was waiting for this. Duke's a great school, and certainly places well, but for what this forum wants it's still now HSW. people on WSO forget that there are people out there who get MBAs and want to do something other than finance, hence the rankings by these people that are not exactly the same as @"Brady4MVP"'s latest tirade.
was waiting for this. Duke's a great school, and certainly places well, but for what this forum wants it's still now HSW. people on WSO forget that there are people out there who get MBAs and want to do something other than finance, hence the rankings by these people that are not exactly the same as @Brady4MVP's latest tirade.
Brady4MVP aside, regardless of what you want to do (tech, whatever), you're probably not going to turn down Duke for HSW, let's be real.
Ranking method is different than other rankings, thus the diference.
"Bloomberg Businessweek ranks schools on three measures: how company recruiters rate MBA hires in a survey, which accounts for 45 percent of each school’s score; how graduating MBAs judge their program in a separate survey, which makes up another 45 percent; and a tally of faculty research published in noted journals, which constitutes the remaining 10 percent.
The employer survey was changed from the 2012 ranking cycle to better reflect the breadth of the recruiting landscape and to collect more data on how well MBAs do in the workplace. Some
1,300 recruiters were surveyed, up from 250, and they were asked to rate schools based on how well their graduates performed in the areas most important to employers."
The fact that they haven't been in the for-profit shit list as long as the others puts them all the way up to cluster 5475. What's next Northern Midwest Delaware Polytechnic U? They should seriously ban these. The only way any of these are a good idea is if you are a 15 year government employee, set to work 5 or 10 more years to retire, and they tell you that you can make 25k more per year if you just get an MBA. If they're paying for it, it makes sense. I have a friend who's an IRS auditor, and she has a Phoenix MBA. Only reason why is because they don't care where it's from and that was the cheapest. I'm doing grad school online because I can't leave the wife and kids for 4 nights a week. My company is paying for 100% of it, so I'm trying to get into Kelley at IU so that my degree has some clout. My employer would laugh at me if I brought Webster University to the table.
"Decide what to be and go be it." - The Avett Brothers
Just one more reason why no one takes Businessweek rankings seriously. The one that matters, the one that employers and students care about, is the US News rankings. And that rightfully has HSW at the top, followed by Booth, which is rapidly closing in on Wharton.
Just saw this ranking; a little late in the day, I admit.
This is pretty amazing news, and I would bet you that most Fuqua students are surprised as well.
I'll be digging into some of the numbers and will revert on this --- I've crunched some numbers with John Byrne from P&Q, so will see what comes up. I've even written for P&Q on why you should take rankings with a grain of salt (here's a copy of the article I reposted on my blog http://masteradmissions.com/mba-rankings-take-grain-salt/)
Good for them! So in the rankings game, depending on whom you ask, everybody's a winner.
Betsy Massar
Come see me at my Q&A thread
http://www.wallstreetoasis.com/forums/b-school-qa-w-betsy-massar-of-master-admissions
Ask away!
Well, I just went through the whole article and I am still scratching my head. I think there may be some problems with those who fill out the survey, at least on the employer/recruiter side. Here's a key point from the article:
During the 13 previous times that Businessweek surveyed corporate recruiters–in the past doing upfront diligence to insure that only a senior level human resources official in charge of MBA recruiting for a company filled out the survey–Duke never did better than seventh place and was 14th twice. Over that timeframe, the school’s natural employer rank was slightly higher than tenth place–a long way from its No. 2 showing this year after the changes in methodology.
Again, not to take away from Fuqua, but I do think some quantitative analysis of this survey, and the methodology is in order.
So now I guess when my candidates tell me that they are looking to Fuqua as a safety, I might have to show them the BW survey, for better or worse.
Betsy Massar
Come see me at my Q&A thread
http://www.wallstreetoasis.com/forums/b-school-qa-w-betsy-massar-of-master-admissions
Ask away!
Well, I just went through the whole article and I am still scratching my head. I think there may be some problems with those who fill out the survey, at least on the employer/recruiter side. Here's a key point from the article:
During the 13 previous times that Businessweek surveyed corporate recruiters–in the past doing upfront diligence to insure that only a senior level human resources official in charge of MBA recruiting for a company filled out the survey–Duke never did better than seventh place and was 14th twice. Over that timeframe, the school’s natural employer rank was slightly higher than tenth place–a long way from its No. 2 showing this year after the changes in methodology.
Again, not to take away from Fuqua, but I do think some quantitative analysis of this survey, and the methodology is in order.
So now I guess when my candidates tell me that they are looking to Fuqua as a safety, I might have to show them the BW survey, for better or worse.
But Betsy, aren't all of the methodologies a bit skewed in each methodology? I know that some schools have even dropped their application fees in order to receive more applications, with the same number of entrants, giving them a higher rejection rate. Doesn't the fact that their methodology is public create an incentive for schools (and students with their survey responses) to figure out a way to game the system? Some of the comments in the original article made a good point about the possibility that students at 2nd and 3rd tier schools could answer the survey portion overly optimistic in order to bump the prestige of their school. Just seems that the wide ranging rankings seems head scratching, as you say. Maybe the next step is a rankings system that takes the 5 or so top published rankings and creates some type of weighted average to rank schools.
"Decide what to be and go be it." - The Avett Brothers
Yes, all of the rankings have problems, but I am pointing out the alumni recruiting boosterism because it seems to have changed the norm in such a big way. I'm looking for the experts to slice and dice it for me before I do anything more than wonder aloud.
If you really want to get into the nitty gritty of ranking problems, read Matt Turner's P&Q article here
http://poetsandquants.com/2014/01/12/nine-biggest-mistakes-in-mba-ranki…
Betsy Massar
Come see me at my Q&A thread
http://www.wallstreetoasis.com/forums/b-school-qa-w-betsy-massar-of-master-admissions
Ask away!
Well, I just went through the whole article and I am still scratching my head. I think there may be some problems with those who fill out the survey, at least on the employer/recruiter side. Here's a key point from the article:
During the 13 previous times that Businessweek surveyed corporate recruiters–in the past doing upfront diligence to insure that only a senior level human resources official in charge of MBA recruiting for a company filled out the survey–Duke never did better than seventh place and was 14th twice. Over that timeframe, the school’s natural employer rank was slightly higher than tenth place–a long way from its No. 2 showing this year after the changes in methodology.
Again, not to take away from Fuqua, but I do think some quantitative analysis of this survey, and the methodology is in order.
So now I guess when my candidates tell me that they are looking to Fuqua as a safety, I might have to show them the BW survey, for better or worse.
But Betsy, aren't all of the methodologies a bit skewed in each methodology? I know that some schools have even dropped their application fees in order to receive more applications, with the same number of entrants, giving them a higher rejection rate. Doesn't the fact that their methodology is public create an incentive for schools (and students with their survey responses) to figure out a way to game the system? Some of the comments in the original article made a good point about the possibility that students at 2nd and 3rd tier schools could answer the survey portion overly optimistic in order to bump the prestige of their school. Just seems that the wide ranging rankings seems head scratching, as you say. Maybe the next step is a rankings system that takes the 5 or so top published rankings and creates some type of weighted average to rank schools.
Why do we continuously use the world 'methodology' improperly?
“Elections are a futures market for stolen property”
How would you guys rank different rankings based on how sensical their approach is and how accurate their rankings reflect what they're supposed to reflect?
I will start with my guess:
1. US News
2. FT
3. Forbes
4. The Economist / Business Week tie for being so bad
@dan-brown, this ranking is meaningless. i can't see fuqua cracking top 10 on USN with a sub 700 avg GMAT. I think stern should have that spot locked down and remain the top school in tier 2
I want to see each ranking post both THIS year's and a prediction for NEXT year's ranking and a discussion on why they think its going to change. These drastic fluctuations make no sense.
As a recruiter and a b-school grad from one of these colleges, I don't believe UNC, UCLA and Tepper are better than MIT, Tuck and Darden. I'm not sure if respondents are being truly honest about how they feel about their colleges.
I'm not sure it matters that much about how thy feel about their colleges. They only went to one b-school, how are they in a prime position to compare it to another? Lets look at cross-admits instead.
Ratione voluptates neque odit eos nihil sapiente. Exercitationem libero sit quod facilis. Officia deserunt consequatur maxime rerum. Eum quam distinctio ullam molestiae architecto inventore. Mollitia deleniti dolores et praesentium eum architecto. Et vero sit fuga ut quo. Delectus similique quia impedit doloremque incidunt.
Aut quisquam soluta quaerat minus. Fugiat numquam possimus repellat impedit. Assumenda tenetur voluptas natus maiores minima quasi aspernatur. Doloremque dolore nesciunt vel qui aperiam eaque quibusdam. Eum et facilis impedit est saepe.
Corrupti in et officiis labore consequuntur unde et dolor. Dignissimos vel libero labore architecto. Illum earum officia eum laudantium et. Culpa eveniet qui occaecati. Quo repudiandae qui aut nostrum. Iste sapiente id neque.
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)
Et sapiente temporibus quae perspiciatis vel necessitatibus nobis. Quos molestiae iste voluptas laudantium nobis.
Quo praesentium delectus adipisci voluptatem. Corrupti necessitatibus qui dolorem quidem nulla optio aliquid. Earum totam excepturi modi temporibus atque quo autem. Eos mollitia ut quas quam quia laudantium. Consectetur laboriosam incidunt reprehenderit blanditiis dolorem unde omnis. Qui perferendis atque debitis.
Ipsam quis impedit eius perferendis ab labore. Nemo quia dolores et dolorum. Inventore officiis consequatur soluta temporibus fuga reprehenderit sit enim. Laboriosam aperiam praesentium ut laborum enim sint sapiente natus.
Aut sunt numquam similique impedit. Omnis iste in eius maxime. Consequatur delectus dolore ab voluptatum voluptatem enim sed. Aut sint qui architecto in quaerat aut. Et iusto dolor qui sit sunt tempore. Magni quaerat quasi ea.
Sorry, you need to login or sign up in order to vote. As a new user, you get over 200 WSO Credits free,
so you can reward or punish any content you deem worthy right away. See you on the other side!
Have to sell magazines.
was waiting for this. Duke's a great school, and certainly places well, but for what this forum wants it's still now HSW. people on WSO forget that there are people out there who get MBAs and want to do something other than finance, hence the rankings by these people that are not exactly the same as @"Brady4MVP"'s latest tirade.
Duke at 1, Harvard at 8...seriously hope no one makes a bschool decision on this crap.
I highly doubt anyone does, but who knows.
this could also be a case of Bloomberg owing John Mack (duke alum) a favor.
Ranking method is different than other rankings, thus the diference. "Bloomberg Businessweek ranks schools on three measures: how company recruiters rate MBA hires in a survey, which accounts for 45 percent of each school’s score; how graduating MBAs judge their program in a separate survey, which makes up another 45 percent; and a tally of faculty research published in noted journals, which constitutes the remaining 10 percent. The employer survey was changed from the 2012 ranking cycle to better reflect the breadth of the recruiting landscape and to collect more data on how well MBAs do in the workplace. Some 1,300 recruiters were surveyed, up from 250, and they were asked to rate schools based on how well their graduates performed in the areas most important to employers."
Hope I get into Duke and then brag to people that I got into the #1 MBA program.
Wow at UC Berkeley at 19 and MIT at 14, underneath Tepper, UNC, and Cornell.
This ranking is more accurate
Cluster 1: HBS, Stanford Cluster 1a: Wharton Cluster 2: Booth, Sloan, Columbia, Kellogg (M7) Cluster 2a: Haas, Tuck Cluster 3: Stern, Ross, Darden, Fuqua, Yale, Cornell, Anderson (All peers) Cluster 4: McCombs, Tepper, Gozuieta, Kenan-Flager (Regional)
Cluster 5482: U of Phoenix, Strayer, Devry, Kaplan (all a joke)
what about SNHU?
Just one more reason why no one takes Businessweek rankings seriously. The one that matters, the one that employers and students care about, is the US News rankings. And that rightfully has HSW at the top, followed by Booth, which is rapidly closing in on Wharton.
Fairly accurate. I would place Wharton and Booth in the same tier, above the other M7 programs.
The only thing that's shocking is that you find this ranking shocking. BW always does this.
Just saw this ranking; a little late in the day, I admit. This is pretty amazing news, and I would bet you that most Fuqua students are surprised as well. I'll be digging into some of the numbers and will revert on this --- I've crunched some numbers with John Byrne from P&Q, so will see what comes up. I've even written for P&Q on why you should take rankings with a grain of salt (here's a copy of the article I reposted on my blog http://masteradmissions.com/mba-rankings-take-grain-salt/)
Good for them! So in the rankings game, depending on whom you ask, everybody's a winner.
This is as legit as Notre Dame being ranked #1 for undergrad business by businessweek ROFL
Well, I just went through the whole article and I am still scratching my head. I think there may be some problems with those who fill out the survey, at least on the employer/recruiter side. Here's a key point from the article:
Again, not to take away from Fuqua, but I do think some quantitative analysis of this survey, and the methodology is in order.
So now I guess when my candidates tell me that they are looking to Fuqua as a safety, I might have to show them the BW survey, for better or worse.
But Betsy, aren't all of the methodologies a bit skewed in each methodology? I know that some schools have even dropped their application fees in order to receive more applications, with the same number of entrants, giving them a higher rejection rate. Doesn't the fact that their methodology is public create an incentive for schools (and students with their survey responses) to figure out a way to game the system? Some of the comments in the original article made a good point about the possibility that students at 2nd and 3rd tier schools could answer the survey portion overly optimistic in order to bump the prestige of their school. Just seems that the wide ranging rankings seems head scratching, as you say. Maybe the next step is a rankings system that takes the 5 or so top published rankings and creates some type of weighted average to rank schools.
Poets and Quants already does this, but even that is problematic since a majority of rankings are crap.
Weighted average of crap is still crap.
Yes, all of the rankings have problems, but I am pointing out the alumni recruiting boosterism because it seems to have changed the norm in such a big way. I'm looking for the experts to slice and dice it for me before I do anything more than wonder aloud.
If you really want to get into the nitty gritty of ranking problems, read Matt Turner's P&Q article here http://poetsandquants.com/2014/01/12/nine-biggest-mistakes-in-mba-ranki…
duplicate
Why do we continuously use the world 'methodology' improperly?
Sounds like a successful publication. All you have viewed it and are talking about it.
How would you guys rank different rankings based on how sensical their approach is and how accurate their rankings reflect what they're supposed to reflect?
I will start with my guess: 1. US News 2. FT 3. Forbes 4. The Economist / Business Week tie for being so bad
@dan-brown, this ranking is meaningless. i can't see fuqua cracking top 10 on USN with a sub 700 avg GMAT. I think stern should have that spot locked down and remain the top school in tier 2
I want to see each ranking post both THIS year's and a prediction for NEXT year's ranking and a discussion on why they think its going to change. These drastic fluctuations make no sense.
As a recruiter and a b-school grad from one of these colleges, I don't believe UNC, UCLA and Tepper are better than MIT, Tuck and Darden. I'm not sure if respondents are being truly honest about how they feel about their colleges.
I'm not sure it matters that much about how thy feel about their colleges. They only went to one b-school, how are they in a prime position to compare it to another? Lets look at cross-admits instead.
Ratione voluptates neque odit eos nihil sapiente. Exercitationem libero sit quod facilis. Officia deserunt consequatur maxime rerum. Eum quam distinctio ullam molestiae architecto inventore. Mollitia deleniti dolores et praesentium eum architecto. Et vero sit fuga ut quo. Delectus similique quia impedit doloremque incidunt.
Aut quisquam soluta quaerat minus. Fugiat numquam possimus repellat impedit. Assumenda tenetur voluptas natus maiores minima quasi aspernatur. Doloremque dolore nesciunt vel qui aperiam eaque quibusdam. Eum et facilis impedit est saepe.
Corrupti in et officiis labore consequuntur unde et dolor. Dignissimos vel libero labore architecto. Illum earum officia eum laudantium et. Culpa eveniet qui occaecati. Quo repudiandae qui aut nostrum. Iste sapiente id neque.
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...
Et sapiente temporibus quae perspiciatis vel necessitatibus nobis. Quos molestiae iste voluptas laudantium nobis.
Quo praesentium delectus adipisci voluptatem. Corrupti necessitatibus qui dolorem quidem nulla optio aliquid. Earum totam excepturi modi temporibus atque quo autem. Eos mollitia ut quas quam quia laudantium. Consectetur laboriosam incidunt reprehenderit blanditiis dolorem unde omnis. Qui perferendis atque debitis.
Ipsam quis impedit eius perferendis ab labore. Nemo quia dolores et dolorum. Inventore officiis consequatur soluta temporibus fuga reprehenderit sit enim. Laboriosam aperiam praesentium ut laborum enim sint sapiente natus.
Aut sunt numquam similique impedit. Omnis iste in eius maxime. Consequatur delectus dolore ab voluptatum voluptatem enim sed. Aut sint qui architecto in quaerat aut. Et iusto dolor qui sit sunt tempore. Magni quaerat quasi ea.