Fordham University’s Gabelli School of Business scored the biggest year-over-year increase in the new Financial Times MBA ranking, gaining 22 places to rank 78th from 100th last year

WHARTON VS. HARVARD: A CLOSE LOOK AT THE DIFFERENCES

To better understand the way the Financial Times ranking works, it is helpful to examine the differences between ranked schools. This year the best contrasting examples are Wharton and Harvard. By examining how each of those schools’ MBA programs performed on the 21 metrics used by the FT to rank schools, you will get a good look at what the core differences are and why Wharton won first place for the 13th time while Harvard Business School plunged to its lowest FT rank ever.

Oddly, Harvard beats Wharton on 13 of 19 data points used by the FT to rank MBA programs. On the two remaining measures out of 21, HBS did not supply data. HBS bests Wharton on alumni salaries and the percentage increase in compensation–again the two most weighted metrics in the ranking. Harvard also beats Wharton on value for money based on alumni opinion and on the perceived value of its alumni network. Wharton bests HBS on research, ranking first vs. fifth, the most important reason Wharton came out on top. and on international students, by a mere two percentage points.

More tellingly, Harvard also beats Wharton on alumni overall satisfaction, a metric that the FT does not use in its ranking calculations. Wharton’s satisfaction score is 8.647 vs. Harvard’s 9.248. A mere glimpse at the table below would give a reader little confidence in the Financial Times‘ ranking conclusions.

VS.

BIGGEST FLAW IN RANKINGS: EUROPEAN DEANS SAY THEY ARE TOO EASILY GAMED BY SCHOOLS

The FT's formula for ranking MBA programs takes into account 21 different metrics, many of which have little or nothing to do with the quality of an MBA experience. The FT methodology, for example, does not measure the quality of an incoming class, either by standardized test scores, grades achieved in undergraduate school, or acceptance rates. While it asks alumni to rate their overall satisfaction with their programs, it does not even include that data point in its ranking.

The heavily weighted compensation data — accounting for 32% of the ranking — is taken from its alumni surveys even though alumni have every incentive to inflate their pay knowing that it will impact the rank of their alma maters. Other rankings use pay data provided by schools that adhere to rigorous reporting standards. Even worse, the FT adjusts the compensation data by a purchasing power index that favors schools in countries with high rates of poverty and much lower compensation levels. The overall enterprise, moreover, is severely biased against U.S. business schools due to several metrics that favor higher percentages of international students, faculty and board members.

A survey of business school officials at a session on rankings at last week's EFMD Deans Conference in Lisbon identified these perceived flaws

At last week's EFMD Deans Conference in Lisbon, business school administrators were asked to identify the biggest flaws in current rankings at a session focused on rankings. Number one on the list? "They are too easily influenced or gamed by schools." That is a telling criticism from a largely European crowd that is most obsessed with this particular ranking. The deans also believe they reinforce elitism and institutional privilege instead of real student outcomes. Sure enough, the FT methodology counts employment rates three months after graduation but it accounts for a mere 2% of the ranking. Such woke metrics in the FT's methodology as a school's "carbon footprint" measure (4%) and "ESG and net zero teaching" rank (3%) now account for more than three times the value of actual employment which is less likely to be gamed.

GRUMBLINGS OF A REVOLT BY DEANS

In recent years, more European deans have been openly discussing the possibility of walking away from the FT ranking, but none have done so because of its influence over applicant volume as well as student and alumni sentiment. Regardless of where an MBA program ranks, moreover, getting on a list of the world's best 100 programs, regardless of its inherent flaws, remains an important coup for a school's reputation and prestige. After all, less than 1% of the world’s 16,000 business schools are ranked.

For prospective MBA students, rankings provide a glimpse of the business school landscape. It's also best to consult a variety of rankings and do so over time because any one list in a single year is bound to contain statistical anomalies. That is why Poets&Quants annually publishes a composite ranking based on what it regards are the best lists available. In a single glance, applicants can view where each school stands on each major ranking and where there is consensus or disparities.

What often is not measured by the FT and other rankings often matters more than what can be measured. Yield--the percentage of accepted applicants who actually enroll in a program--nicely captures the demand from discerning candidates. Few MBA programs are anywhere near the current 85% yield for Harvard Business School. Yet no ranking includes yield in its metrics. The same is true of a school's endowment per student. Schools with more resources are able to hire the best faculty, attract the best students, and maintain strong relationships with employers and alumni. Yet no ranking includes that measure, either.

(The full MBA ranking is on the following pages)

Listen To Our Business Casual podcast on the FT ranking with co-hosts Fortuna Admissions' Caroline Diarte-Edwards and ApplicantLab's Maria Wich-Vila

© Copyright 2026 Poets & Quants. All rights reserved. This article may not be republished, rewritten or otherwise distributed without written permission. To reprint or license this article or any content from Poets & Quants, please submit your request HERE.