<p>Obviously this is a graduate school ranking so a direct application to undergraduate colleges would be incorrect, but what I found particularly interesting in this story was the comments of various recruiters. Students should consider these thoughts as they compare undergraduate college options and finding an environment that will provide both a great academic experience and graduates that employers actually like and want to hire. </p>
<p>Here are some interesting excerpts:</p>
<p>"Recruiters said interpersonal and communication skills, a teamwork orientation, personal ethics and integrity, analytical and problem-solving abilities, and a strong work ethic matter most to them."</p>
<p>"Some schools received lower ratings because recruiters failed to hire as many M.B.A. graduates as they had hoped and because they said they encountered more "uppity attitudes" from students"</p>
<p>Graduates of the top-rated school were praised for being "well-rounded" students, their personal integrity, interpersonal and communication skills, and teamwork abilities."</p>
<p>One attitude that recruiters encountered and which they greatly disliked was that some "students seemed ultra-relaxed and felt that they didn't need to try to impress the interviewers but rather that the interviewers should try to impress them." </p>
<p>These are all pretty obvious things, but they have ramifications to students as they do a job search. Thus, I encourage students to think about the colleges and the undergraduate experience that they offer and the attitude and the reputation of the college and its graduates among a variety of industries and how this may translate into postgraduate job opportunities.</p>
<p>The ranking components for all schools measured includes three elements:</p>
<p>PERCEPTION: The perceptions of the school and its students on 21 attributes (see them at wsj.com/bschools)</p>
<p>SUPPORTIVE BEHAVIOUR: Future plans to recruit at the school and hire its graduates based on two attributes.</p>
<p>MASS APPEAL: For national and regional schools, the number of recruiters indicating that they recruit from the school. For international schools, the number of recruiters that place graduates in jobs outside the US or equally inside or outside the US. </p>
<p>Each of these three components accounts for one-third of a school's overall rank.</p>
<p>Thanks, but. Problem seems to be on the computer I'm using. It's dial up and won't open the page. This is temporary, though. It was striking to me to see that Wharton was not in the top 10 for recruiters, given the worship it receives on CC. For recruiters to say that demeanor and attitude of applicants can matter a lot more than the prestigious degree is pretty interesting.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Obviously this is a graduate school ranking so a direct application to undergraduate colleges would be incorrect...
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Umm, perhaps. But, a grad school "philosophy and culture" (for lack of better terms) are bound to trickle down to the undergrad program, if it exists. For example, many of the same faculty teaching the MBA students at Cal-Haas (#2), also teach undergrads. Indeed, some classes are the exact same -- same prof, same TA's, same classroom, etc., the only difference being the course numbering. </p>
<p>But, of course, that brings us full circle to another thread, concerning...... :D</p>
<p>At the risk of simply proving the arrogance bit, I'd love to see the recruiter that takes a UNC grad before a graduate of Stanford, HBS, or Wharton.</p>
<p>Even if they hate 'em, they are still scrambling to hire them. The Wall Street Journal may give them a chance to vent about it, but their bosses up in HR sure won't care to ask why they didn't grab as many Stanford grads as possible...</p>
<p>Stanford usually ranks low in the WSJ survey because it is all based on recruiters' opinions and recruiters historically have a hard time having Stanford grads accept their offers.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Stanford usually ranks low in the WSJ survey because it is all based on recruiters' opinions and recruiters historically have a hard time having Stanford grads accept their offers.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>This is PRECISELY the reason why the WSJ rankings of b-schools is widely viewed as inaccurate, compared to the more "objective" rankings of USNWR and BusinessWeek.
Supporters of WSJ will claim that it uses the evaluations of those who REALLY matter -- the recruiters -- but it is well known that what's being reported is actually a recruiter <em>satisfaction</em> survey rather than a rating of student quality.
Yes, graduates of the absolute top tier schools are generally selective in the types of industries and companies they want to work for. And why not? It's not an unreasonable expectation given the self-selection process that occurs when applicants are applying to b-schools.
So when a recruiter for slightly-less-desirable-corporation gets snubbed by the students of higher ranked school A for jobs that students of lower ranked school B normally jump through hoops for, the recruiters' natural reaction would be that graduates of the former institution are snooty and pompous -- and this is what is manifesting in the WSJ rankings.<br>
Compare the graduate placements of UNC, Ross, and CMU against the likes of Chicago GSB, Wharton, HBS, Stanford, and Kellogg, and you'll see how the "real" hiearchy shakes out.</p>
<p>
[quote]
"Some schools received lower ratings because recruiters failed to hire as many M.B.A. graduates as they had hoped and because they said they encountered more "uppity attitudes" from students"
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Looks like b-school grads aren't the only ones with egos...</p>
<p>calicartel,
I think you make some good points about some weaknesses of the WSJ survey (and any employer survey). Recruiters are people and are reacting to the experiences that they have with the various b-schools and their students. Sometimes the recruiters probably don't get what they want from the b-school. Now whether this flows thru to their ratings is anyone's guess, but it's certainly possible. </p>
<p>As for the rankings themselves, I think that there is much greater fluidity in the annual results because recruiters see this as a real-time evaluation and not one based on the historical reputation of the school or how many awards the faculty wins, etc. Students turn over every two years and the personalities of these schools do change over pretty short periods of time. Very often, comparatively underrated schools like a Haas or a Kenan-Flagler or some other school outside of the most academically prestigious (HBS, SBS, and Wharton IMO) will enroll a very good class of students that will impress greatly in the recruiting process either through just sheer intelligence, great personal stories/experiences, strong and unique work experiences, etc. and will outperform their more nationally renown competitors when the interviews begin. Combine this with a dose of humility, high personal integrity and work ethic, and an ability to work well with others and this makes for a pretty good candidate, regardless of the b-school. Recruiters can and probably do reflect this in the annual survey. </p>
<p>It is no accident that a school like Dartmouth's Tuck is a mainstay at or near the top of these recruiter rankings. That school happens to be one-quarter the size of HBS or Wharton, but pound for pound more than holds its own in competition for jobs in virtually any industry. B-schools like Tuck (smart students, good work experience, excellent personal qualities, understanding of teams and how to work with others) serve as a good model for others to follow and will always produce graduates that recruiters will value.</p>
<p>No insult intended-I was just using the examples that were raised above. Heck, my arguments here are meant to support places like Haas and Kenan-Flagler as there are many fine students there who sometimes get underrated because their b-schools are not as broadly prestigious as the three that I mentioned. I am not making a statement about tiers and I have a high regard for Haas and Kenan-Flager and, for that matter, any of the top 15 so b-schools. All are filled with strong students and the student quality is not that different and can and does fluctuate year to year.</p>
<p>I'm kinda beside myself over here, that Ross may have taken a ding because we have construction on campus. I mean, come on.</p>
<p>As I understand it, the folks at Ross are taking seriously the complaints about poor recruiter relations, and these results are being discussed. But the idea that the "quality" of the school may be judged worse (and reported such in a national publication) because someone had to walk around a construction fence to get the interview... well, I bet that's a little galling.</p>
<p>ultra cali,
As I think more about this, the list probably expands to 20-30 b-schools with the last few perhaps being something of a stretch to get in with the more "elite" industries like investment banking and consulting. On a national scale, I think that the WSJ National Ranking list is pretty good and I would include all 19 of those and I think that Emory, Georgetown and U Texas probably belong on that national list as well. </p>
<p>On the other list, beyond having a more regionally-oriented pool of recruiters, many of these schools are a lot smaller which would be a double whammy in this type of survey. Still, there are some good students at many of these schools and it would not be a shock to find their students at some at the top firms of investment banking or management consulting. I'd probably pick about 8-10 of these-I'm sure that others would quibble with some of these and would have other picks. </p>
<p>My total list of Top 30 b-schools would probably look something like the following (in alphabetical order). Some are undeniably stronger than others and have stronger networks to tap into and this is not a small point. But if the student is good enough, all of these schools should have a powerful enough brand to get you a look. At that point, it is up to the student. </p>
<p>Boston College (Carroll)
Brigham Young (Marriott)
Carnegie Mellon (Tepper)
Columbia
Cornell (Johnson)
Dartmouth (Tuck)
Duke (Fuqua)
Emory (Goizueta)
Georgetown (McDonough)
Harvard
Indiana U (Kelly)
MIT (Sloan)
Northwestern (Kellogg)
Notre Dame (Mendoza)
NYU (Stern)
Stanford
U Chicago
U Michigan (Ross)
U North Carolina (Kenan-Flagler)
U Pennsylvania (Wharton)
U Rochester (Simon)
U Texas (McCombs)
U Virginia (Darden)
UC Berkeley (Haas)
UCLA (Anderson)
USC (Marshall)
Vanderbilt (Owen)
Wake Forest (Babcock)
Wash U (Olin)
Yale</p>