As loyal readers of Education Post have probably noticed, The Economist published its 2014 global ranking of MBA programmes last month. That is always a major event in the relatively small world of business schools and, as in most years, it has also triggered a slew of articles and opinion pieces saying that, in the end, such rankings aren’t that important.
Advertisement
That is a position we cannot agree with and here are the reasons why:
1. Take it all with a pinch of salt
Among many MBA ranking lists, by far the most important are theThe Economist’s and the one edited by the Financial Times (FT). Others are not necessarily inaccurate or misleading, but no one can deny that these two currently carry the most weight and prestige.
Getting your qualification from a top-ranked school automatically improves the chances of landing a well paid job in most sectors
However, while both publications obviously do their homework, it is impossible not to wonder why their rankings can sometimes differ so markedly, especially regarding schools based in Europe. For example, LBS and INSEAD are much better ranked by the FT (third and fifth respectively) than in The Economist, where this time they come 15th and 18th.. In contrast, HEC Paris finds itself 21st in FT list and 4th in The Economist. Anyone tracking the performance of schools in Asia will be even more puzzled. HKUST can take pride in being both 14th and 62nd, while CEIBS is either 17th or 84th. depending on which publication you follow.
Advertisement
These variations can partly be explained by the difference in methodology. The Economist takes only four criteria into account – opening new career opportunities (35 per cent of the total figure), personal development/educational experience (35 per cent), increasing salary (20 per cent) and potential to network (10 per cent. The FT has a more detailed approach, using 20 different criteria with weightings ranging from 20 per cent to 1 per cent of the maximum total.
