dox wrote:
There's always going to be debate as to what the proper measure of an MBA program is and, in most cases, it varies depending on the interests, personality, and goals of the applicant. That being said, the overwhelming consensus is that Harvard and Stanford are the top two programs. How much validity does a ranking system have if it places them at 14th/19th (WSJ) or even 4th/6th (BW)? I understand that they're trying to come up with a scientific formula for ranking schools, but if the result is that far off from "reality" it casts doubt upon the credibility of the entire system. It seems to me that applicants are much better off using non-quantitative measures to assess the fit/value of schools.
I would say it is similar to football league tables. For Example the English League.
e.g Manchester United would be the equivalent of an Elite school - (1945–1969) they were the best, however by the mid 70's they slumped and even got relegated. By the mid 80's they were resurgent, although not ultra-elite, they were elite again. However, come the 90's the surged back to become an ultra-elite.
Historically speaking, a lot of the top clubs have been elite for a long term with some short term dips. The reputation of the club ensures it always attracts top players. However sometimes the management and players underperform and brings it down in the rankings.
Sometimes you get an established team trying to push its way into the ultra-elite and managing it (Chelsea), sometimes they fall away (Leeds Utd)
Business schools sound much the same in reality, you will get ups ad downs, however in the long run, the high reputation schools will remain near the top due to its reputation.