The Economist 2010 MBA Ranking

Even more perplexing are The Economist’s sub-rankings in which the magazine lists the top ten schools in various categories, ranging from “increase salary” to “potential to network.” Not a single U.S. school made the top ten list of a salary increase, even though U.S. schools fared better in this year’s ranking. Oddly, IESE, which fell out of the top spot to Chicago, was ranked second on salary increases for its grads. Just as peculiar, The Economist named Thunderbird in Arizona as the school with the best “potential to network.” That seems a highly improbable possibility given the huge budgets and expansive alumni networks of many of the prestige schools.

The Economist also reported that the best U.S. schools had average GMAT scores that significantly exceeded the top European schools. The Economist said it uses GMAT scores “as a proxy for students’ intellectual prowess.” Chicago reported an average GMAT score of 717 for its students, while Stanford MBA candidates hit an average of 730. “In contrast,” The Economist noted, “the two highest-ranked European schools, IESE and IMD, both reported lower GMAT scores this time–683 and 671.”

Pro: Takes a global perspective on business school education, ranking 100 business schools in all. Is done on an annual basis.

Con: The odd results of this ranking raise meaningful credibility issues with the methodology and the accuracy of the data some of these schools are providing to The Economist. Because 80% of the ranking is based on unaudited information from business schools, there’s a high likelihood that some data has been fudged. The Economist also throws into its ranking formula criteria that has little to do with the quality of education, such as the percentages of international and female students (giving these two questions alone nearly a 17% of the weight in the ranking), the range of overseas exchange programs (a 6.25% weight), and the number of languages offered (also given a 6.25% weight). That latter metric would be something more appropriate to an evaluation of undergraduate education. The former measurements are more “politically correct” than they are accurate indicators of quality. Yet, the most troubling problem of all is the lack of stability in these rankings. For a school to drop 37 places in rank within 12 months tells you that there is something rotten in Denmark (oops, we mean Belgium, or better yet, London, where this ranking is cranked out.)

BIGGEST YEAR-OVER-YEAR LOSERS IN THE ECONOMIST 2010 RANKING

School Difference in Ranks 2010 Rank 2009 Rank
Vierick Leuven (Belgium) -37 47 10
Ashridge (Britain) -32 67 35
University of Melbourne -27 44 17
Oxford University (Britain) -24 71 47
Hong Kong — UST -22 52 30
Cambridge (Britain) -19 30 11
Rotterdam (Netherlands) -16 57 41
Warwick (Britain) -12 34 22
London Business School -11 19 8
Univ. of Hong Kong -10 48 38
Int’l Univ. of Monaco -9 51 42
IE Business School (Spain) -8 22 16

.

Questions about this article? Email us or leave a comment below.