GMAT Question of the Day - Daily to your Mailbox; hard ones only

It is currently 17 Oct 2018, 09:16

Q&A in Progress!

AMA with ExamPAL. Ask all your questions about GMAT Prep to expert. Join HERE


Close

GMAT Club Daily Prep

Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.

Customized
for You

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track
Your Progress

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.

Close

Request Expert Reply

Confirm Cancel

FT RANKINGS RELEASED: With Flawed Methodology off-course!

  new topic post reply Update application status  
Author Message
TAGS:

Hide Tags

Current Student
User avatar
D
Joined: 12 Aug 2015
Posts: 2638
Schools: Boston U '20 (M)
GRE 1: Q169 V154
GMAT ToolKit User Premium Member
FT RANKINGS RELEASED: With Flawed Methodology off-course!  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 28 Jan 2018, 22:45
2

FT Rankings and the Joke that their methodology is


So today FT just released its annual MBA rankings. Although there are a few shockers, I am not surprised one bit. While U.S. News entirely U.S.-centric ranking has become the most influential in the MBA game, FT still is a followed by the candidates from Asia and Europe.

There is a major flaw in there methodology ->


In there own words ->



Quote:
The FT surveys alumni three years after completing their MBA. For schools to enter the ranking calculations, the FT requires that a minimum of 20 per cent of alumni reply to the survey, with at least 20 fully completed responses. About 8,300 from the class of 2014 completed our survey — a response rate of 38 per cent.

The ranking has 20 different criteria. Alumni responses inform eight criteria that together contribute 59 per cent of its weight. Eleven criteria are calculated from school data, accounting for 31 per cent of the ranking. KPMG audits a number of schools every year. The remaining criterion, the research rank, counts for 10 per cent.

Alumni-informed criteria are based on the data collected over three years. Responses from the 2018 survey carry 50 per cent of total weight and those from 2017 and 2016, 25 per cent each. If only two years of data are available, the weighting is split 60:40 if data are from 2018 and 2017, or 70:30 if they are from 2018 and 2016. For salary figures, the weighting is 50:50 for two years’ data.


The FT’s methodology is based on 20 different metrics, including several that tend to favor non-U.S. schools. Among other things, metrics that add score points to a school’s standing include the percentage of students, faculty and trustees who carry passports from a country where the school is not located, whether students and alumni worked in foreign countries, whether students had an international course experience and whether the school requires students to learn extra languages prior to graduation. What any of these criteria have to do with the quality of an MBA degree is a matter of opinion.

Often, an even greater impact on a school’s rank can be the result of the FT’s decision to use a purchasing power parity (PPP) formula to convert and count actual salary data–the most heavily weighted metric in the methodology. Such currency gymnastics favor schools that supply graduates to countries with high rates of poverty. With the PPP adjustment, for example, it’s probable that CEIBS would not have finished in the top ten. The school’s latest employment report shows that the median base salary for MBAs was $67,282. The FT’s adjusted salary figure for CEIBS alumni is $162,858.

This adjustment has an especially negative impact on all U.S. schools because the vast majority of international students who get an MBA in America want to live and work in the U.S. where their compensation would not be inflated by the PPA filter. Although 34% of this year’s graduating class at Harvard Business School were international, for example, only 13% of the class took jobs overseas and that percentage includes some U.S. citizens. At INSEAD, in contrast, nearly 70& of the MBA students from Asia Pacific (67%), Africa and the Middle East (57%), and Latin America (63%) returned home to regions where a PPP adjustment would inflate their actual compensation.

What’s more, even though the FT is putting a 40% weight on these pay numbers, they fail to account for total compensation—just salary. In the U.S., a good many MBAs from elite schools often get stock options (at Stanford, 32% of the newly minted graduates last year reported stock compensation) and significant annual bonuses that would put their schools well ahead of many of the institutions that are routinely ranked higher by the Financial Times.

Unlike U.S. News, moreover, the FT pays no attention at all to incoming student quality in its ranking–another reason why U.S. schools do less well on this list. GMAT and GRE scores and undergraduate grade point averages, all key components of a business school admission decisions–are ignored. So are acceptance rates which also tend to be lower at many of the best U.S. schools. At Stanford, for example, only 5% of the candidates who apply for admission get into its MBA program. At INSEAD, which does not report this number, the acceptance rate is routinely above 30%, according to insiders.

Another issue with the FT ranking is that the newspaper fails to reveal the underlying index scores that allow it to crank out the numerical rankings. Those scores show whether a school’s rank is statistically different among other schools ranked nearby. In most rankings, these index scores tend to cluster in close bands and often show that there is no meaningful statistical difference between a school ranked 45th and one ranked 50th. The FT concedes that clustering is a reality and that there are four different groups of schools on its list of the top 100. In a footnote, the newspaper points out that the top 14 schools, starting with Stanford and ending with Hong Kong University Science and Technology, are in a top group. The second cluster, headed by Yale SOM, spans the schools ranked 15th to 44th. “Differences between schools are relatively small within this group,” the FT admits. The 48 schools in the next group are “similarly close together.” Just how close is unknown because the FT won’t publish the index numbers for each school.




Plus, I dont trust a rankings methodology which puts Krannert over Kelley; Rice over Emory; Lancaster university (Whatever that is) over Madison and Olin freaking Babson (I mean common) over Carlson!
Nah. I am not buying it.




Article used -> FT and P&Q .
Attachments

Screen Shot 2018-01-29 at 11.07.02 AM.png
Screen Shot 2018-01-29 at 11.07.02 AM.png [ 278.83 KiB | Viewed 697 times ]

Screen Shot 2018-01-29 at 11.07.16 AM.png
Screen Shot 2018-01-29 at 11.07.16 AM.png [ 239.52 KiB | Viewed 698 times ]

Screen Shot 2018-01-29 at 11.07.36 AM.png
Screen Shot 2018-01-29 at 11.07.36 AM.png [ 303.8 KiB | Viewed 701 times ]

Screen Shot 2018-01-29 at 11.08.05 AM.png
Screen Shot 2018-01-29 at 11.08.05 AM.png [ 296.45 KiB | Viewed 695 times ]

Screen Shot 2018-01-29 at 11.08.05 AM.png
Screen Shot 2018-01-29 at 11.08.05 AM.png [ 296.45 KiB | Viewed 695 times ]

Screen Shot 2018-01-29 at 11.08.21 AM.png
Screen Shot 2018-01-29 at 11.08.21 AM.png [ 295.27 KiB | Viewed 699 times ]

Screen Shot 2018-01-29 at 11.08.36 AM.png
Screen Shot 2018-01-29 at 11.08.36 AM.png [ 269.83 KiB | Viewed 694 times ]


_________________


MBA Financing:- INDIAN PUBLIC BANKS vs PRODIGY FINANCE!

Getting into HOLLYWOOD with an MBA!

The MOST AFFORDABLE MBA programs!

STONECOLD's BRUTAL Mock Tests for GMAT-Quant(700+)

AVERAGE GRE Scores At The Top Business Schools!

Current Student
User avatar
D
Joined: 12 Aug 2015
Posts: 2638
Schools: Boston U '20 (M)
GRE 1: Q169 V154
GMAT ToolKit User Premium Member
Re: FT RANKINGS RELEASED: With Flawed Methodology off-course!  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 28 Jan 2018, 22:56
Manager
Manager
avatar
B
Joined: 17 Nov 2016
Posts: 72
Concentration: Operations, Social Entrepreneurship
GRE 1: Q161 V169
FT RANKINGS RELEASED: With Flawed Methodology off-course!  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 30 Jan 2018, 10:54
Its interesting that the analysis focuses on how US schools are supposedly disfavored. Yet 12 of the Top 20 in the FT 2018 are US schools. The US has by far more schools in the top 20 than any other country. Would you prefer that all top 20 are American?

If anything, I would argue that Canadian schools are the most highly disadvantaged because Canadian salaries are lower than in the U.S. in general, regardless of how strong the school is considered by employers, and the lower salaries are in Canadian dollars.
Current Student
User avatar
D
Joined: 12 Aug 2015
Posts: 2638
Schools: Boston U '20 (M)
GRE 1: Q169 V154
GMAT ToolKit User Premium Member
FT RANKINGS RELEASED: With Flawed Methodology off-course!  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 02 Feb 2018, 05:46
1
Aaliyah537 wrote:
Its interesting that the analysis focuses on how US schools are supposedly disfavored. Yet 12 of the Top 20 in the FT 2018 are US schools. The US has by far more schools in the top 20 than any other country. Would you prefer that all top 20 are American?

If anything, I would argue that Canadian schools are the most highly disadvantaged because Canadian salaries are lower than in the U.S. in general, regardless of how strong the school is considered by employers, and the lower salaries are in Canadian dollars.




Oh, I don't give a bee's knee's as to where the Top MBA programs are located.
Its just that the methodology employed by the FT is a big load of crap.


In what universe can Babson ever be better than Carlson school of management?
Have you looked at the employment numbers ?

I mean seriously -> BABSON OVER CARLSON?

_________________


MBA Financing:- INDIAN PUBLIC BANKS vs PRODIGY FINANCE!

Getting into HOLLYWOOD with an MBA!

The MOST AFFORDABLE MBA programs!

STONECOLD's BRUTAL Mock Tests for GMAT-Quant(700+)

AVERAGE GRE Scores At The Top Business Schools!

GMAT Club Bot
FT RANKINGS RELEASED: With Flawed Methodology off-course! &nbs [#permalink] 02 Feb 2018, 05:46
Display posts from previous: Sort by

FT RANKINGS RELEASED: With Flawed Methodology off-course!

  new topic post reply Update application status  


Copyright

GMAT Club MBA Forum Home| About| Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy| GMAT Club Rules| Contact| Sitemap

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group | Emoji artwork provided by EmojiOne

Kindly note that the GMAT® test is a registered trademark of the Graduate Management Admission Council®, and this site has neither been reviewed nor endorsed by GMAC®.