Blast from the Past:
The Financial Times’ Historical MBA Rankings
Everyone hates business school rankings. We claim they’re subjective, measure the wrong data, and reward schools with the best brand reputations. And we’re never quite certain if the data (or methodology) is truly accurate. Yet, we can’t wait to find out where our top choice (or alma mater) ranks. And why not: These rankings are a reflection on us too. We may quibble with how various factors are weighed (and bemoan how the Ivies get all the love). The rankings, however imperfect, are the one way to roughly quantify where business schools stand.
The Financial Times produces one of the most respected rankings. It evaluates programs on 20 different categories, with graduate salaries comprising 40 percent of its formula. As a result, its rankings often deviate greatly from other outlets. For example, U.S. News and World Report has Northwestern (Kellogg) tied with MIT (Sloan) as the 4th best MBA program in the United States. But The Financial Times ranks Kellogg #9 among American programs. So what gives?
Last year, Poets and Quants compiled The Financial Times’historical rankings of global business programs from 2001-2012. Which schools rose in prominence during this time? Which schools saw their rankings drop? And what types of rankings anomalies did we uncover over those years? Click below to see the winners and losers from the past decade.
Source: Poets and Quants
Video of the Week