<p>Business Week just came out with its first ranking of Undergraduate Business Schools. It appears that they did a pretty thorough job.</p>
<p>Univ of Penn (Wharton) was ranked #1 and UVA (Mcintire) was ranked #2</p>
<p>W&L (Williams) doesn't show up in the rankings at all. Is this because they BW did not consider Williams or is there some other reason it does not show up? There are a number of small colleges on the list, so I don't think it was due to the size of the school.</p>
<p>I was wondering the same thing. Dima, do you know?</p>
<p>The 2004 ranking did consider the Williams school at rank 102, so my best guess would be that the Williams school has dropped in ranking and therefore not in the first 100 or so rank.</p>
<p>My understanding is that this is the first year Business Week has ranked Undergraduate Business Schools, so I don't know how Williams could have been ranked 102 in 2004.</p>
<p>Oh, i'm sorry i read the thread in a hurry and mistook it for US News rankings. I was talking about the US News ranking. I don't think the small size is the reason why the Williams school is not on the list though.</p>
<p>It is an easy mistake to make as US News has been the main source of Undergrad Business School rankings in previous years.</p>
<p>I think the Business Week rankings appear to take a more in-depth approach, so I am inclined to give them more weight.</p>
<p>There are other LACs on the list, and since W&L seems to play up the fact that it is the only small LAC with an accredited Business School, I am wondering why it does not fare as well when compared to other schools with strong Business Schools.</p>
<p>maybe washington&lee really meant to say...'the only liberal arts college (in the top 20) w/ an accred business school. who knows? everything goes back to the rankings and lists, what a mess!</p>
<p>Yeah, the Williams School is quite a mess: </p>
<p>"A Fortune Magazine survey revealed that W&L ranked third behind Yale and Princeton in its ability to graduate future CEO's of Fortune 500 companies. A total of 1,891 present and former CEO's of Fortune 500 and Service 500 companies were asked to list their undergraduate alma maters. Harvard, Northwestern, Cornell, Columbia, Stanford, Michigan, Dartmouth (in that order) and the other big names you might expect trailed Yale and Princeton in sheer numbers of alumni CEO's. But when the schools were given a power factor and adjusted for class size, W&L vaulted ahead of mighty Harvard in launching alumni toward the corner office. By this measure, the order was: (1) Yale; (2) Princeton; (3) W&L; (4) Harvard; (5) Dartmouth; (6) Northwestern."</p>
<p>I meant the rankings and lists are a mess, not the williams school</p>
<p>my apologies</p>
<p>That is very interesting stuff polo; you have any more info on it?</p>
<p>That's interesting: it is true that W&L has more CEO in Fortune 500 companies per capita than all schools but Princeton and Yale so I don't know why it wouldn't be up there. What other LAC's are on the list?</p>
<p>Three points here:</p>
<p>First, the problem with the Business Week rankings, as well as all rankings that attempt to ascribe an objective number to the quality of a college or university, is that they presuppose what they are trying to prove. For example, Wharton is generally regarded by the public as the "best" business school in the nation. Therefore, if Business Week wants to carry any credibility with its rankings, it will need to ensure that Wharton secures a spot near the top of its list. In doing so, Business Week generates a formula that does a good job of reinforcing common perceptions, but in fact is contingent on biased data and intellectually dishonest science. </p>
<p>Second, my guess as to why the Williams School is not ranked higher in the Business Week rankings is because it unapologetically takes a scholarly approach to teaching business rather than a vocational one. In fact, the Williams School is officially named the Williams School of Commerce, Economics, and Politics, signifying that it is not first and foremost a business school, but a rather an educational institution that emphasizes the interdisiciplinary integration of many subjects. A recent W&L Alumni Magazine describes it best: "The W&L trustees originally called for the business school to be developed within the political science and economics programs. The move was 50 years ahead of its time compared to business curricula in other American universities, and consistent with Lee's belief in the complementary nature of liberal and practical educations. Of course, the concept of the free-ranging intellectual with practical concerns goes back thousands of years. 'I tell people our model is so antiquated that it is contemporary,' says Larry Peppers, dean of the Williams School. 'We recognize today," he continues, 'that many of our complex problems involve an overlapping of economics and politics and business.'" </p>
<p>Third, anyone who attends or has graduated from the Williams School will tell you that W&L is a great place to receive an education in business, managament, accounting, or anything else. The quality of its professors, the placement of its alumni, and the value that it places on undergraduate teaching are testaments to the merits of a Williams School education.</p>