<p>Hey,
irvine's MBA programs rank 30-something in business week; however, their undergrad program doesn't even show up on the 2010 businessweek postings. Is this because they are relatively new or is it some other reason?</p>
<p>thank you</p>
<p>I really don’t mean to sound elitist here, but the reason is that UCI is simply not a reputable school for undergraduate business.</p>
<p>Yes, it’s too new to be ranked. The inaugural class has not graduate yet, there’s no way to access half of the sub-ranks, such as recruiter survey, starting salaries, MBA feeder school, job placement.</p>
<p>However, the BW ranking itself is … I personally don’t understand it.</p>
<p>shouldnt recruiting be okay? since they have had business econ and the accounting minor for a while?</p>
<p>My logical reasoning is - for the ranking purpose of the new undergrad program, BW would use the graduating class of BBA majors, which is different with the long exsiting business econ majors.</p>
<p>But who knows what they would do.</p>
<p>UCI’s b school is a joke. the only reason why it’s so impacted is bc its new, not bc its prestigious in any way. i would say UCI’s programs is on par with UCSB’s program, although at this early stage, it’s hard to measure UCI’s potential. if u want to go to a UC and major in business, the only option u have is Haas. none of the other schools is worth going/paying for…</p>
<p>Every year this time, many Californian under business admitted are so torn. Haas is too competitive, private/OOS are too expensive, UCI is too new, and CSU & UCR are looked down upon.</p>
<p>business week using a schools Senior Class as its profile, so maybe thats why</p>
<p>"Every year this time, many Californian under business admitted are so torn. Haas is too competitive, private/OOS are too expensive, UCI is too new, and CSU & UCR are looked down upon. "</p>