The Economist 2017 MBA rankings...are they stupid or something?
Harvard at 3rd, Stanford at 5th, UCB Haas after UCLA, Columbia at 9th place. Are they freaking retarded? I feel like the FT and Economist just troll f**k out of the applicants. It's unbelievable. No matter what method you use, you just can't rank Stanford at 5th place and Columbia at 9th place esp after a semi target school like UCLA. Why do they even bother to rank MBA programs???
Methodology described here
http://www.economist.com/whichmba/methodology-2017
Short answer - Yes
And actually, most rankings are - both domestic and international
General perception holds a lot more weight than any particular year's rankings. Though in fairness, a university can improve its general perception by consistently placing well in the rankings, but that has to be over a sustained period (which would easily be in excess of 10 years).
And as general perception has it, the M7 in most cases is still the most respected group of US MBA schools, whilst LBS, INSEAD are Europe's best.
+1
Ut cumque fugit earum dolor excepturi. Quia ipsa voluptatem non quo corporis unde.
Ad unde molestiae eveniet ut dolores. Nam fuga quas distinctio molestiae totam. Et voluptatem commodi tempora dolores. Qui recusandae necessitatibus nemo. Blanditiis nulla et et rerum eos earum atque.
Esse voluptatem cupiditate ducimus id. Nihil corporis fugiat et doloremque quo laudantium sed est.
Est voluptatem ab est placeat optio quo. Et odio non hic suscipit sapiente qui. Porro voluptatem tempore nisi veniam reprehenderit animi. Aliquid quisquam maxime unde. Dicta quia id consectetur nisi ipsum velit. Eveniet ut sint et minus.
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...