Advice to Applicants on MBA Rankings
Apr, 25, 2024
Categories: Admissions Consulting | Advice | Rankings
You care considering doing an MBA and trying to figure out where to apply. Naturally you look at rankings. You should look, but don’t just make a list based on rankings. Why?
I have been writing about MBA rankings on this blog since 2007 though not with major focus until “Real” Global MBA Rankings for 2008: “The 98”, which consisted of taking the Financial Times’ data on post-MBA salaries and placing schools in rank order based on that. I would still argue, from an economic perspective, that post-MBA salary is still the best single data point for determining the “value” of a degree. Like all single data points, it fails to capture the whole picture, but assuming the data provided by schools is accurate, it is objective. However FT’s overall rankings like any other rankings list are a subjective stew, as I will discuss below.
Rankings matter because applicants frequently make MBA application decisions at least partially based on them. At the stage of selecting where to apply typically means looking at rankings as well as more objective measures, such as post-MBA salaries, average age and/or experience of admits, and test score (GMAT, GRE, TOEFL, IELTS) averages for admits. At the stage of selecting where to attend, ranking, total cost of attendance less any scholarships or other financial aid and expected post-MBA salary all come into play. However these numbers should not be interpreted at face value, that is to say, naively. This is especially true of rankings.
Rankings are by far the most contested numbers in the MBA world. They should be because they are highly subjective constructions: Ranking is determined by weighted factors that are an editorial decision on the part of the rankers. That is why rankings are all over the place. That is looking at them at face value is not just naive, it is stupid. They should always be looked at as media productions designed to gain reader’s attention, not as an actual snapshot of reality. Even with the best intentions- Something I don’t assume on the part of for-profit organizations whose basis for survival is advertising and/or getting readers attention- no ranking based on various factors given variable weight could even approach being real. Jiggering with the data is actually in the interest of rankings providers because it creates news: “X school is now ranked #1″, “Y school has fallen in the rankings, why?”, “Z school is number 1 in entrepreneurship!” etc. It is especially helpful if your media organization also sells ads or otherwise is paid to promote the very organizations it is ranking.
Consider Poets&Quants’ “Definitive List Of The Top 100 U.S. MBA Programs of 2023-2024” which is a ranking based on combining the major rankings of other media organizations. This list shows the great variation in rankings. I am not criticizing P&Q for doing this as it sheds light on variation. Actually I did the comparison part back in 2008. I think it is a useful exercise in comparison though the subsequent act of taking a bunch of highly subjective rankings lists and combining them into one list is questionable: An amalgamation of subjective information does not magically produce objectivity. It is subjectivity all the way down. Especially when the weighting is based on the whims of P&Q: “Instead of merely averaging the five lists, each ranking is separately weighted to account for our view of their credibility. (U.S. News is given a weight of 35%, the Financial Times is at 30%, Businessweek is given a 15% weight, and LinkedIn and Princeton Review are each given 10%. ” I will let those with a formal understanding of STEM unpack this journalistic absurdity, but will point out that anyone who thinks subjectively weighting highly subjective content somehow is better than treating all such sources as equally valid is not actually offering us anything than the attempt to take a series of bad maps of reality and to jigger then together to somehow get something better. Consider just the top 10 of the P&Q list:
| 2023 Rank | School Name | 2022 Rank | Index | US News | Financial Times | Business Week | Princeton Review | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| #1 | Stanford GSB | 3 | 100.0 | 6 (3) | 3 (5) | 1 (1) | 2 (NR) | 4 (NA) |
| #2 | Harvard Business School | 5 | 99.3 | 5 (5) | 2 (3) | 6 (2) | 1 (NR) | 11 (NA) |
| #3 | Dartmouth (Tuck) | 9 | 96.9 | 6 (11) | 12 (12) | 3 (5) | 3 (NR) | 13 (NA) |
| #4 | Columbia Business School | 7 | 95.8 | 11 (8) | 1 (2) | 5 (8) | 11 (NR) | 18 (NA) |
| #5 | Yale SOM | 8 | 94.9 | 8 (7) | 7 (7) | 15 (10) | 8 (NR) | 8 (NA) |
| #6 | Duke (Fuqua) | 12 | 93.9 | 11 (12) | 8 (13) | 14 (13) | 10 (NR) | 3 (NA) |
| #7 | Cornell (Johnson) | 13 | 93.1 | 15 (15) | 5 (11) | 13 (11) | 14 (NR) | 4 (NA) |
| #8 | Virginia (Darden) | 14 | 93.0 | 14 (14) | 13 (14) | 3 (9) | 12 (NR) | 1 (NA) |
| #9 | Michigan (Ross) | 11 | 92.6 | 8 (10) | 16 (16) | 9 (15) | 18 (NR) | 2 (NA) |
| #10 | New York (Stern) | 15 | 91.7 | 10 (12) | 14 (9) | 12 (11) | 16 (NR) | 7 (NA) |
As one can see from the above, this list indicates that Wharton, Kellogg, Booth, and MIT, four out of the M7 don’t even make this list. Does anyone accept the above list as even a guide? If I did initial consultations with prospective clients and when it came to school selection, used the above list as the basis for making suggestions, they would consider me insane. Is this list at all helpful? For who? It certainly is good for P&Q’s marketing. I love the overall headline for this article: “Poets&Quants 2023-2024 MBA Ranking: Stanford’s Triumphant Return To The Top.” Sure, a bunch of cooked numbers produce one result one year and a different result the next year. Do you think anyone at GSB cares about this? It is the hardest MBA program to enter and whether US News ranked it 6 (2023) or 3 (2022) or Businessweek ranked it 1, does this ranking mean anything? On the other hand, if your school can claim that you rank better than Wharton, Kellogg, Booth, and MIT maybe someone somewhere will believe you and at least it will look good on in your marketing materials. Hence ranking can, at least at the surface level, be a nice marketing message.
So my advice for MBA applicants? These rankings are not a real guide. They are at best a loose indicator and low quality map to the actual territory. Look at real data, talk to real people (Alumni, current students, recruiters, admissions officers, and even admissions consultants like me), and make a conclusion about whether a school is right for you based on your best guess of what you will get out of the experience (personally, professionally, and academically), likely job placement outcomes, and the reputation in the industry(ies) and geography(ies) that you will focus on after your MBA. In other words, sorry but you have to do some research and some actual thinking about it. But big life decisions should not be based on some list created by a media company.
You can find my related posts on school selection and ranking in the “Advice” and “Ranking” sections of my key posts page. If you are interested in learning more about how I can help you get into an MBA or other graduate program, please review my website and complete my intake form.