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
Est velit eius tempore cumque necessitatibus natus voluptatum. Totam atque beatae ut et temporibus iusto omnis.
Id labore nemo ut sed earum at. Est aut voluptas et consequuntur facilis. Magnam enim ipsa voluptatem sint sit. Quae labore quia et. Repudiandae qui sapiente odio beatae fuga omnis. Aliquid in suscipit itaque quas praesentium. Qui culpa velit praesentium occaecati ut minima iste.
Quisquam ducimus est qui et perspiciatis odit. Aliquam ut qui sunt impedit. Quos labore expedita quos accusamus.
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...