5) Why American Programs Rank Lower Than Expected

Harvard Business School – 13th.

University of Chicago’s Booth School – 17th.

Dartmouth College’s Tuck School – 20th.

Yale School of Management – 24th.

University of Michigan’s Ross School – 29th.

New York University’s Stern School – 31st.

Often times, it seems like American business schools are ranked a few spots lower than you’d expect in The Financial Times. Maybe it is because they are insulated in the U.S. News and Bloomberg Businessweek rankings – protected from head-to-head with phenoms like INSEAD or upstarts like IESE Business School. Of course, there may be another reason. Every business school ranking has a baked-in view of what’s truly valuable. That’s true of The Financial Times. Question is, how does these values potentially distort the truth.

A PENALTY FOR HIGH PRE-MBA PAY

Take Salary Increase. Seems innocuous on the surface: “average difference in alumni salary from before the MBA to now.” Just one problem: it penalizes larger American and European schools that can choose among the high potentials earning the highest pre-MBA pay. Among the Top 10 for the highest percentage of growth, you’ll find nine Indian and Chinese programs, whose improvement ranges from 187%-249%. Just one issue: The Financial Times may share what MBA grads are earning within three years of graduation – with adjustment for variations between sector – but it doesn’t list each school’s pre-MBA bases.

Why does that matter? If you are a school that attracts students with lower pre-MBA pay, you have a wider space to improve. This lower pay further increases the probability of scoring a higher percentage on Salary Increase. Given its 16% weight, this measure tamps down on American programs like Yale SOM (123%), Chicago Booth (121%), Harvard Business School (119%) Northwestern Kellogg (118%),  Dartmouth Tuck (118%), UC Berkeley Haas (115%) – programs whose pre-MBA pay often starts at $100,000 or more.

Value for Money is another troublesome dimension. “Calculated using salary today, course length, tuition and other costs,” the recipe also includes “income forgone during the MBA.” This mix creates another disadvantage as full-time American MBA programs generally last two years. As a result, their costs – including tuition and lost income – would be double many of the one-year programs common in Europe and Asia. Case in point: The bottom 20 for Value for Money includes many top two-year American programs, including Harvard Business School, Wharton School, UC Berkeley Haas, MIT Sloan, Northwestern Kellogg, Chicago Booth, UCLA Anderson, Carnegie Mellon Tepper, Dartmouth Tuck, NYU Stern, and Yale SOM. In addition, Value for Money’s Bottom 20 nets two of Europe’s top two-year programs: IESE Business School and the London Business School. In other words, the odds are stacked against two-year American programs in Value for Money – to least at a 5% weight.

A GLARING OMISSION

The International component of the Financial Times Global MBA Ranking is further leveraged against American schools. The percentage of International Faculty constitutes a 3% share of the weight. Here, just two American graduate business schools – Hult and Columbia – make it into the Top 35 for highest percentage. International students also represent a 3% share. Again, just two American schools creep into the Top 35. That number is five American schools among the Top 35 in International Board Members, which brings a 1% weight,

Together, Salary Increase, Value for Money, and International measures add up to a 28% weight that is stacked up against American business schools.

To some, Three-Month Placement – a 2% weight – is another dimension that favors non-American schools. After all, top MBAs can often afford to wait for the right opportunity. In Placement, Virginia Darden (90%) and Dartmouth Tuck (89%) are the only Top 20 American MBA programs found among the 30-highest rates. Another bias is rooted in an omission: Alumni Satisfaction. Not weighted in the Global MBA Ranking, Satisfaction is based on FT’s alumni survey. Here, you’ll find seven ‘name’ American MBA programs among the 15-highest satisfaction rates: Harvard Business School, Chicago Booth, Dartmouth Tuck, Michigan Ross, Northwestern Kellogg, Duke Fuqua, and MIT Sloan.

Still, American schools enjoy several noticeable advantages. 16 of the 25 highest-scored Alumni Networks are found in American schools (led by Dartmouth Tuck). In Business Research – worth a 10% weight – American programs represent 19 of the 25 schools in the field. When it comes to Alumni Satisfaction, American business schools again pace the field, boasting 17 of the highest 25 scores.

If Student Satisfaction – maybe the most important dimension of them all – received just a 5% weight, imagine how much the FT Ranking could be disrupted…particularly in favor of American programs?  By their nature, nearly a third of the FT’s weighted dimensions tap into American disadvantages. That’s a deep hole to overcome – and why American schools may be a little stronger than The FT shows.

6) China & India On The Rise

The future is in the East. It’s fashionable thing to say. China is an economic powerhouse, perfectly positioned in automation and AI. India has been following in China’s footsteps, experiencing impressive growth that could eventually produce the world’s largest consumer market.

To move to the next level, these countries will be leaning on business education. Their investments here showed in the 2025 Financial Times Global MBA Ranking. This year, China placed six schools in the Top 40: CEIBS (12th), Shanghai University of Finance and Economics (15th), Peking University (25th), Fudan University (30th), Tongji University (31st), and the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology (37th). On top of that, Hong Kong University ranked 41st. Last year, there were five Chinese business schools in the Top 40, led by CEIBS (21st) and the Shanghai University of Finance and Economics (24th). In 2023, just two Chinese programs cracked the Top 40 (excluding Hong Kong University and the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology at 41st and 42nd respectively).

HIGH PLACEMENT AND SATISFACTION IN CHINA

In other words, China’s footprint is growing in the graduate business space. CEIBS – ranked by The Financial Times as the world’s #5 MBA program in 2019 and 2020 – heads the class. Notably, CEIBS posted the 7th-best index score for Career Progress, which combines post-MBA seniority level with the size of their organization. Along with making the Top 20 for ESG and Net Zero Teaching, CEIBS also acts as one of China’s most cosmopolitan MBA programs, with 51% of the class being female and 59% of the faculty hailing from outside China.

In contrast, the Shanghai University of Finance and Economics stands out for outputs. It ranked 6th for weighted US salary at $226,494 – a base higher than graduates from Northwestern Kellogg and the London Business School were earning within three years of graduation. That isn’t the only output where Shanghai University outpaces most of its peers. The school reports a 99% placement rate within three months of graduation, along with achieving the 4th-best score for Career Progress and the 6th-best Value for Money score, with the latter balancing current pay against program length, tuition and costs, and lost income. When Shanghai University graduates were surveyed about their Career Services ad Alumni Network, they averaged the 2nd- and 4th-best scores respectively. So why doesn’t the program rank higher. Simple: it ranks near the bottom in Research, International Mobility, and Carbon Footprint.

China was also responsible for this year’s splashiest debut: Tongji University School of Economics and Management. It followed a similar blueprint as Shanghai University. In particular, Tongji University achieved a 238% pay increase over their pre-MBA salary, with the school maintaining a 96% placement rate. Graduates were also bullish about the support received at Tongji University; survey-takers gave their alma mater the 4th- and 12th-best scores for Career Services and Alumni respectively.

A PASSAGE TO INDIA

Indian business schools were nearly as impressive in the FT Ranking, headed by the Indian School of Business (27th) and IIM Ahmedabad (31st). Overall, eight Indian business schools dotted the Global MBA Ranking, matching the total of France. It is also double the number of Indian programs in the ranking in 2022 (with six Indian schools listed in 2023 and 2024).

In India, you’ll find fewer of the extreme highs-and-lows than China. However, the Indian School of Business and IIM Ahmedabad follow a similar pattern as top MBA programs in China. ISB graduates achieved a 95% three-month placement rate and a 247% salary increase over their pre-MBA position. By the same token, ISB survey-takers gave their alma the 4th-highest score for their Alumni Network and the 19th-best for Career Services. However, diversity served as ISB’s Achilles Heel. While women make up 47% of ISB’s MBA class, just 1% of ISB students hail from outside India. And the percentage of international and female faculty members stands at 15% and 17% respectively.

IIM Ahmedabad can also promote its outputs. Within three years of graduation, IIM Ahmedabad alumni are pulling in $219,647 in weighted base pay, over $33,000 more than their counterparts at the Indian School of Business. This amount also ranks 8th-best in the world (and 2nd-best outside the United States). The school also finished 1st in Career Progress. Again, diversity dogs IIM Ahmedabad, with the school reporting 2% non-Indian students and just 3% of faculty who hail from outside India.

WHAT’S NEXT IN ASIA?

Alongside these schools, IIM Bangalore (57th), IIM Calcutta (61st), and IIM Indore (69th) also rank high in the Financial Times Global MBA Ranking. Of course, China and India aren’t the only countries with top-flight business schools on the ascent. Look no further than Singapore’s Nanyang Business School, which squeezed into the 22nd spot (and finally outranked the National University of Singapore in the process). It has risen 16 spots over the past three years, buoyed by a 4th-place finish in Value for the Money. Unlike many Asian business schools, Nanyang Business School didn’t suffer steep drops in Diversity or Sustainability measures, with its lowest rankings coming in the Alumni Effectiveness (77th) and Career Services (73rd) measures.

While Chinese and Indian programs are clearly on the ascend, they are bound to quickly hit a ceiling. Research accounts for 10% of the FT weight – and Hong Kong University and the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology are the only Asian programs to rank in the Top 25 for this measure. And Indian schools account for six of the bottom 10 rankings for Research. Aside from International Course Experience – where Asian schools represent 10 of the top 25 institutions – Asian programs struggle in nearly every ‘International’ category (particularly international students and faculty). To better compete, they’ll need to woo more MBA candidates away from Europe and the United States. Considering the increasing importance of China and India in the international ecosystem, Asian schools can make quite a strong pitch on why it pays to study in the East.