mba rankings

mba rankings

Analysis of MBA Rankings: Understanding the Methodology and Implications

1. Introduction to MBA Rankings

The two studies in this monograph are focused on a single question: How do various ranking exploration and school reputation ranking affect our understanding of Wharton’s position in the marketplace for MBA education? One of the most interesting insights that emerge from these studies is that Wharton’s motto “Not for Bread Alone” effectively characterizes the School’s approach to all that it does in the educational realm. And there is little question that adequacy of compensation is a very important ingredient in many potential graduate students’ decisions to study business. Wharton’s MBA program is also shaped by a number of different criteria including what students can contribute to each other’s education outside the classroom and what recruiters can learn about students’ talents and abilities from their actions as a member of a classroom community.

2. Key Factors and Methodology Used in MBA Rankings

The key evaluation factors used in international MBA rankings are Faculty Quality, Student Qualification, Alumni Placement and Networking, Diversity, and Career Progress. Faculty quality focuses on the quality and quantity of the faculty and is composed of a mix of different measurements. Student quality concentrates on the quality of the students, similar to faculty quality it is composed of a mix of different measurements. Alumni placement and networking measure success and the networking opportunity given to the students during their time at the business school. Lastly, the diversity and international exposure measures the level and extent of diversity of the student body and MBA program.

At their core, business school rankings evaluate the quality of the educational experience at various MBA programs and determine which schools are “the best”. However, irrespective of the relevance of the questioned evaluated in the rankings, the composition of the different rankings is distinctive. Each ranking is the result of methodological choices, the type and weight of the data collected, and the calculation of a simple and comparable numerical score. The difference in these methodologies is the primary reason why school scores and rankings can differ sometimes significantly across the packages.

3. Critiques and Limitations of MBA Rankings

In response, school leaders and students argue that this competition is healthy and that the rankings discipline schools in ways necessary and important. With this intense focus and interest in business school rankings, an understanding of the rankings and their implications is important for all stakeholders of the rankings: the schools, the students, and the employers and educators competing for these graduates. In this chapter, I analyze the methodologies of the major ranking publications that assess MBA programs and discuss the critiques and limitations of MBA school rankings. The next chapter tests the quality of the rankings by seeking explanations for the variations in the attention and priority given to the rankings by business school programs.

Given the rankings and their significant impacts, many business schools are obsessed with them and take steps to continuously improve their positions in the rankings. The schools use survey results to modify curricula, improve placement efforts, and enhance their reputations. Critics, however, argue that the rankings can be inaccurate and can lead to counterproductive behaviors by schools. Harvard Business School dean Kim Clark said that the two major American rankings “threaten to encourage behavior from schools and students that is inconsistent with the missions of the schools and leads to distortion of educational programs and excessive gaming by schools.”

4. Impact of MBA Rankings on Business Schools and Students

Of the business school ranking systems and surveys, the Wall Street Journal survey has consistently attracted the most criticism. The Economist Intelligence Unit’s inclusion of “innovative teaching methods; new core courses added in the last three years; and the quantitative and statistical rigor of the existing student and faculty purchasing power indices” is interpreted by some as fostering bewilderment, not enlightenment. The Financial Times list inclusions of an “assessment of the research productivity” and “incomes of the programs” are dismissed as not being relevant to narrowly defined goals. A number of schools, especially those with unique missions, have refused to participate in ranking surveys, resulting in the placement of some of the top business schools on “alternative” rankings – or their total absence on “official” lists.

MBA program ranking has reshaped the competitive landscape for business schools in multiple arenas. In order to understand the changes in the market for advanced business education and the new competitive landscape schools face, it is helpful to consider the information derived from the rankings. For example, prospective students use rankings to evaluate a complex, high-ticket decision. Business school administrators use the published rankings to evaluate the relative success of their institutions, to confirm the effectiveness of graduate education differences, and to measure the relative quality of new entrants to the labor market. The media use the rankings to evaluate the products of graduate business education. Judging applicants while being subjected to being judged is a double-edged sword. Therefore, some academics and administrators are protective of the discretionary value of their institutions and are resistant to what they perceive to be subjective reporting standards. Parameters defining the reliability and measurement error associated with rankings vary, as does the degree of credibility associated with each publication.

5. Future Trends in MBA Rankings

The future of business education and MBA programs started by Schulmann et al. (1985) with responses to market signals that have influenced the existence of the MBA ranking phenomena is firmly influenced by three forceful mechanisms. Firstly, the digitization of information flows is driven by new ranking intelligence that consolidates more variables informed by stakeholders. Secondly, big data capabilities drive ranking producers’ interest to develop exclusive business schools rankings, intel which can be sold to multiple stakeholder groups. Thirdly, stakeholders (companies, students, faculties, accreditation councils, and supranational government organizations) generate demand in acquiring business school data modeling peculiar to what business school members or sectors value most.

The future of MBA rankings is described by the Vice Dean at Berkeley-Haas. The development of the rankings is influenced by three forces: (1) the digitization of information, (2) stakeholder demand, (3) big data capabilities sourced by the ranking organizations. In parallel, new accreditation and meta-rankings are refocused on the quality of intelligence unfavorable to driving market tyranny, and to help companies confirm strengths and areas needing improvement. Simultaneously, the MBA programs are also using big data capabilities to qualify learning opportunities and outcomes for diverse stakeholders that may include full-time, part-time, online courses or hybrid programs. In this wire, future Mack, S. (2016), MBA rankings analyses reveal more transparency, relevance, and usefulness. The advice is to question, read with a skeptical mind, in addition to gathering as much information as possible about MBA rankings.