Worldwide MBA Programs divided into tiers
Hey guys,
I have been doing research on MBA programs but I've never come across a global tiered system for MBAs based on prestige/placement/quality, etc. By a tiered system I mean that you group the schools into tiers, and if you get into a school in a higher tier you would almost automatically choose that over a school in a lower tier, while two schools in the same tier would be debatable.
I have put this together and want community input (if I've messed anything up please let me know), as I prepare to look into MBA applications and choose where I'm going to apply.
It is not in an order ranking just in clusters
Tier 1 (M7 + LBS and INSEAD):
HBS
LBS
Stanford GSB
Chicago (Booth)
Penn (Wharton)
MIT (Sloan)
Northwestern (Kellogg)
Columbia
INSEAD
Tier 2 (top 12-13 US schools + top 3-5 internationals):
Dartmouth (Tuck)
Yale SOM
Virginia (Darden)
Duke (Fuqua)
Michigan (Ross)
Berkeley (Haas)
IESE
HEC Paris
Tier 2.5 (rounding out the top 15 US schools):
UCLA (Anderson)
Cornell
NYU (Stern)
Tier 3 (rounding out the top 20 US schools, along with some other top 10 internationals):
UT-Austin
UNC
Carnegie Mellon
Georgetown
Emory (Atlanta)
IE Business School
Cambridge (Judge)
Oxford (Said)
ESADE
Tier 4 (lower tier US schools - top 25, outside of the top 20 - and feeders for Toronto/Canada)
Notre Dame
WUSTL (Olin)
Indiana (Kelley)
Rice
Washington (Foster)
Western (Ivey)
Toronto (Rotman)
Queen’s (Smith)
I'd love your input.
Forget pursuing an MBA. You're destined for a top role at US News.
Why is it that Americans get such a raging hard-on for MBAs from American schools? You cannot make a ranking like this because it is so America-centric. Maybe this order works for the US but it is COMPLETELY fucked up for recruiters in Europe.
Where is Bocconi? St. Gallen? These are top European business schools which carry more weight in Europe (and to some extent around the world) than any of the tier 4 schools mentioned and even some of the US schools in tier 3.
Even on a global scale, are you seriously telling me that recruiters prefer UCLA and Haas to Saïd or Judge? Come on man...
@marc2" has it right here. The kind of profiles G-I Pharma is mentioning are simply not common amongst the movers and shakers of Asia. Overall, Asia has a bias towards the English-speaking world, and the view of prestige in Asia is almost a direct 1:1 match to that in the English-speaking world. In that sense, while a Ross MBA isn't the dream job candidate for your typical Hong Kong banking MD, Bain partner or F500 APAC CFO, "University of Michigan" is still widely respected, and in that sense would be more competitive than any candidate from a European school except for LBS and INSEAD, which have strong brand name recognition and alumni networks in Asia.
Frankly, continental European business schools are top regional players, meaning their main sphere of relevance is London and a max 1,000km radius from wherever they're located. In this sense, they are very much like top regional MBAs in the US. For example, UT Austin and Emory Goizueta are Top 20 schools overall in the US, but for working in the South, from Texas to Georgia, in almost any industry and function, they are very well represented and put you pretty much on equal footing to get an interview with someone from a top 10 US school. This is pretty much the definition of what a top regional school is, and it applies to European schools too.
The only continental European schools that have managed to break out from this are INSEAD and the Spanish schools (IESE primarily, and to a lesser extent IE and ESADE - they attract a lot of students interested in the lifestyle experience, and have powerful reach into Latin America).
G-I pharma guy, I hand it to you that US geocentrism is frankly annoying and sympathize with your frustration, but trust me, European geocentrism exists too, and you seem to not be aware that you're speaking from within it.
I'm good on providing "further insights". Just look up the career stats or pony up for an admissions consultant. If you have a specific question e.g. I'm applying with a GPA of X and Y work experience what schools should I consider or how does Tuck compare to Haas for MBB placements people are more than willing to answer. However this is both research intensive and open ended.
You need to figure what you want to get out of the process and right now it seems like you have no clue. First and foremost, the schools in the top 15 aren't fungible they do differ and CBS offers a vastly different experience than GSB or even Stern. At this point it seems like you care only about getting into "the best school" you can. That's not a great way to go about this. You need to go to the school that best fits your needs. If you want IB, and the best school you get into is UF, you're better off not going to b school. The same is true if you want supply chain, but get into schools with no real expertise in the space, even if they are well ranked.
That's fine. I used to think like you when I was an applicant, but changed my mind later on. The change was driven by the alumni from these 3 schools at my BB, the exchange students I met at my Top 9 US MBA, and the MBB my (at the time) gf was at. IESE's representatives fared very favorably so for me the three schools are of comparable caliber. Agree on your description of the other tier of schools, but not that IESE belongs there. To make this useful to the OP: this disagreement might suggest to you that this could be similar to the HSW dynamic in the US - some people think it's HSW, and others think W is a cut below HS.
No horse in this race: I didn't apply to IESE in my day, and I did apply to one of the other two, and got in. (If I had known what I know today, I would've switched that around)
No way is this a Brady ranking. Columbia is in the top 20.
That tool @Human Capital" scared Brady away from this thread and now we won't be amused by his simply breathtaking comments, keep bumping it geek