|
|
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
Track
Your Progress
Practice
Pays
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
02 Feb 2012, 02:53
Kudos
Bookmarks
At least you have been contacted!
I wish all other universities followed what Duke does-- just declare all the results at the same time.
By the way, did anyone notice the 4 rank drop in the FT rankings for HKUST?
I wish all other universities followed what Duke does-- just declare all the results at the same time.
By the way, did anyone notice the 4 rank drop in the FT rankings for HKUST?
02 Feb 2012, 03:00
Kudos
Bookmarks
karansingh22
Some of the blogs mention that FT have corrected their mistake from last year. Last year, FT had considered many of faculty, students and programs international. But that is not the actual case. Hence, the correction in ranking this year.
02 Feb 2012, 11:15
Kudos
Bookmarks
Hi OptimusPrimea1, if you're referring to poets and quants, they've actually corrected their story.
Corrected version:
"The Financial Times also made a point in noting that Hong Kong’s University of Science and Technology Business School fell four places to tenth in the new ranking, and the newspaper said the decline is ”partly explained by a reclassification of students, faculty members and board members from China, previously counted as international by the FT for schools based in Hong Kong.” Those factors are among 20 different data points in the methodology used by the FT to rank MBA programs."
Old version:
“The Financial Times also conceded that an error in last year’s ranking allowed Hong Kong’s University of Science and Technology Business School to place sixth in 2011. The school fell four places to tenth in the new ranking and the newspaper said that the decline is ”partly explained by a reclassification of students, faculty members and board members from China, previously counted as international by the FT for schools based in Hong Kong.” Those factors are among 20 different data points in the methodology used by the FT to rank MBA programs.” (Wrong facts-See page 35 of the FT Business Education insert)
Basically, in all of its prior rankings, the FT considered China students in Hong Kong schools as international. However for the 2012 ranking, they made a change to the classification and no longer count China students as international for schools based in Hong Kong.
Corrected version:
"The Financial Times also made a point in noting that Hong Kong’s University of Science and Technology Business School fell four places to tenth in the new ranking, and the newspaper said the decline is ”partly explained by a reclassification of students, faculty members and board members from China, previously counted as international by the FT for schools based in Hong Kong.” Those factors are among 20 different data points in the methodology used by the FT to rank MBA programs."
Old version:
“The Financial Times also conceded that an error in last year’s ranking allowed Hong Kong’s University of Science and Technology Business School to place sixth in 2011. The school fell four places to tenth in the new ranking and the newspaper said that the decline is ”partly explained by a reclassification of students, faculty members and board members from China, previously counted as international by the FT for schools based in Hong Kong.” Those factors are among 20 different data points in the methodology used by the FT to rank MBA programs.” (Wrong facts-See page 35 of the FT Business Education insert)
Basically, in all of its prior rankings, the FT considered China students in Hong Kong schools as international. However for the 2012 ranking, they made a change to the classification and no longer count China students as international for schools based in Hong Kong.
