+1
Nice write-up.
Completely agree that the survey results are a "self-fulfilling prophecy." All they do is ask both b-school administrators and recruiters "to rate programs on a scale of 1 (marginal) to 5 (outstanding)." My guess is that these results are heavily influenced by prior year(s) rankings for the top 20 (or so) schools. For lower ranked schools, a lack of program awareness and questionable response rates yield big fluctuations in the data (and hence the overall ranking). The fact that these results represent 40% of the overall score makes no sense to me.
Regarding the starting salary metric, they also don't take into account geographic differences...
huntzman wrote:
After reading about how these ranks are calculated, I've come to the conclusion that US News is borderline trash. 25%, the largest single chunk, on peer assessment? That just guarantees a certain level of stability, as the ranks reinforce deans' perceptions, which reinforce ranks, which reinforces.....you get the idea.
And GMAT weighs more than recruiter assessment score? You mean, some test which has dubious predictive ability beyond the 1st year of b-school is more important than getting those job opportunities that could shape our entire career? Add in GPA, and almost a quarter of the score is based on academics - this just sounds too high. Basically, too much is made of the kinds of students come into a program (gmat, gpa) and not enough on what kinds of students come out of a program (recruiter assessment, starting salary).
You would think b-school is a bastion of free market capitalists, and the ratio of demand to supply - i.e the acceptance rate - would tell us a lot about how each school is perceived in the marketplace. Surely Harvard gets a lot of apps because it is perceived to be the best, which is what a ranking is all about? But lo, US News only thinks this is worth 1%! Crazy.
Plus, I wonder about the "starting salary" metric - it rewards a school for being finance or consulting heavy. I'm not sure if this is right or wrong, but it's something to think about.
Lastly, I have to wonder about response rates - 43% of those surveyed responded to peer assessment, while a dismal 16% of corporate recruiters responded to their piece of the survey? I don't think you need a stats class to tell you that the confidence intervals on this stuff must be huge.