mrm37612 wrote:
ajstyles13 wrote:
What doesn't make sense to me is how exactly the missing data point impacts the rankings. Based on the chart referenced in Stern's response (USNWR 2017 Stern vs. UCLA), there are eight (weighted) criteria which determine a school's ranking... how can any data, such as the # or % of entering students who submitted the GMAT, have an impact on the ranking if it falls outside of the aforementioned chart?
Somebody please correct me if I'm wrong but I believe the number or percentage of entering students who submitted GMAT scores is used to create a standardized GMAT score for each program, which is the value then used in the rankings computation. The correct (read: real had someone not messed up at Stern) score, I believe, is on Stern's individual US News page. But US News used an "estimated" data point to compile the rankings that obviously was extremely low and will not provide information on how this data point was derived. What doesn't make sense to me is how an organization that claims to create data-based rankings is comfortable using a seemingly made up data point. At the very least, US News should be called on to release the details of what they used in place of the missing data. I hope that current Stern students (and ideally the administration) make a serious effort to find this out when school resumes after the break.
Are any other admitted students struggling with how to factor these recent events into their decision? While I know that this ranking changes
nothing about Stern's actual resources and strengths (and that very well might be the answer to my question), I am mildly-moderately concerned by the fact that this was allowed to happen in the first place. On the flip side, Stern seems to have been a steady program for the past number of years with seemingly fewer advancements than its peer schools. Maybe this will be a wake up call that snaps Stern into action and significantly betters the program? If anyone is interested in discussing this further (here or PM), I would love to chat.
Hi mate, I am a fellow admitted applicant as well (Asia), congratulations for your admission offer!
For my part, I have to say that I am really facing a dilemma right now. My company, like other company in its business sector, only accepts to sponsor MBA studies if I am admitted in a “target school”. In my case, the MBA program must be ranked above the 15th place in the USNWR ranking to be considered eligible. Therefore, if I decide to go to NYU Stern right now, I will lose the company scholarship + living expenses allowance as NYU Stern is ranked below 15th place.
Some of you will point out that I already have a merit scholarship. However, Stern’s merit scholarship only covers 1st year tuition, and I was counting on my company to cover the 2nd year and the hefty living expenses in NYC. Therefore, Stern “little” omission will lead to a significant financial burden for me.
After I found out about the new rankings, I phoned current Sternies (1st year and 2nd year). They are ballistic and outraged about this man-made downgrade, and in their opinions heads will row after the spring break. A lot of them got phone calls and emails from the applicants they “coached”, especially from those whose employers would use the downgrade as an excuse to bail out on their sponsorship commitments. In addition, they are expecting a slight decrease in the A/M yield for R3 this year, but a true debacle for R1 and R2 in 2017 as new applicants will refer to the 2016 USNWR ranking, as the 2017 ranking will not available yet.
Furthermore, there are “rumors”, and please note the highly hypothetical tone, that this omitted # of GMAT transmissions is just one reason of the Stern downgrade this year. In fact, it seems highly unlikely USNWR inputted a GMAT estimate well below 700 to that would generate such a downgrade ceiteris paribus. In fact, even without this “omission”, there are “rumors” that Stern 2016 ranking would be lower than last year’s, and should be between the 12th and the 15th place. Therefore, the “omission” may be just a scapegoat, hiding Stern's leadership failures.