Misplaced Pages

MBA Rankings: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 07:49, 14 October 2006 edit69.251.253.102 (talk) →2006 Top Ten Business Schools← Previous edit Latest revision as of 23:37, 8 March 2018 edit undoThe Transhumanist (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers302,803 edits Add template to categorize redirect using AWB 
(14 intermediate revisions by 6 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
#REDIRECT ]
The ] degree has become one of the most popular masters' degrees. As more universities started offering the degree, differences in the quality of schools, faculty, and course offerings became evident. Naturally, establishing some criteria of quality is needed to differentiate among MBA programs, especially for prospective students trying to decide on where to apply. As MBA programs proliferated, a variety of publications began providing information on them. Some of these consisted of compilations of information gathered from the universities offering the degree, usually published in book form. Eventually periodicals began publishing articles describing various MBA schools and ranking them according to some perceived quality criteria. The most prominent of these are '']'', '']'' and '']''. '']'' magazine also published MBA program rankings.


{{R to section}}
Different methods of varying validity were used to arrive at rankings of MBA programs. In 1977 ''The Carter Report'' published rankings of MBA programs based on the number of academic articles published by faculty. Periodicals based their rankings on interviews with company recruiters who hired MBA graduates, surveys of MBA schools' deans, polls of students or faculty, and a variety of other means. The defunct ''MBA Magazine'' asked deans to vote on the best programs. The methods of obtaining ranks often changed from year to year. Initially, rankings included only a small number of universities consisting of the largest and best known ] and state schools.

The ranking of MBA programs has been discussed in articles and on academic Web sites.<ref>
{{cite web
| last =
| first =
| authorlink =
| coauthors =
| title = Caution and Controversy
| work =
| publisher = ]
| date =
| url = http://www.library.uiuc.edu/edx/rankoversy.htm
| format = ]
| doi =
| accessdate = 2005-09-06 }}</ref>
Critics of ranking methodologies maintain that any published rankings should be viewed with caution for the following reasons:<ref name="MRN">
{{cite journal
| last = Schatz
| first = Martin
| authorlink =
| coauthors =
| title = What's Wrong with MBA Ranking Surveys?
| journal = Management Research News
| volume = 16
| issue = 7
| pages = 15-18
| date =
| publisher =
| url = http://mba.us.com/guide/rnkartcl.html
| format = ]
| id =
}}</ref>
*Rankings limit the population size to a small number of MBA programs and ignore the majority of schools, many with excellent offerings.
*The ranking methods may be subject to biases and statistically flawed methodologies (especially for methods relying on subjective interviews of hiring managers).
*The same list of well-known schools appears in each ranking with some variation in ranks, so a school ranked as number 1 in one list may be number 3 in another list.
*Rankings tend to concentrate on the school itself, but some schools offer MBA programs of different qualities (e.g. a school may use highly reputable faculty to teach a daytime program, and use adjunct faculty in its evening program).
*A high rank in a national publication tends to become a self-fulfilling prophecy.

One study found that objectively ranking MBA programs by a combination of graduates' starting salaries and average student ] score can reasonably duplicate the top 20 list of the national publications. The study concluded that a truly objective ranking would be individualized to the needs of each prospective student.<ref name="MRN"> </ref>
<ref>The public-service web site uses this approach, allowing students and researchers to rank a large population of MBA programs based on a wide range of criteria and combinations.</ref>


The Financial Times rankings were chosen for this article, as the FT rankings look at Global Business schools as opposed to the Business Week rankings that only examine American Universities. Most lists give a similar top ten, but the placing in the list may be slightly different.

==2006 Top Ten Business Schools==

The ] top U.S. Programs for 2006 are

1. Chicago

2. Pennsylvania (Wharton)

3. Northwestern (Kellogg)

4. Harvard

5. Michigan (Ross)

6. Stanford

7. MIT (Sloan)

8. UC-Berkeley (Haas)

9. Duke (Fuqua)

10. Columbia


The Financial Times Rankings for 2006 are

* University Country
*1 ]: Wharton USA
*2 ] USA
*3 ] GSB USA
*4 ] USA
*5 ] UK
*6 ] GSB USA
*7 ]: Stern USA
*8 ]: Tuck USA
*9 ] FR
*10 ]: Sloan USA

==2005 Top Ten Business Schools==

The Financial Times Rankings for 2005 are

* University Country
*1 University of Pennsylvania: Wharton(tied)USA
*1 Harvard Business School(tied) USA
*3 Columbia Business School USA
*4 Stanford University GSB USA
*5 London Business School UK
*6 University of Chicago GSB USA
*7 Dartmouth College: Tuck USA
*8 Insead FR
*9 New York University: Stern USA
*9 ] USA

==2004 Top Ten Business Schools==

The Financial Times Rankings for 2004 are

* University Country
*1 University of Pennsylvania: Wharton(tied)USA
*2 Harvard Business School(tied) USA
*3 Columbia Business School USA
*4 London Business School UK
*4 University of Chicago GSB USA
*4 Insead FR
*7 Stanford University GSB USA
*8 New York University: Stern USA
*9 MIT: Sloan USA
*10 Dartmouth College: Tuck USA

==References==
<references/>
*http://rankings.ft.com/rankings/mba/rankings.html
*]

Latest revision as of 23:37, 8 March 2018

Redirect to: