2015 MBA Ranking

Columbia is like, but we coined the term MBA business schools ">M7. How can be 8?

Dookies won't be happy about this...

ross is no doubt better than yale som on par with duke fuqua

Looks like the odds of me getting into the best MBA program just tripled.

I think based on career outcomes Yale SOM and Ross could be described as peer schools. However, it is significantly harder to get into SOM than Ross and the students are IMO far more impressive at SOM in both metrics and pedigree.

Duke Fuqua is in the tier above Ross given career outcomes, placement into MBB, post-MBA salary, and selectivity.

This should be a fun thread.

@CornTrader Well done. Was going to post something similar. I always saw Ross as the "MBA Steal" for those that wanted to get into consulting. 40% acceptance rate, but very, very solid consulting placement just below the very best schools, including at MBB. That always interested/confused me.

I always imagine some poor analyst playing with the weights in the U.S. News model until there is enough of a change in the rankings to sell magazines.

In b4 Brady... or am I?

Since no one has bit on this yet, I will: Wharton? Thoughts on that?

WSJ said W was slipping so US News says otherwise to stir the pot.

Precisely why granularity of these rankings is pointless... tiers > rankings

True reality is any school in the top 17 is going to give 95 percent of people the job they want. People go to ibd CpG consulting corporate rotations from all of them so yes really fit and money come into ply. Unless you're gunning for IM or PE, turning down Ross full ride for Columbia or Kellogg for IBD (or similar-- consulting you can make the case for but if you're full ride at Ross you're probably cream of the crop there) is insane but most people virclejerk to the idea of always attending the highest ranked most prestigious school there is

That's the logical rational reality. I am also cognizant that us humans are far from rational, myself included lol

Upset about decline of Olin, though not surprised. Don't understand the rise of Ross/McCombs.

I don't think discussing these exact rankings helps anyone. Best approach is to group these schools into clusters. I'll take a shot at this. Not based on USNR.

Cluster 1: HBS = GSB (Ultra elite) Cluster 2: Booth, Wharton, Sloan, Columbia, Kellog (The original MBA business schools ">M7 schools) Cluster 3: Haas, Tuck, Ross, Darden, Fuqua, SOM, Stern, McCombs, Anderson, Johnson Cluster 4: Tepper, Gozuieta, Kenan-Flager, Mendoza, Kelley

This is what I would consider to be Tier 1 and what @"shorttheworld" was referring to.

Honorable mentions: McDonough, Wash U Olin, Carlson, Foster, Fisher, Marshall, Jones, Owen, Marriot, UW Madison

Disappointed by UCLA's drop in the rankings. Surprised at Duke's drop and Ross's rise. But like someone said, rankings aren't as important as tiers.

Is NYU solidifying it's spot in the top ten?

Edited:

Cluster 1: HBS = GSB (Pass the Brady prestige test) 1a: Wharton, Booth Cluster 2: Sloan, Columbia, Kellog (The original MBA business schools ">M7 schools) 2a: Haas, Tuck Cluster 3: Ross, Darden, Fuqua, SOM, Stern, McCombs, Anderson, Johnson Cluster 4: Tepper, Gozuieta, Kenan-Flager, Mendoza, Kelley

This is what I would consider to be Tier 1 and what @shorttheworld was referring to.

Honorable mentions: McDonough, Wash U Olin, Carlson, Foster, Fisher, Marshall, Jones, Owen, Marriot, UW Madison

Finally, I'm just a college student who has no real idea about these things. My only source of knowledge is reading WSO for hours and Brady4MVP.

Concerning MBA business schools ">M7 versus Tuck/Haas, anecdotally I know of a number of applicants (three off-hand as well as another three or four from various MBA forums) who having gotten into Kellogg have instead gone to Tuck (as well as Yale, which is a bit unusual compared to other 10-15 schools). My point being, I just don't see Kellogg as that far ahead of the Tuck / Haas tier so-to-speak, in fact I'd posit that Tuck/Haas are in the same tier as Kellogg and yes CBS.

Tier 1: H/S Tier 1a: W Tier 2: MIT/Booth/Kellogg/CBS/Haas/Tuck Tier 3: Stern/Fuqua/Darden/YSOM/Ross Tier 4: Johnson/Tepper/Anderson/Gozuieta/McCombs

The individual rankings are somewhat irrelevant. Even the concept of tiers don't mean all that much once you're accepted into one of these programs. Yes almost everyone will choose a school in the top 5 over one that is ranked 15, but as long as you work hard and take full advantage of the program you're in, you will get the job you want. I'm not sure where the cut off is, but all of these schools will get you to where you want to go.

I love reading these comments! So far no personal attack to any school!

Really cool discussion. Darden / Fuqua / Tuck / Ross would be more up my alley, its just hard to get my head wrapped around living in the midwest (again) or up in the north east.. Desert life is pretty legit.

@RustyR My bad on Ross' acceptance rate, although the 40% acceptance rate is a fact (for whatever reason). Wouldn't that same concern hold true this year, or has that problem been fixed? Either way, the rate the year before was 33%, which is still a nice chance for their placement (Darden, which I consider to be a similar/peer school, has an acceptance rate of 25%). I actually meant that to be a compliment.

SB'd thanks for the list.

@jtbbdxbnycmad Well put and agreed. Nine has become the clear number in business schools, like 14 in law schools.

Unsure why my prior post was downvoted, but my perception stands.

@electriclighto I didn't down vote you, but do you have any evidence to support your feeling? In my book, and based on the stats I just quickly pulled from BW and P&Q, Haas is clearly better than every school in Tier 3 but Stern.

Haas: 718, 96% Employed after 3 months, $118k avg. salary, 12% acceptance rate, 58% yield

Stern: 720, 96%, $107k, 16%, 53% yield Duke: 700, 90%, $114k, 26% Darden: 706, 90%, $111k, 25% Ross: 707, 89%, $111k, 34% Cornell: 695, 91%, $109k, 22%

As for Haas vs. Stern, I do think Stern is probably right behind it, but when I was deciding whether to apply there, I thought it was way too limited to finance. While it's a great school, and given it's location, you're probably able to do just about anything, I don't think it presents the wide-array of opportunities for students to choose from that the top 9 do. Basically, I think that one can go to the "Top 9" without an idea of what they want to do before, and will be able to do just about anything because of the strength OCR. Based on the what I know, and the people I talked to, I do not think NYU fits that bill.

I could easily be corrected by a current student, either downplaying the opportunities at Haas or boosting those at Stern (I did not apply to either of these schools). I would say that both schools have a uniquely strong strength (Haas=tech, Stern=finance), but Haas is more well-rounded in its non-core areas.

Which of these schools being talked about here (Top 25) have binding Early Decision?

Interesting comments all...I don't have a dog in this fight as I tell people all the time: anywhere in the top 15 will get you what you want, unless you're on a uber prestigious path that dictates you go to H/S/W for specific job or branding opportunities (full disclosure: I'm currently at Tuck). Moreover, I have little academic pedigree of my own: I'm of the mind that job/company "prestige" levels the playing field in the real world, which is why I've only worked (or been fortunate enough to only work) within the Fortune 50.

I think Wharton is "undervalued", hard as it is to believe. The alumni base, career outcomes, salaries, placement stats, GMAT, etc...all make it an ultra elite program. So I disagree w/ the folks putting it in cluster 1a or 2. In fact, I think the U.S. News got it exactly right. There's no real dropoff between the talent at W compared to that at H and S, from what I've seen. In fact, I'm amazed at Wharton's consistency given it's sheer size across so many programs. That 3 way tie at #1 is legit to me, with Booth at #2, as it's a step below those 3.

I think that Columbia and Tuck are undervalued as well. Tuck's size and location (2 major strikes) are really what keep it out of the M7-not any of its stats: especially placement and salary-the latter tops even H and S, and it remains squarely in the top 5 over time using that metric. Columbia to me is a wild card...folks like to consider it the #7 in the MBA business schools ">M7 but it's got so much international presence, so many successful alumni, access to the elite finance and MC jobs, etc...but I keep hearing it's in some sort of "decline". I'd love a decline like that! I'd switch it with Haas and tie it with Kellogg IMO. but again. not much of a difference. I suspect Columbia's facilities (which they're working to improve), rumors of its poor financial aid packages, and no co-signer international loans inhibit it a bit.

NYU should be the new fixture at #10. You could also make a legit case for either Fuqua or Ross, but that NY location, sell side finance dominance, the strength of the undergrad program, the superstar professors, etc. make NYU very formidable, and it seems to be breaking away.

@TheGrind. Well put and well argued. The only area where I'd disagree slightly is with Wharton. I actually totally agree that there isn't much of a drop off in terms of people that I've met from H/S to W. However, I'd argue I feel the same way about the "caliber" of people at the rest of the top schools, mainly because I have no idea how one really determines caliber. There were incredibly impressive people at each, and of course, some a few not so impressive people.

My issue when it comes to Wharton vs. the top two is how many cross admits is it winning? That doesn't necessarily mean that Wharton's students are any less impressive, and maybe the answer is that there are just far too many tier one students for H and S to take in a given year. However, on whatever standards b-school applicants are judged on, it seems to me that H and S are getting the best of the best, and Wharton is pulling very few away from them. On that same note, I would say that CBS, Booth, and to a lesser degree Sloan/Northwestern/Tuck/Haas pull people away from Wharton at a greater rate than Wharton pulls from H/S.

I guess all I'm arguing (asking?) is that if the perception of applicants is that Wharton is inferior HBS and GSB, resulting in them picking H/S nine out of ten times, then is it really in the same tier as them?

@BGP2587...good points all around. I can agree that at the very top of the talent pool, H and S probably get the more interesting candidates: Startup whiz kids, Astronauts, Navy SEALS, Olympic athletes, scions of industry titans, save-the-world types, etc...but those people overall make up a tiny percentage of the overall MBA applicant and candidate pools. Fact is, coming out of Wharton you are not at ANY disadvantage-recruiting, prestige, or otherwise- for any MBA jobs, even the most elite- compared to a H or S student. I also consider them complete equals in the middle part of the bell curve if we were to normally distribute their student bodies, as Wharton is loaded with academic superstars. That's enough for me to place it at #1 alongside, even if it trails in cross admit rates: it makes up that lost ground pretty much everywhere else: outcomes, salaries, market penetration of its grads, reputation, millionaires and billionaires, elite placements, total placements, etc. Are we ranking the top 10 simply by prestige or a combination of different metrics?

I ask because a school like Berkeley is #7, even though it attracts far fewer applicants than many of its peer schools (Tuck shares this phenomenon as well) and those ranked slightly below it. I would imagine that any school ranked that high would have the world beating down its doors to attend-but as it happens, not nearly as many people are interested in going there as they are some of these other programs with 4000, 5000 plus applicants. Is that a knock on its quality? of course not. By and large, Haas is a self selecting school, and I think that also plays a factor with Wharton's applicant pool. I know a few people at the other "Big 3" schools who passed on Wharton because they either considered it a finance school or didn't deem themselves "quant" enough. They typically applied to some combo of H/S/K

But we're splitting hairs here. I think Wharton does slightly trail the other 2 in prestige...but it erases the gap in every other category that candidates should value-whether that's enough for one to elevate it or keep it in a cluster below is ultimately a matter of preference.

On another note: is Duke's yield really that low??

While I think any of the schools mentioned in Cluster 1-3 are great schools and can get you the job you want, MBA business schools ">M7 is still above the rest in my opinion with Dartmouth/Berkeley slightly behind but ahead of the rest. This forum is a good example of what I mean. Pretty much everyone here agrees the MBA business schools ">M7 belong to the elite group (with HSW in a class of their own) but some of us disagree on where Dartmouth and Berkeley belong. Some believe they should be Cluster 2A and a couple of us (including me) believe they should be at the top of Cluster 3. I agree that people will be surprised if somebody picks a school from NYU and below over MBA business schools ">M7 and not so much if it's Tuck/Hass over MBA business schools ">M7. However, I also don't think people will be surprised if somebody picks NYU and the rest of 11-15 schools over Tuck/Hass. I view the gap between MBA business schools ">M7 and Tuck/Haas as slightly wider than the gap between Tuck/Hass and the rest of the top 15.

I also think the top 10 is equivalent of the T14. If you go by USNWR rankings, the top 10, including NYU, is pretty stable and provides ample opportunities in every field (see my post of last 5 years of rankings, can't post the link but it's titled "usnwr business school rankings 2010-2014"). NYU gets a lot of hate but has occupied the 10th spot 4 out of the last 5 years (tied with CBS for 9th in 2010, Yale took the 10th spot in 2012 and tied with NYU for 10th in 2011). I see NYU as slightly behind Dartmouth/Berkeley but slightly ahead of UVA/Duke/Yale/Ross/UCLA/Cornell. If NYU maintains the 10th spot next year, it'll be really telling.

To me, USNWR is the most accurate portrayal of the best b-school in the U.S. despite not being perfect. The other rankings are also good data points but with limits. The FT has numerous non-US schools ranked highly and above U.S. schools based on their criteria. I think most applicants, including international applicants, will pick a top 15 U.S. school over any non-US school the majority of the time if we disregard Visa issues and finances (a few exceptions such as LBS and INSEAD). Forbes is a valuable tool in assessing ROI but is not really a ranking of the best schools. For example, if Harvard starts charging $80K annually for tuition, it will probably be inferior to a lot of the top 15 schools in terms of ROI but I still consider it the best school in terms of opportunities and brand (granted there may be a cause and effect where top students start going to other schools). There are obviously other factors in ROI. I believe all of the rankings should be considered as every applicant has a unique situation and may be looking for different things.

As far as P&Q goes, I view their aggregate rankings as equivalent to Vault Top 50 Firms and USNWR rankings as equivalent to the Vault Top 50 Prestigious Firms. In conclusion, this is just my opinion fwiw. I second one of the posters that this a great discussion. I thought for sure somebody would be trolling already.

Btw, I plan to apply to CBS, Dartmouth, NYU, and Yale next fall. I am currently conducting research and have several friends in business school (most of them at M7).

Sorry for the long post and numerous typos (sure there are plenty).

Another metric to consider. Tuck sends a larger class % into MBB than most MBA business schools ">M7. @"BGP2587" can probably provide more info on this. And these are probably the most selective firms in the world. If you wanna do MBB, you are better off at Tuck than Berkeley or even Columbia. Starting comp. at Tuck is 2nd highest, even ahead of H & S.

Tuck suffers because of it's Hanover NH location, just like Columbia and NYU get tons of applicants because of their NYC location. Thats why their acceptance rate is lower than all but HSW even though clearly no one would suggest Columbia is No. 4. And this is really a shame. Tuck's location makes it an infinitely better overall experience than any commuter school in a large city.

So why does NYU get so much hate? They also scored well on BW in terms of student satisfaction so they must be doing something right.

This might clear some of the discussion up, @BGP2587 :

Rank # School Yield

1 Harvard 0.887619

2 Stanford 0.84058

3 Columbia 0.717433

4 Wharton 0.687757

5 MIT 0.684654

6 Booth 0.625404

7 Cornell 0.554702

8 Kellogg 0.548853

9 NYU 0.53322

10 Fuqua 0.519185

11 Haas 0.514344

12 UCLA 0.51076

13 Michigan 0.509518

14 Tuck 0.496416

15 Yale 0.484193

16 Darden 0.463343

17 Tepper 0.445676

18 McCombs 0.431711

19 Emory 0.431319

20 UNC 0.424427

I think that's a pretty fair list, atleast for the top 10

When looking at those yield numbers, you have to remember that Columbia is the only school with an early decision program. They admit a healthy portion of their class in the early round, for which they get close to 100% yield. Let's say a third of their admits are early decision (probably conservative) and they get 95% yield on them. That means they get a 60% yield on candidates for whom they have to compete with other schools. That would put them below Booth at #6, rather than at #3. This is probably a more realistic assessment of their competitiveness.

And more generally, the validity of any business school ranking can be ascertained by asking this question: Are H&S ranked 1 and 2 in some order?

US News: Yup Financial Times: Also Yes BusinessWeek: Nope. Some humorous examples: Booth>Harvard & Stanford; Fuqua & Johnson & Haas > Sloan Forbes: Nope. See for example Booth>Harvard & Wharton; UNC > Sloan Economist: Nope. Probably the silliest of them all. Booth, Tuck, Haas, Darden are all ranked higher than Harvard, Stanford, and Wharton.

US News is the most reflective of reality, and changes little from year to year. This makes sense, because perceptions change very little from year to year, despite what you read from the hyperventilators at Poets and Quants. Everyone knows the real pecking order, and it goes H&S, W, M7, etc. That hierarchy determines what recruiters think (http://poetsandquants.com/2014/01/16/how-recruiters-rank-mba-programs/2/), and it determines what candidates actually do in practice. The ranking creators need to sell magazines and get clicks so the non-US News outlets have to differentiate their rankings and P&Q has to obsess about perceived trends in the silly ones.

Any Pysch majors here? Why does discussing rankings bring out the worst in people?

The rub is that there really no consequence for reneging on an Early Decision admit, aside from appearing kinda douchey. I know 2 people alone who did it last year: One got off Wharton's waitlist and the other used the admit as leverage to secure a promotion with a salary that made getting an MBA unnecessary. The only thing either lost was deposit $$$

Love how civil this board has been: This is how real MBAs, MBA students, and people who've done actual research interact when the trolls have not descended upon a board. That said, it's kind of lame anyway to be bashing schools that at minimum, place around 90% and can get you a starting salary in the low to mid six figures. That's the entire top 15-20.

Another thing I noticed while networking in MBA land is that there are plenty of top candidates who pay no attention to rankings or prestige, take scholarships at schools outside of the top 10, have location preferences, or only care about niche industries or specialties for which some schools may be more advantageous to attend-rest assured that recruiters WILL and DO find them. When I attended the sell day at the megafirm where I'll be interning this summer, the other MBA candidates there were from: Booth, Tuck, Columbia, London Business School, Haas, Fuqua, McCombs, Ross, Darden and Olin. That's quite a range of schools. To be fair I didn't ask if all came from OCR or a combo of OCR and regular applications/resume drops, but looking at everyone's resumes and linkedin profiles? There were 780 GMAT scorers (2 of them!), engineers, fellowship winners, ivy and top undergrads, actuaries, former BB analysts, etc. The only differentiating factor that stood out to me was that most of the candidates were on the older side (late 20s-early 30s). I imagine that this added maturity (and their sterling CVs) probably made them less sensitive to rankings and prestige whoring. If you're a top non HSW candidate, or don't suffer from any insecurity over rankings within the top schools, then going anywhere in the top 15-20 will not hurt (top 10-15 for MBB).

Final observation: we all seem to be in agreement, more or less, that tiers are better indicators than rankings. When I go on other boards and see people getting into heated arguments over which is "better", say, Sloan vs. Kellogg, I can only laugh. No difference at all within the same tier.