Financial Times 2024 MBA Ranking: 10 Biggest Surprises

Financial Times 2013 MBA ranking

Is California now the center of the MBA universe?

6) California Dreaming Turns Into a Nightmare

Yeah, we wrote it: “California Dreaming: The Golden State Is The Golden Ticket.”

A year, ago, this was one of P&Q’s big takeaways from The Financial Times MBA Ranking. We trumpeted California graduate business programs, noting there were as many Top 100 programs in the Golden State as there were in India. Just a year ago, Stanford GSB and Berkeley Haas ranked in the FT’s Top 10 (and UCLA Anderson and USC Marshall placed 14th and 21st respectively). I mean, UCLA Anderson even climbed 12 spots! Can you blame us for hyping how California had replaced the Atlantic Coast and Chicago (let alone Paris and London) as the “Center of the MBA universe”?

Funny how the world can change in one year. Stanford GSB? Choose any word – nosedive, collapse, death-drop – and you’ll accurately describe the GSB’s crash-landing at 23rd in 2024. Berkeley Haas? They skidded out of the Top 10 – and almost out of the Top 20 – to 19th. UCLA Anderson lost four spots, but can take comfort that they are now the highest-ranked California MBA program at 18th. And then there’s USC Marshall, which lost 12 spots to 33rd. This erased their progress, taking them back to roughly where they ranked in 2020.

Beyond the Big Four, UC Irvine’s Merage School managed to improve from 54th to 51st. By the same token, UC Davis tumbled out of the Top 100.

What happened to Stanford GSB? On the plus side, the school ranked #1 for weighted salary — $250,650 – which accounts for 16% of a ranking’s weight. GSB alumni surveyed also gave their alma mater the highest score for Alumni Network, which comes down to the “effectiveness of the alumni network for career opportunities, starting companies, gaining new ideas, recruiting staff and providing event information.”  At the same time, 94% of GSB alumni believed they had achieved their Aims in business school, the highest percentage of any program. Together, these measures cover nearly a quarter of the FT’s ranking weight.

Stanford MBA alumni even gave their school the highest satisfaction score – 9.975. However, this was a pyrrhic victory, as The Financial Times doesn’t weigh satisfaction in their ranking…no matter how relevant it is. And Alumni Satisfaction isn’t just a one-year blip: GSB respondents gave it a 9.98 average last year. In other words, the school has a legitimate claim: How can you discount what students say about the value of their experience?

Here’s another quirky fact: Stanford graduate salaries rose by nearly $1,800 and the school moved from 3rd to 1st in Alumni Network. The school also held onto its #2 ranking for Career Progress (3% Weight) and moved from 11th to 5th in Career Services (3% Weight). On the surface, Stanford GSB enjoyed a banner year – as far as outcomes and satisfaction were concerned. So how could the GSB lose 19 spots?

In terms of Pay Increase, the school technically slipped from 131% to 117% over the past year, which means 54 business schools ranked above them this year in a metric with a 16% weight. In the third biggest metric with a 10% weight – Faculty Research – Stanford GSB dropped from 7th to 13th. Another problem: Stanford GSB didn’t submit a percentage for International Faculty, which automatically set the school at the bottom of a measure with a 3% weight. It didn’t help that the GSB ranked 99th for Sector Diversity, which also carried a 3% weight (even if it ranked 97th there last year). On top of that, Stanford GSB dropped 66 spots in ESG and Net Zero Teaching (3%) and 33 spots in International Course Experience (3%). As always, Stanford GSB grads are dogged by their 82% Placement Rate, which is a reflection more of their students’ ability to be selective than an inability to land a job. Even more, Stanford GSB ranks middle-of-the-pack or lower in measures that have little to do with outcomes: Carbon Footprint (61st) and Female Faculty (27%).

In other words, these deficiencies override impressive outcomes and satisfaction rates, a reality that shines a spotlight more on The Financial Times’ ranking methodology than Stanford student experience.

A big surprise: Berkeley Haas ranks ahead of Stanford GSB in a majority of FT categories. However, it finishes behind the GSB in key metrics like Alumni Network, Aims Achieved, Career Progress, Career Services, Salaries, and Faculty Research. However, Haas does outpoint the GSB in Pay Increase (121% vs. 117%), Placement (88% vs. 82%), ESG and Net Zero Teaching (34th vs. 94th), Sector Diversity (77th vs. 99th), and International Mobility (49th vs. 60th), which combine for a formidable 29% weight.

While Berkeley Haas came out 4 spots ahead of Stanford GSB in the 2024 Financial Times MBA Ranking, the school lost ground in most measures against the previous year, including Carbon Footprint (18th vs. 6th), Career Placement (56th vs. 22nd), Pay Increase (121% vs. 132%), Sector Diversity (79th vs. 62nd), Faculty Research (25th vs. 14th), International Course Experience (65th vs 49th), and International Mobility (34th vs. 49th).

In Westwood, UCLA Anderson notched a #2 ranking in Career Services. At the same time, it finished among the 10-best for Carbon Footprint and Faculty Research (and 20-best for Alumni Network, ESG and Net Zero Teaching). In Anderson’s case, the four-spot drop stemmed less from lower marks and more from minimal improvement (though the program fell from 33rd to 57th in Sector Diversity). Like UCLA Anderson, USC Marshall thrived in the Alumni Network and Carbon Footprint measures…while struggling in International Course Experience and International Mobility. The program’s cause was further hindered by ranking 26th for Salary, 21st for Pay Increase, 57th for Career Progress and 87th for Value for Money.

What’s ahead for California schools? Chances are, the worst is over. Stanford GSB can’t fall any lower. Thee is a strong probability, based on past performance, that the GSB will boomerang back into the Top 10. Berkeley Haas has already proven to be a Top 10 staple and UCLA Anderson and USC Marshall can take advantage of its Silicon Beach tech and innovation ecosystem to boost pay and placement as the recession recedes. Who knows? The Financial Times loves to fiddle with their methodology. Shift some weights or add a new metric (Student Satisfaction) and we might be talking about how California business schools again made a slingshot up the rankings. Time will tell…

Harvard Business School

7) Does The Financial Times Fully Measure Excellence?

Something doesn’t look right. The order seems out of place. It stretches credibility and makes you question everything.

That is the case with the 2024 Financial Times MBA Ranking. On the surface, you might shrug with Wharton claiming 1st. You’ll crack a smile when new blood like SDA Bocconi and IESE Business School get some love. You might even exclaim “Someone finally gets it” after you see Cornell Johnson among the Top Ten.

Then it hits you: Where’s Harvard? Where’s Booth? Why can’t I find Stanford?

That’s why The Financial Times Ranking acts as the proverbial double-edged sword. You love that it doesn’t cluster the usual suspects at the top. At the same time, you wonder how a ranking can be reliable when 21 spots separate #3 SDA Bocconi from #24 Stanford.

So let the nitpicking about FT’s methodology begin…

A 10% weight for faculty research? Professors may uncover intriguing trends and develop groundbreaking models…but does that mean they can connect with students and actually teach? Combine international and female faculty, students, and board members and you get a 14% weight. Question is, does equity translate to excellence? Employment within three months of graduation? Discriminates against top-end graduates who can afford to wait for the right opportunity at the right organization. A 5% weight for Faculty with Doctorates? Who says a research background makes for better teaching than executive warhorses? Carbon footprint? At a 5% weight, is a footprint truly more valuable than alumni views on the effectiveness of their Career Services or Alumni Network?

And then there is the biggest omission of them all. The Financial Times actually asks alumni to score their alma maters on their satisfaction with various aspects of their MBA experience. Genius! However, the FT doesn’t even bother to include this score among the measures considered in the ranking. That’s right, Satisfaction – how an alum perceives the value of their experience – isn’t even factored into the FT ranking. That’s bad luck for Stanford GSB, which has averaged a near perfect Satisfaction score on a ten-point scale for two years running. What about Harvard Business School and Chicago Booth? They scored an impressive 9.636 and 9.56 in Satisfaction respectively in 2024. Compare that to the Top 5 programs’ Satisfaction scores: Wharton (9.198), INSEAD (9.155), Columbia (9.225), SDA Bocconi (8.997), and IESE (9.603). If you gave a 10%-15% weight to Student Satisfaction – the ultimate indicator of a program’s success – you might see an entirely different ranking!

Just look at Harvard Business School, which ranks among the elite in most of the highly-weighted metrics. Salary accounts for a 16% weight and HBS ranks 2nd to Stanford GSB at $246,509. The school also finished runner-up to the Wharton School in Faculty Research, which carries at 10% weight. Salary increase? Well, that’s a bit problematic as Harvard Business School’s 112% increase doesn’t factor in how higher-ranked programs tend to bring in highly-talented professionals who are often making low six figures. As a result, lower-ranked programs often report an artificial high percentage since their baseline was smaller.

HBS also carries a disadvantage in Value for Money, a calculation that mixes salary, course length, tuition, and other costs, including income lost during an MBA Program. While Value for Money is worth just 5%, it puts programs with high costs of living, such as urban programs, at another disadvantage. Even more, it fails to factor in which programs are most generous with financial aid – money that can reduce some of the upfront costs. In Harvard Business School’s case, students were showered with $43 million dollars in aid during 2022. with 10% receiving full tuition according to Harvard Magazine. In other words, HBS would probably rank a little higher than 93rd if financial support was added to Value for Money calculations.

Even more, HBS tends to score lower on less performance-driven metrics. Carbon Footprint: Think 17th. Faculty with Doctorates? They hit 88%, good for ranking near the bottom fourth at a 5% weight. ESG and Net Zero Teaching? HBS ranks 90th in a measure that somehow carries the same weight as Career Progress? And that brings us to International Course Experience and International Mobility, which combine for an 8% weight. Here, HBS ranks a disappointing 77th and 56th respectively. Just one concern: Only three programs ranked among the Top 25 scored in the Top 10 in these metrics – and none were American programs that make up 15 of these 25 programs. Begs the question: Is there a problem with American business schools in these areas – or are they being measured against an instrument that sets them up to fail?

Like Harvard Business School, Chicago Booth also swims against the FT methodology. The school may as well be HBS’ twin in some ways. Look no further than International Course Experience (48th vs. 77th) and International Mobility (66th vs. 56th). ESG and Net Zero Teaching: Booth ranks 71st and HBS goes 90th. Value For Money, Booth edges HBS (89th vs. 93rd). And the pattern seems to filter into other top American programs. In International Course Experience, the ranking runs 60th (Stanford), 55th (Columbia) and 34th (Wharton). For International Mobility, you’ll see Wharton at 54th followed by Columbia (55th) and Stanford GSB (60th). Value for Money goes 76th (Columbia), 78th (Stanford), and 95th (Wharton). Finally, for ESG and Net Zero Teaching, Wharton leads the trip at 61st, following by Columbia (67th) and Stanford (94th).

Could all of these American schools – Harvard, Booth, Stanford, Wharton, and Columbia – be deficient in International Course Experience, International Mobility, ESG and Net Zero Teaching, and Value For Money? That’s a possibility. No business school can be everything to everyone (no matter how hard they try). However, the pattern also represents a possibility that these metrics are devised in such a way that they unintentionally deflate the rankings of traditionally highly-ranked MBA programs. Even more, does the exclusion of Alumni Satisfaction rates undermine programs that are militant about excellence in student support, teaching, and investment? It certainly appears to be a gap in the FT approach.

We’ll see if they make modifications for it next year. Either way, the Financial Times may be the best MBA ranking due to its expansive methodology and courage to compare every school – across the world – against the same criteria. Hopefully, they won’t be afraid to tinker in 2025.

Next Page: What’s ahead on ESG