Kellogg | Mr. Engineer Volunteer
GMAT 710, GPA 3.8
Kellogg | Mr. Operations Analyst
GMAT Waived, GPA 3.3
Kellogg | Mr. Double Whammy
GMAT 730, GPA 7.1/10
Kellogg | Mr. Defense Engineer
GMAT 760, GPA 3.15
Cornell Johnson | Mr. Indian Dreamer
GRE 331, GPA 8.5/10
McCombs School of Business | Mr. Ernst & Young
GMAT 600 (hopeful estimate), GPA 3.86
Kellogg | Mr. Innovator
GRE 300, GPA 3.75
London Business School | Ms. Private Equity Angel
GMAT 660, GPA 3.4
Harvard | Mr. Defense Engineer
GMAT 730, GPA 3.6
Chicago Booth | Ms. Indian Banker
GMAT 740, GPA 9.18/10
Harvard | Ms. Developing Markets
GMAT 780, GPA 3.63
Yale | Ms. Biotech
GMAT 740, GPA 3.29
McCombs School of Business | Mr. Marine Executive Officer
GRE 322, GPA 3.28
Stanford GSB | Ms. Global Empowerment
GMAT 740, GPA 3.66
Chicago Booth | Mr. Bank AVP
GRE 322, GPA 3.22
Harvard | Mr. Renewables Athlete
GMAT 710 (1st take), GPA 3.63
Stanford GSB | Mr. Infantry Officer
GRE 320, GPA 3.7
UCLA Anderson | Ms. Apparel Entrepreneur
GMAT 690, GPA 3.2
Harvard | Mr. Armenian Geneticist
GRE 331, GPA 3.7
Berkeley Haas | Mr. 1st Gen Grad
GMAT 740, GPA 3.1
Ross | Mr. Travelpreneur
GMAT 730, GPA 2.68
London Business School | Ms. Numbers
GMAT 730, GPA 3.5
IU Kelley | Mr. Fortune 500
GMAT N/A, GPA 2.2
N U Singapore | Mr. Naval Officer
GMAT 710, GPA 3.2
NYU Stern | Ms. Entertainment Strategist
GMAT Have not taken, GPA 2.92
INSEAD | Ms. Spaniard Consultant
GMAT 710, GPA 8.5/10.00
NYU Stern | Mr. Army Prop Trader
GRE 313, GPA 2.31

Can You Trust This Online MBA Ranking?

Online

COMMENTARY:

Business school rankings have become as common as UFO sightings a few years ago—and more often than not lists that purport to measure the quality of an MBA experience is an unidentified flying object of sorts.

Even at the highest level—the five most influential rankings of MBA programs by U.S. News & World Report, The Financial Times, Bloomberg Businessweek, The Economist and Forbes—they are filled with substantial flaws, intellectual dishonesty, and downright stupidity by people who design the often senseless methodologies.

But at least in those rankings, you know exactly what is getting measured. The inputs and outputs are fairly transparent, along with the weights applied to each metric used to crank out the ranking. Which leads us to the most important advice for every applicant looking at a ranking: If there is little to no transparency in a ranking, it has flunked the smell test. Pay no attention whatsoever to it because the “ranking” is little more than an attempt to generate clicks on the Web. Nothing more. Nothing less.

THE LAUGHING STOCK OF THE RANKINGS COMES OUT WITH ANOTHER LAUGHING STOCK

That’s the case with the latest ranking by the Princeton Review, published yesterday (May 12), of online MBA programs. This is the first time the test prep company has ranked online offerings. Its ranking of the best business schools and programs for entrepreneurship has long been considered by many “the laughing stock” of all the rankings. So there’s little surprise that this new list of online programs would be any different.

Here’s the basic problem: The Princeton Review fails to disclose exactly how it is ranking these programs so no ONE really knows what exactly is being measured. The organization vaguely says the ranking is “based on comprehensive surveys conducted in the 2014 academic year of students and administrators at MBA programs offering at least 75% of their program of study online.”

A VAGUE METHODOLOGY THAT DOESN’T TELL YOU SQUAT

The most detail you get into the methodology is reduced to two vague sentences:

“The survey for school administrators, which evaluated more than 30 fields, covers admissions selectivity, graduation and retention rates, faculty training and credentials, technological infrastructure, student indebtedness, and career outcomes among other items.”

“The survey for students, which also evaluates more than 30 unique fields, allows students to rate their faculty, their fellow students, career preparation, academics, the technology platform, and overall satisfaction with their programs.”

How Two Online MBA Rankings Compare

 

SchoolPrinceton Review RankU.S. News Rank
North Carolina (Kenan-Flagler)11
Indiana (Kelley)21
IE Business School3NR
Arizona State (Carey)44
Temple (Fox)51
Florida (Hough)64
Rochester Institute of Tech (Saunders)725
Thunderbird821
Texas-Dallas (Jindal)96
Northeastern (D’Amore-McKim)1036
James Madison1112
Auburn (Harbert)1210
North Dakota1332
North Texas1447
Hofstra (Zarb)1541
South Dakota (Beacom)1641
Nebraska-Lincoln1721
Syracuse (Whitman)1857
George Washington1944
North Carolina State209
West Georgia (Richards)2144
State University of New York-Oswego2257
Memphis (Fogelman)2366
Nevada-Reno2429
Washington State (Carson)2521

Source: Poets&Quants analysis of U.S. News and Princeton Review 2015 rankings of online MBA programs

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.