Undergrad. Major Rankings Questions

College Search & Selection
221

<p>Sakky, I am the first to admit that the WSJ is not the best ranking of MBA programs. But to dismiss it entirely simply because it does not rank Harvard and Stanford where they belong isn't necessary the right thing to do. Whether we like it or not, the WSJ does reflect how enthusiastic recruiters are about MBA programs. </p>

<p>Personally, and I know we have discussed this several times, I think BW is the best, followed by the USNWR. But even BW, which I am sure we both agree is relatively reliable, had Ross ranked as high as #2 and always between #2 and #7. All I am saying is that Ross is generally regarded as one of the top 5-8 MBA programs.</p>

222

<p>
[quote]
Whether we like it or not, the WSJ does reflect how enthusiastic recruiters are about MBA programs.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>And like I've said, MBA programs are not out to please the recruiters. They're out to please the students. If the students are getting top jobs, who cares how ticked off the recruiters are? In fact, the recruiters SHOULD be ticked off, because that would mean that the students are squeezing them for the highest salaries and best jobs possible, which the recruiters obviously don't want to give. HBS students, for example, are notorious for ticking off recruiters. But that's a simple consequence of the fact that HBS grads are desirable, and they know it. </p>

<p>
[quote]
had Ross ranked as high as #2 and always between #2 and #7.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Actually, you mean between #2 and #8. It was #8 in 2002.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.businessweek.com/bschools/rankings/ranking_history.htm%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.businessweek.com/bschools/rankings/ranking_history.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>
[quote]
But even BW, which I am sure we both agree is relatively reliable

[/quote]
</p>

<p>'Relative' is a loaded word. It is of course true that it is more reliable than WSJ. Heck, my neighbor's dog can probably pick B-schools more reliably than the WSJ can. </p>

<p>But even BW is not all that reliable. Again - Stanford ranked #11 in one year? Duke #5 in that same year? MIT ranked #15 twice? Virginia ranked #5 in one year? That's pretty dubious.</p>

223

<p>WSJ Ranking</p>

<p>Sakky is spot on. The WSJ Ranking IS a Recruiter's Ranking - read what it says on their own website - where they effectively admit that it's a poor indicator of the "best" b-school:</p>

<p>
[quote]
Looking Beyond Academics</p>

<p>The three rankings measure how appealing business schools are to the corporate recruiters who hire their M.B.A. graduates. What differentiates each ranking is the type of recruiters the schools attract. But the ratings of all 85 schools across the three rankings are based on how recruiters evaluated them on the same 21 attributes, as well as the recruiter's intention to return and hire a school's graduates over the next two years. In addition, the rankings include a "mass appeal" factor, which is the number of recruiters that the National and Regional schools attract. For the International ranking, the mass-appeal measure was changed this year so that schools can qualify for it only if they attract recruiters who place a large number of their graduates in jobs outside the U.S.</p>

<p>Harris Interactive conducted the online survey of 4,125 recruiters (up from 3,267 respondents in 2005) from Dec. 13, 2005, to March 16, 2006 -- with respondents rating only schools where they said they had recent recruiting experience. To qualify for any of the three rankings, a school had to receive at least 20 recruiter ratings.</p>

<p>The rankings aren't necessarily a reflection of the schools with the most celebrated academic reputations. Although the 21 attributes include the curriculum and faculty, academic quality isn't the primary concern of most survey respondents. Instead, they care most about the M.B.A. students' interpersonal and communication skills, teamwork orientation, personal ethics and integrity, analytical and problem-solving abilities, and work ethic.</p>

<p>That helps explain why some of the most renowned schools, such as Harvard and Stanford, don't rank as highly in the survey as their academic stature might suggest. While recognizing the brainpower of their students and faculty, recruiters complain that they often find graduates of some of the most prestigious institutions more arrogant and less collegial than the M.B.A.s they meet at other schools. Some of the large, elite schools also don't seem to enjoy as many close, personal relationships with recruiters as smaller M.B.A. programs do, and their career-service offices tend to receive lower scores for customer service.</p>

<p>Overall, the survey respondents appeared happier with the schools this year, giving generally higher ratings on the 21 attributes and indicating that they plan to continue recruiting at the same schools. More than half of the recruiters said they believe the quality of M.B.A. graduates is the same or better today compared with past years.

[/quote]
</p>

<p><a href="http://www.collegejournal.com/mbacenter/newstrends/20060920-alsop-mblede.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.collegejournal.com/mbacenter/newstrends/20060920-alsop-mblede.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>So its no surprise that the clear Top 3: Harvard, Wharton and Stanford get screwed - recruiters HATE HBS grads, that's no secret.</p>

224

<p>And how does this info descredit the WSJ MBA rankings? If anything it supports that the WSJ MBA rankings are a good ranking as people attend top MBA's to get top jobs. People get MBAs for money and jobs, people get PHD's in order to learn. A recruiter based ranking is probably the best criteria for such a program. HWS are sometimes overrated and while this ranking is not perfect it is a good window into what the real world professionals think of certain schools.</p>

225

<p>
[quote]
People get MBAs for money and jobs, people get PHD's in order to learn.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>For the record, I don't know a single PhD student (and I know more than a few) who doesn't want a great placement after getting the degree. PhDs are just as driven to get jobs, trust me.</p>

<p>But I'm picking nits, and I know it.</p>

226

<p>Yea but you know what I mean. Ranking MBA schools and even ugrad b schools based on anything "educational" should come second to job success. BTW: also picking nits but I know almost all the PHD's here (from CS to liberal arts majors) care about teaching and research. Perhaps it is because I attend a private research U. and you attend a public U. but it's interesting to see our different experiences (varying depending on our respective colleges).</p>

227

<p>Yeah, I know. It just was a funny thought to me, how you said that PhDs are in it for the "education," yet if anything, PhD-candidates are probably more worried about getting gainfully employed than MBA students!</p>

<p>But yeah, MBAs are definitely professional degrees, and theory is not necessarily the core component.</p>

228

<p>The NRC Rankings
<a href="http://www.stat.tamu.edu/%7Ejnewton/nrc_rankings/nrc1.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.stat.tamu.edu/~jnewton/nrc_rankings/nrc1.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>and the Gourman Report, which is available through Amazon or The Princeton Review, might be helpful to you:</p>

<p><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Princeton-Review-Undergraduate-International-Universities/dp/0679777806/sr=8-1/qid=1159182792/ref=pd_bbs_1/104-9468305-3883905?ie=UTF8&s=books%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.amazon.com/Princeton-Review-Undergraduate-International-Universities/dp/0679777806/sr=8-1/qid=1159182792/ref=pd_bbs_1/104-9468305-3883905?ie=UTF8&s=books&lt;/a> </p>

<p>Best wishes!</p>

229

<p>
[quote]
And how does this info descredit the WSJ MBA rankings?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Alex, it's not a matter of "discrediting" the WSJ per se, it's further evidence of the fact that recruiters and b-school graduates are naturally "at odds".</p>

<p>Recruiters would like to hire MBA graduates for the LEAST amount of money possible with the LEAST benefits possible and want MBA graduates with maximum flexibility (as to job position, title, location, etc.) MBA graduates want the exact opposite -> they want to land a job with the HIGHEST pay possible and the most amount of benefits and MBA graduates want to work at firms with the highest amount of flexibility FOR its workers.</p>

<p>It's no secret that HBS graduates are notoriously difficult to recruit because their demands are so much higher than other MBA graduates (similarly many Stanford GBS grads simply don't want to leave the Bay Area) etc. </p>

<p>But don't be fooled by the WSJ ranking - the MOST sought after, highest recruited classes - year in and year out are on the campuses of Harvard, Stanford and Wharton --> these are where the best and brightest are --> and as much as recruiters may whine about it, they aren't going to cut their noses to spite their faces, they'll be at HBS, GSB and UPenn front and center you better believe that. </p>

<p>In my book they are a bunch of hypocrites. If they actually put their money where there mouth was, they would stop recruiting at H/ W/ S.</p>

230

<p>That wasn't me the_prestige. Like I said, you are preaching to the choir. We all know that the WSJ is one of the weaker rankings. It is not better than the ridiculous Forbes ranking. If you ask me, BW and the USNWR are the only reliable and accurate rankings out there. The FT and the Econimist are ok, but they do have their flaws. </p>

<p>This said, to dismiss recruiters as being hypocritical and petty is unwise. Those who say that recruiters and MBAs are at odds with each other sound like paranoid conspiracy theorist. As a recruiter at the highest level myself, I can tell you that typically, recruiters rate MBA programs according to how well the program prepares its students to lead organizations and divisions to profitability in an effective manner. Is it wrong for recruiters to prefer team players with leadership ability over individuals with God complexes? You say that Harvard, Wharton and SBS have the best and the brightest. Is that so? I personally think that the quality of MBA students at the top 10 programs is pretty uniform. At the very best, we are talking about first year classes that graduated from college with an average of 3.5 GPAs and 710 GMATs and at the very worst, we are talking about first year classes that graduated from college with an average of 3.4 GPAs and 690 on the GMAT. Work experience is practically identical accross the board, with the vast majority of MBAs at those top 10 programs having worked 4-5 years at major companies. Getting into any top MBA program is not a question of talent...it is a question of luck. 100 students apply to HBS and Fuqua. Of those 100, 50 are amazing...worthy of being accepted into any MBA program. But for those 100 applicants, Fuqua can only accept 30 and Harvard can only accept 10. All of them are practically equal. The only factor that separates the successful applicants from the unsuccessful applicants is luck.</p>

231

<p>alex - my bad, it was acceptedalready.</p>

232

<p>Another data to validate my WCU’s
** WCU : Harvard-Berkeley-MIT-Stanford-Yale-Princeton-Columbia-Caltech**</p>

<p>NRC Rankings by The Five Main Areas </p>

<p>**Arts & Humanities
1.Berkeley
2.Princeton
3.Harvard
4.Columbia
5.Cornell</p>

<p>Biological Sciences
1.Stanford
2.MIT
3.Harvard
4.UCSD
5.Berkeley</p>

<p>Engineering
1.MIT
2.Berkeley
3.Stanford
4.Caltech
5.Princeton</p>

<p>Phys Sciences & Math<br>
1 Berkeley<br>
2 MIT<br>
3 Caltech<br>
4 Princeton<br>
5 Harvard </p>

<p>Social & Behavioral
1 Berkeley 7 8.57
2 Stanford 6 8.50
3 Michigan 6 8.50
4 Harvard 6 8.50
5 Chicago 6 8.33**</p>

<p>Q.E.D.</p>

233

<p>These are GRADUATE program rankings!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!</p>

<p>WOW, how hard is this concept?</p>

234

<p>“I swear to you, outside of California people think its a slightly better than okay school.”</p>

<p>WHAT??? With all due respect, you’re grossly misinformed. Obviously, the members of the professor search committee of MIT’s chemical eng. dept do not share your “opinion”.</p>

<p><a href="http://web.mit.edu/cheme/people/faculty/faculty.name.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://web.mit.edu/cheme/people/faculty/faculty.name.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>Indeed, Berkeley-educated professors are the majority of the entire ChemE department faculty of MIT, arguably the best ChemE dept. in the world!!!</p>

<p>While I am at it, How about Chemistry dept. of MIT?</p>

<p>Berkeley-under:</p>

<p><a href="http://web.mit.edu/chemistry/www/faculty/movassaghi.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://web.mit.edu/chemistry/www/faculty/movassaghi.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p><a href="http://web.mit.edu/chemistry/www/faculty/jamison.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://web.mit.edu/chemistry/www/faculty/jamison.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>Berkeley-PhD:</p>

<p><a href="http://web.mit.edu/chemistry/www/faculty/stubbe.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://web.mit.edu/chemistry/www/faculty/stubbe.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p><a href="http://web.mit.edu/chemistry/www/faculty/ting.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://web.mit.edu/chemistry/www/faculty/ting.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p><a href="http://web.mit.edu/chemistry/www/faculty/vanvoorhis.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://web.mit.edu/chemistry/www/faculty/vanvoorhis.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p><a href="http://web.mit.edu/chemistry/www/faculty/ceyer.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://web.mit.edu/chemistry/www/faculty/ceyer.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>Let’s go for another state….</p>

<p>The Aero eng. dept. of the flagship university of MD:</p>

<p>The world-renowned professor Pines, the expert in smart material/structure, Berkeley-under, MIT-phd:</p>

<p><a href="http://www.aero.umd.edu/facstaff/fac-profiles/pines-darryll.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.aero.umd.edu/facstaff/fac-profiles/pines-darryll.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>and Professor Yu, one of the few “forerunners” in the world in the area of the active control theory in combustion, Berkeley all the way (BS-PHD):</p>

<p><a href="http://www.aero.umd.edu/facstaff/fac-profiles/yu-kenneth.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.aero.umd.edu/facstaff/fac-profiles/yu-kenneth.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>I can go on and on to rebut your silly claim, but you get the picture.</p>

<p>Repeat!!!!</p>

<p>** the grad program rankings, where the quality of the program, faculty, students etc are more at issue - which is less true with undergrad programs (not ranked according to discrete criteria, but only with a simple "peer reputation" list)**</p>

235

<p>^^^ All of this from our residential Communist.</p>

<p>(p.s. Cuba is only a short boat ride away pal)</p>

236

<p>"boat" or "bathtub"?</p>

237

<p><a href="http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showthread.php?p=2991166#post2991166%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showthread.php?p=2991166#post2991166&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>
[quote]
Rabban wrote:</p>

<p>I’m all in for </p>

<p>1) heavy, heavy taxes for the rich
2) more government support for the needy
3) Women’s right to choose
4) total separation of state & church
5) making all universities free for all students

[/quote]
</p>

238

<p>Indeed!!!</p>

<p>1) ** heavy, heavy, heavy**taxes for the rich
2) more government support for the needy
3) Women’s right to choose
4) total separation of state & church
5) making all universities free for all students</p>

239

<p>Rabban Wrote:</p>

<p>President Clinton – He’s the first president in US history who taught us that we must listen and value the opinions of the others, even they are minority- we can all learn from the dissenting opinions. Actually, during the Clinton’s era, there was a great influx of women/minority into top government positions, including key decision/policy making posts. I’d rank him right with President Truman, President Kennedy as one of our greatest presidents who really cared for the underprivileged. He was the champion of the low-middle class</p>

<p>Hillary Clinton 2008</p>

240

<p>the grad program rankings, where the quality of the program, faculty, students etc are more at issue </p>

<p>FINALLY. You admit it!! Of course Berkeley is a top 7 UNIVERSITY!!!!!!!!!! We haven't been arguing that!! But its a top 15-20 UNDERGRAD program!</p>

<p>Discussion over.</p>