Surprises In U.S. News’ 2017 MBA Ranking


2017 Rank & School Index # 2016 Rank Index # Change
27. Ohio State (Fisher) 70 27 65 ——-
27. Washington (Foster) 79 27 65 ——–
29. Georgia Tech (Scheller) 68 34 63 +5
29. Rice (Jones) 68 25 69 -4
29. Notre Dame (Mendoza) 68 25 69 -4
32. Temple (Fox) 56 41 57 +9
32. Minnesota (Carlson) 65 27 65 -5
34. Brigham Young (Marriott) 66 31 64 -3
34. Wisconsin-Madison 66 27 65 +7
36. Penn State (Smeal) 65 41 57 +5
37. Michigan State (Broad) 64 35 62 -2
38. Texas A&M (Mays) 63 31 64 -7
38. Texas-Dallas (Jindal) 63 37 61 -1
40. Florida (Hough) 62 37 61 -3
40. Illinois-Urbana-Champaign 62 39 60 -1
42. UC-Davis 61 45 56 +3
43. Rochester (Simon) 60 39 60 -4
44. Boston College (Carroll) 59 50 53 +7
44. Boston Univ. (Questrom) 59 41 57 -3
44. UC-Irvine (Merage) 59 48 54 +4
47. Maryland (Smith) 58 41 57 -6
48. Georgia (Terry) 57 55 49 +7
49. Arizona (Eller) 56 60 46 +11
50. Purdue (Krannert) 55 47 55 +3

Source: U.S. News & World Report 2017 MBA Ranking

  • gsbgrad

    As a ’14 Stanford grad who chose between GSB and HBS, and chose GSB (which was true for a meaningful percentage of my classmates), I find this ranking disappointing and flawed. Salary and timeliness for hire may be important at the long-tail, but it is not important here and says nothing of my experience.

    I went to Stanford as a former VC that wanted to be best positioned to have my own fund in the future. I studied 200 top investor bios, and 65% actually had MBAs, and amongst those with MBAs, the vast majority went to Stanford. When I chose Stanford over Harvard, I got a lot of push back from my family and former employer, but the tied ranking made me comfortable choosing Stanford, even with the more limited brand recognition vs. Harvard. This drop in rankings would require even more resolve in my plan.

    The reasons for falling, and the methodology for ranking has absolutely nothing to do with the things that matter to me or define a good business school in the top tier. Stanford is a highly entrepreneurial place. Salary and time to employment are not reflective of who we are. Citing “confidence” as the explanation for slow time to employment is just crazy. Slow time to employment is because we have a very high percentage of classmates who choose non-traditional jobs and start companies. To me, these are the types of people I want to be surrounded by. They are so intelligent, ambitious and take risks – all things that require confidence and resolve.

    When I left Stanford, I wanted operating experience, and it took me a couple months to secure my “just in time job”. I also made far less than I ever made in finance. But none of those things were indicative of the quality of Stanford or the quality of the job I took. I think about Interpersonal Dynamics and Leadership Labs many times a day, even two years later. My job was a direct result of Entrepreneurship and VC, where Eric Schmidt and Peter Wendell led the class, and my weekly advisor led the National Venture Capital Association for many years. This advisor introduced me to key VCs, who then pointed me in the direction of the company I ultimately ended up joining. With this insight, I found a classic rocket ship. I joined at employee 100, and the Company is now 4.5x bigger. I was the second person on my team, that is now a team nearing 30. I have 13 direct reports, and I’m building a global function.

    I’m still paying back loans, and I don’t love that, but only Stanford would have put me in a position to survey the innovation landscape so broadly and focus so intensely on my leadership style. Hopefully next year we see some rankings that better reflect what “best” means for a broad range of ambitions.

  • Truth

    The Wharton pay number is manipulated. Read their employment report and the other M7 employment reports. The number doesn’t logically follow. The pay at HBS and GSB is higher. The pay at Booth is almost identical.