Rankings US News or Business Week?

ok, this is an aside, but in our marketing intel class (great class) we're talking about the WSJ harris interactive survey as being super duper lame.

I had heard people say it, but it was fun to dig into it. And our professor actually ended up in the middle of the firestorm. I don't have the links, but if you search for John Lynch in WSJ or BW, you might find it.

I think US News is generally a better indicator of what people will decide when faced with the choice between two (or more) schools). The question is do the preferences drive the rankings or do the rankings drive the perceptions. In the end, it doesn't really matter.

When you look at the points of inflection in the two different rankings, the US News rankings seem to pass the smell test better. For example, Haas and Tuck have moved ahead of Columbia in the US News rankings. I believe that Columbia is the better school, but I can certainly understand how a lot of people might prefer Haas or Tuck. Looking at the top 15 or so, I can imagine a logical explanation for each.

Some of the Businessweek rankings just don't pass the smell test. Would any relevant portion of the stakeholders out there really argue that Chicago and Kellogg should be ahead of Harvard? I don't buy it. How about Ross (and those above) ahead of Stanford. Smells fishy. What percentage of the people at Stanford would trade their seat for a spot at Ross. I'm guessing, outside of some people with highly individualized personal concerns, about 0%. Vice versa? About 100%.

However, notwithstanding everything above, I think that Hjort's cluster system makes the most sense. Once you start looking at schools within the same cluster, other concerns (location, personal, teaching style, money, etc.) are probably the deciding factors for most people.

There was a "ranking of rankings" blog somewhere... anyone remember where that link is? Let me search it, or someone post it if they know... I have the document somewhere too. It was a very good overview of all the rankings and the pros and cons of each.

I believe Kry, you are looking for this:

https://www.dealmaven.com/community/blogs/student/archive/2007/08/15/mba-admissions-101-mba-rankings.aspx

yes, that one. That was a good read, and the ranking system he used in the end is similar to our cluster system.

Kudos dosa!

How about this one (at least as a cluster)?

https://www.mbagcf.com/aboutus/aboutus.php

L.

Looks like the M7 + the top 3 international schools...

The ranking that he has in the end is a little off as he has the wrong stats for CBS. The yield and selectivity should read 77% and 17% respectively. I think thats the reason he has highlighted those fields in the spreadsheet. Not that it changes anything drastically...but FWIW.

that sound about right for CBS, thanks for the correction, dosa!

I think USNews is THE most used rankings site for most higher education institutions - it also reflects popular perceptions more than Businessweek does.

This link almost makes you believe the claim that "Columbia and the previous 6 - Harvard, Stanford, Penn (Wharton), Chicago, Northwestern (Kellogg), MIT (Sloan) form the so-called “Magnificent 7,” or “M7.” It is often theorized that the Deans of these schools conspire to keep their schools at the top, and this group has become a kind of de facto “Ivy League” of B-schools."

The M7 is real...they have come out and said they meet to discuss the state of B-schools. They definitely all are working together somewhat to strengthen their standings.

One way to judge schools is to look at the highly sought after post grad jobs. How many hires do they get from the sought after companies like McKinsey, BCG, Bain, GS, Morgan Stanley, L. bros, M Lynch...etc. If a great proportion of the folks heading into consulting go to the Big 3 then obviously its a very highly regarded school.

Where do rankings by the Economist and FT fit into all this? or are they not even worth considering?
thanks,
ac.

Obviously USnews is considered the most accurate with BW coming in just behind. The rest are bordering on useless, schools will proudly say they are #5 on so and so's ranking but in reality it means nothing. Recruiters dont really care about rankings, they go to the same schools year after year regardless of what some magazine says. Use USnews to get an idea and dont worry yourself with the others.

The previous discussion of the M7 also reminded me that at Kellogg's admitted students weekend the dean talked about how the deans of those schools meet several times a year. So I guess that solidifies that its true. They work together to keep up with trends of education and applicants. Sounded like an arrangement that benefits all the parties.

all rankings are a bit lame as it's usually the same few schools that make the top spots and it's virtually impossible for an outside school to get into the ultra elite or elite list.

in addition, the ultra elites usually just switch amongst themselves year after year. you can't make HBS #1 for 10 years in a row or else the info gets too stale so they tend to mix it up.

IMO, the most important thing about rankings is reputation of the program. salaries, faculty ratios, undergrad GPAs, GMAT scores, etc...are all things that can change fairly quickly but reputation is really what you are getting out of the program in the long run.

Dan.

guys, the rankings are made to be controversial so they can sell magazines....THAT'S ABOUT IT....

there are only two criteria:

1) Where a student would go if he had multiple choices
2) Career opportunities at the most prestigious and lucrative firms

The best ranking is the one that gives the highest rank to the school you are attending.