top of your class at the UofM.”</p>
<p>Very top? Can you definite “very top?” If you mean top 20%, then I agree. If you mean top 5%, I do not agree. With 50 Michigan students enrolling into Michigan’s top 10 Law School and another 50 into Michigan’s top 10 Medical school annually and another 100 enrolling into Michigan’s top 10 MBA program and yet another 200 enrolling into Michigan’s top 10 graduate Engineering programs annually, just the number of undergrads enrolling into Michigan’s elite graduate programs numbers at 400 or so annually. Roughly another 75 enroll into other top N14 Law schools, another 100 into other top 10 MBA programs, another 50 into other top 10 Medical schools and another 200 into other top 10 Engineering graduate schools. That’s another 450 who enroll into other top 10 graduate schools annually. That’s anywhere between 750 and 1,000 students enrolling into top 10 graduate programs annually, and it is safe to say many Michigan students succeed sufficiently that their career paths never call for graduate students. So, if by “very top”, you mean the top 20%, I would agree. Then again, the same can be said of any university. Admittedly, it would be top top 60% of the students at Harvard or the top 40% of the students at Dartmouth, but either way, one would have to be a “top student”.</p>
<p>“It’s wrong to assume that students’ preference for professional school is unchanging. The assumption that pre-professional oriented students turn a school pre-professional doesn’t hold up. I think the case is a school with superb professional opportunities (Princeton, Dartmouth, Columbia, etc.) turn their students pre-professional instead. The vast majority of the students I know at many Ivies expressed a desire to study science (chemistry, physics, etc.) and engineering (chemical, biomedical, etc.) if they didn’t get into an Ivy. If they wanted to get a history degree, it was to be a professor, not a banker, that’s before they attended an Ivy. But once they did get into an Ivy, most invariably end up wanting to go into finance, medicine, and law. I think it has more to do with going with the flow and making the most of the opportunities offered by the prestige of your school than with who’s more pre-professional and who’s not.”</p>
<p>I hope that’s not the case IvyPBear. I would hate to think that the Ivy League is populated by materialistic sell-outs. I love the fact that many students I went to college with sought nothing more in life than wanting to run their family store/business, teach high school kids, perform Musical Theater on Broadway or just be an Engineer at a company like Ford, GM, Boeing or Lockheed Martin. Besides, are you saying that undergrads at Chicago and JHU, like those at Michigan and Cal apparently, do not make the most of the opportunities offered to them by the prestige of their schools? You do realize that Cal, Chicago, JHU and Michigan are as prestigious as Brown, Columbia, Cornell, Dartmouth and Penn…and offer equally good undergraduate educations…right?</p>
<p>The trend of top private schools sending more kids to MBA programs is because the students there are more driven. Just my opinion. As long as your school is decent enough, you can be competitive on your own merit.</p>
<p>Top 10-20% sounds right.</p>
<p>“I hope that’s not the case IvyPBear. I would hate to think that the Ivy League is populated by materialistic sell-outs.”</p>
<p>What I said was poorly phrased. Let me replace the “prestige of their school” with “mysterious favorable light in the eyes of banks.” I don’t disagree about the prestige of Cal, UMich, UChicago, etc. They are as prestigious as the Ivies, and offer just as good of an education. However, despite your argument in various other threads, I don’t think they are in as favorable positions as Harvard, Princeton, Dartmouth, Stanford, Yale, Columbia, etc. in the eyes of bankers. I don’t even want to speculate about the reason, there already a lot of threads in the investment banking section that do that. People I talked with who are attending UChicago these couple of years said that most people there (including physics majors) are intensely desiring investment banking, or even better PE and hedge fund, jobs.</p>
<p>Also, your experiences are probably influence by your time at UMich. My experiences at an Ivy gave me a perspective quite different from yours. The way I look at the situation is, students nowadays, just as back when I was in college, are often interested in thinking deeply about things and to apply analytical rigor to problems. Many believed that only math, science, economics, and engineering could have offered that to them prior to enrolling in college, but they realized, while attending college (at least most of ones attending the Ivies from my observation), that finance and law can force them to think about difficult quantitative and analytical problems as well. Since they are really interested in thinking, not any subjects themselves (since they get a sense of accomplishment from solving problems, not solving problems in specific subjects), they opt for the subjects that lead to jobs that pay extremely well. I don’t see why that is unfortunate for them.</p>
<p>Has this been posted? It at least serves as another list to help some prestige hungry MBA student justify the superiority of his/her school.</p>
<p>[The</a> Top Five: Harvard, Stanford, Chicago, Wharton & Dartmouth | Poets and Quants](<a href=“http://poetsandquants.com/2010/06/24/our-new-mba-ranking-puts-harvard-stanford-on-top/]The”>http://poetsandquants.com/2010/06/24/our-new-mba-ranking-puts-harvard-stanford-on-top/)</p>
<ol>
<li> Harvard Business School 100.0 2 3 1 3 5</li>
<li> Stanford School of Business 97.8 6 1 1 4 7</li>
<li> Chicago (Booth) 96.8 1 4 5 9 4</li>
<li> Pennsylvania (Wharton) 95.6 4 5 5 2 9</li>
<li> Dartmouth College (Tuck) 89.0 12 2 7 14 6</li>
<li> Columbia University 88.0 7 6 9 6 20</li>
<li> Northwestern (Kellogg) 87.5 3 8 4 22 15</li>
<li> MIT (Sloan) 84.9 9 14 3 8 19</li>
<li> California-Berkeley (Haas) 80.0 10 12 7 28 3</li>
<li>New York (Stern) 77.9 13 17 9 13 13</li>
<li>Duke (Fuqua) 75.9 8 13 14 20 28</li>
<li>Michigan (Ross) 73.9 5 18 12 28 25</li>
<li>Virginia (Darden) 70.5 16 9 13 31 24</li>
<li>Cornell (Johnson) 69.7 11 7 18 36 32</li>
<li>Yale School of Management 69.0 24 10 11 16 27</li>
<li>California-L.A. (Anderson) 60.1 14 19 15 33 50</li>
<li>Carnegie-Mellon University 57.2 19 23 16 34 33</li>
<li>North Carolina (Kenan-Flagler) 55.5 17 15 21 46 39</li>
<li>Texas-Austin (McCombs) 53.9 21 11 16 52 49</li>
<li>Indiana-Bloomington (Kelley) 47.9 15 25 23 57 46</li>
</ol>
<p>^ that selection of rankings clearly separates H/S/C/W from the rest. They are bunched tightly within a range of 4.5 points, then there is a a drop of 6+ the the next grouping.</p>
<p>That grouping is not particularly more worthy than the three I used: BW/ USNWR / FT wherein Wharton is the clear #1. </p>
<p>It also highlights that from year to year, the individual rankings and therfore Super rankings vary considerably. This year I’ll bet Wharton would not be #1 any longer… just a hunch.</p>
<p>“What I said was poorly phrased. Let me replace the “prestige of their school” with “mysterious favorable light in the eyes of banks.” I don’t disagree about the prestige of Cal, UMich, UChicago, etc. They are as prestigious as the Ivies, and offer just as good of an education.”</p>
<p>I am glad we can agree on this.</p>
<p>“However, despite your argument in various other threads, I don’t think they are in as favorable positions as Harvard, Princeton, Dartmouth, Stanford, Yale, Columbia, etc. in the eyes of bankers. I don’t even want to speculate about the reason, there already a lot of threads in the investment banking section that do that.”</p>
<p>I admit fully (and always have that Michigan as a whole is not as effective as Harvard, Princeton and Wharton at placing students in IBanking jobs. However, Ross is special and is as effective as virtually any other college or university, placing anywhere between 100 and 150 students (out of 350 graduates) in IBanks annually. More than half of those are placed in BB IBanks. I also think that many colleges and universities exaggerate their effectiveness . Other than Harvard and Wharton, I don’t think any college or university places more students (in terms of sheer number) into IBanks than Ross.</p>
<p>“People I talked with who are attending UChicago these couple of years said that most people there (including physics majors) are intensely desiring investment banking, or even better PE and hedge fund, jobs.”</p>
<p>PE, Hedge Fund and VC jobs are in high demand, but no university (including Harvard) will place more than 10-20 undergrads into such firm in any given year. And even if many Chicago students intensely wish to get jobs in IBanking, far more wish to pursue different career paths.</p>
<p>“Also, your experiences are probably influence by your time at UMich. My experiences at an Ivy gave me a perspective quite different from yours. The way I look at the situation is, students nowadays, just as back when I was in college, are often interested in thinking deeply about things and to apply analytical rigor to problems. Many believed that only math, science, economics, and engineering could have offered that to them prior to enrolling in college, but they realized, while attending college (at least most of ones attending the Ivies from my observation), that finance and law can force them to think about difficult quantitative and analytical problems as well. Since they are really interested in thinking, not any subjects themselves (since they get a sense of accomplishment from solving problems, not solving problems in specific subjects), they opt for the subjects that lead to jobs that pay extremely well. I don’t see why that is unfortunate for them.”</p>
<p>My experience was similar to yours. Whenever you release thousands of brilliant and inquisitive young minds in an intellectually vibrant setting, interesting things will happen. But even then, as a percentage of the total, not many students wish to pursue careers in IBanking and Finance. It really does take a specific person to wish to pursue such a career.</p>