Master in Management 2022 Rankings

Greetings,

The following forum consists of all the latest Master in management rankings published by QS, FT, and Economist.
Keep the following pointers in mind:
1. The degrees offered by schools might be different, such as McIntire offers Masters in Commerce.
2. Rankings are not always the best source to shortlist schools, as you can see the data differs for all 3 websites. Do research about your target school.
3. Average Salary data is calculated as per the FT Survey, the website average salary data might differ.
4. CEMS is a degree offered by schools that have alliances under the CEMS organization. You can find the CEMS School list here: https://www.cems.org/academic-members/school-list



Other Important links:
MS Discussion group: https://gmatclub.com/forum/mchat.php?room_id=50050165
MIM deadlines for Fall 2022 Admission: https://gmatclub.com/forum/master-in-ma ... l#p2876837
_________________

How can you prioritise the QS ranking over the FT ranking... ridiculous in my humble opinion

Firstly, I didn't prioritise one over the other. It's just a sheet, Not stone encrypted god's words in which the sequence of words showcases the priority.
Secondly, ridiculous is itself a bad word. One can't put humble after "ridiculous".
I will advise you to take it just as a sheet.

Posted from my mobile device
_________________

Hey!
Do you have the latest MIF 2022 ranking? Please share them too if you have one

Thank you

I will update it soon.

Posted from my mobile device
_________________

Well, the reason I say that is that you base the original ranking (with the #) based on the QS ranking as it is the first one that appears. St Gallen has been first on the Ft for nearly 10 years with the highest salary any school can offer worldwide. Just find it very strange that it is only 20th in QS...
That is why I do not trust the QS ranking

I think FT emphasis a lot on the financial investment point. compared to qs who has a more holistic approach. ST. Gallen is one year and has a small batch, the career centre can easily help most of them to find a job. But QS also take into other factors like brand name, location, curriculum, research paper etc. I usually look at the global value the school has like how popular it is among recruiters and their career service rank. There are many good schools but their career service are not at par and foreign students might suffer from it.

It is true that the FT ranking is heavily impacted by salary but I think the ranking of the FT ranking in management is more representative. QS has just recently launched this ranking and I find it very broad and with no precise methodology (at least FT publishes how it ranks the schools: https://www.ft.com/mim-method). I would be interested to know that for QS...
Also, how can the career services of these schools not be as good but they have the highest salaries (both for national and international candidates)? ....

Guys, just want to give some clarification here on the ranking order. It's true that programs have been arranged in order of their QS ranks, but that does not necessarily mean that we are prioritizing QS ranking over others. While preparing the rankings table, QS had the latest rankings so naturally it had to be placed in 1st column; that does not mean we are getting judgemental about certain ranking. In fact, if we had shown older FT rankings in the first column and latest QS rankings in 2nd column, we would have been instead criticized for favoring FT rankings over QS. Does that makes sense?
_________________

Agreed, but for readers I still think that for management studies the FT ranking is the best (not the same for finance for example). Also, the comments about providing more explanation about their ranking methodology should be addressed to QS and their team. For now, it seems that it was made without a clear framework and proper/distinct Z-scores. Without, considering that sometimes it is not even the same programs that rank at each schools (for QS and the FT ranking)....

Here is the link for qs methodology i found (https://www.topuniversities.com/busines ... ethodology)

About high salary and low career service rank, i don't think they are quite relatable as most salaries are a weighted average of post couple of years completing the college. It's best to check with the school website to get figures of the first paycheck. Ft relies a lot on alumni input as well, and most career service ranks are lower for colleges that are not traditionally a b school. Like LSE though an economics Institue there courses are focused more on theory rather than job readiness (Hence high academic GPA demand for admission) but look at LBS who is purely a Bschool and even mim will give you a very hands-on industry experience just like MBA. Plus for some schools like ESSEC and HEC, have tie-ups with corporates where they provide internships to students, compare that to a career service where you only get guidance from a counsellor or access to job portals. In QS they mention they ask employers how much do they value the brand because jobs will also be subject to which domain you are studying, Like for consultant role employers usually look for Insead and LBS because the pedagogy of those schools is designed to make them ready for those roles compare that to imperial where it's more technical.

FT career service rank more relies on alumni feedback and I think that can be very subjective, QS ranking takes in Employers comments as well.

Interesting, thank you for the link.

But don't you think that asking employers is even more subjective because employers tend to prioritise schools from their given countries. Thus, smaller countries/economies will be more impacted then say France or the UK . Thus, Switzerland or the Netherlands rank much lower on QS than FT...

Not necessarily look at IIM in India their career service rank and salaries are very high but the overall rank is low. Because I'm from India and I know on a global scale only a few colleges from here are valued globally. But in India IIM tag is very valued. Employers always want local because many countries have strict regulations and laws on hiring foreigners where they need to prove the need for foreign talent, plus even after that, they have to pay extra tax and fees for your visa, so unless you don't come from a great institute or have vast experience the company won't spend extra on you. This is subjective to country agian.
Usually, not all companies will have a good idea about all colleges and the things you learn but say an Employer sees a CV with Harvard on it irrespective of where it is a business role or tech role he will be priortised.

I felt as a candidate it's better to prioritise a school that is prioritised by an employer rather than alumni as every alumni profile and experience is different. If I got to LSE just because of high overall ranks the course curriculum and my personal view on how popular the college is but at the end I still don't feel job-ready or not getting job offers my purpose of doing a mim fails, as personally for me (and many other people as well ,I belive) doing a masters is to get better jobs.

That's why ranking is not the only source for selecting colleges, you need to focus on your reasons. Like even though HEC is greatly valued i will rank LBS and Instead higher because I want to get into consulting and don't want to spend 2-3 years to complete degree.

Agreed, spending 2-3 years on a MiM degree is not ideal, except in certain cases, but in general going for an intense one year MBA is better and capital/reputation smart.

But again, employers will base their judgement on alumni + what they brought to them. Or else, how can they evaluate one university versus the other? I just feel asking employers is very subjective and generally they just fill in a questionnaire on certain points...

That is why, I still think judging alumni is the best way to rank universities equally with the least subjectivity.