<p>First of all, those words were used to address sakky’s comment, not yours. You were totally mixing things up. Go back and reread if in doubt.</p>
<p>I am not going to spend time to look into whether FT is credible or not. But you are just not making logical sense. You used FT global MBA ranking to support your point that Kellogg reputation “takes a hit” (whatever that really means) outside the US. At the same time, you told me you never heard of HKUST even with 5 years of working experience in Hong Kong. But wait…FT ranks HKUST #16 in global MBA ranking!! If FT ranking really reflects international reputation, then you should have <em>at least</em> heard of HKUST without being in Hong Kong for even 1 nanosecond, let alone 5 years! That’s why you are probably not as knowledgeable as you may think you are.</p>
<ol>
<li>Kellogg was ahead of MIT at that time (you were trying to use MIT’s rank to imply FT rank is reliable)</li>
<li>None of the category says anything about “international reputation” (wow!)</li>
<li>Kellogg competed very well in the “alumni career” and “Idea generation”. It “underperformed” in “diversity”. It had relatively low % of international students, % of international faculty (funny how that’s actually a negative for other fields and undergrads as people complain about professors’ “speaking no English”!), and “international mobility”, which seems to strongly correlate with % international students (why the Europeans schools kick US schools’ b*tt). Does admitting more international students mean higher international reputation? No way!</li>
</ol>
<p>the_prestige,
Maybe you should just spend some time to look up what go into the rankings and have a sense of what they are really measuring (and maybe even do some basic stats analysis). I don’t know about you, but to me, it’s the most basic thing one should do.</p>
<p>Any ranking that is going to over-inflate Columbia and NYU like that (most likely swayed by Wall St placement, avg salary) would certainly have Wharton in front of them both because it is stronger in what Columbia and NYU are best at.</p>
<p>Historically, NYU Stern wouldn’t have been considered higher than ~ #15. Maybe, in the last few years, it has crept to ~ #10. With Wall Street hiring in the next five years poised to be less than what it was in the last five years, it’s more likely to move back to its historical position.</p>
<p>A book that there were ~ seven printings of in the '90s called “The Insider’s Guide to the Top 10 Business Schools” listed the schools in no particular order as:</p>
<p>Stanford
Harvard
Penn (Wharton)
Northwestern (Kellogg)
Dartmouth (Tuck)
UChicago
MIT (Sloan)
Columbia
UMichigan
UVA (Darden)</p>
<p>I just think when people use rankings to make claims, they need to know the rankings are about at the frist place. It seems like many people just treat published rankings as some kind of authoritative and complex theories–too complex to look in but too authoritative to not blindly use them. I happen to have very little respect for those that put these rankings together and think many of us are probably more educated and have higher IQ than many of those editors.</p>
<p>^I didn’t consult or take as gospel any published rankings at all before applying for an MBA and don’t think many of my classmates did either but do think that a disproprtionate share of CC is inclined to do so. </p>
<p>I would agree that the average person on here is probably much smarter than the people who put the various rankings together.</p>
<p>I applaud your efforts to defend your alma mater – I’d expect no less.</p>
<p>That doesn’t change the fact that Kellogg is just not as strong internationally as it is in the US whereas H / W / S / MIT and Columbia travel much more seamlessly across regions.</p>
<p>That has been my experience and is backed up by the FT rankings (and, again, let’s forget about the irrelevant “head fake” by throwing HKUST in the mix – no one cares about it and it has nothing to do with what we are talking about)</p>
<p>Take for instance FT’s global MBA ranking in 2005 you dug up, even then Kellogg’s ranking among US b-schools is merely no. 9 behind –> H / W / Columbia / S / Chicago / Dartmouth / NYU / Yale… behind NYU and Yale??? I’m not sure you are helping your case or hurting it Sam. Now I will acknowledge that MIT and Kellogg ranked about the same level 5 years ago (you’ll note that MIT was ranked higher than Kellogg the year prior in 2004). Now having acknowledged this, I think its a rather weak argument to have to cherry pick historical data to back up your argument. </p>
<p>Let’s argue the PRESENT. What about the CURRENT rankings? The current rankings have Kellogg at no. 21 and MIT at no. 9.</p>
<p>Why ignore that? Why not address that? Why not address the fact that Kellogg ranks no. 21 (the same as it did last year) vs. Columbia which ranks no. 4 (ranked no. 3 last year) and MIT ranks no. 9 (no. 10 last year) which TOTALLY backs me up and blows major chunks out of your argument? Perhaps you can’t address this simply because there is nothing to discuss, I mean it’s pretty black and white isn’t it? It’s pretty clear who wins.</p>
<p>I’ll say it again, Kellogg is an awesome program with arguably the best marketing program bar none. It is a legitimate Top 5 MBA program in the US. Internationally? Not as strong –> hence my personal ranking which drops Kellogg a bit lower. That’s it. Nothing less, nothing more. It’s still a great school / program and one of the best in the world, no one is saying otherwise.</p>
Because if FT ranks a school you never heard of #16, it means either
a) this FT ranking isn’t a good proxy of international reputation or
b) you are simply not knowledgeable.<br>
Which one would you like to pick? ;)</p>
<p>None of the criteria that goes into FT says much about “international reputation”. Not sure why you insist it does.</p>
<p>I didn’t cherry pick historical FT data. I picked the 2003-05 data to show that FT didn’t give much love to MIT, the school you said its name travelled far. So did Northwestern’s name travelled further 4 years ago than MIT? Seems to me you are the one that cherry picked. Actually it seems like you are the one that cherry picked a ranking that just happens to suit your position about international reputation, even when ironically none of the criteria is a measure “international reputation”.</p>
<p>Why do you want me to do all the homework? I’ve already explained a little to you about the FT ranking. You can go look it up and see why Kellogg is #21. Let me give you a jumpstart: its “international board %” is one of the lowest. Why having more foreigners on its board is a good thing? I have no idea!! Why does it have anything to do with international reputation? You tell me!</p>
<p>NU-Kellogg isn’t a strong name internationally? This isn’t true at all.
Anybody who has heard of Sloan, Haas, Tuck, Chicago, Darden, Ross, etc must have heard of Kellogg too.
I’ve heard of Kellogg and I’ve heard that it is a great business school even when I was doing my IB in Singapore.
Kellogg is definitely a top 5 in the US, and I would personally rank it number 4, just right behind HSW.</p>
<p>I have not heard of Sloan and Columbia Business School way back when I was in high school too. </p>
<p>I’ve heard of MIT, but whenever I think of MIT I think of it as a powerhouse in engineering and technology, not business (same with Berkeley). In fact, it was only very recently that I’ve heard of its business school. Same with Columbia. I think Columbia is excellent for postgrad studies, but that’s it. It’s more popular for law school and postgrad education in social sciences and languages. </p>
<p>Kellogg is definitely a prestigious and well known business school internationally, more so that is Sloan and on on par than Columbia’s.</p>
<p>It doesn’t that much, except you never know where your path is going to lead you and the world is becoming increasingly more global. How much that is going to affect you is very difficult to determine ahead of time. </p>
<p>I think the 4-8 schools are basically pretty even depending on what you’re looking for and people are generally splitting hairs here; hence the differing opinions. At some point, and I think we’ve reached that point in this discussion, success (however you define it) is going to be determined much more by the individual than the school they’re from. Maybe, statistically it doesn’t make sense to pick Kellogg over Harvard but among the 4-8 schools, I don’t know if statistics are going to come up with any concrete conclusions.</p>
<p>Do you know for a fact that you would never work abroad in your lifetime?</p>
<p>Let’s put it another way, if you could go to a school that enjoys a strong reputation in the US and internationally, then why wouldn’t you? There isn’t any downside and lots of potential upside. What’s wrong with that?</p>