Click here to go to the NEW College Discussion Forum

Here is the new MBA ranking according to Business Week. The magazine will be out in 4 days:

#1 Northwestern University (Kellogg) (5th time in 9 issues)
#2 University of Chicago
#3 University of Pennsylvania (Wharton)
#4 Stanford University
#5 Harvard University
#6 University of Michigan-Ann Arbor (Ross)
#7 Cornell University (Johnson)
#8 Columbia University
#9 Massachisetts Institute of Technology (Sloan)
#10 Dartmouth College (Amos Tuck)
#11 Duke University (Fuqua)
#12 University of Virginia (Darden)
#13 New York University (Stern)
#14 University of California-Los Angeles (Anderson)
#15 Canergie Mellon University
#16 University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill (Kenan Flagler)
#17 University of California-Berkeley (Haas)
#18 Indiana University-Bloomington (Kelly)
#19 University of Texas-Austin (McCombs)
#20 Emory University (Goizueta)
#21 Purdue University-West Lafayette (Krannert)
#22 Yale University
#23 Washington University (Olin)
#24 University of Notre Dame (Mendoza)
#25 Georgetown University (McDonough)
#26 Babson College (Olin)
#27 University of Southern California (Marshall)
#28 University of Maryland-College Park (Smith)
#29 University of Rochester (Simon)
#30 Vanderbilt University (Owen)

By Thinkingoutloud (Thinkingoutloud) on Thursday, October 07, 2004 - 11:44 pm: Edit

Northwestern University is without a doubt the most over-rated MBA program ever. If a Fortune 100 company is given the choice of hiring a Northwestern grad or a Harvard, Stanford, or Wharton grad, the company will chose the Harvard, Stanford, or Wharton grad 90% of the time.

By Alexandre (Alexandre) on Friday, October 08, 2004 - 03:36 am: Edit

I disagree. I have been hiring for Fortune 500 companies for 4 years and I can tell you for a fact that Kellogg regarded as highly as Wharton and Harvard.

For the last 10 years, McKinsey has hired more Kellogg MBAs than any other, despite the fact that Harvard and Wharton are MUCH bigger and last time I checked, McKinsey is quite possibly the most exclusive and harsh employer out there.

And according to corporate recruiters, Kellogg is #1. Look at the USNWR and BusinessWeek. Both publications' corporate poll have Kellogg ranked #1.

If you look at the top 10 MBA programs' combined BusinessWeek and USNWR rankings, you will see something that is quite funny:

BUSINESSWEEK / USNWR / AVERAGE
Kellogg #1 / #5 / #3.0
Wharton #3 / #3 / #3.0
Stanford #4 / #2 / #3.0
Harvard #5 / #1 / #3.0
Chicago #2 / #6 / #4.0
MIT #9 / #4 / #6.5
Columbia #8 / #6 / #7.0
Michigan #6 / #10 / #8.0
Dartmouth #10 / #9 / #9.5
Duke #11 / #11 / #11.0


I would say that the two main MBA polls pretty much have a certain way of telling us that there are 4 top programs...and they are all about equal.

By Thinkingoutloud (Thinkingoutloud) on Friday, October 08, 2004 - 08:12 pm: Edit

Financial Times has a much more accurate ranking of MBA programs. Wharton and Harvard are number one and two. Northwestern is number 9 among American schools. Notice that the Wharton and Harvard grads make about $25,000 more per year than the Northwestern grad. That should tell you something right there.

Part of the reason ranking groups don't like Harvard and Wharton is that those schools have been trying to limit information going to the ranking groups. Harvard and Wharton do not believe rankings are helpful.

I did not say Northwestern was a bad MBA program, but it clearly is not at the same level with Wharton and Harvard.

http://rankings.ft.com/rankings/mba/rankings.html

By Slipper2002 (Slipper2002) on Friday, October 08, 2004 - 10:13 pm: Edit

Rankings for B-school are all over the place. Columbia for example is 2 in Forbes, 3 in FT, but 8 in BW.

Here's what I have observed.

Group 1
Harvard
Stanford
Wharton

Group 2
Northwestern
Chicago
Columbia
MIT

Group 3
Michigan
Tuck
UC-Berkeley
Duke

By Serin (Serin) on Friday, October 08, 2004 - 11:49 pm: Edit

what about u of minnesota carlson school of management?

By Thinkingoutloud (Thinkingoutloud) on Friday, October 08, 2004 - 11:55 pm: Edit

Slipper2002, Your grouping is pretty accurate. I am not sure I would put Duke in the third group, however. Their program has not been around in full force for as long as many others. I might substitute Darden for Duke.

By Alexandre (Alexandre) on Saturday, October 09, 2004 - 12:48 am: Edit

Thinkkingoutloud, the FT is a joke. Sorry, but the British are not qualified to rank American programs. The WSJ, Economist and Forbes are also whimsival at best. I mean, don't get me wrong, I love the fact that the WSJ ranks Michigan #1, but it is about as correct as the FT's rankings. There are only two rankings that have enough real data to be accurate. They are the USNWR and BW.

Slipper, I agree with your tiering, except I would put it like this:

TIER I:
Harvard
Kellogg
Wharton

TIER II:
Chicago
Columbia
MIT
Michigan
Stanford

TIER III:
Cal (Haas)
Dartmouth
Duke
UVA

By Kk19131 (Kk19131) on Saturday, October 09, 2004 - 12:53 am: Edit

"Northwestern University is without a doubt the most over-rated MBA program ever."

- That couldn't be more fallacious! Our school is ranked where is should be, thank you!

By Testertest (Testertest) on Saturday, October 09, 2004 - 02:07 am: Edit

How did GWB get to Harvard's MBA program?

By Thinkingoutloud (Thinkingoutloud) on Saturday, October 09, 2004 - 09:14 am: Edit

Alexandre, You belive the Financial Times is a joke because the British are not qualified to rank American programs. You belive the Wall Street Journal, The Economist (another British publication) and Forbes are whimsical. You are certainly entitled to your opinion, but it appears you have selected two publicants (Business Week and US News) to confirm your already formed opinion, rather than looking at all publications and evaluating their opinions in order to then form your own opinion. I must say I have never heard of anyone refer to the Financial Times as a joke.

By Tlaktan (Tlaktan) on Saturday, October 09, 2004 - 10:27 am: Edit

Testertest: Easy. Filed a couple forms, had a talk with the CO, and forgot to report in for duty in Alabama.

By Alexandre (Alexandre) on Saturday, October 09, 2004 - 10:45 am: Edit

Thinkingoutloud, I didn't mean the Financial Times is a joke. I meant the Financial Times MBA rankings is a joke. The FT itself is a fine newspaper. I have nothing against it.

And why do you attack me so? I am tired of people accusing me of having an agenda. What possible agenda could I have in saying that Kellogg is a top 3 Business school. I never attended Kellogg. No member of my family ever went to Kellogg. In fact, I hate Northwestern. They beat Michigan in Football 3 of the last 6 times we played them. If I had an agenda, I would be praising the WSJ, which ranks Michigan #1. But I also think that the WSJ is a joke. And if my agenda was indeed to make Kellogg the best MBA program, I would say that the Economist, Businessweek, WSJ and USNWR have it right since they rank Kellogg #1, #1, #4 and #5 respectivaly.

But like I said, I have no agenda. The fact of the matter is, I do not select rankings that suit me. I select rankings that are the least flawed. I say that because all rankings are flowed anyway. But some are less flawed than others.

By Thinkingoutloud (Thinkingoutloud) on Saturday, October 09, 2004 - 11:48 am: Edit

Alexandre, It was not my intent to attack you personally; it was my intent to attack your argument which I do not believe you have supported by calling several prestigeous publications jokes or whimsical (those were your words, not mine). If not having an agenda is a significant test, then the Finanical Times passes it. American schools dominate the Financial Times rankings rather than British and other European schools. If the Financial Times had any agenda, it would have put British schools at the top. Furthermore, businesses perceive Harvard grads as being better than Northwestern grads hence the $25,000 higher salary. Students seeking MBAs also perceive Harvard as having more value than Northwestern as measured by applicant yield (percent of those admitted to attend). I could not find more recent figures, but for 2000, Harvard had a yield of 85 percent and Northwestern had a yield of 66 percent. I am willing to bet that (assuming it was possible) if you could find 1000 students who only applied to Harvard and Northwestern and were admitted to both, over 90 percent would choose Harvard.

By Alexandre (Alexandre) on Saturday, October 09, 2004 - 12:51 pm: Edit

Thinkingoutloud, I agree that Harvard has an edge in terms of appeal for students. I would say Stanford does too. Maybe Wharton. But that's about it. No other MBA program has a higher appeal to potential students than Northwestern.

As for starting salaries, I do not need to tell you that cost of living has a role to play. Most Harvard MBAs work in the Northeast. Most Northwestern MBAs work in the Midwest. When adjusted, the starting salaries for the top 10 programs are about equal. I know this for a fact because I was part of strategic recruiting at Goldman Sachs, Ford, Schwab and Eton...and all 4 companies paid identical salaries to students from top 10 MBA programs.

Another factor that goes into starting salaries is the industries MBA students decide to join. Most Wharton, Stanford, Columbia and Harvard MBAs go into Investment Banking and Consulting. Most MIT, Michigan, Chicago and Kellogg MBAs go for General Management programs, Operations and Marketing. That explains why the mean package for MBAs from the former programs is in the $145,000 and the mean package for MBAs from the latter programs is in the $125,000 range.

But like I said, when Goldman Sachs hires MBAs from Kellogg and Harvard, they pay them the exact same salaries. Same with Ford, Eton and Schwab. And no, recruiters do not think higher of Harvard than they do of Kellogg. That seems to be your opinion, but companies have voiced theirs, and they are pretty clear on whom they favor. Kellogg and Harvard are pretty much equal in their eyes.

By Thinkingoutloud (Thinkingoutloud) on Saturday, October 09, 2004 - 02:59 pm: Edit

Student reported numbers from Harvard and Kellogg web sites for class of 2003.

In Los Angeles: Harvard $115,000, Kellogg $89,100.

In Chicago: Harvard $120,000, Kellogg $91,400.

In Washington D.C.: Harvard $110,000, Kellogg $86,500.

Same cost of living by city, but significantly different result in pay.

I have not seen any data on incomes 20 years after graduting from Grad B School, but I suspect the disparity in income would be even more dramatic.

By Celebrian23 (Celebrian23) on Saturday, October 09, 2004 - 04:14 pm: Edit

does anyone else trust business week more than us news? I do, they don't really have to have some big surprise every year like us news

on a side note, i'm glad unc-ch is in the top 20, for that's where i hope to go for grad school

By Alexandre (Alexandre) on Saturday, October 09, 2004 - 05:11 pm: Edit

Thinkingoutloud, like I said, Kellogg is on par with Harvard. If Harvard MBAs working for McKinsey in LA earn more than Kellogg MBAs working for Amgen in LA, I would not be surprised. But I know for a fact that Goldman Sachs, Ford, Eton and Schwab...and as well as McKinsey and Cisco for that matter, pay Kellogg MBAs the exact same salaries as Harvard MBAs. I also know for a fact that when asked to rank the best MBA programs, Fortune 500 recruiters rank Kellogg on par with Harvard.

Celebrian, I trust BW and USNWR about the same. I think taken together, you get a very good comprehensive look at the top programs.

By Celebrian23 (Celebrian23) on Saturday, October 09, 2004 - 05:47 pm: Edit

i think they're good for figuring out what the great programs are, but not necesarily for comparing the schools ranked very closely, like using the logic, my school is ranked 5th, your school is ranked 6th, therefore my school is better

By Originaloog (Originaloog) on Saturday, October 09, 2004 - 07:08 pm: Edit

testertest, how do you think Dubya got in? He was rejected for admittance into UT's MBA program.