Chicago Booth | Mr. Controller & Critic
GMAT 750, GPA 6.61 / 7.00 (equivalent to 3.78 / 4.00)
Harvard | Mr. Spanish Army Officer
GMAT 710, GPA 3
Said Business School | Mr. Global Sales Guy
GMAT 630, GPA 3.5
Kellogg | Mr. Cancer Engineer
GRE 326, GPA 3.3
Chicago Booth | Mr. Financial Analyst
GMAT 750, GPA 3.78
Columbia | Mr. Chartered Accountant
GMAT 730, GPA 2.7
Kellogg | Mr. PE Social Impact
GMAT Waived, GPA 3.51
Kellogg | Mr. CPA To MBA
GMAT Waived, GPA 3.2
Georgetown McDonough | Mr. International Youngster
GMAT 720, GPA 3.55
N U Singapore | Mr. Just And Right
GMAT 700, GPA 4.0
Stanford GSB | Ms. Sustainable Finance
GMAT Not yet taken- 730 (expected), GPA 3.0 (Equivalent of UK’s 2.1)
Kenan-Flagler | Mr. Healthcare Provider
GMAT COVID19 Exemption, GPA 3.68
Kellogg | Ms. MBA For Social Impact
GMAT 720, GPA 3.9
Chicago Booth | Ms. Future CMO
GMAT Have Not Taken, GPA 2.99
MIT Sloan | Ms. International Technologist
GMAT 740, GPA 3.5
UCLA Anderson | Ms. Art Historian
GRE 332, GPA 3.6
Harvard | Mr. Harvard Hopeful
GMAT 740, GPA 3.8
Yale | Mr. Philanthropy Chair
GMAT Awaiting Scores (expect 700-720), GPA 3.3
Columbia | Mr. Startup Musician
GRE Applying Without a Score, GPA First Class
Chicago Booth | Ms. Entrepreneur
GMAT 690, GPA 3.5
Columbia | Mr. MGMT Consulting
GMAT 700, GPA 3.56
Harvard | Mr. Google Tech
GMAT 770, GPA 2.2
Harvard | Mr. Future Family Legacy
GMAT Not Yet Taken (Expected 700-750), GPA 3.0
Wharton | Mr. Big 4
GMAT 770, GPA 8/10
Rice Jones | Mr. ToastMasters Treasurer
GMAT 730, GPA 3.7
Harvard | Mr. Public Health
GRE 312, GPA 3.3
Kellogg | Mr. Hopeful Admit
GMAT Waived, GPA 4.0

How A Dean Would Rank Business Schools

Methodology Note: To bring the four metrics together, we created a separate index for each metric. The school with the best measurement received an index score of 100. Every other school’s index score was then measured against the best to come up with an index score for that metric. For applications per seat, for example, Stanford led all schools with 17.9 application for every available seat in the class. Stanford was awarded an index score of 100. MIT which had the second best number, 11.7, was then divided by 17.9 which resulted in an index score for MIT of 65.0, or 65% of Stanford’s 17.9 applications. Then all the index scores across the four metrics were added together and an index was built on those numbers which account for each school’s numerical rank.

The benefits of this method are obvious. Schools that have significant, and statistically meaningful, differences in any one of the four metrics get full credit for that difference. Typically, ranking organizations do a simple rank order of such numbers from 100 to 0 which fail to take into account those differences. This system also prevents less meaningful differences in the data from having a bigger overall impact.

About The Author

John A. Byrne is the founder and editor-in-chief of C-Change Media, publishers of Poets&Quants and four other higher education websites. He has authored or co-authored more than ten books, including two New York Times bestsellers. John is the former executive editor of Businessweek, editor-in-chief of Businessweek. com, editor-in-chief of Fast Company, and the creator of the first regularly published rankings of business schools. As the co-founder of CentreCourt MBA Festivals, he hopes to meet you at the next MBA event in-person or online.