MBA Rankings, U.S. M7 v Euro-schools, & is the Economist biased?
Here's a fun way to end the week for some of our aspiring MBA monkeys. Arguing over what the Top 20 MBA landscape currently looks like. If the following Economist article is to be believed, the landscape has changed quite a bit. Obviously, we have to adjust for the fact that this ranking is not limited to finance, but at a time when even people with good experience and a top MBA are not finding the job market so easy to navigate, every bit of info helps.
Since I believe that the actual value of a diploma and the education it represents can fluctuate wildly, I have always been hesitant to adopt the orthodox approach to ranking top programs. Though the traditional stalwarts and alumni networks are no doubt bedrocks, things can change and often do quickly during shaky economic times. I have always read and heard that both Tuck and Booth are extremely underrated, so I guess their top rankings do not surprised me. I do have to say that I am pretty shocked by how low ranked Wharton and to a lesser extent, Harvard are.
Out of all the schools ranked here, I would say the one worth focusing for many of you is Carnegie Mellon. Though it is surprisingly the second most expensive school on the list after Stanford, I have never met a Mellon grad who didn't impress me with their academic chops. That said, more than a few of them had the social graces of Chewbacca and the personality of drying paint. Being that MBA does not equal MFE, I can see why many of you would ignore the school. I will point out, however, that as a top comp sci school, the likelihood of more and more important players in algorithmic trading coming out of Mellon is sure to increase. Perhaps that is something that some of you guys who are still a few years away from your MBA engagements might want to consider.
If anyone of you is currently enrolled at or has been accepted to any of these programs it would be great to hear what you have to say about them. Whether you agree with the rankings or not, that one's open to all monkeys. Let's have at it...
I LOVE the economist and consider it as required reading, but this ranking is downright embarrassing. IMD and Darden ahead of Harvard? Berkeley ahead of Stanford and Columbia? Wharton at #15 and Kellogg at #18? Are you fucking serious?
The European bias is pretty ridiculous. LBS, INSEAD, IMD, HEC, do not get the same caliber of students as U.S M7 schools and have less international clout than them. I do admit that INSEAD has a pretty good rep in certain parts of Asia, but if you look at the strength of the network worldwide and career opportunities you get coming out, any of the M7 schools destroy the european programs.
Regarding carnegie mellon, their MSCF program is top notch, and the algo prop shops and quant BB trading desks recruit there regularly. The MBA program, however, is still mediocre, and job placement isn't that great. And their students have a very bad rep for lacking basic social and networking skills. My friends at top schools were saying how on joint career treks and company presentations, the mellon kids stuck out for being totally clueless and woefully unprepared.
I always find it odd that everyone stresses how important it is to go to a top 10 MBA program, but no one can seem to figure out what the Top 10 actually are. Clearly, there are more important factors at work, and some schools are underrated. During a downturn, job prospects and placement trump all.
I would say it's the M7(hbs, stanford, wharton, booth, kellogg, sloan, columbia)+tuck, haas, stern.
i concur
i don't see oral roberts U up there
fuck those elitist euro ding dongs
Agreed. The Economist ratings are so left field that I'm embarrased for the editor that okayed this.
I think the best way to gauge a top MBA is to annually find out what the public thinks are the best companies worldwide to work for by segment, then find out in percentages where these companies recruit for both summer internship programs and full time mba programs.
Its nearly impossible to gauge student experience and quality of academics on a school by school basis, so the only way it make sense to rank these programs is by where these companies recruit.
I think this is a wise way of looking at it. The current off-hand list of top schools (wharton, columbia, sloan, etc.) is very finance/banking-centric, and I question whether their networks will remain as valuable in the post-crisis era.
Who cares? Everyone applying to school knows the ten best schools (in US) anyway, so what difference does it make the economist says one thing or the other.
Agreed. The order is well established here, and probably won't change anytime soon.
I am beginning to wonder if we'll see a shift away from MBAs. They're a good signalling tool, but they are really expensive for what amounts to a fluff degree. It sounds fun, but at current prices? You're paying for as much for a piece of paper as a McMansion in parts of the country.
Is a guy with 2 years IB and 2 years PE really going to learn much of value at a MBA program, assuming he plans to go back into finance? You can argue that it "broadens the mind", and creates a "managerial outlook", but those sound a lot like the fuzzy justifications for a liberal arts degree.
first of all, in no way schulich is the best in canada, and second that it's top 10 in the world. ahead of stern and sloan?? i know a hand full of people who got into schulich but not even wait listed for stern.
That editor must be on crack. There is NO way Shulich is the top school in Canada let alone top 10 in the world.
Ahead of MIT, Wharton and Kellogg? Oh hells no.
63k tuition. 127% increase in salary. 89% employment rate. If those numbers are correct that is amazing value for money for most people going to SSB. I doubt most Ivey/Rotman folks get that. Then again most SSB students probably never got into Ivey/Rotman, but for the purpose of these rankings that is irrelevant.
Prestige and job placement are the only things that matter, and no school executes on these like the top 10. I'm sure LSE and Oxford have a curriculum very similar to that of HBS, but no one attends bschool for the academic experience.
And yeah, the Economist has always had a ridiculous Euro-centric bias with bschool rankings. It's silly.
what's the prestige ranking of these mags? economist, financial times, barron's, wsj, international business daily
If you've been reading the Economist over the past few years, this should come as no surprise. Prestige is not a part of the ranking process unless it is specifically cited by grads and employers as a benefit of the program. The past three years articles' herald starting salary and lifetime earnings post-mba, as well as the speed and percentage at which a graduating class can find full-time employment.
Harvard and Wharton are factories. How special is it to be in a class of 1000, when you can get a comparable education from Stanford or Tuck where the class size is 200, and the alumni network is much tighter.
"Tighter" is a nice way to spin small.
I respect the economist. Tuck will be my target.
I'm in bschool, and we just sh*t on these rankings. Absurd.
http://poetsandquants.com/2011/10/14/the-economist-says-tuck-is-no-1/
[quote=SaMoCU]I'm in bschool, and we just sh*t on these rankings. Absurd.
http://poetsandquants.com/2011/10/14/the-economist-says-tuck-is-no-1/[/…]
Where do you go?
CBS
I've been reading the Economist for about 3 years now, and the amount of Euro-based schools doesn't surprise me (although, Said or Cambridge: Judge not being on there seems weird). However, York in Canada beating Sloan, Stern and HEC Paris?!? Garbage.
In my opinion, the best global rankings comes from Financial Times... http://rankings.ft.com/businessschoolrankings/global-mba-rankings-2011
I was going to look at it seriously... but then I saw that York (Schulich) made 8th place - and burst into uncontrollable laughter. To suggest that Schulich is even in the same category, much less far ahead of Richard Ivey (Western) or Rotman (University of Toronto) is ludicrous.
Go to http://rankings.ft.com/businessschoolrankings/global-mba-rankings-2011 Insert the field 'Recommends' and sort by it. You get a ranking based on the perception of programs among MBA students/alums. The order you get is: H/W/S/LBS/K/Col/Insead/MIT/Chi/IIM/NYU/Cal/Tuck/Ross/IMD/Duke/IESE/UVA/UCLA/Yale/UT..etc.
LBS and INSEAD should not be ahead of any of the M7, in terms of alumni strength and career opportunities.
Good call... that's actually a pretty accurate list.
why is everyone surprised at the Economist's euro-bias? they're europeans...
"The Economist asks students about why they decided to take an MBA. Our ranking weights data according to what students say is important. The four categories covered are: opening new career opportunities (35%); personal development/educational experience (35%); increasing salary (20%); and the potential to network (10%)."
Yet people cannot see why Harvard, Wharton, Stanford are ranked low?
The PE/Mckinsey HBS/Wharton folks ain't going to see a huge jump in salary, personal development or tons of new career opportunities. While the folks at Darden/Haas are.
IMD 68% increase in salary vs Harvard 48% increase in salary....Yet you can't figure out how IMD ranks ahead of Harvard on that list?
lol at some comments under the article:
Eligendi est deserunt voluptate. Harum consectetur non totam sed vitae quasi. Alias quisquam eveniet dolor sapiente a.
See All Comments - 100% Free
WSO depends on everyone being able to pitch in when they know something. Unlock with your email and get bonus: 6 financial modeling lessons free ($199 value)
or Unlock with your social account...
Illum inventore maxime dolores autem quis aut. Eos iusto nam qui sit. Doloribus unde officia dignissimos ratione mollitia iste commodi suscipit. Omnis autem aliquid quidem.
Sapiente neque harum accusantium molestias commodi quos sit. Et molestiae ratione quia maiores. Et labore consequuntur ut recusandae. Amet similique sunt minus beatae odit voluptatibus. Similique qui sint adipisci quibusdam sapiente omnis officia. Rem omnis non maxime aut nihil in. Quas atque et labore placeat voluptatum illum. Quod nam facilis repudiandae molestiae sit dolor dolores.
Magnam inventore molestiae aut ea ratione. Ut aut asperiores eos qui et quis. Facilis magni autem qui et soluta. Et optio rerum modi explicabo voluptas. Fugiat odio deserunt quibusdam possimus.
Et sunt voluptatem consequatur ad in necessitatibus numquam. Aut molestiae corrupti ipsum nam ut dicta. Nihil ut beatae debitis harum rerum deserunt. Autem hic magni atque tenetur quam. Aspernatur nihil sint ratione et dolores vel voluptatem.