Comments (36)

Nov 11, 2014

Have to sell magazines.

    • 1
Nov 11, 2014

was waiting for this. Duke's a great school, and certainly places well, but for what this forum wants it's still now HSW. people on WSO forget that there are people out there who get MBAs and want to do something other than finance, hence the rankings by these people that are not exactly the same as @"Brady4MVP"'s latest tirade.

Nov 11, 2014
thebrofessor:

was waiting for this. Duke's a great school, and certainly places well, but for what this forum wants it's still now HSW. people on WSO forget that there are people out there who get MBAs and want to do something other than finance, hence the rankings by these people that are not exactly the same as @Brady4MVP's latest tirade.

Brady4MVP aside, regardless of what you want to do (tech, whatever), you're probably not going to turn down Duke for HSW, let's be real.

Nov 11, 2014

Duke at 1, Harvard at 8...seriously hope no one makes a bschool decision on this crap.

Nov 11, 2014

I highly doubt anyone does, but who knows.

this could also be a case of Bloomberg owing John Mack (duke alum) a favor.

Nov 11, 2014

Ranking method is different than other rankings, thus the diference.
"Bloomberg Businessweek ranks schools on three measures: how company recruiters rate MBA hires in a survey, which accounts for 45 percent of each school's score; how graduating MBAs judge their program in a separate survey, which makes up another 45 percent; and a tally of faculty research published in noted journals, which constitutes the remaining 10 percent.
The employer survey was changed from the 2012 ranking cycle to better reflect the breadth of the recruiting landscape and to collect more data on how well MBAs do in the workplace. Some
1,300 recruiters were surveyed, up from 250, and they were asked to rate schools based on how well their graduates performed in the areas most important to employers."

Nov 11, 2014

Hope I get into Duke and then brag to people that I got into the #1 MBA program.

Wow at UC Berkeley at 19 and MIT at 14, underneath Tepper, UNC, and Cornell.

Nov 11, 2014

This ranking is more accurate

Cluster 1: HBS, Stanford
Cluster 1a: Wharton
Cluster 2: Booth, Sloan, Columbia, Kellogg (M7)
Cluster 2a: Haas, Tuck
Cluster 3: Stern, Ross, Darden, Fuqua, Yale, Cornell, Anderson (All peers)
Cluster 4: McCombs, Tepper, Gozuieta, Kenan-Flager (Regional)

Nov 11, 2014
MBAGrad10:

This ranking is more accurate

Cluster 1: HBS, Stanford

Cluster 1a: Wharton

Cluster 2: Booth, Sloan, Columbia, Kellogg (M7)

Cluster 2a: Haas, Tuck

Cluster 3: Stern, Ross, Darden, Fuqua, Yale, Cornell, Anderson (All peers)

Cluster 4: McCombs, Tepper, Gozuieta, Kenan-Flager (Regional)

Cluster 5482: U of Phoenix, Strayer, Devry, Kaplan (all a joke)

Nov 11, 2014

what about SNHU?

Nov 11, 2014

Just one more reason why no one takes Businessweek rankings seriously. The one that matters, the one that employers and students care about, is the US News rankings. And that rightfully has HSW at the top, followed by Booth, which is rapidly closing in on Wharton.

Nov 11, 2014

Fairly accurate. I would place Wharton and Booth in the same tier, above the other M7 programs.

Nov 11, 2014

The only thing that's shocking is that you find this ranking shocking. BW always does this.

Nov 11, 2014

Just saw this ranking; a little late in the day, I admit.
This is pretty *amazing* news, and I would bet you that most Fuqua students are surprised as well.
I'll be digging into some of the numbers and will revert on this --- I've crunched some numbers with John Byrne from P&Q, so will see what comes up. I've even written for P&Q on why you should take rankings with a grain of salt (here's a copy of the article I reposted on my blog http://masteradmissions.com/mba-rankings-take-grai...)

Good for them! So in the rankings game, depending on whom you ask, everybody's a winner.

Betsy Massar
Come see me at my Q&A thread
http://www.wallstreetoasis.com/forums/b-school-qa-... Ask away!

Nov 11, 2014

This is as legit as Notre Dame being ranked #1 for undergrad business by businessweek ROFL

Nov 11, 2014

Well, I just went through the whole article and I am still scratching my head. I think there may be some problems with those who fill out the survey, at least on the employer/recruiter side. Here's a key point from the article:

During the 13 previous times that Businessweek surveyed corporate recruiters-in the past doing upfront diligence to insure that only a senior level human resources official in charge of MBA recruiting for a company filled out the survey-Duke never did better than seventh place and was 14th twice. Over that timeframe, the school's natural employer rank was slightly higher than tenth place-a long way from its No. 2 showing this year after the changes in methodology.

Again, not to take away from Fuqua, but I do think some quantitative analysis of this survey, and the methodology is in order.

So now I guess when my candidates tell me that they are looking to Fuqua as a safety, I might have to show them the BW survey, for better or worse.

Betsy Massar
Come see me at my Q&A thread
http://www.wallstreetoasis.com/forums/b-school-qa-... Ask away!

    • 1
Nov 11, 2014
Betsy Massar:

Well, I just went through the whole article and I am still scratching my head. I think there may be some problems with those who fill out the survey, at least on the employer/recruiter side. Here's a key point from the article:

During the 13 previous times that Businessweek surveyed corporate recruiters-in the past doing upfront diligence to insure that only a senior level human resources official in charge of MBA recruiting for a company filled out the survey-Duke never did better than seventh place and was 14th twice. Over that timeframe, the school's natural employer rank was slightly higher than tenth place-a long way from its No. 2 showing this year after the changes in methodology.

Again, not to take away from Fuqua, but I do think some quantitative analysis of this survey, and the methodology is in order.

So now I guess when my candidates tell me that they are looking to Fuqua as a safety, I might have to show them the BW survey, for better or worse.

But Betsy, aren't all of the methodologies a bit skewed in each methodology? I know that some schools have even dropped their application fees in order to receive more applications, with the same number of entrants, giving them a higher rejection rate. Doesn't the fact that their methodology is public create an incentive for schools (and students with their survey responses) to figure out a way to game the system? Some of the comments in the original article made a good point about the possibility that students at 2nd and 3rd tier schools could answer the survey portion overly optimistic in order to bump the prestige of their school. Just seems that the wide ranging rankings seems head scratching, as you say. Maybe the next step is a rankings system that takes the 5 or so top published rankings and creates some type of weighted average to rank schools.

Nov 11, 2014
wareagle4230:

Maybe the next step is a rankings system that takes the 5 or so top published rankings and creates some type of weighted average to rank schools.

Poets and Quants already does this, but even that is problematic since a majority of rankings are crap.

Nov 11, 2014
wareagle4230:

Maybe the next step is a rankings system that takes the 5 or so top published rankings and creates some type of weighted average to rank schools.

Weighted average of crap is still crap.

Nov 11, 2014

Yes, all of the rankings have problems, but I am pointing out the alumni recruiting boosterism because it seems to have changed the norm in such a big way. I'm looking for the experts to slice and dice it for me before I do anything more than wonder aloud.
If you really want to get into the nitty gritty of ranking problems, read Matt Turner's P&Q article here
http://poetsandquants.com/2014/01/12/nine-biggest-...

Betsy Massar
Come see me at my Q&A thread
http://www.wallstreetoasis.com/forums/b-school-qa-... Ask away!

Nov 11, 2014

duplicate

Betsy Massar
Come see me at my Q&A thread
http://www.wallstreetoasis.com/forums/b-school-qa-... Ask away!

Nov 12, 2014
wareagle4230:
Betsy Massar:

Well, I just went through the whole article and I am still scratching my head. I think there may be some problems with those who fill out the survey, at least on the employer/recruiter side. Here's a key point from the article:

During the 13 previous times that Businessweek surveyed corporate recruiters-in the past doing upfront diligence to insure that only a senior level human resources official in charge of MBA recruiting for a company filled out the survey-Duke never did better than seventh place and was 14th twice. Over that timeframe, the school's natural employer rank was slightly higher than tenth place-a long way from its No. 2 showing this year after the changes in methodology.

Again, not to take away from Fuqua, but I do think some quantitative analysis of this survey, and the methodology is in order.

So now I guess when my candidates tell me that they are looking to Fuqua as a safety, I might have to show them the BW survey, for better or worse.

But Betsy, aren't all of the methodologies a bit skewed in each methodology? I know that some schools have even dropped their application fees in order to receive more applications, with the same number of entrants, giving them a higher rejection rate. Doesn't the fact that their methodology is public create an incentive for schools (and students with their survey responses) to figure out a way to game the system? Some of the comments in the original article made a good point about the possibility that students at 2nd and 3rd tier schools could answer the survey portion overly optimistic in order to bump the prestige of their school. Just seems that the wide ranging rankings seems head scratching, as you say. Maybe the next step is a rankings system that takes the 5 or so top published rankings and creates some type of weighted average to rank schools.

Why do we continuously use the world 'methodology' improperly?

Nov 11, 2014

Sounds like a successful publication. All you have viewed it and are talking about it.

Nov 11, 2014
The Real Max:

Sounds like a successful publication. All you have viewed it and are talking about it.

Yep.

Nov 11, 2014

How would you guys rank different rankings based on how sensical their approach is and how accurate their rankings reflect what they're supposed to reflect?

I will start with my guess:
1. US News
2. FT
3. Forbes
4. The Economist / Business Week tie for being so bad

Nov 12, 2014

@dan-brown, this ranking is meaningless. i can't see fuqua cracking top 10 on USN with a sub 700 avg GMAT. I think stern should have that spot locked down and remain the top school in tier 2

Nov 12, 2014

I want to see each ranking post both THIS year's and a prediction for NEXT year's ranking and a discussion on why they think its going to change. These drastic fluctuations make no sense.

Nov 14, 2014

As a recruiter and a b-school grad from one of these colleges, I don't believe UNC, UCLA and Tepper are better than MIT, Tuck and Darden. I'm not sure if respondents are being truly honest about how they feel about their colleges.

Nov 14, 2014
Comment
Nov 22, 2014