Does The World Need Another B-School Ranking?

by Neelima-Mahajan-Bansal on

TOP 50 B-SCHOOLS IN GLOBAL RESEARCH RANKINGS 2006-2010

Rank & School Adjusted Rank Index Score Articles Total Faculty
1. Pennsylvania (Wharton) 27 173.08 321 459
2. Duke (Fuqua) 1 125.72 241 137
3. Michigan (Ross) 4 120.72 235 212
4. New York (Stern) 28 119.51 250 331
5. Harvard Business School 14 115.62 194 244
6. Maryland (Smith) 8 114.62 219 216
7. Chicago (Booth) 3 113.98 213 188
8. Stanford 2 106.34 195 172
9. Columbia Business School 29 99.79 209 288
10. INSEAD 22 99.44 187 235
11. Texas-Austin (McCombs) 25 97.82 201 245
12. Southern California (Marshall) 21 96.33 179 227
13. Northwestern (Kellogg) 30 95.29 184 277
14. MIT (Sloan) NA 88.45 171 NA
15. Penn State (Smeal) 5 76.50 153 136
16. Texas-Dallas 24 74.99 142 186
17. Minnesota (Carlson) 16 74.53 153 163
18. Hong Kong Univ. of Science 23 73.90 133 180
19. California-L.A. (Anderson) 11 71.64 140 144
20. Illinois–Urbana-Champaign 20 62.88 122 147
21. London Business School 15 62.70 133 134
22. California-Berkeley (Haas) 38 61.92 122 220
23. British Columbia (Sauder) 32 58.08 119 175
24. Arizona State (Carey) 42 58.07 122 299
25. Washington Univ. (Olin) 12 57.73 109 121
26. Indiana (Kelley) 39 57.68 117 245
27. Michigan State (Broad) 17 56.64 119 128
28. North Carolina (Kenan-Flagler) 9 56.13 123 111
29. Carnegie Mellon (Tepper) 19 55.98 114 130
30. Florida (Warrington) NA 54.39 100 NA
31.Texas A&M (Mays) 36 53.88 116 186
32. Emory (Goizueta) 6 53.78 108 96
33. Ohio State (Fisher) 33 53.14 123 177
34. Cornell (Johnson) 7 52.11 110 96
35. Toronto (Rotman) NA 51.53 101 NA
36. Washington (Foster) 31 50.49 110 151
37. Georgia Institute of Tech 13 44.73 95 94
38. Pittsburgh (Katz) 26 41.95 83 107
39. Yale School of Management 18 41.66 81 95
40. South Carolina (Moore) 40 41.02 78 176
41. Tilburg University-Netherlands NA 40.34 104 NA
42. Erasmus (Rotterdam) 43 40.05 80 212
43. Wisconsin-Madison NA 38.92 81 NA
44. Dartmouth (Tuck) 10 38.27 74 76
45. Boston College (Carroll) 32 37.03 75 243
46. Rice (Jones) 35 36.98 70 127
47. California-Irvine (Merage) 37 36.33 71 129
48. National Univ. of Singapore 41 36.29 83 177
49. Utah (Eccles) NA 35.28 74 NA
50. Purdue (Krannert) 34 34.75 69 119

Source: UT-Dallas Research Ranking. Business schools reported total faculty data to BusinessWeek. Adjusted rank was derived by dividing a school’s index score by the size of its total faculty.

DON’T MISS: RANKING B-SCHOOLS ON INTELLECTUAL CAPITAL or RANKING B-SCHOOLS ON STUDENT SATISFACTION

1 2 3 4
  • Cristian Vasquez

    I love the article! However, I would suggest you guys to consider making a ranking that includes costs and average debt into the equation especially because of the huge debt burdens of B-School. Schools with lower overall cost yet high Placement rate and high academic standard should get a little more consideration in my opinion!

  • Jane

    Cristian,

    I believe there are a lot of articles on this site relating to low cost-high placement.

    Note that top b schools are expensive, but they put you out there in relation to career prospects and so on. At the end of the day, you need to figure out what you want for yourself careerwise and so on. Consider the region, classroom experience, faculty and so on.

  • Stacy Phillips

    How about rating rather than ranking?

  • Louis

    This ranking looks stupid and insecure indeed.

  • Guiseppe

    I disagree that BSchools may use this Dallas Ranking to see the academic impact of new hires and their academic supervisors. The Thomson ISI Web is already widely used for research assessment and factor in impact rating for top journals and citation.

    P&Q correctly points out at the distortion of some practical and less published disciplines such as entrepreneurship vs traditional subjects such as finance.

  • John

    A very silly idea, consider the amount of bad research that is circulated out there. As an example, the number of papers that relate people’s opinions on the financial crisis was truly amazing. This study is meaningless without some sort of quality control function. Case studies are not research, they amount to little more than a collection of ideas and opinions. Research should be fact based, to much of the strategy “research” contains too much soft material.

    Why not look at which schools have produced the most Nobel prize winners, which schools can claim the most John Bates Clark Medals, or who has a Field medalist, or maybe made genuine contributions to the field in which they work. There exist a number of true academic prizes that are awarded in all fields, this would allow you to create a real quality adjustment. Academics are told to “publish or perish,” and as such there are a large number of academic journals who are only purchased by other academic institutions and recycled.

    If I were your professor or peer reviewer, I would toss your research out and tell you to comeback when you had something meaningful. I suggest you aspire to increase your fact to opinion ratio.

  • Pkbanerjee

     I agree with your comment John on the relevance issue. I also agree that pressure to publish or perish is forcing academics to produce a lot of inconsqeuential research. But what I do not agree with is your opinion that case studies are NOT research..just a collection of ideas and opinions. What gave you this notion? There are some excellent case studies that provide insights that no amount of survey research can provide. What else is hypotheses in social research but an idea? And why this discomfort with soft material? Management is about soft iossues more than concerete hard issues. So are you suggesting that management should discard soft issues?

Partner Sites: C-Change Media | Poets & Quants for Execs | Tipping the Scales