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???

Hi Anonymous Monkey, upload your resume and land a job

Members that upload a resume get 2.3x the number of interview invites through the Talent Oasis. Learn more.

Comments (4)

Nov 8, 2017
Free Consultation

We know you have questions as you prepare to apply to your target business schools. What are your chances of being admitted? How can you differentiate yourself from so many other applicants? What is the best way to showcase your accomplishments or mitigate your weaknesses? Start getting answers to all your questions by taking advantage of a free 30-minute consultation with an expert from mbaMission’s Senior Consultant team. Learn more.

Nov 8, 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
Feb 14, 2018


    • 2
Feb 14, 2018