Does anyone else think that the new FT ranking is a joke?

The methodology of the latest Masters in Finance ranking does not make much sense to me. Here is a list of the criteria which I think are irrelevant in judging the quality of the programme, which together weigh as much as 44%:
Weights for the ranking criteria are shown below in brackets — (pre-experience) [post-experience] — as a percentage of the overall ranking.

Female faculty % (5) 5: percentage of female faculty.

Female students % (5) 5: percentage of female students on the masters.

Women on board % (1) 1: percentage of women on the school advisory board.

International faculty % (5) 5: calculated according to faculty diversity by citizenship and the percentage whose citizenship differs from their country of employment (published figure).

International students % (5) 5: calculated according to the diversity of current students by citizenship and the percentage whose citizenship differs from their country of study.

International board % (1) 1: percentage of the board whose citizenship differs from the school’s home country.

International mobility (8) 8: based on alumni citizenship and the countries where they worked before their masters, on graduation and three years after graduation.†

International course experience (8) 8: calculated according to whether the most recent graduating masters class completed exchanges, attended short classes or study tours, or had company internships in countries other than where the school is based.*

Extra languages (1) N/A: The figure shows the number of languages required for graduation minus the number required for entry. For example, if a school requires two languages on entry and two on graduation, the figure is zero.

For gender-related criteria, schools with 50:50 male/female composition receive the highest possible score.