What are the major business school rankings?
Are there other business school rankings besides these?
What are specialty rankings?
Why are there so many rankings?
What are some of the main criteria that business rankings examine?
How can there be such differences in rank among the surveys for the same school?
How can a school rise or fall sharply within one year on the same ranking?
Do the rankings offer any real benefits?
What are the pitfalls of the rankings?
Should schools manage to the rankings?
How can I find out more about the methodology of each ranking?
Are there other places to find data on programs other than in published ranking tables?

What are the major business school rankings?
There are currently six major business school rankings. Four of these are primarily interested in U.S. schools: Bloomberg Businessweek (BBW), Forbes, U.S. News and World Report (USN) and The Wall Street Journal (WSJ). The other two, The Economist and Financial Times (FT), are both from the United Kingdom and are much more global in scope.

For MBA programs, there are five current major rankings: BBW and Forbes are both biennial, while USN, Economist and FT are all annual. The WSJ discontinued its annual rankings after the publication of the 2007 results.

For Executive MBA (EMBA) programs, there are four: BBW and WSJ are biennial, while USN and FT are annual.

For part-time MBA programs, as well as undergraduate (BBA) programs, there are only two rankings: BBW and USN. BBW is biennial for part-time MBA programs, but annual for BBA programs. USN is annual for both.

Are there other business school rankings besides these?
The following organizations also routinely rank MBA programs: The Aspen Institute’s Beyond Grey Pinstripes, AmericaLatina Magazine (South America), Expansion Magazine (Mexico) and Hispanic Business Magazine. The Princeton Review also publishes guidebooks on business schools and programs, which sometimes include popularity rankings of certain aspects of programs, but it does not provide overall rankings of schools. See also specialty rankings.

What are specialty rankings?
Specialty rankings cover departments or concentrations, such as accounting, marketing, international business and entrepreneurship; classes or skills, such as macroeconomics or quantitative analysis; and sometimes programs within departments, such as the master of professional accounting (MPA) program.

At the graduate level, U.S. News and World Report publishes an annual ranking of 10 business specialties. Financial Times includes an alumni ranking of four specialties in its annual ranking of MBA programs. The Public Accounting Report ranks graduate (MPA) and doctoral (Ph.D.) programs.

At the undergraduate level, both U.S. News and Bloomberg Businessweek annually rank 12 specialties following separate methodologies. The Public Accounting Report also ranks undergraduate accounting programs.

Why are there so many rankings?
The short answer: it’s profitable. There has been a strong interest in both business and business education in the U.S. for many decades. There are hundreds of business schools, many of which are well-connected with the business community and whose graduates receive good jobs and excellent salaries, both at the undergraduate and graduate level. Magazines and newspapers have capitalized on this societal interest—and our love of rankings in general—because their readership is highly interested and is, therefore, willing to buy the publications. To distinguish themselves from each other, the media outlets construe differing methodologies. Each potentially offers a different perspective of quality.

What are some of the main criteria that business rankings examine?
Among the major rankings of MBA programs, the top criterion by far is salary and job placement, followed, at a distance, by student and alumni satisfaction with the program, recruiter satisfaction and admissions data (average GMAT score, grade point average, work experience, etc.).

With Executive MBA rankings, peer assessment by EMBA program directors and deans holds the top position, followed closely by student and alumni satisfaction. Salary, placement and corporate satisfaction with graduates come next.

The two rankings of undergraduate (BBA) programs mainly consider peer assessment by deans and program directors, student satisfaction, admissions data (average SAT, faculty-student ratio, average class size, etc.) and recruiter perceptions.

A variety of other criteria—such as faculty publications, alumni network, management skills, international exposure and student body diversity—receive small weightings throughout. See our ranking methodologies pages for more details.

How can there be such differences in rank among the surveys for the same school?
The obvious answer is the difference in methodologies. Ranking surveys justify their existence by showing different perspectives or angles on the various institutions. But another answer, which magazines are loathe to discuss, is the tight clustering that frequently occurs in these rankings. By not publishing raw scores and providing only ranks, the reader cannot see the groupings among schools, or the gaps between them. Large discrepancies in rank may be more illusion than reality. See pitfalls below for more details.

How can a school rise or fall sharply within one year on the same ranking?
There are many reasons for volatility in rank. The main one has to do with how tightly the schools cluster, so that the slightest change in score can send a program soaring or tumbling in rank (see pitfalls below). Rankings involving student or recruiter satisfaction tend to change more readily. Shoddy methodology, changes in methodology, changes in how the data were collected and poor response rates are just a few of the challenges.

Of course programs can rise or fall simply on what is being measured, but usually such change happens gradually over many years, not suddenly in one season. Many rankings try to offset volatility by including a “memory” factor in their methodologies: for instance, counting the current year scores at 50 percent and the scores of each of the two previous surveys at 25 percent.

A simple method to offset volatility that the prospective student can use is to ignore the rank and look at approximate ranges—say, the upper third, middle third and lower third. The most recent ranking of doctoral programs by the National Research Council uses ranges rather than traditional numbers to rank 5,000 Ph.D. programs at 212 institutions. Unfortunately, business disciplines were not included.

Do the rankings offer any real benefits?
Rankings provide an initial roadmap to the hundreds of programs out there, giving the prospective student some idea of a program’s clout or reputation. Published rankings usually include a number of data points (starting salaries, average GMAT scores, etc.), which—at least in theory—have been collected in a standardized way. This allows one to compare programs apples to apples. Diverse methodologies highlight various attributes, strengths and weaknesses, which might otherwise be overlooked. Schools can potentially identify shortcomings for improvement.

What are the pitfalls of the rankings?

• The Absence of Scores: Almost all of the rankings publish only ranks and do not provide the raw scores on which those ranks are based. Hence, there is no way to see clustering among the scores or gaps between them. It is possible, for instance, for 10 schools to be in a statistical tie, but one will be ranked No. 14 and another school, essentially of the same strength, No. 24. Conversely, schools ranked fifth and sixth appear to be very similar, despite—for all we know—a chasm between them.
• Inaccurate Data: Try as they might to collect data systematically and objectively, the staff running the rankings frequently does not end up with accurate data. Questions must be worded very precisely, which doesn’t always happen. For instance, what is meant by “full-time faculty”? Does “full-time” mean employed on a full-time basis in the program, in the school or at the university? What about instructors cross-listed with other departments? Or is the term a colloquial way of asking who is tenure-track? Does “faculty” include visiting faculty, adjunct faculty and emeritus professors? If the terms are not well defined—and frequently they are not—the answers can vary enormously. And when schools are clustering tightly in scores, this can really matter.
• Self-Reported, Unaudited Data: School data is being reported by, well, the schools. One hopes that they take the higher, ethical road for their answers. But in light of poorly worded questions—which are open to interpretation—might schools answer in their best interests? Only Financial Times audits schools on their data (approximately every four to five years). All other surveys rely on good faith.
• Hidden Bias: As with any survey, hidden factors come into play. Take salary, for instance, which is the most heavily weighted criterion among the major MBA rankings. Starting salary stated plainly in U.S. dollars seems objective enough. But without adjusting for industry sector or cost of living, these figures can be misleading in the context of a ranking. Starting salaries in finance and consulting, as well as in Europe, the Middle East and bicoastal U.S. cities, are higher than those for other jobs and in other places. Schools heavily invested in those job sectors or located in those regions will necessarily outrank schools that are not. In effect, each ranking criterion has a potential bias of which the average reader is unaware, and which, arguably, has little to do with the strength of the program.
• Shortcomings of Metrics: Rankings rely on things that can be measured, like the percentage of students employed at graduation, grade point averages, selectivity in admissions, etc. They may also conduct satisfaction surveys among students or recruiters. But it is very difficult to find metrics for, or design surveys to capture, subjective criteria such as: intellectual vigor, creative thought, ambition, leadership, teaching quality, teamwork, interpersonal skills or innovation in the curriculum. Since the rankings purport to reflect program excellence, it is important to keep in mind what is taken into account and what is not.

Should schools manage to the rankings?
Schools are left with a difficult decision about whether to attempt to raise their standing in the rankings. It would seem to be a no-brainer to increase rank as much as possible, since rankings potentially affect applications from prospective students, donations from alumni and even the hiring of new faculty. Many schools likely identify low-hanging fruit among the various criteria that they can increase without too much cost. Rankings may also help schools identify shortcomings.

On the other hand, managing to the rankings will frequently be at odds with a program’s best interests. Schools want to set their strategic goals on offering the best holistic education for the long-term success of the student.

A few examples illustrate the difficulties:

• Raising the GMAT average significantly might mean downplaying other admission factors (excellent work experience, leadership and interpersonal skills, etc.) critical to forming a balanced class.
• Increasing starting salary at graduation could require admitting a class skewed to finance and consulting (which typically offer the highest remuneration), at the expense of entrepreneurship, marketing, operations, information technology and nonprofit interests.
• Satisfying recruiters looking to fill a specific job may not be in the best interests of the student looking for a satisfying, long-term career, which presumably is why he or she came to business school in the first place.
• Maximizing student satisfaction for a good rating on a survey may be at odds with maintaining academic rigor and quality of the learning environment.

And it is important to keep in mind that these rankings are part of the marketing strategies of magazines and newspapers. To what extent are academic goals fully in line with these?

How can I find out more about the methodology of each ranking?
For a brief and objective overview, check out our ranking methodologies pages.  For more details, consult the methodology published with each ranking and usually available online. Most of the journals do a fair job of stating their techniques with some degree of detail; however, keep in mind that they have an invested interest in promoting their survey’s strengths and downplaying their weaknesses.

The Poets and Quants website also provides MBA ranking commentary and critique. The site was started by John A. Byrne, former executive editor at BusinessWeek, who was responsible for launching the first MBA rankings more than two decades ago.

Are there other places to find data on programs other than in published ranking tables?
Yes. The internet has revolutionized access to school data.

At the master’s level, the Graduate Management Admissions Council (GMAC), owner and administrator of the GMAT exam, runs MBA.Com, which provides information on admissions, tuition, class profiles, academics and careers on full-time, part-time and executive MBA and MS programs. A few doctoral programs are included. The MBA Career Services Council (MBA CSC) provides very detailed career data on MBA programs. For both of these organizations, schools update their data annually and agree to report their data according to precise, industry-standard guidelines. Schools are routinely audited.

In addition to, but apart from, their rankings both U.S. News and World Report and Bloomberg Businessweek provide exhaustive profiles on undergraduate and graduate programs. The Princeton Review also offers good overviews of colleges and MBA programs, but is stronger on the latter.

Caveat: Data not covered specifically by GMAC or MBA CSC guidelines are unaudited and may not be consistently reported in these three profiles.