2011 Financial Times Ranking of the Best B-Schools

THE FINANCIAL TIMES DOES NOT MEASURE THE ACTUAL QUALITY OF INCOMING MBA STUDENTS IN ITS RANKING.

The methodology, moreover, does not include the three most important criteria to judge student quality: undergraduate grade point average, GMAT or GRE score, and finally pre-MBA compensation. U.S. schools tend to have significantly higher mean and median GMATs than non-U.S. schools so the lack of this measurement tends to diminish the ranking of U.S.-based institutions in the FT list.

Nonetheless, winners are understandably enthusiastic when the Financial Times highly recognizes a school. Professor Sir Andrew Likierman, Dean of London Business School, said in a statement: “We are very proud to have retained the top spot. This is a great tribute to everyone associated with the School who has helped us maintain our quality.”

London said the rankings highlight the global nature of its school, with specific reference to the high proportion of international students (92 percent) and faculty (85 percent). The school reported an employment rate of 91 percent for MBA graduates within three months of graduating in 2010, a ten percentage point increase on the 2009 figures. London also took the second spot for aims achieved, highlighting that the school delivered on the students’ objectives.

2011: THE TOP 50 FULL-TIME MBA PROGRAMS ACCORDING TO THE FINANCIAL TIMES

School & FT RankP&QBWForbesNewsEcon
1. London Business School151NR19
1. Pennsylvania (Wharton)43558
3. Harvard Business School12314
4. INSEAD211NR23
4. Stanford25117
6. Hong Kong UST23NRNRNR52
7. Columbia596912
8. IE Business School533NR22
9. MIT (Sloan)81014313
9. IESE4123NR5
11. Indian Institute of Mgt.NRNRNRNR85
12. Chicago (Booth)31451
13. Indian School of Business33NRNRNRNR
14. IMD372NR6
15. New York (Stern)121817914
15. Yale School of Mgt.1421101124
17. CEIBS17NR4NR100
18. Dartmouth (Tuck)614272
18. HEC Paris6147NR9
20. Duke (Fuqua)106131428
21. Esade Business School748NR20
21. Northwestern (Kellogg)748416
23. Singapore School of BusinessNRNRNRNRNR
24. Michigan (Ross)137181225
25. California-Berkeley (Haas)981273
26. Cambridge (Judge)9104NR30
27. Oxford (Said)11165NR71
28. SDA Bocconi13188NR65
29. Manchester Business School12172NR61
30. Cornell (Johnson)151371833
31. UCLA (Anderson)1717191537
32. City University (Cass)14NR6NR53
33. Nanyang Business School27NRNRNR69
34. Cranfield School of Mgt.8139NR15
35. Australian School of Business20NR9NRNR
36. Rotterdam (Erasmus)26NRNRNR57
37. Imperial College40NRNRNRNR
38. Emory (Goizueta)2022222736
38. Georgetown (McDonough)2333312450
40. Maryland (Smith)36422945NR
41. Lancaster Management School16NR7NR89
41. Virginia (Darden)111191311
41. Carnegie Mellon (Tepper)1615231621
44. Rice (Jones)2729473941
44. Texas A&M (Mays)29302433NR
46. Toronto (Rotman)218NRNRNR
46. Western Ontario (Ivey)226NRNRNR
46. Illinois-Urbana-Champaign45466342NR
49. Texas-Austin (McCombs)1925111643
49. York (Schulich)1096NR10
51. Vanderbilt (Owen)2837303646
52. Rochester (Simon)3543372793
53. Melbourne Business School32NRNRNR41
53. California at Irvine (Merage)56NR5836NR
55. Durham Business School39NRNRNR55
55. Vierick Leuven Gent41NRNRNR47
57. McGill (Desautels)151111NRNR
58. Warwick Business School25NRNRNR34
59. Penn State (Smeal)4244284856
60. University of Cape Town GSBNRNRNRNRNR
61. Hult International36NRNRNR27
62. North Carolina (Kenan-Flagler)1816152140
63. Wisconsin School of Business3034352754
64. IPADE Business School28NR5NRNR
64. Southern California (Marshall)2226322018
64. Iowa (Tippie)48NR204266
64. Arizona State (Carey)46495627NR
68. SP Jain Center of Mgt.NRNRNRNRNR
68. Boston University3738613142
68. Thunderbird School5345NR6280
68. Birmingham Business SchoolNRNRNRNR68
72. Ohio State (Fisher)40323921NR
73. Indiana (Kelley)2119252335
74. Strathclyde Business School31NRNRNR75
74. Purdue (Krannert)3841453690
74. Boston College (Carroll)43504639NR
77. INCAE Business SchoolNRNRNRNRNR
78. Wake Forest (Babcock)4148344659
78. Univ. College Dublin (Smurfit)38NRNRNR31
80. South Carolina (Moore)62NR676292
80. Notre Dame (Mendoza)2524383139
80. British Columbia (Sauder)24NR10NR79
83. California-Davis58NR684260
84. EADANRNRNRNR96
84. Babson (Olin)5439NR54NR
86. William & Mary (Mason)50474975NR
86. Washington (Foster)3231403332
88. Southern Methodist (Cox)3412334978
88. Edinburgh Business School50NRNRNR75
90. Bradford School of Mgt.NRNRNRNRNR
91. Brigham Young (Marriott)33271633NR
92. Pepperdine (Graziadio)78NR7582NR
93. Georgia (Terry)4736505987
94. Leeds UniversityNRNRNRNRNR
94. Florida (Hough)55NR543999
96. Politeonico di MilanoNRNRNRNRNR
97. Georgia Institute of Technology39234426NR
97. IAE Business SchoolNRNRNRNRNR
99. Kaist College of BusinessNRNRNRNRNR
100. EM Lyon Business School19NR11NR38

.

SOURCE: THE FINANCIAL TIMES, OTHER SURVEYS

For its ranking, the Financial Times surveys alumni from the Class of 2007 to track both their progress in their jobs and their increase in compensation. The FT said that nearly 70 per cent of alumni who took out loans to fund their MBAs are still in debt more than three years after graduating. The poll showed that the total bill for an MBA averaged $132,600 three years ago, including living costs, interest on loans and loss of earnings while studying.

Of the 1,370 graduates who completed the FT poll, 63 per cent said they borrowed money to fund their studies. On average, they ended up indebted to an average of 54 per cent of the total cost of completing the degree. More than three years after graduation, 69 per cent of alumni who took on debt had yet to finish paying it off, and more than a quarter still owed 60 per cent or more of the original loan, the FT reported. Yet in spite of the high costs, most alumni felt the MBA had been a good value. Asked by the FT  to rate the worth of their degree from one to five, with five representing extremely valuable, the average score was 4.4. There was little variation among alumni, regardless of the cost of the program or debt levels, and 56 per cent gave their degree a rating of five, the FT reported.

  • Ghosh

    Three facts that most non-Indians are not aware of :

    1. A majority of Indian students in the HSW trio are ones that are either ex-IIM grads or those that have attempted the IIM entrance (we call in CAT) and failed.

    2. Most Indians go for the US/EU B-schools to gain acceptability in International career paths, and Not because they consider HSW superior.

    3. In India, till date, the HSW alums are at best considered at par with IIM grads (unless they are IIT + HSW). The popular thinking is that you may be a prince or a pauper, IITs / IIMs judge you by PURE meritocracy. HSW’s first question, on the other hand, is who’s your Dad :).

    ciao
    Ghosh

  • Spearhead

    How does Darden get outranked by Emory, and Maryland! This ranking is a joke.

  • Common sense

    The point is emergence of this many non US based schools in various rankings. It certainly was not the case 10 years ago. Value is in the highlight not the rank……

  • Rich

    I’m going to start my own business school, admit a lot of homeless people, help them get a job, show infinite salary % increase, ask them to provide good FT survey when asked, and rank number #1 in FT. I just need to make sure I start my B-school in China or India since they are not in recession or my graduates may still be unemployed after graduation and my B-school will not rank #1.

  • Naoum,

    It’s impossible to know because the FT doesn’t provide info on the schools that fell off the ranking. It could be for something as odd as an inadequate sample size for the alumni survey or the school could have fallen short on any one of the key metrics used by the FT to rank schools. There are 20 such metrics! The school itself probably has the answer. I would ask the admissions office.

  • Naoum Barakat

    Guys, any idea to why Aston Business School wasn’t included in the global rankings for 2011? In 2010 it was ranked 73!

    Thanks

  • Delat

    To question how the diversity factor (%of women, international students etc) can influence the quality of an MBA reflects very poorly on poetsandquants´ common sense or MBA knowledge. The dynamics in a class with a significant % of women or internationall students are totally different from a class of “false heterogeneous” populations. This makes the MBA experience totally different!!

  • indian

    I do not want to contradict anyone of you. Just wanted to make a short clarification. I see that most of you consider IIM as a school that accepts students without work-experience. However its not that program which FT has ranked above. Instead FT, in its 2011 global MBA ranking, has considered the new 1 year MBA program at IIMA which accepts candidates with around 10 years experience and wherein the class size is around 90.
    cheers.

  • Hmmmm

    Perhaps P&Q could do a follow and expand upon the “different methodologies” that account for a particular school’s ranking swinging so much from one publication to another. There isn’t much literature that says, “If you value Metric A [e.g. median income five years after graduation], then Magazine X is the best ranking system for you, if you value Metric B, then…”

  • Kellogg MBA

    Despite the on-going debate about rankings of global MBAs and the controversy that accompanies it, I personally do not find it surprising at all to see certain B-schools, especially Asian ones emerge in the top 20 list. As a matter of fact, though I do not fully agree with the weightings of the FT ranking criteria used, the list and ranking they compiled does make sense and is reflective of reality to a large extent.

    First of all, we have to realize and admit that the era where top US and European B-schools dominate the top 20 Global MBAs list is fading. This will even be more pronounced as the pace of gloablization accelerates. The changing dynamics of global economics and power is a good leading indicator of this phenomena.

    As the economic and political clout of emerging superpowers like China, India and Brazil accelerates, the emphasis and need for a more dynamic and educated population drives the hunger and pursuit of advancement in knowledge. Compare that with the fading economic and political dominance of the US and Europe, it is no surprise that top B-schools from these emerging nations are rising to international prominence. It is not to say that these schools were never great schools in the past and they miraculously “became” great schools because of their nation’s newly found riches amid changing global economic tides. For instance, Beijing and TsingHua University has long been recognized in China as the top 2 elite universities where only the brightest minds could attend (let’s face it, with a population of 1.4billion, competition for a place at these 2 Chinese universities is no less than Harvard or Wharton in the US, perhaps even more fierce). The same goes for the IIMs and ISB in India.

    With their growing economic strength, these nations are constantly pouring millions into improving their institutions of higher learning and hiring the best faculty from abroad. In addition, many nouveau riche who made the Forbes 100 richest list in the world are alums of these elite institutions and are giving back to their alma mater at increasing amounts and pace never seen before. Consequently, it is no surprise that these top institutions that were once elite national or regional universities at best a decade ago, are now challenging the global educational giants that never saw them as competitors in the past. Top US and European B-schools have to constantly upgrade and innovate in order not to lag behind. Self-complacency is their worst enemy.

    Schools in the FT list like Hong Kong’s UST, China’s CEIBS, Singapore’s NUS School of Business, India’s IIM and ISB are great examples of tomorrow’s rising star. They have always been known for their excellence regionally and they are now ready to flex their muscles on the global educational arena. Kudos to Financial Times for recognising the changing dynamics in higher education and reflecting that in their ranking polls. It is time for The Economist, Business week and Forbes (both rather US centric) to review their ranking methodology to better reflect reality.

  • Authenticity_questioned

    I see Kellogg School of Management as a great school. They are the 3rd best for General management placements including top spot in consulting placements and number one in marketing and brand management globally. Their Finance stream is also not bad and almost all the finance majors recruit there. In terms of students and culture they have real good reputation. Many people have said that Kellogg is on par with Wharton if not Harvard and Stanford. John, can you please tell me why does FT always rank Kellogg so low.. worst part is even below schools like IIM, ISB and Yale. I have an admit from Kellogg, MIT Sloan and Booth ( i dint apply to H,S, W). I was inclined to take Kellogg to focus on management consulting. On the other hand I had admits 2 year before from IIM A ( number 1 IIM in india) and my study revealed they are way distant from an International MBA. I am a bit confused with the rankings of FT. What are they trying to say?

  • crap_ranking

    As usual FT’s shady ranking continues! IIM’s can never be compared to international Business schools any day! They take a lot of college freshers who ‘only clear CAT to get in’ no overall development or work experience. And most of them do a US MBA again for making their progress. FT is worst as ever! Same is the case with ISB’s! Totally irrelevant ranking

  • John,

    A bit more accuracy here:

    “The Hong Kong University of Science & Technology broke into the FT’s Top 10, rising to sixth–a jump of 17 places from 23 last year and 17th two years ago when it appeared on the FT ranking for the first time. Barcelona-based ”

    UST was ranked #17, #16, #9 and now #6 in the last 4 years. 2007 it was not ranked (not enough survey responses). 2006 and earlier it was ranked in the ranged of #20-40

    the other major point which should be mentioned ALWAYS when commenting on the FT ranking is that FT calculates salary on a purchase power basis, i.e. the 175k for the IIM is a real USD salary of probably 50-60k multiplied by about 3x to reflect PPP.

    on a separate note and something to ponder: India has 7 top-ranked IIM. of the 200,000 applicants for these 7 schools, one has to be in the top 0.7-0.8% to make the admission…