2013 Financial Times Global MBA Ranking

The 2013 Financial Times’ Global MBA Ranking (1 through 25)

2013 Rank & School2012 RankChange
   1. Harvard Business School2+1
   2. Stanford GSB1-1
   3. Pennsylvania (Wharton)3
   4. London Business School4
   5. Columbia Business School5
   6. INSEAD6
   7. IESE9+2
   8. Hong Kong UST10+2
   9. MIT (Sloan)7-2
 10. Chicago (Booth)12+2
 11. IE Business School8-3
 12. UC-Berkeley (Haas)14+2
 13. Northwestern (Kellogg)16+3
 14. Yale School of Management20+6
 15. Ceibs24+9
 16. Dartmouth (Tuck)19+3
 16. Cambridge (Judge)26+10
 18. Duke (Fuqua)15-3
 19. IMD13-6
 19. New York (Stern)17-2
21. HEC Paris21-3
22. ESADE33+11
23. UCLA (Anderson)23+9
24. Oxford (Said)20-4
24. Cornell (Johnson)24

Source: The Financial Times’ 2013 Global MBA Ranking

(See following page for the continuation of our table on the next 25 schools ranked by The Financial Times)

  • Rohit

    I don’t think so much importance should be given on post MBA salary. Alumni & recruiters’ feedback should get most weight.

  • LondonFog

    London Business School and INSEAD are often considered peers of the “M7” in the US, so I agree that they should be included in the “US school” rankings because of their brand/prestige. In fact, both have exchange programs with many of the best business schools in the US (i.e., Wharton, MIT, Booth, Columbia, etc.). LBS and INSEAD aside, the rest of the euro schools aren’t as good unfortunately…

  • The salary figure used by the FT in its ranking is “average alumni salary three years after graduation”. So naturally it won’t be the same as the €60,261 (roughly US$ 80,000) they get immediately after graduation.

  • Brunobruno

    This ranking is bullshit. If you go to the lisbone MBA you will see that the vaerage salary post MBA is 80 000 dol, but in the ranking fron ft you can see 130000 us doll. If you are serious, you know that portugal is the third world in europe, and i find many schools in this ranking that are totally abused about their salary post MBA. I know many people from hec, em lyon insead, melbourne and no one get these salary. Please stop with the financial times . Can we build on ranking with the real average salary. Compare to the cost of life and the country and the fees for the MBA, to see wich one performe the best?

  • Elisabeth

    My impression is that the FT methodology strongly favours UK BSchools (see diversity criteria). I am surprised how some UK MBA can be ranked in 20s and 30s ahead of established US MBAs with more stellar students,faculty, placement and financial aid. I learned that some UK BSchools struggle to fill their classes and class size has been cut as a result of declining application and people opting for specialised masters. The melt was sold to the public as ‘focusing on more personal experience for students’. Some UK BSchools have high faculty fluctuation with mostly freshly minted PhDs with little experience teaching classes. Most growth has come from internationals as domestic demand has been flat as a result of changes in immigration policy. Student satisfaction at some BSchools (Imperial, Cass and Warwick) is notoriously flat.

    The FT does undervalue some good European BSchools in Switzerland, the Benelux and Scandinavia.

  • Simone

    The best way to look at the ranking is to separate US schools and non-us school, only London Business School and INSEAD are eligiable to be considered within US category due to strength and brand..others, not sure,

  • Jimmy

    UCLA gains 9 spots to a deserved 23 rank Worlwilde and 13 in the US. Finally, UCLA is at its right place in this ranking !!