Rankings

I had considered that actually, but seeing as I only used 4 sources, I thought I would keep the larger sample since 2 seemed a little too small. I might look into it a little more tho... at least for Top 10 or so since past that can be hard to come across for some rankings.

We have discussed this issue some time ago, here goes the thread:
https://www.gmatclub.com/phpbb/viewtopic ... light=rank

I have my "personal ranking" and use those of publications only to see how my rank goes with their methodology. IMO one should not take in account the schools by those rankings...

Anyway, every rank has its advantages and its flaws.

I think that the generic rankings do a lot of people a disservice. Most people are better off choosing what their specialty is going to be and the companies they wish to work for and then seeing what schools fit their goals.

Examples of my thinking: (no proof but just a judge on rep and companies)

You are much better off going to Wharton than Columbia if you want to be a consultant with McKinsey.
You are much better off going to Kellogg for marketing than Wharton.
You are much better off going to NYU for finance than Kellogg.

I disagree with #1 and #3 in your list. In 2006, Columbia sent 31 people to McKinsey. McKinsey was the biggest #1 employer at Columbia and as a percentage of class size, I believe they are roughly equal to Wharton. Columbia sent 31 to McKinsey in 2005 as well, and in 2004 they sent 47 (holy cow), or 10% of their class. In each of those years McKinsey was actually the #1 employer of Columbia grads. I don't have Wharton's numbers handy, but in relation to class size, I believe Columbia and Wharton are in a dead heat for this factor; you're certainly not much better off at Wharton for consulting.

I don't know anything about #2.

I would argue that finance opportunities are better at Kellogg than at NYU. NYU does have the advantage of location, but I'd surely prefer Kellogg's status as an ultra-elite, even for finance, even if looking in New York. I would strongly, vehemently, vigorously, and more, disagree that someone would be much better off going to NYU over Kellogg for finance. No offense to anyone heading to NYU, but I think that's just completely wrong.

Since this thread is about rankings, I guess I'll put in my vote.

Others have pointed out that the US News rankings generally reflect what applicants would actually do if given the choice between schools. H/S/W at the top, with Tuck and Haas giving the ultra-elites a run for their money; and the rest of the elites falling into place ahead of any lower clusters. I don't, however, believe that the specific rankings are very significant.

So, when choosing between schools, I'll put in a vote for Hjort's cluster system. Generally speaking, I'd suggest attending a school in the highest cluster possible. Many admissions consultants recommend the same thing, saying the only thing that actually matters when choosing a school is reputation. So, if you get into several elite schools, you should choose among them based on personal preference, location, specialty, etc. - whatever is important to you. If you also get into an ultra-elite though, no matter which one it happens to be, you should go to the school in the higher cluster.

When talking about the top 3 clusters (ultra-elite, elite, trans-elite), I would jump clusters based on specialty or intended profession or anything like that. The worst school from a higher cluster (relatively speaking) beats the best school from the lower cluster, no matter the specialty. Again, this applies to the top 3 clusters; schools in the lower clusters raise different concerns.

I think the valid reasons for choosing a school in a lower cluster would be personal or family concerns, location (but not location as related to professional concerns) or money. People with family and children might find it extremely difficult to move to certain locations because it's difficult to raise kids, or perhaps hard for their spouse to find a job. Generally, I'd say go with the higher cluster regardless of location, but some people are really against cold weather, big city, small town, isolation or whatever. Again, this is a personal concern and each person will have to weigh it separately. Money is a tricky issue. Generally, I'd say don't worry about money, but if you're confident you can land the type of job you want, it might make sense to consider a large chunk of money. For example, if you pay $100k more to attend a certain school, it might take a very long time to make back that additional cost.

So everyone has their own personal concerns and will have to weigh them individually. From a professional standpoint, go to the school in a higher cluster and use other factors to decide between schools within the same cluster.

I did something like this once...

https://www.gmatclub.com/phpbb/viewtopic ... bined+rank

I actually did some sort of averaging too, but I took out Forbes and Financial times, and only included US News and Business Week. I know only sampling 2 rankings is risky, but I want to go to B-school for things other than finance, and I notice that FT and Forbes lean heavily towards those schools with good finance abilities (FT ranks Haas VERY low). Thus, I think US News and BW look more at reputation and other factors that I value.

But I really like pelihu's comment, and will try to follow that as best as I can.

How about doubling the weight of the two middle rankings and counting the high and low as one.

Sorry for suggesting and not actually doing.

You are a born manager

[quote="rhyme"][quote="kidderek"]
Sorry for suggesting and not actually doing.[/quote]

You are a born manager :)[/quote]

LOLOL

hahaha