Duke Fuqua tops Bloomberg Businessweek's 2014 MBA ranking
The Complete 2014 Business School Ranking
Certainly a shocker.
The Complete 2014 Business School Ranking
Certainly a shocker.
+36 | MSF Rankings 2024 | 27 | 1d | |
+31 | Umich Ross vs Rice vs Notre Dame Mendoza | 15 | 8h | |
St Andrews vs LSE vs Middlebury | 16 | 23m | ||
+24 | HEC Mim vs Bocconi Mfin (URGENT) | 12 | 1h | |
+24 | Target School Kids Stop Complaining | 5 | 2h | |
+23 | Got admission to ESCP MiM - now what? | 14 | 6d | |
+23 | SHOULD I DO THIS MINOR? | 16 | 20h | |
+23 | UK business schools (below top 5) | 10 | 2d | |
+20 | Oxbridge or Top 15 US School. | 6 | 3d | |
+19 | UCL Vs Warwick Vs Umass Amherst Vs UW Madison Vs UofT for undergrad | 18 | 3d |
Career Resources
Have to sell magazines.
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.
Duke at 1, Harvard at 8...seriously hope no one makes a bschool decision on this crap.
I highly doubt anyone does, but who knows.
this could also be a case of Bloomberg owing John Mack (duke alum) a favor.
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."
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.
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)
what about SNHU?
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.
Fairly accurate. I would place Wharton and Booth in the same tier, above the other M7 programs.
The only thing that's shocking is that you find this ranking shocking. BW always does this.
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-grain-salt/)
Good for them! So in the rankings game, depending on whom you ask, everybody's a winner.
This is as legit as Notre Dame being ranked #1 for undergrad business by businessweek ROFL
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:
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.
Poets and Quants already does this, but even that is problematic since a majority of rankings are crap.
Weighted average of crap is still crap.
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-mistakes-in-mba-ranki…
duplicate
Why do we continuously use the world 'methodology' improperly?
Sounds like a successful publication. All you have viewed it and are talking about it.
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
@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
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.
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.
I'm not sure it matters that much about how thy feel about their colleges. They only went to one b-school, how are they in a prime position to compare it to another? Lets look at cross-admits instead.
Dicta et esse vel omnis blanditiis blanditiis minima. Voluptatem nihil facilis unde aut. Nemo fugiat eligendi incidunt optio debitis in sunt non. Qui itaque voluptate placeat ab. Non ab expedita minus enim iure. Accusantium quae unde dolores natus quibusdam eum provident.
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...
Officiis error quia accusamus sit. Veniam delectus perferendis voluptatem. Ratione magnam veritatis fuga omnis architecto.
Suscipit pariatur facilis tenetur. Possimus voluptatem perferendis sunt in commodi quos velit. Asperiores qui repudiandae inventore eius est at. Vero veritatis nihil aut distinctio eum.
Aut et iusto dolore cupiditate. Ipsum voluptatibus nam voluptatem recusandae ullam.