2009 USNews MBA Rankings

Wow! That's even better than the lucky penny!

Very true. That's why I'm telling people not to worry so much about the rankings, as most will LOVE their school no matter the rankings, once they matriculate and start classes.

You would be amazed. People that go to schools based on rankings without a real good reason for choosing the school usually have buyers remorse. These people are usually easy to spot in an admissions interview, but some schools will admit them just because their profile is competitive. Some schools have more disloyal junkies than you would expect.

There's no point in worrying about rankings (at least year-to-year rankings) once you've started school. It's not like you can go up to a recruiter and say "hey, my school is ranked #10 so you need to give me a job". Rankings are more important when deciding whether/where to attend because they give an indication as to the opportunities open to students at each school.

Once you're there, it's up to the individual to take advantage of opportunities and make the most of their experience. There are ways other than rankings to measure how happy students are with their experience after they graduate. Endowment is a good indicator, and it's no surprise that the ultra-elites in general have a measurable gap with elites, and elites mostly have a sizable gap over others. Also, beyond just huge contributions from a few successful donors, rate of giving gives an indication on how happy graduates are in general.

Also, as others have pointed out, long-term stability of rankings is probably the biggest factor of all. Perceptions are built up over decades, and recruiters and others will not change their opinions based on ranking changes year over year. The confidence that your school of choice will retain an equal level of respect 5, 10, 20 years from now is a major factor and extremely valuable. It's always amusing when someone says a school has gained in rankings for 2 years in a row, and will be elite or ultra-elite in a few more years. Maybe...but not likely. 10 years from now, the same schools will probably occupy the top clusters. Perhaps a school will make the leap or fall a bit, but it really doesn't happen. Yale decided they wanted to join the fray, and over the course of 20 years they've managed to get themselves included as a member of the elites to many - but only by maintaining the smallest class size by far; and let's face it, there aren't many schools with the cachet or money of Yale.

I agree Pelihu, and I believe that in the international scenario we will see Oxford and Cambridge (I know they don't have enough endowment as Yale) also gaining prestige and becoming international UE schools.

Just read something regarding the employment rate 3 months post graduation that seemed very interesting. Some schools have a very early graduation date, in April even, while some have it a little later I heard. So the 3 months employment rate is really not a fair comparison as some schools have more time to place you so to speak. They should go with something like employed as of July or something.

I do know the flip side to this- it still means you have some x% unemployed after graduation but just thought I shall throw this out there.

I plan to ask a career management person today why the employment rate is relatively low (even Stanford only has a 93% after 3 months). Is it because people can't find a job, or is it because they're too picky?

I mean, if schools ranked in the 30-40s can get 100% placement after 3 months, why can't UE/E schools?

I also noticed that Haas, Stanford, and Columbia have significantly lower placement rates than all the other UE/Es. I'm guessing Haas and Stanford probably because they have quite a few non-profit/save the world type people, but I'm not sure about Columbia.

Lots of questions after reviewing the list again last night...

You can simply name "UW Foster" - no need to be coy

Look what I found:

https://blog.fastcompany.com/archives/20 ... kings.html

Was it true?

One more interesting thing I found:
https://www.aacsb.edu/resource_centers/r ... licano.ppt

It is not that simple.

My UG university also has an MBA program and folks in that program have atleast 2 jobs each by the time they graduate. Same with my own UG class. Does it mean my university's MBA degree should be a UE. In fact, my uni's MBA program is probably ranked in the late-teens within India and stands snow balls chance in hell of ever making into the top 100 MBA programs global list. Although folks in my uni's MBA program are really smart and talented, companies like Morgan Stanley, GS, Google, Amazon dont recruit there. However, other good companies like Reliance, Tata Steel and some of the Indian giants do recruit.

So, it is not a bright idea to just compare placement statistics. You need to look at what companies recruit there, and where students graduating from these schools expect to work post graduation. A Stan MBA grad may not want to work for companies which aren't elite in his own estimation. So, he passes on a lot of opportunities waiting for that dream job. He sees no risk in doing this because he has confidence that a Stan MBA can get a job if needed, pretty quickly. A graduate at a lower ranked school may be more sensitive to the risks of un-employment and therfore kind of grab at jobs that come his way rather than waiting for the dream-job.

I dont know if there is such psychology at work in the top MBA schools, but it could possibly explain why the top schools sometimes have lower placement stats compared to lower ranked ones.

Actually, I didn't have the list with me, so I couldn't remember which school had the 100%, thanks for the info.

NC, I totally agree, which is why I DON'T like them using placement as a ranking statistic, especially with so much weight. It's like comparing broomsticks to ipods (ok, random example, but you get what I'm saying). But I still want to see what the "official" explanation from a career center person is regarding my question.

Kwam... wow! Interesting articles! I kinda support them, if they can really make a positive change in BW's ranking system. But then again, hearing about HBS's treatment of students, I hope HBS gets crappy rankings until they fix that.

The schools provide the data. A lot of it actually comes down to bad data tracking. Students fill out the survey they are looking and do not fill out the survey once they find a job. I know that sounds ridiculous but it is partially responsible. Other thing is the impact of entrepreneurs who may be counted initially as "looking" but decide not to take a job. The other thing you have to take into account is class size. 97% at a school like Anderson means 3% do not have a job or about 9 people which is not a lot for various reasons.

well said, socal. Haas has about 10% that will go to a startup in the end, so the two part survey thing you mentioned could just be for those reasons.

There are a number of reasons that the employment data does not tell the whole truth.

I heard recently, from a MBA student, that many students at business school go so as to not take greater risk in life, find a job, and get by...i believe that some would fit this description, perhaps most, but not all. So the schools that have less than 100 percent employment AND are considered great schools because they attract a "diverse" culture may actually be doing this. Some may leave school without the ambition of pursuing a "job" that counts as a job. Self employment would not be considered employment on these statistics. That being said, I would guess no more than 2 percent of a class that has taken on 100,000 dollars in debt would fit this category.

Then there are the waiters; those that have found employment but not accepted. these will be far more concentrated in the better schools.

Also, there will be those that get married and decide to live off of the other mba's income (I would not mind doing this)

International students may not show up.

This sort of brainstorming will lead to a lot of reasons a "diverse" class may not have 100 percent employment. The same can be made for starting salaries. Many interesting jobs do not pay the same amount as others. I try not to pay too much attention to this statistic. I focus on academic quality, student quality, life quality...anything that you can put quality behind (not quantity).