Poets&Quants’ Top 100 MBA Programs in the U.S.

P&Q Rank & SchoolIndexBWForbesNewsFTEcon
1. Harvard Business School Boston, MA100.023134
2. Stanford Business School Stanford, CA99.151147
3. Chicago (Booth) Chicago, IL98.514591
4. Pennsylvania (Wharton) Philadelphia, PA98.135528
5. Columbia Business School New York, NY94.1969612
6. Dartmouth (Tuck) Hanover, NH94.01427132
7. Northwestern (Kellogg) Evanston, IL93.44842216
8. MIT (Sloan) Cambridge, MA92.810143813
9. California (Haas) Berkeley, CA90.88127283
10. Duke (Fuqua) Durham, NC88.7613142028
11. Virginia (Darden) Charlottesville, VA88.4119133111
12. New York (Stern) New York, NY87.3181791314
13. Michigan (Ross) Ann Arbor, MI86.5718122825
14. Yale School of Mgt. New Haven, CT86.42110111624
15. Cornell (Johnson) Ithaca, NY84.2137183633
16. Carnegie Mellon (Tepper) Pittsburgh, PA81.61523163421
17. UCLA (Anderson) Los Angeles, CA80.71719153337
18. UNC (Kenan-Flagler) Chapel Hill, NC78.41615214640
19. Texas (McCombs) Austin, TX76.42511165243
20. Emory (Goizueta) Atlanta, GA75.82222273436
21. Indiana (Kelley) Bloomington, IN73.31925235735
22. USC (Marshall) Los Angeles, CA71.72632205718
23. Georgetown (McDonough) Washington, DC68.73331243850
24. Minnesota (Carlson) Minneapolis, MN64.52826247563
25. Notre Dame (Mendoza) Notre Dame, IN64.42438317139
26. Washington (Olin) St. Louis, MO63.94041194945
27. Rice (Jones) Houston, TX63.02947394441
28. Vanderbilt (Owen) Nashville, TN62.63730365746
29. Texas A&M (Mays) College Station, TX61.830243354NR
30. Wisconsin Madison, WI61.63435276754
31. Michigan State (Broad) East Lansing, MI61.420214665NR
32. Washington (Foster) Seattle, WA60.93140337832
33. Brigham Young (Marriott) Provo, UT60.327163383NR
34. Southern Methodist (Cox) Dallas, TX58.21233499678
35. Rochester (Simon) Rochester, NY57.54337274893
36. Maryland (Smith) College Park, MD56.442294543NR
37. Boston University Boston, MA55.53861316142
38. Purdue (Krannert) West Lafayette, IN53.64145365490
39. Georgia Tech Atlanta, GA53.5234426NRNR
40. Ohio State (Fisher) Columbus, OH52.9323921NRNR
41. Wake Forest (Babcock) Winston-Salem, NC51.84834467959
42. Penn State (Smeal) University Park, PA51.2442848NR56
43. Boston College (Carroll) Boston, MA50.350463947NR
44. Tulane (Freeman) New Orleans, LA48.335525361NR
45. Illinois, Urbana-Champaign Champaign, IL45.646634252NR
46. Arizona State (Carey) Tempe, AZ43.749562789NR
47. Georgia (Terry) Athens, GA42.5365059NR87
48. Iowa (Tippie) Iowa City, IA41.5NR20426466
49. George Washington Washington, DC40.35273555773
50. William & Mary (Mason) Williamsburg, VA34.8474975NRNR
51. Case Western (Weatherhead) Cleveland, OH33.051627580NR
51. SUNY, Buffalo Buffalo, NY33.0574870NRNR
53. Thunderbird School Glendale, AZ31.845NR626780
54. Babson College (Olin) Babson Park, MA28.839NR5499NR
55. Florida (Hough) Gainesville, FL28.4NR54397799
56. California, Irvine (Merage) Irvine, CA28.3NR583672NR
57. Northeastern Boston, MA28.1566962NRNR
58. California, Davis Davis, CA27.4NR68428060
59. Arizona (Eller) Tucson, AZ24.0NR535583NR
60. Connecticut, Storrs Storrs, CT23.2NR2779NRNR
61. Rutgers University New Brunswick, NJ22.555NR57NRNR
62. South Carolina (Moore) Columbia, SC22.1NR67626792
63. Miami Coral Gables, FL19.5NR438983NR
64. Pittsburgh (Katz) Pittsburgh, PA19.254NR79NR94
65. Louisiana State (Ourso) Baton Rouge, LA17.7NR5571NRNR
66. Rollins College (Crummer) Winter Park, FL16.5NR36NRNRNR
67. Hofstra (Zarb) Hempstead, NY16.3NR5182NRNR
68. Temple (Fox) Philadelphia, PA16.2NR7257NRNR
68. Missouri (Crosby) Columbia, MO16.2NR7059NRNR
70. Alabama (Manderson) Tuscaloosa, AL15.8NR6666NRNR
71. Tennessee Knoxville, TN15.0NR42NRNRNR
72. Howard University Washington, DC14.353NRNRNRNR
73. Fordham New York, NY14.1NR5787NRNR
74. Texas Christian (Neeley) Fort Worth, TX11.8NR6094NRNR
75. Drexel (Le Bow) Philadelphia, PA11.4NR6589NRNR
76. Oregon (Lundquist) Eugene, OR11.3NR7479NRNR
77. American University (Kogod) Washington, DC10.7NR59NANANA
78. Pepperdine (Graziadio) Malibu, CA10.3NR7582NRNR
78. Arkansas (Walton) Fayetteville, AK10.3NRNR50NRNR
78. Texas, Dallas Richardson, TX10.3NRNR50NRNR
81. Baylor (Hankamer) Waco, TX9.9NRNR52NRNR
82. Auburn University Auburn, AL9.4NR64NRNRNR
83. Syracuse (Whitman) Syracuse, NY8.3NRNR59NRNR
84. Willamette (Atkinson) Salem, OR7.6NR71NRNRNR
84. Iowa State Ames, IA7.6NRNR62NRNR
86. Oklahoma State (Spears) Stillwater, OK7.2NRNR8967NR
87. Utah (Eccles) Salt Lake City, UT6.9NRNR66NRNR
87. Oklahoma (Price) Norman, OK87. North Carolina State (Jenkins) Raleigh, NC6.96.9NRNRNRNR6666NRNRNRNR
90. Claremont (Drucker) Claremont, CA6.0NRNR71NRNR
90. Colorado (Leeds) Boulder, CO6.0NRNR71NRNR
90. University of Cincinnati Cincinnati, OH6.0NRNR71NRNR
93. Bentley College (McCallum) Waltham, MA5.2NRNR75NRNR
93. Florida State Tallahassee, FL5.2NRNR75NRNR
95. Santa Clara (Leavey) Santa Clara, CA3.7NRNR82NRNR
95. St. Louis (Cook) St. Louis, MO3.7NRNR82NRNR
95. Worcester Polytechnic Worcester, MA3.7NRNR82NRNR
98. Kentucky (Gatton) Lexington, KY2.9NRNR87NRNR
99. College of Charleston Charleston, SC2.2NRNR89NRNR
100. CUNY (Baruch) New York, NY1.4NRNR94NRNR
100. Illinois, Chicago (Liautaub) Chicago, IL1.4NRNR94NRNR


NR – Not ranked. Because the Financial Times and The Economist, which both rank 100 institutions, include many non-U.S. schools in their rankings, a larger number of very good MBA programs at U.S. schools remain unranked by those two publications. BusinessWeek ranks 57 U.S. schools; Forbes, 75 schools; U.S. News & World Report, 100.

Methodology: Schools on each of the five major rankings were scored from a high of 100 to a low of 1, the numerical rank of the 100th school on any one list. Then, those sums were brought together, weighting the BusinessWeek ranking 30%, the Forbes ranking 25%, the U.S. News & World Report rankings 20%, the Financial Times rankings 15%, and The Economist ranking 10%. These differing weights reflect the authority and credibility we believe each of these rankings have in the business school universe. For a deeper explanation of the strengths and weaknesses of each system, see how we think the most influential rankings stack up against each other in “Turning the Tables: Ranking the MBA Rankings.”


The Poets&Quants ranking has an important advantage over all other lists: because it is a composite of the five major rankings, the P&Q methodology tends to smooth out the impact of statistical anomalies that are often present in any single ranking. Instead, the Poets&Quants system tends to award MBA programs for consistency across the five rankings. In BusinessWeek’s recent 2010 ranking, for example, many observers were stunned to find that Southern Methodist University’s Cox School of Business ranked 12th, ahead of the business schools at Dartmouth, Cornell, Yale, North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and New York University, among others.

  • Jim

    Hult is a joke and just exploits the three letters MBA, great marketing of it’s program but guilty of making a mockery of the degree.

  • Freddy K.

    Any reason why the index numbers are significantly different than the pre-updated list you posted? (i.e. UNC at a 79 as opposed to mid-50s on your initial list)

  • Nimrodster

    Hi John, thank you very much for all the useful info. 

    I am mostly interested in Tech-oriented and Innovation-managemet oriented programs (due to general interest in the field, I am a “poet” by training). Also, after taking several MBA courses, I figured that I prefer the case method. Could you recommend me on good programs in that arena, in the U.S and abroad (for me it’s all abroad, i’m not a U.S citizen), which are also appreciated by recruiting companies? 

  • Booth Fanboy,

    That explains your interest in Wharton, given its San Fran version and the fact that you’re flying into a program, anyway. Since it is the EMBA program and your elective options are extremely limited, strength in any given discipline should be less of a concern. I will say that I really like the international exposure in the Chicago program and that is one very big advantage over Wharton. Good luck!

  • Booth Fanboy

    Thanks a lot John.

    Though I am not from the Chicago area or the midwest.. but would rather be flying in from the west coast for their weekend program.. but I get the idea.

    Thanks a lot once again..

  • Booth Fanboy,

    I’d rather look at it this way, if you don’t mind: Chicago business teaching is more econ-centric than at Wharton. If you expect to stay in the mid-west, I would give Chicago the nod over Wharton as well because the school’s geographic ties are especially strong.

    But when you look at each of the core business disciplines and where Chicago stands vs. Wharton, you’re looking at a Wharton sweep. While the U.S. News’ specialty rankings are quite flawed–they are based solely on the opinions of business school deans and MBA program directors–they are somewhat telling.

    In accounting, Wharton is ranked 2nd; Chicago 3rd.
    In finance, Wharton is ranked 1st; Chicago 2nd.
    In management, Wharton is ranked 4th; Chicago 11th.
    In entrepreneurship, Wharton is ranked 5th; Chicago 14th.
    In marketing, Wharton is ranked 2nd; Chicago 7th.
    In international business, Wharton is ranked 3rd; Chicago 11th.
    In technology/info systems, Wharton is ranked 6th; Chicago isn’t ranked among the top schools in this area at all.

    So that’s seven out of seven disciplines where Wharton beats Chicago. Now don’t get too disappointed in this because 1) This is a flawed ranking, 2) Sometimes, particularly in accounting and finance where the schools are only one rank apart, the differences are completely inconsequential, and 3) None of this really matters if you stay in Chicago where the brand is very, very strong. We’re sort of splitting hairs, to be honest.

    And as a part-time student who I presume is in the Chicago area, you can’t really do anything about it. Just go and enjoy the program knowing that it is one of the very best in the world!

  • Booth Fanboy

    Thanks John. Thats actually what I expected to hear and thats what I have in plans.
    Just as a follow-up question.

    In what areas would you give Chicago the nod ahead of Wharton?

    Also, I read in one of your comments that you were infact planning a comparison/analysis between these two. That would be immensely helpful.

  • Booth Fanboy,

    Congrats on your acceptance. The reason you can’t find a ranking for part-time MBA programs is that we don’t yet have one. In general, there’s not as much data in the market on part-time programs as full-time ones. However, the full-time ranking is a nice proxy for the overall reputation and image of a business school brand, anyway. And Booth is highly regarded. Overall, I believe Booth is pretty much neck-and-neck with Wharton at this point. The school has done an incredible job restoring the luster of its brand in the past ten years thanks to putting a lot of resources behind its MBA programs. When it comes to general management and strategy, however, I would give a slight nod to Wharton because of the considerable muscle it has built up in these areas. But you should be very happy with Chicago Booth. It’s a great school and if you seek out the right profs in the right departments and befriend them, that can offset Wharton’s better rep in these two areas for you.

  • Booth Fanboy

    Hi John
    I recently got hooked to your side. I have accepted an admit from Chicago Booth. As I am already in the industry I wish to be (amongst other issues) I have chosen their part-time options.
    Three questions.
    1. I cant find the 2011 rankings on the fortune site as well as your site. Am I missing something here?

    2. I decided to not apply to other schools after accepted Booth’s office since I immediately felt a fit with the research community there. I am curious what can a school like Booth do to get back to the image and prestige of the pre-90 era when Booth was in the same breath as Harvard and Stanford.
    3. Do you believe there is a difference in the reputation of Booth or Wharton when it comes to strategy, general management … esp in the High-Tech Sector.

    Thanks a lot once again. Appreciate your help.

    Booth Fanboy

  • cb2

    Very excited to see the new rankings…

  • So some news: We’re going live with the new ranking of the top 100 U.S. schools on Thursday morning. We’ll follow with the top 50 non-U.S. schools a few days after that. Phew.

  • guy


    We are still waiting…

  • Ann


    What about Hult?


  • Ann


    What about Hult?


  • Waiting,

    Really any day now. It’s merely a question of coordinating the release with my syndication partner, Fortune.com. So it could be as early as Tuesday.


  • Waiting for 2011 MBA ranking


    We are waiting for your new ranking.
    When will it be out?
    Thanks =)

  • MBA Aspirant 2012

    Hi John,

    it would be great if you can write about Chicago Booth vs Wharton B school smack-down. Many, like me, would find it useful, apart from the combined ranking shown above.

  • moonwashed – no problem. Best of luck with your decision!

  • Venki

    Penn state 42 Rutgers at 61 and Boston and u Maryland ranked higher than Rutgers ? Check the best value for getting a job ranking its at 10. Just not sure how much weightage jobs have in the ranking. Imagine a situation where you graduated from a top ranked but have no job? That doesn’t make sense at the end of graduation higher ranking, great facilities , great faculty doesn’t matter. Jobs,jobs and only jobs matter. On the jobs argument ranking should be focused, which school has great value and a great chance to get a job? Than then rest of criteria as this is most important criteria in this economy. Come with jobs z score ranking…:) forgot rest of the soft variables. …

  • moonwashed

    bschool2013, I appreciate the quick response. My experience at Tuck sounds identical to yours, but our Fuqua visits sound completely different. My visit to Duke was similar to my visit to Dartmouth, even down to the meal and the info session with the admissions staff. If there is a chance that you would reconsider it for next year, I would encourage you to to do so…I really enjoyed it!

    Anyway, thanks for the blog link.

  • Moonwashed…I’m a military applicant (well, applying in 2012 anyway) and I visited both Duke and Dartmouth. My thoughts and musings have been recorded on my blog here:


    Though if you’ve already been on campus yourself for a visit/interview, you may find my opinions fairly useless.

  • moonwashed

    I am having a difficult time choosing between Duke and Dartmouth. I am a military applicant (Interrogation/Chinese language background), and I plan to focus on strategy consulting (in China) for the first few years post-MBA.

    I am trying not to let rankings poison my outlook on each school, and I am sure most of you can relate to that challenge. Each school puts similar emphasis (possibly a little more so at Fuqua) on business in China through electives, experiential opportunities, and job treks, and each is extremely collaborative with comparable brand names.

    I am interested in all of your opinions on these two schools. I think what it really boils down to is a slightly better fit vs. a slightly better brand–so maybe it’s just an issue of pride that I need to overcome. I would appreciate ANY insight from the forum followers. I have until Sunday to decide to go ahead with the binding contract of Duke’s early action round.


  • b-school guy

    Ditto – what’s the due date of the rankings???

  • Mike

    Hi John:

    Hope you had a Happy Thanksgiving. The Fuqua community is chomping at the bit…we are anxiously awaiting your rankings!


  • Mike,

    Yes. We’re getting close. Any day now.

  • Mike

    Hi John:

    Any updates on the P&Q rankings?

    Also, would love to see a smackdown of Fuqua vs. Darden and Fuqua vs.Tuck.

    Thanks for all your hard work. Love the website.


  • Bobby Boy

    Thank you Mr. Byrne. We eagerly await the updates…

  • Yes. Finished the U.S. piece last night. Now working on the non- U.S. Ranking. Should have this done on Monday.

  • Bobby Boy

    Morning Mr. Byrne,

    Any progress on updated composite rankings?

    Thanks for the great content.

  • Daniel

    Wharton is clearly going down in every ranking, only FT still keeps it among the tops. I can’t wait to see the new P&Q ranking, I believe it’s the best ranking, given that it considers all the others.

  • B-school Guy ’13

    Mike: RE: “flattening” the rankings. Actually an interesting aspect of leaving the FT and Economist rankings “as is” is that it almost has an indexing effect built in to it. If a school is ranked 5 spots below another overall, but all of those spots are foreign schools, it almost kind of implies that there is a bit of space between the schools, even though they aren’t US schools.

    I’d say leave current system as it allows you to “index” the results a bit.

  • Michael,

    I think the idea has merit. With the new Economist ranking now out, we’ll be working on our new composite ranking for publication in early November. We’ll see how that works.

  • Ah…John…actually saw that this idea has already been proposed. I apologize for not scanning previous posts.

  • Hi John,

    Love the site and your methodologies. One question, though: when considering Global Rankings (FT, Economist, etc.) in the ranking of U.S. schools, would it make more sense to provide the relative rank versus other U.S. schools only? For example, in the FT rankings, I’d view the ranking of U.S. schools as 1. Wharton 2. HBS 3. Stanford 4. Columbia 5. Sloan 6. Booth, as opposed to using their nominal Global rankings of 1, 3, 4, 7, 9, and 12 in an average of U.S-based rankings. Just a thought that should help normalize/standardize your aggregate rankings.

  • Trine

    Um hey Gargamol, Booth’s yield isn’t low. Its about the same as MIT’s, just below Wharton’s (which is a LOT lower than hbs’s), and better than Kellogg’s. Isn’t that about where you’d expect it to be? Check your facts.

  • Tommy


    Simply put, Booth grads have their choice of any employer they desire. Booth MBA’s could care less what their reputation in relation to Wharton (or any other program) is.

  • Gargamol

    You are probably right then. Actually, i’m European so maybe i don’t have the same sensitivity but from my european point of view i can assure you that most people here don’t even know that Booth (or Kellogg, Tuck and Haas) merely exist. Actually i think it is linked to the prestige of its university so people know about Harvard, Columbia, Stanford, the MIT and also surprisingly about Wharton in the US (but not about Penn U) and about LBS in the UK. But i also know that many Americans have Booth in high esteem, so i am probably wrong.

  • I think Booth’s yield is lower precisely because there are a good number of people who, like you, think Wharton is the preferred choice. A lot of this has to do with Wharton’s location: it’s close to Wall Street, New York and Connecticut where there is the highest concentration of jobs in finance in the world. And for many who don’t want to live in New York, but like to have easy access to it, Wharton is a good bet. Also, as far as rankings go, there is a significant lag factor before image and reputation change.

  • Gargamol

    Ok, thank you for the answer. I understand your ranking now. Nevertheess. can you explain to me why yield is so low at Booth? It seems that people tend to prefer any other top B-School. Honestly i don’t know anyone who dream to go there : people dream to go to Harvard, Stanford, Wharton and, more surprisingly, Columbia. But Booth’s prestige is somehow lower, even if the school is doing pretty well in rankings. Thus, a third raknk for Booth is exagereted in my view. But then, as you say, everyone can have its own opinion.


  • Gargamol,

    For many years, there was a trio of U.S. schools at the very top: Harvard, Stanford, and Chicago. In the 1990s and 2000s, Wharton shoved aside Chicago and effectively replaced it. Now, after Chicago’s first place finish in three consecutive BusinessWeek polls in 2006, 2008 and 2010, and Wharton’s fall in the FT rankings in recent years, I would say it’s pretty much neck and neck. You may prefer Wharton and that’s fine. It’s a terrific school. But it’s simply not true that Chicago Booth is a safety school.

  • Gargamol,

    Wharton was number five in the U.S. News survey last year. The school tied for third place in the U.S. News survey that came out this past March.

    Our ranking, which was done at the end of last year, takes into account all the up-to-date rankings to that point. It will be updated again later this year and will then reflect the new U.S. News rank. It would be silly to update the ranking every time one of the five major rankings is published. It really only makes sense to update it annually. In most cases, these small changes in a single survey won’t affect our ranking very much for two reasons: 1) A change–either up or down–in one of five rankings tends to have less impact because we’re looking at all the most influential rankings, and 2) Each ranking is weighted based on how authoritative we believe a ranking is.

    So it is correct as published.

  • Gargamol

    Actually Wharton is also number 3 (tie again) in the US News, not number 5??? Sorry but your ranking in highly flawed, at least for Wharton, so i doubt it is correct for the rest…

  • Gargamol

    Wharton is number one (tie) in FT ranking. If you’ve counted that correctly, then it should be higher than Booth (which is it as everyone would tell you: Booth is mainly a safety school).

  • uk basu

    Just fail to understand why University of Massachuetts, Amherst (Isenberg School) does not appear in the list. It is ranked #60 in US news (2011) – when other programs ranked below it are ranked higher in the ladder.

  • Matty

    Really appreciate the prompt response. Indeed, for many of these schools (Kellogg, Ross, Johnson etc.) I imagine that your formula could – at most – produce some interesting changes in the final outcome, given the different approach. And, at the very least, the table itself would be a bit more clear. Thanks again.

  • Matty,

    Thanks for the suggestion. It has been made by others. Next time, I will in fact try that approach and see how it alters the results.

  • Matty

    For this and future P&Q rankings, might it be worth manually removing the foreign schools for both the FT and Econ rankings…simply for the listing of schools above?

    Its not apples-to-apples to list BW, Forbes and News right next to FT & Econ which include foreign. So for example Stanford would become:

    I just think it would make more sense given this list is U.S.-centric and you have a separate foreign-centric list. Thanks!

  • EG,
    The primary reason for NYU’s slippage in our ranking to 12th from 10th has to do with NYU’s lower ranking from BusinessWeek. Even so, I would put too much weight on this. The reason: if you look at the accompanying index numbers in our ranking, you’ll find that NYU’s index number is 87.3. The tenth place school, Duke, is at 88.7. I do not consider this to be that statistically significant.

    Nonetheless, in the latest BusinessWeek ranking, the school fell to 18th place from 13th two years ago. The BW ranking does not include GMAT scores, acceptance rates, nor job placement stats. It is based on polls of graduating students and corporate recruiters as well as a survey of academic research published in journals. As you probably know, our ranking is based on the five most influential rankings: BW, Forbes, U.S. News, The Financial Times, and The Economist. It’s worth noting that NYU slipped one spot in the most recent U.S. News ranking, going from ninth to tenth place.

  • EG


    Just curious why stern dropped out of the top 10 in your most recent update? It seems like they have been improving their stats in avg GMAT score, acceptance rate, and job placement. Were their recent rankings released that caused this drop off?


  • KW

    I would love to see some sort of Quant/Poet Ranking for each school…

  • b-school guy

    check out this link “if b-school were a car” – hilarious:


  • Mike Johns

    I think that Howard University deserves a closer look and perhaps a profile. It’s a relatively young program with a bright future. The program cracked the Top 75 for BW and US News.

  • Our ranking does include the latest FT rating but not last week’s U.S. News poll. There would be very few changes as a result of U.S. News, especially in the top 25. Most changes would occur toward the bottom of the list.

  • BSchooler

    Hi John,

    Firstly I would like to thank you for the excellent work that Poets and Quants has been doing. The rankings are probably the most comprehensive since it does away with the anomalies and prejudices of the other MBA rankings.

    I would like to ask whether it would be possible to update the rankings based on the new FT and US news ranking that have come out for this year.

  • B-School guy

    If you look at yield rates (enrolled/admitted) i.e. what percent of people that got into these school chose to go – you get a different picture. I believe this is a more telling sign in terms of reputation:

    Rank School yield
    1 Harvard 84%
    2 Stanford 80%
    3 Columbia 72%
    4 Penn 71%
    5 MIT 65%
    6 NYU 61%
    7 Chicago 61%
    8 Northwestern 58%
    9 Berkely 58%
    10 Tuck 55%
    11 Duke 53%
    12 Yale 45%

  • Mike,

    Yes, indeed. I don’t want to change our list the moment every new ranking comes out. Instead, I plan to wait until all the new ones are out for the year and then update. Doubt very much there would be major changes, anyway, with a single new ranking out.

  • Mike

    John, the US News list (as you may already know) : 1) Stanford 2) HBS 3) MIT & Wharton 5) Kellogg & Booth 7) Tuck & Haas. 9) Columbia 10) NYU & SOM. How this P&Q ranking will change???

  • Clint

    Thanks for the insight Louis. I can definately see how part timers would only consider programs in their own backyard. (thats what I did)

    I still imagine that there would be a growing interest in ranking part time programs (for purposes of recruiting, or as a tool for students seeking employment) given the harsh job market. But if the data is limited, I can see how part time programs are holding their students back.

  • Clint, I think one reason that a lot of media outlets don’t bother with part-time MBA programs is because information on them is hard to come by (most programs don’t survey part-time mba students after they graduate, so information on pay and other career outcomes such as promotions just isn’t easily obtainable). Most part-timers stay at the company they’ve been working for, and that may have helped pay for the degree. Pay raises, promotions, new jobs…those things may not happen for months or years after graduation.

    The other reason is that while there may be interest in part-time programs generally, the only individual programs most people are really interested in are the ones in their own backyard. (After all, nobody’s flying halfway across the country to attend night classes.)

    At BW we addressed the first issue by asking the graduates we surveyed about the extent to which their program helped them achieve their career goals–whether that’s a promotion, changing jobs, etc. We addressed the second issue by making our part-time ranking both national AND regional–every ranked school is compared to every other school in the ranking and separately to just the schools in its geographic region. (So someone in the Mid-West can ignore most of the country and just focus on the school that he or she might seriously consider attending.)

    Hope that helps.

    Louis Lavelle
    Associate Editor
    Bloomberg Businessweek

  • Clint

    You should really do a ranking of part-time programs. Perhaps even a ranking of part-time and full-time programs together. There are so many angles to discuss: Do part-time students typically have higher pre-MBA salaries (making the ROI calculations skewed when compared to full time programs)? Are part time students older and more mature than full-timers? What does this do for their careers? Why are part-time programs shunned from rankings (is BusinessWeek the only one that ranks them)?

  • debate

    Good pint Bruce, no doubt in what you say, even the common man is culpable.. but they are paying for their greed.. they are the victims.. loosing their houses, their valuables, enslaved for life in the circle of debts. Now look at the ‘Greedy MBA’ still living in luxury, getting those big cheques, ‘sky is the limit it seems!, when most of them are suffering for their basics’. And who motivated all these ‘so called financial innovation’ teaching in these schools. I will tell you day in and day out wat the schools teach is how to make the big buck! an d have made ppl who invented credit cards heroes! I mean it.. Tell me why should a common man, who per say, never took any of the finance schemes gotto share the huge national debt that was created for bailing out the banks! let these bankers pay for their greed.. why the innocent citizen!.. All i can say is that.. the banks will take us back to recession again! That day will not be far my friend! And the schools i say gave the ‘greedy’ the path, tools and job to become more greedy!

  • Bruce Vann

    “Now you make it seem like the MBA’s themselves are the victims.”* I meant to write “Now you make it seem like the MBA’s themselves are the culprits.” My fault.

  • Bruce Vann

    “no Bruce! all I’m saying is these MBA made finance scheme lured the people into such a place. You think ‘Credit card’ was introduced to make money transer easy! nopes it was to lure people into easy debt and then with huge interests got them enslaved.”

    debate, Of course credit cards were introduced to enslave people but people were willing to use other people’s money without counting the cost. It happened in the 20’s and it happened recently. It will always happen. Anyway, can you prove that an MBA invent the credit card or the sub prime mortgage or the credit default swap? Frank McNamara and John Biggins made cards popular. Do you have facts to support that they have “the evil MBA” degree? Anyway, in your first post you blamed the schools and made it seem like the MBA folks were the victims who could sue the schools. Now you make it seem like the MBA’s themselves are the victims. My point is that “you can’t con an honest man.” If a person is honest with themselves then they knew that they were taking a major gamble that they couldn’t control. But they got conned and the schools aren’t to blame for conning them. MBA’s had roughly 22-30 year of walking around this earth to build the character of being honest or dishonest before they enter an MBA program for two years. If they were dishonest before the school then guess how honest they’ll be afterward? You make it sound like they were Adam and Eve in the garden or Eden and then they ate of the fruit of the MBA tree in the center of the garden and then the whole economy went to hell. It’s nothing personal, I just can’t not dig into that idea because it’s so flawed.

    “Who made these finance so complex.. introduced schemes of cyclical complex debt schemes and then marketed it to the commoner! these Greedy MBA bankers year on year!” That’s a one-sided view of the problem, my friend. Who accepted the terms of this usury and gamble? the common man. Who is really responsible for your own financial well-being, you or the guy that sells you a Snickers bar? You are. In the same way, anyone who was messed over in this crisis because they bit off more than they could chew is responsible for their own greed and lack of self control. I’m not saying that the people who messed them over are innocent because they obviously are not but far too rarely in the West do we hold the average Joe and Jane responsible for their decisions. We always blame govt’s or schools or businesses or capitalism and don’t address the source of the problem. Regular people aren’t culpable for their actions any more. That’s my major issue with what you wrote, debate.

    And why is there another Bruce up here? 🙂 You know Bruce means awesome, right? 🙂 Bruce #2, they can and they are giving back to my understanding. Banks couldn’t wait to be free from TARP.

  • Bruce Almighty

    Uh the Harvard MBA! Harvard, Wharton, Booth, Columbia and Stern will account to more than 80% of the all these wallstreet bankers! Now that they are earning good and banks like GS making profit why cant they normalize their bonuses and start giving back what they got from the govt! Obama’s popularity is at its lowest!

  • debate

    no Bruce! all I’m saying is these MBA made finance scheme lured the people into such a place. You think ‘Credit card’ was introduced to make money transer easy! nopes it was to lure people into easy debt and then with huge interests got them enslaved. Who made these finance so complex.. introduced schemes of cyclical complex debt schemes and then marketed it to the commoner! these Greedy MBA bankers year on year!

  • Bruce

    really, debate? we all caused it. not the schools alone. greedy selfish regular ppl

  • debate

    Someone can even ‘sue’ these schools! they have collapsed our economy, and there is a predicted recession ahead for which no more debt can be bought to come out.. subprime, soverign debt..the loads of greedy ‘economic’ schemes and terms .. they seem to have enough money from endowment!

  • Kate

    Interesting, the schools should take the blame, the reason is
    a) the high fee structure and cost, making students who wish to do a ‘high risk high profit’ mindset alone to play the game, who eventually are high profit minded risking the economy
    b) money (signing bonus etc) is given more importance than true leadership
    Why on Earth none of the schools came forward or were included, published article on the decision of Obama giving tax-payers money to resurrect banks like GS only to see them now giving sky high bonuses!
    c) Schools like Booth and Columbia proudly patting themselves as great finance schools sending most number of students to WallStreet (a curiculum totally talking about finance alone).. when a management education’s purpose is all about developing overall leaders with value and ethics!
    Why would i after spending thousands of $’s at Columbia and a big debt will think about developing a good financial system.. all i would have to think is to loot a lot of money in bonuses!! lets make sense the fundamentals needs to be corrected!

  • Matt

    Its not just the ‘C’ level people im talking about.. the responsibility should be considered collective to all the wall street bankers…(which school have traditionally sent more to the Wallstreet!) .. who all responsible for subprime mortage..etc.. i understand it would be hard to seperate schools but the majority can be tracked!.. The economy is positive now only with the trillions of $’s that went from ‘our money’ on the bail out and Goldman Sachs as such is paying in millions in bonus only from this money.. how moral and ethical is it for these ‘bankers’ to take huge cheques despite the point they know its from the debt money! Watz the use of studying finance when the only thing that runs in the mind is to consider the finance of their own bank balance!

  • Matt,

    Indeed, it is. But it’s also important to remember that we’re talking about one percent or less of the MBA population.

  • Matt

    Hii John,

    Seems a very valid point from Thompson, we are showing only the brighter side of the MBA’s . I think its also good that an article about how many of these ‘infamous’ personalities are from these top schools. Its not all about the money earned.. that MBAs should be ranked on.. also on ethics, morality and a clean life. If there is an article hailing Harvard and asking about wat their future is.. its also good to see the other face!

  • A Kerney

    haha! good one Thompson! Only these greedy MBA’s from the so called Harvard and Booth caused the economic depression. Now they are happy and are celebrating becoz the economy is back out of ‘our Money’! Again all the irresponsible bankers take back huge cheques! I dont understand how many recessions would it take for America to understand these so called Harvard MBA’s!

  • E Thompson

    Ah yes, the Harvard MBA, and who are the illustrious graduates that contribute to the schools’ ranking. Consider the following: Harvard Business School alumni include Stan O’Neal and John Thain, the last two heads of Merrill Lynch, plus Andy Hornby, former chief executive of HBOS, who graduated top of his class. And then of course, there’s George W Bush, Hank Paul-son, the former US Treasury secretary, and Christopher Cox, the former chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), a remarkable trinity who more than fulfilled the mission of their alma mater: “To educate leaders who make a difference in the world.” It just wasn’t the difference the school had hoped for. So, does this ranking system deduct points if the MBA graduates are the likes of Jeff Skilling? I think not.

  • Truth is, you could argue it this way or that. A few percentage points wouldn’t make much difference. The reason I give Forbes slightly more weight is because that ranking is based on data that Forbes gathers on it’s own. In other words, it is putting important and valuable information into the marketplace that otherwise wouldn’t be available. The information is credible and authoritative. You can disagree with it but it is what it is. US News is also very credible but it’s ranking is largely based on data that you or I can get from the schools. It is also based on a couple of poorly constructed surveys of deans and MBA directors as well as recruiters.

  • John Turner

    I think giving Forbes 25% is not good..
    How can in the world can Yale be ranked above Harvard and Stanford! the best way to arrive which should be given more value is now that u have a list of ranks.. and compare which is nearer..
    I would suggest 25% or more can go with US news than Forbes. U.S news is more closer to your final rankings.

  • Rashmi

    Nick Johnson is absolutely right.. all one needs to do is to take the order of the US schools alone from FT, Economist and give them ranks from 1 in ascending order and then put these ranks.. its immature to take the direct rank values bcoz the non US schools should never contribute to the US school rankings! And Columbia, Tuck is on part or less than ROSS, MIT .. ask the applicants! Pls check how many times ppl are trying to choose between Tuck and NYU!

  • Generally, that’s true. It’s also true that if a school is not ranked by U.S. News, BW, or Forbes, the school also will be lower in these rankings. The reason: if a school shows up on all five major lists, it’s getting greater recognition from multiple sources. That should count for something.

  • Bill

    So if a school is not ranked by FT or Econ, it will be significantly lower? (Ohio state and Georgia Tech for example.)

  • Spencer

    If you read the entire article, you’ll see that the difference between the index rating of Yale and Duke is negligible, and then it becomes a toss up. Which campus/program/student body/etc do you like better? That becomes the deciding factor since the academic reputation is about the same.

  • Greg

    Hi John,

    How should one look at these rankings if one needs to choose b/w Yale and Duke? Except for BW, everyone rates Yale> Duke. And i think since PQ gives max weight age to BW, this brings Duke at 10th, which I believe is a little surprising.


  • Inquisitive Mind

    Anyway we could see rankings of schools by endowment size? I think that’d be extremely informative.

  • Wharton aspirant,

    It’s not an “inclination.” It’s simply where and how the data falls.

  • wharton_aspirant

    I see P&Q has more inclination towards Tuck and Columbia. Kellogg and MIT would deserve top places. H, S , W, K, Chi , M, C & T

  • Lance Miller

    This is a much more sophisticated ranking than BW. Thank you for addressing the SMU debacle. It seems that the schools football boosters now had their hands in BW’s ranking scheme. Noone would choose SMU over Tuck or Yale.

  • Deans want their school to be high in the rankings and have the “triple crown “of accreditations; AMBA (Association of MBAs), EQUIS (European Fund for Management Development) and AACSB (The Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business). In addition they want to appear in the rankings in Business Week, Wall Street Journal, Forbes, Financial Times, Princeton Review, Economist, GMAT, EDUNIVERSAL, U.S. News and World Report and probably a few others. Hispanic Business magazine also is in the rankings game, they rank business graduate schools for Hispanics. Even G.I. Jobs Magazine has joined the rankings lunacy and the Mason School of Business at the College of William and Mary was named to G.I. Jobs Magazine’s 2011 top 15 percent list of “Military Friendly Schools”. Business Week even ranks B-schools on their Return on Investment (ROI), of course the fact that one may or may not have received an enlightening education does not matter, just how long it takes to make up the education cost and then some. Making the list reached the point of absurdity when the dean of the College of Business and Public Administration at Cal State San Bernardino announced that her school is ranked among the top 18 most innovative business schools in the world by none other than a European CEO magazine. Also those who do the ranking have found its good for business, Eduniversal a Paris-based educational consulting organization is in the ranking business and they ranked Chico State’s Business School number 10 because they have a strong national reputation. They do? Its a sad game and the students who believe this stuff suffer.

  • The methodology of assigning weights to well-established rankings is a good way to smoothen out the anomalies that tend to sneak into some of these lists without reinventing the wheel. Simple, transparent and practical methodology.

    In this latest P&Q list, there are lesser surprises as we’ve already seen them in the other rankings.

    I’d agree with Nick’s point that the FT and EIU rankings could skew the rankings. But their inclusion would not significantly alter the overall rankings because these two rankings have the lowest assigned weights. So for the diverse perspectives that they offer and for the sake of keeping the P&Q rankings international, I think they should be left in there.

    – Sameer
    MBA Crystal Ball

  • Honestly, this ranking is the most accurate. So many times there are anomelies (Cox in the latest BW), but everything on this list makes sense. Sure, you can argue that maybe Michigan should be up a spot or two, and Fuqua should be down a spot or two, but at that point it’s purely subjective.

    Additionally, it’s nice to see that the list has been expanded.

  • Nick,

    I think there is value in showing that the FT and the Economist believe there are a lot of non-U.S. schools that rank much higher than you would suspect. That’s why we use the global rankings and don’t artificially separate them out. On the other hand, your point is well taken. Perhaps we should do that in the future. Just so you know, I do not believe it would make much of a difference in these rankings if we did what you’re suggesting.

  • Jim,

    Newsweek? There is no Newsweek at all.

  • Jim Chesney

    The methodology of this ranking is insane. Each of the component rankings have questionable methodologies, but to give BW 30% and Newsweek 20% suggests to me that you have no ability to discern good methodology from bad, or that you have some sort of perverted loyalty toward Bweek.

  • Nick Johnson

    Why are you including the Economist and Financial Times rankings at the worldwide numbers when the rest of the rankings are US-only. This apples-to-oranges issue results in a weighting error that should be resolved by converting the Economist and Financial Times numbers to US rankings.

  • Nick Johnson

    Why are you including the Economist and Financial Times rankings at the worldwide numbers when the rest of the rankings are US-only. This apples-to-oranges issue results in a weighting error that should be resolved by convering the Economist and Financial Times numbers to US rankings.