<p>The ranking is consistent with most measures though...HYPSMC Dartmouth Duke Columbia Penn all near the top...</p>
<p>Well of course . The ranking is comprised completely of other rankings; it should not be a shock that it looks similar to the rankings that formed it. </p>
<p>If you take a gallon of milk, and add a tablespoon of water, the milk wont look that different.</p>
<p>lol duh...shadap</p>
<p>The Prestige, I know you don't believe Ross is a top 5 MBA program. I am not sure I disagree with you. I never said it was definitely a top 5 MBA program. However, Ross has one of the top 7 or 8 MBA programs, and there are only 3 clear top 5 MBA programs (Kellogg, HBS and Wharton). The remaining 2 spots in the top 5 can go to any of the remaining 5 MBA prowerhouses, which include Chicago, Columbia, Ross, Sloan and Stanford. I agree that Ross does not make the strongest case for top 5 MBA consideration. That is why I did not list it above. Instead, I listed Chicago, which I believe makes a stronger case for top 5 MBA honors. I also think that Stanford makes a stronger case than Ross. </p>
<p>Slipper, other than me, you never heard anybody mention Ross among the top 5 MBAs? I am pretty sure that Businessweek has ranked Ross among the top 5 several times (3 times between 1992-2004) in the past decade or so and #6 in their latest, 2004 edition. I wouldn't be surprised if Ross cracked the top 5 in their upcoming edition. Overall, historically speaking, Ross has been ranked #5 according to Businessweek, which makes it top 5 MBA program according to one of the two main MBA ranking authorities. </p>
<p>Even USNWR ranked Michigan's MBA program among the top 5 twice in the early-mid 90s. </p>
<p>Other less respected MBA rankings rank Michigan in or around the top 5. For example, the Economist ranked Ross #5 or #6 among North American MBA programs in their latest ranking. Barrons has mentioned Michigan's lofty ranking in the WSJ, although I personally find the WSJ as flawed as the Forbes or FT rankings. </p>
<p>At any rate, I think that listing the top 5 is very limited. Even those who don't believe Ross is a top 5 MBA program will agree that there are more than 5 MBA programs that deserve top 5 consideration. As such, I believe including 10 MBA programs in the WSJ would make more sense. Same goes with Law schools and Medical schools.</p>
<p>I doubt having 10 of each professional school will significantly change the rankigns anyways...I'm sure HYPS, Dartmouth, Duke, Williams, Columbia and Brown will dominate most lists simply because they have the top incoming students</p>
<p>Are you so sure? Just look at Michigan:</p>
<p>1) Michigan has top 10 MBA and Medical programs, neither of which was included in WSJ's survey, each of which enroll 50 or so Michigan alums each year. </p>
<p>2) Add Northwestern's Law school and Chicago and Kellog's MBA programs, all of which enroll many Michigan alums too (just like the East Coast elites recruit from each other, the Midwestern Elites do the same) and I'd say Michigan would probably make a huge leap. </p>
<p>Obviously, at #18 (among research universities), Michigan is already pretty high up the list. Adding a few more elite programs from geographically diverse areas would probably not take Michigan to the top 5 of the list (among research universities only), but it would probably take it to the top 10. I am sure other schools would also benefit greatly from the inclusion of more geographicaly diverse elites, especiaqlly the likes of Cal, Stanford, Chicago and Northwestern.</p>
<p>Chicago Law #6; Michigan, Cal-Boalt, and UVA Law all tied for #8.</p>
<p>Duke Med #6, Stanford & UWash (Seattle) Med tied at #7, Baylor #10, UCLA tied at 11</p>
<p>Cal-Haas #7, UCLA-Anderson #10</p>
<p>Of course, Darmouth and Penn are in those top 10 categories aobve, as well. But, if we throw Stanford back into the mix (wihch WSJ purposely excluded), geographic diversity would be interesting to test, no?</p>
<p>Or, what about broadening the survey to include Engineering schools? Lets' see:</p>
<p>MIT, Stanford, Cal, Georgia Tech, UI-UC, Purdue, UMich, Carnegie Mellon, USC, & Cal Tech. Hmmmmm, only ONE east coast school on the list. (Cornell is #11, tied with UCSan Diego.)</p>
<p>Alex,</p>
<p>Out of all your blatant statements about UMichigan, claiming that it has a top five MBA and law school has to be the most extreme and misguided. On the law school side, UMichigan isn't even close to top five. If you don't believe me, just go on the xoxo law board site and see what they're saying as they're more informed than either of us. On the business side, consensus top three is Harvard, Wharton and Stanford (not Kellogg) and for you to keep Stanford out goes further to show you don't understand the pecking order. From what I've seen from friends and colleagues, the only ones going to UMichigan are the ones getting rejected from Stanford, HBS, Wharton, Kellogg, Tuck, UChicago, MIT, Columbia.</p>
<p>You are so knowledgeable Gellino. Maybe you should inform Businessweek and the entire legal profession of your incredile wisdom. You are ignorant.</p>
<p>
[quote]
there are only 3 clear top 5 MBA programs (Kellogg, HBS and Wharton).
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I'm going to have to agree (somewhat) with gellino here Alexandre; I really don't see how you can keep Stanford out of the top tier of MBA programs.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Chicago Law #6; Michigan, Cal-Boalt, and UVA Law all tied for #8.</p>
<p>Duke Med #6, Stanford & UWash (Seattle) Med tied at #7, Baylor #10, UCLA tied at 11</p>
<p>Cal-Haas #7, UCLA-Anderson #10
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Bluebayou, </p>
<p>Look I understand what you are saying... but the brutal harsh reality is - that is, if you want to get into that kind of detail - not only is every single school you've listed outside the Top 5, many of them just aren't TOP TIER I grad schools.</p>
<p>So, basically, you've got the absolute "elite" Tier I schools - dominated by the EAST COAST that are then followed by tiers of lesser prestigious groups in succession. It's a slippery slope from that point - heck, if you want to take it a step further, why not just include the Top 1,000 grad schools? Top 10,000? </p>
<p>Of course as you slide down the quality ladder, you're going to see schools from across the nation - not every school is going to be from the EAST - but that wasn't the point, was it? The point was simply to answer the question (or charge): Why the "unfair" focus on EAST coast grad schools? When the answer, upon simple inspection, was simply because a disproportionate percentage of the absolute "TOP GUN" elite grad schools reside in the EAST (again, not every one, but certainly in greater numbers than any other region).</p>
<p>If you want the brutal cold truth, when people talk about "THE BEST", "THE ELITE" - people who sit up and take notice when you say you graduated there - you are only really talking about a handful of grad schools, for example:</p>
<ul>
<li>Yale Law School</li>
<li>Harvard Law School</li>
<li>Harvard Business School</li>
<li>Wharton School (University of Pennsylvania)</li>
<li>Harvard Medical School</li>
<li>Johns Hopkins Medical School
and perhaps</li>
<li>Stanford Law School</li>
<li>Stanford Business School</li>
</ul>
<p>After all, the title of the Article published with the WSJ Feeder Ranking was titled:</p>
<p>"Want to Go To Harvard Law?
A Comprehensive Ranking of America's Most Successful 'Feeder' Colleges"</p>
<p>It wasn't called:</p>
<p>"Want to Go To Baylor College of Medicine?"</p>
<p>I've never met anyone from undergrad, analyst class, associate class, business school class, other friends and colleagues who ever regarded or attended UMichigan over the eight MBA schools I mentioned. Since when did you start obsequiously following rankings? You're the same one always claiming that UMichigan is better than Dartmouth, Brown, Cornell for ugrad and no rankings are confirming that either. It seems like you pick and choose when it's convenient for you. I'm not saying that UMichigan isn't a good school, but it's not on the same level as the other prominent non east (Stanford, Kellogg, UChicago) schools.</p>
<p>bananainpyjamas, anybody who leaves Michigan out of the top 6 or 7 top Law schools and the top 7 or 8 MBA programs is in denial. Full stop! And since there isn't a clear cut top 5, Michigan makes as good a case for top 5 consideration as any of the other 7 or so programs in either discipline, save three or four programs. </p>
<p>The_Prestige, you cannot approach education as you would measuring a bridge. Education is far too abstract. Yes, Harvard, Wharton and Kellogg are the top 3 MBA programs, but that does not mean that Chicago, Stanford, MIT, Columbia and Ross aren't elite. Yes, Harvard and Yale Law schools are the top 2, but that does not mean that Columbia, Stanford, Chicago, NYU and Michigan aren't elite either.</p>
<p>Gellino, you are a liar. When did I ever claim that Michigan is better than Brown, Dartmouth or Cornell? Show me where I claimed that? I always say that Brown and Dartmouth are awesome and equal to the best of them, but I never compare them to Michigan because they are too different. I do compare Cornell to Michigan because they share a lot in common, but I never said Michigan was better than Cornell. </p>
<p>As for your colleagues, they are entitled to their opnion. Obviously, enough people in very high places value Ross a great deal or it would not consistantly be ranked among the top 6 MBA programs according to Businessweek.</p>
<p>prestige:</p>
<p>I would definitely concur with your assertion; after H&H, med schools drop. The WSJ made their cut at top 5 -- but your cut was top three (mostly). Can the authors of the WSJ article honestly say that the there is huge drop off from #5 to #6? What about to #7? </p>
<p>I'm not arguing outcomes, just inputs, i.e., study design methodology. If the authors wanted to write about how to get into H-Law, they could have just studied that one grad program, but they did not. Also, why ignore Engineering? Why exclude Stanford?</p>
<p>Wall Street Journal is a horribly flawed and therefore this ranking is as well.</p>
<p>Alexandre - I didn't say anything about Michigan; I was agreeing with him about Stanford being in the top tier of business schools. Nothing against Michigan, but I wouldn't call the GSB and Ross equals.</p>
<p>I betcha that if Stanford and other top schools were added, the results of WSJ would be similar</p>
<p>I mean, Dartmouth has 1 professional school, Stanford is already ranked in the top 4, Duke and Williams have no professional schools in the ranking and Duke isn't in the NE either - so it would be interesting to see someone collect data for, say, 10 top professional schools in biz, med, and law and see what the results are.</p>
<p>However, thats a bunch of work, and I don't think the changes would be signifncant at all.</p>
<p>..And I think the changes might be significant among the smaller schools. And the order of some of the others might change. For example, with more of the top midwestern grad programs included,some of the midwestern LACs might be more highly represented.</p>
<p>I feel this way because I've personally encountered a pronounced regional bias in the grad schools I attended.</p>
<p>^Agreed, I think MidWestern or Southern LACs (such as Davidson, which sends many students to Duke professional programs, or Carleton) would be more affected rankwise</p>
<p>However, the Unis at the top (HYPS, Duke, Dartmouth, Columbia, Brown) probably wouldn't change tooo much</p>
<p>Thethoughtprocess, the WSJ survey would change more than you think if it were more geographically diverse and included the top 10 program in each professional discipline, and it isn't just the LACs that would benefit. The top 4 would remain H, Y, P and S, but there would be changes after that. The changes wouldn't be substantial mind you. I think the actual rankings would probably remain almost the same, but the disparities in the ratios would decline. Basically, you would have almost no difference in ratios between #5 and #40. Instead of going from 10% to 2%, they would go from 15% to 10%.</p>
<p>And also I think the survey should include graduate Engineering programs. That would enhance the ratings of universities with large Engineering colleges, like Cal, Caltech, Cornell, MIT and Michigan.</p>