FT Ranking 2012

This website is one of the worst I've seen for rankings. They are so biased against the US schools that everyone knows are good. They are clearly ranking in a niche just to get website views from people that don't know any better and think GW is better than MIT.

BW is a close second from a comedic perspective.

Ridiculous rankings...

Unless I'm reading it wrong: - No LSE Masters (is it because they are 9-10 month programmes?) - No MIT (is it because the programme is new?) - No Cambridge MPhil (new?)

At least they managed to mention Oxford, Imperial and HEC somewhere in the rankings...

Brandeis as the number one in the US? Who the hell are they kidding? Any thoughts on their Euro rankings, I'm considering applying to IE, HEC and INSEAD for the fall of 2013

Screw rankings!!!!

Do you think people look at your resume and say: "Ohhh, better pull out the FT/Economist/BusWk/(Fill in Blank of your favorite publication) and see where this school is ranked" or "Ohhh...MIT isn't ranked by the FT, trash this guy's resume who went there!!"

I have said it before, all that matters is whether where you want to work recruits and hires there.

I am just putting up a post on my site about this. Most US programs are excluded because of their criteria to be considered. This will change in 3-5 years.

No, this list is not comprehensive and not very valuable for US students. The FT also weights a classrooms ratio of men to women which is largely irrelevant and useless when considering the quality of a program.

With that said, it is still a good first step and adds much needed viability to the MSF degree. It also gives other publications with a wider readership in the US a reason to start their own ranking.

how would you rank the pre exp programs ant?

I really avoid ranking conversations because they do not translate well. Unlike MBA programs, the MSF is largely regional, like lower ranked MBA programs would be. With exception of say MIT or possibly UTA (even UTA is very regional) most MSF programs place in a two city radius.

So suppose you want to work in Boston, but Vanderbilt is higher ranked. You wouldn't choose Vanderbilt over BC, for example, regardless of the ranking because Vanderbilt really isn't well known in the Boston area. If you want to work in California I wouldn't choose any program over Claremont, etc.

So until enough top tier universities offer the MSF any ranking will be biased or not truly helpful.

I will say this. The FT rankings are bogus unless you are considering UK schools. Not enough US programs are listed on the FT ranking to give it validity and I have an issue with what they use to weigh programs. In the US you will almost never see an MSF with 1:1 male to female ratio.

Using placement and job data is also hard. I'd suggest using placements 6 months to a year out. In top MBA programs you have less of an issue with placements improperly representing a program because people are professional and serious about their careers. Therefore % placed and salary data is a good element to compare programs.

With the MSF you have a large amount of UG->MS students who sometimes lack direction, job experience or quite frankly, maturity. These students will drive down placement scores when in fact a school might provide strong OCR as well as alumni and a great educational program.

You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make them drink.

Those are good points but the regional tag applies to MBA programs as well, save for very few (like 3). Why I never understand posts on here, "PLEASE HELP: Fuqua or Anderson?"...."Darden or McCombs?!?!"