3) Columbia and Bocconi’s Exit: The FT’s Response Rate Challenge

The Financial Times MBA ranking’s credibility took a hit this cycle when it failed to secure the minimum alumni survey response rate required for inclusion — a threshold designed to ensure that the data underpinning its list are statistically meaningful. In practical terms, that failure meant two prominent MBA programs that fared extremely well in last year’s ranking — Columbia Business School, which finished second, and Bocconi School of Management, which placed fourth — are absent from the current list entirely. Rather than being judged on outcomes and performance, their omission reflects a breakdown in the mechanics of data collection.

It’s hardly the first time this has occurred. Last year, Stanford was tossed off the ranking for the same reason. In 2024, Wharton was excluded. In 2024, the FT put Michigan’s Ross School of Business in the penalty box after falling short of the required minimum of a 20% response rate, with at least 20 completed questionnaires. In addition to Columbia and Bocconi, this year the Tongji University School of Economics and Management, ranked 31st in the world last year, went missing.  Other schools have been banished from the list as well without any public notice by the British newspaper.

The survey response rate isn’t a trivial technical footnote in the FT methodology; it’s a linchpin. Alumni surveys feed several of the ranking’s core metrics — including alumni salary, career progress, salary increase, and the school’s international reach as perceived by its graduates. In fact, alumni responses inform eight of the 21 criteria used to rank MBA programs, accounting for 56% per cent of entire ranking. When too few alumni respond, the FT’s own rules dictate that a program cannot be scored in those dimensions, rendering its overall ranking invalid. This year, key players simply didn’t have enough former students participate, undercutting the very foundation of the list.

That outcome raises bigger questions about the viability of the current rankings apparatus. If the FT cannot consistently secure robust data from the schools at the top of the leaderboard, then the list risks becoming selective in the wrong direction: not selective for quality, but selective for compliance. A ranking that drops last year’s No. 2 and No. 4 not because they performed poorly but because their alumni didn’t fill out surveys confuses the signal and the noise, leaving applicants and employers with a chart that’s statistically erratic and substantively incomplete.

This year some 6,265 alumni completed the FT alumni survey, with an impressive 33% response rate.  Yet, clearly this is become a fairly routine problem which raises a bunch of questions: Are these emailed surveys getting snagged in spam filters? Is this generation of MBA graduates more responsive on WhatsApp and text messaging? Would it be a responsible practice for the FT to continue to survey nonrespondents, particularly at tier one schools?

Andrew Jack, the FT‘s global education editor, defends the newspaper’s existing practices. “While the survey is open,” he tells Poets&Quants, “we issue multiple reminders to alumni to respond and notify the schools about response rates to prompt more replies. We allow schools to send reminders, as well as giving them their weekly response rates. If they still fail to make the threshold in any year, they will still be considered for the subsequent years.”

Nonetheless, the situation also speaks to broader frustration among schools and their alumni with the burdensome expectations placed on graduates to respond to a flood of surveys from third parties. In a world where schools are increasingly skeptical of opaque, resource-intensive ranking methodologies, nonresponse sends a message: alumni time is finite, and many see little value in filling out a form that moves a needle of contested relevance. If the FT wants to maintain its influence, it may need to rethink not just its weighting, but its fundamental data-collection strategy — because a ranking that can’t count its own stars is a ranking that risks being counted out.

 

4) A Changing Of The Guard In India?

The Incumbent vs. The Upstart.

It’s a story as old as time. Reputation vs. Innovation. Deep Connections vs. Tantalizing Possibilities. Long-Term Performance vs. Flashes of Potential. It’s one of the toughest questions in business: Do you stay with the steady partner who has always been there – or move onto a provider that will either revolutionize the industry or crash-and-burn?

That’s what you might be starting to see in India. Traditionally, IIM Ahmedabad has been the gold standard of graduate business education. People associate the institution with wealth, influence, connections, and best practices. However, The Financial Times reflects something different. While the Indian public has always been attuned to the rivalry between IIM Ahmedabad and IIM Bangalore, another business school is increasingly distancing itself from both.

INDIAN BUSINESS SCHOOL COMES INTO ITS OWN

You won’t find IIM Ahmedabad as the top Indian business school in the 2026 Financial Times MBA Ranking. Instead, the Indian School of Business (ISB) takes top honors – no different than the previous year. Ranked 27th in 2025, ISB vaulted 15 spots to 12th. Not only did ISB tie Nanyang Business School as the #2 MBA program in Asia, but also outranked storied American programs like Chicago Booth, Duke Fuqua, and NYU Stern. In contrast, IIM Ahmedabad climbed four spots to ISB’s old 27th spot. In other words, 15 spots now separate ISB from IIM Ahmedabad in The FT ranking.

Has ISB left behind IIM Ahmedabad for good? Probably not. Here’s the wake-up call: IIM Ahmedabad tops ISB in the most important measure of a school’s perception in the marketplace: Pay. In Weighted Salary, a measure of base salary within three years of graduation, IIM Ahmedabad grads pull in $229,074. That’s more than any Asian business school – and 5th-most across the globe. To put that number in perspective, it is more than Northwestern Kellogg or London Business School grads are making at the same point in their careers. In other words, employers are paying a premium for IIM Ahmedabad grads, a sure sign of the school’s prestige and their graduates’ post-graduation performance on the job.

That’s not to say ISB is a laggard in Weighted Salary, a dimension worth 16% of the ranking. ISB graduates are earning $201,712 after three years. That’s good for 18th in the world – and higher than counterparts from HEC Paris and Cambridge Judge. And it’s 3rd-best in Asia too. Problem is, it is more than $27,300 less per year than what IIM Ahmedabad grads make…and that gap only widens as time passes.

ISB’S ELEVATION REFLECTED IN OTHER RANKINGS

Beyond pay, ISB holds the upper hand over IIM Ahmedabad in The FT methodology – a 12:9 ratio among the 21 dimensions weighed in the ranking. In Salary Percentage Increase, a measure that compares pre- and post-MBA pay, ISB data shows a 248% increase – the best in the world! IIM Ahmedabad isn’t shabby either with a 160% increase – but it’s 14th-best in a measure that carries the same weight (16%) as Weighted Salary. In other words, the Salary Percentage Increase negates IIM Ahmedabad’s advantage in Weighted Salary.

Research enjoys the 2nd-highest weight in The FT MBA Ranking at 10%. Here, ISB outranks IIM Ahmedabad by ranking 70th compared to 87th. When The FT surveyed alumni, ISB also ranked higher than IIM Ahmedabad in the Alumni Network (6th vs. 21st) and Career Services (16th vs. 58th), dimensions worth a combined 7% weight. In fact, ISB boasts the highest-ranked Alumni Network score in Asia. What’s more, ISB enjoys distinct advantages in its percentage of Female Students (47% vs. 31%) and International Faculty (17% vs. 2%). That doesn’t count a better Carbon Footprint too. In contrast, IIM Ahmedabad tends to outscore ISB in career-related measures, such as Career Progress (3rd vs. 37th) and Value For Money (18th vs. 51st).

That’s not to say that ISB’s superiority over IIM Ahmedabad is simply a function of The FT’s ranking methodology. ISB ranked 3rd in Asia in the 2025 Bloomberg Businessweek MBA Ranking, thanks to finishing 2nd in both Networking and Entrepreneurship and 3rd in Learning. However, IIM Ahmedabad didn’t participate in this ranking. In a head-to-head in the 2025 LinkedIn Global MBA Ranking, however, ISB ranked 5th in the world – higher than any graduate business program in Asia. It also outpaced IIM Ahmedabad, which finished 17th overall (behind IIM Calcutta, no less).

IMPROVEMENT ACROSS THE BOARD IN INDIAN BUSINESS SCHOOLS

Of course, India may not be down to a two-school race in the graduate business school space. Look no further than IIM Bangalore, which ranked higher than ISB in the Bloomberg Businessweek MBA Ranking. It leapfrogged 23 schools to tie the University of Michigan’s Ross School at 34th. Notably, IIM Bangalore placed 4th in the world in Career Progress, just one spot below IIM Ahmedabad. It also features a board comprised of 44% women, more than triple the percentage at ISB. Maybe IIM Bangalore’s most impressive number isn’t even counted in The FT’s methodology. When IIM Bangalore alumni were surveyed, they gave the school a Satisfaction score of 9.23 on a 10-point scale. That’s higher than either ISB (8.98) or IIM Ahmedabad (8.88). More to the point, this Satisfaction score ranked 9th in the world…and the best in Asia.

As the saying goes, a rising tide lifts all boats. That’s particularly true of Indian business schools in the 2026 Financial Times MBA Ranking. IIM Calcutta rose from 61st to 53rd in the past year. Most impressively, IIM Calcutta ranked 2nd in the world for International Course Experience and 9th for Career Progress. Even more, it reported a higher salary increase for graduates than either IIM Ahmedabad or IIM Bangalore. IIM Lucknow bounced from 71st to 58th – a move made more striking by its 85th ranking just two years ago. It also placed 13th in both Career Progress and Value for Money. IIM Indore improved from 69th to 62nd, tying IIM Lucknow for 7th in International Course Experience, a measure of exchanges and internships outside a home country.

The trend of Indian schools moving up in The FT MBA Ranking continues with IIM Kozhikode, which raced up from 86th to 65th. The SP Jain Institute of Management and Research debuted at 74th. While XLRI – Xavier School of Management only inched up a spot to 82nd, it ranked 2nd to ISB in terms of a Salary Increase of 243% over pre-MBA earnings.

Bottom line: India has become the place where business schools are rapidly improving, particularly in pay and career advancement measures. Can the region’s top schools build on this progress? Could ISB (or IIM Ahmedabad) move into the Top 10 next year? Could more Indian business schools be poised to enter the Top 100 next year? The data suggests that all of these are possible in 2027. That makes India’s business schools something to watch in the coming years.

Next Page: Potential issues at Chicago Booth and Oxford vs. Cambridge

© 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.