Interesting (but again like with the Financial Times another useless global ranking
).
I haven't read through the methodology, but just from reading the article there are already a couple flaws. For example, it mentioned that both LBS' and IMD's starting salaries have gone down, while UC Berkeley Haas' average starting salary has remained flat. Well due to the weakening of the GBP (maybe less so the €) of course average starting salaries have declined sharply in USD terms. But in GBP, they have remained the same. And the employment percentage after graduation has dropped everywhere to the low 80%'s, not only at EU b-schools.
Then the article talks about the average GMAT as an indicator for students’ intellectual prowess. That's probably true. But given that non-US b-schools often have 70-80% international students whose first language is not English, it is not surprising that they score lower on the GMAT (esp. the verbal part) and hence average GMAT scores are also lower. US b-schools usually only have 25-30% international students whose first language is not English.
Again, I haven't read the methodology and maybe there are adjustments made for the factors mentioned above. If not, then like with the FT ranking, the Economist ranking should also go straight to the bin
.