Financial Times MBA Rankings 2013

'MERICA!

FT rankings always seem very off from other rankings such as the economist's, us news' or businessweek's. Booth and Kellogg are ranked lower than HKUST, Tepper nowhere even in the top 30.... Very peculiar.. And a 3 year average salary of $194,000 for Stanford just does not sound realistic..

I apologize. I was filtering off the posted list instead of the original source.

FT rankings may be iffy, but I think they are much more accurate than BusinessWeek as far as US schools are concerned. I think I trust USNews rankings the most. QS global rankings are good too because they put schools in clusters.

This.

...

Is there a link to the US list or a way to filter the list on the website by US only?

Sort by country.

All of the rankings base their methodology on something slightly different. Before we get all upset of what school ranks where, just look at their methodology. If it matches your criteria, then use it when looking for the school.

There is so much wrong with just looking at the numbers in rankings. It is a self-fulfilling prophecy. Everyone wants to go to #1 school, so HSW, will get the best applicants. Since they get best applicants, they will be most competitive. Since they are most competitive and yields will be high, GMATs will be high, admits will be low, and they will continue to rank high because thats what the ranking is based on.

I dont particularly care for 1 rankings system over another. I probably would go US news as well (based on my own criteria for school selection), but knocking the others rankings agencies is silly. Who cares where they rank you. Use the rankings system that aligns with your goals. Make your own ranking system. We are all smart and want our schools to do well, but lets not criticize FT for their criteria selection. Its their magazine or blog or whatever, let them do what they want.

Not only the best, but they also get the MOST (i.e. cannon fodder). To me it's amazing how many people apply to Harvard like they're throwing cooked pasta at the wall and hoping it will stick. I get the feeling a fair amount of people apply as a total reach and haven't really done all that much research, they just figure it's like the lottery: You can't win if you don't play...and if by some miracle they get accepted, well, you can't say "no" to Harvard, right? Harvard's acceptance rate would be a lot less intimidating if you removed the applications that got read once and were immediately discarded.

9000 applications a year is mind boggling, especially when you consider that Wharton only attracts about 6400 applicants for a class of similar size. Stanford wins the "most selective" prize because about 6600 applicants are vying for 400 seats.

All the different rankings can be accurate and still be different. If they rank based on different criteria, it just depends what criteria is important to you - that will inform what rankings to look at.

The pasta on the wall point is a really good one - BUT the truth is that a more competitive set is applying to Harvard. They may just read once and throw out the ones that Michigan takes seriously.

Agree that Harvard has the strongest applicant pool, but the fact that the size is 9,000 (with no other school breaking 7,000) suggests that Harvard's strong brand name draws more "Why the hell not?" applicants than other top schools.

I already mentioned Wharton and Stanford's numbers, so to illustrate further, last year Booth had ~4,000 applicants, Kellogg ~5,000, Sloan ~4500, Columbia ~6700.

In my humble opinion, the publication that ranks whichever school I attend the highest is the most credible.

Ha!

Wins points for most honesty.

FT rankings are a bit strange... the top 3 are OK but i don't understand how did they rank Booth below IESE and HKUST (maybe because i didn't read the methodology).