Hey guys,

Just wanted to draw your attention to this year's MBA rankings by the FT. It came out this morning. The top ten schools according to this rankings are:

1 - London Business School
2 - University of Pennsylvania: Wharton
3 - Harvard Business School
4 - Stanford University GSB
5- Insead
6- Columbia Business School
6 - IE Business School
8 - MIT Sloan School of Management
9 - University of Chicago: Booth
9 - Hong Kong UST Business School

Among key points from their report:

  • "The gradual rise of LBS in the FT MBA table over 12 years - it was ranked eighth in the inaugural MBA ranking in 1999 and had attained second position by 2008 - indicates a broader trend: the diminishing dominance of US-based schools over the past decade."
  • "Since [1999] , the number of US schools in the top 25 has decreased, reaching 11 in 2008, and this year. The remaining 14 schools in 2010 are made up of 11 from Europe and three from Asia."
  • "The average salary of the class of 2006 is more or less in line with that earned by the class of 1999, a decrease in real terms."

SOURCE: Financial Times, http://www.ft.com/businesseducation/mba2010

Comments (12)


To be honest, I basically disagree with these rankings. If you want to work globally a US based education is still supreme. Maybe LBS deserves a high ranking, but you are not going to work in NYC with a HK based MBA. Same with IE and Insead to an extent. All amazing schools, but I do not think they can compare to the top US schools.

Financial Modeling


To be honest, I basically disagree with these rankings. If you want to work globally a US based education is still supreme. Maybe LBS deserves a high ranking, but you are not going to work in NYC with a HK based MBA. Same with IE and Insead to an extent. All amazing schools, but I do not think they can compare to the top US schools.

I feel like you confuse "Working globally" with "Working in the US / NYC". Although I would agree with you that you will have a better shot at landing a gig in NYC with a US school diploma such as one from HBS of Wharton, you can apply the same principle to other financial / business centers.

You can't deny the growing influence of London (well, maybe left apart the two last years which have been absolutely horrible), Shanghai, Hong Kong and more recently Zurich and Frankfurt which seem to stand to benefit from the current bank-bashing regulations being discussed both in the US and in the UK.

By the way, just thought I would also post the criteria used in the rankings:

"Three main areas are analysed to create the top 100: alumni salaries and career development, the diversity and international reach of the business school and its MBA programme, and the research capabilities of each school.

Within these areas, there are 20 criteria used to determine the rankings. Eight are based on data from alumni questionnaires: "Weighted salary (US$)" to "Placement success rank", "Alumni recommend rank" and "International mobility rank".

The figures for seven of these eight criteria are based on data collected by the FT over three years. The data gathered for the MBA 2010 survey carry 50 per cent of the total weight. Data from the 2009 and 2008 rankings each carry 25 per cent. With the exception of salary data, if only two years' worth of data are available, the weighting is split 60:40 or 70:30 depending on whether the information is from 2009-2008 or 2009-2007.

For salary data the weighting is 50:50, based on an assumption that the latest data are likely to be higher than in previous years and may distort the average. "Value for money rank" is based on the MBA 2010 figures only."

SOURCE: Financial Times


If you get an MBA from a top US program you will have no problem working globally. If you get an MBA from HK or Insead you will obviously have no problem obtaining positions within those respective countries, but I feel you will be at a disadvantage coming to the USA. Not saying you wont have opportunities, but these global brands still aren't up to US standards.

London has been and always will be a financial center. HK also, but I don't think you can compare the other cities to the likes of London of NYC. Especially going forward with the restrictions on the financial industry in London and possibly other European cities.

Once again, not saying Insead of LBS are crap, just think FT might be a little Euro centered. You have an MBA from top US school and I don't see any problems with obtaining working anywhere in the world.


FT rankings are rank

The only Euro programs worth attending for global recognition are LBS and Insead. Schools like IE, Erasmus and what not aren't nearly as good for career prospects as the FT rankings suggest. Give me Kellog or Tuck over those schools any day.


I believe one of the reasons that these schools are ranked so high is the way they calculate starting earnings: it is purchase power parity adjusted, meaning adjusted for local currency. I did a semester abroad at CEIBS in Shanghai (ranked 22ndth on this ranking), I can tell you from personal experience that this school was nowhere near the quality of my US program (which is not ranked that far ahead of it). I certainly wouldn't put it anywhere near Kellogg (#22) in terms of reputation, even in Shanghai itself. In Asia, at least in Shanghai and other parts of China, nothing beats a US top 10 degree+Mandarin.....or just being the son of a communist party member.


Similarly, the only reason why IE Business School ranks so high is that it is full of candidates coming from Latin America whose earnings are increased massively after the MBA.


I believe having a MBA from HBS / W / MIT is far more powerful and respected globally than "IE Business School" --> is that school even on the radar!? People who make these lists try to make it PC and it's just not accurate. The top American MBAs trump all.


If you wanna work in the United States (lets say *on Wall Street?)
You'd better go to an US MBA. If you wanna work elsewhere, suit yourself!


one works on Wall Street, not in it


These rankings are so dumb


Hello. I would like someone to help me understand these rankings. At least the salaries part.

I'm looking into doing an MBA next year, and of course salary increase would play a big role in deciding where to go. Can someone please help understand how the published average salary for some of these schools is so high.

I obviously don't have an MBA, but I do know several people that do. Actually, all of my friends with MBAs have degrees from universities included in the Top10 given above. I have friends from LBS, MIT Sloan and IE. These are all good friends, so I know they wont lie about salaries (well, not too much :) ). They are all engineers working in management consulting or supply management in mid/big companies either in the UK, Spain or the US.

None of them is making the average $140k all of these universities claim!!! To be honest, none of them is even close to that! Of course, people working in other industries, for example finance might make more than that but still I don't believe the average is as high as published.

I am going to go ahead and say that I don't know the US market that much, but I can speak for the European markets and can say with authority that the average salary for MBA graduates is not even close to what they say.

Can someone comment on this?


Time either promotes you or exposes you

Add a Comment
WallStreet Prep Master Financial Modeling