Hi Folks,

We at Veritas have always taken all of the different rankings very seriously. Where Stanford might be ranked #1 in US News, it might be ranked #8 in Business Week. Obviously, the different rankings prioritize the merits of the schools differently. This forum is good place to discuss how you guys, the MBA community, prioritize the various merits of the top programs.

Looking forward to your discussions!
Veritas Prep Admin

Over the past few years, I have been looking pretty intensely at the different b-school programs, and the BW rankings were kind of my jumping-off point. I soon became confused by the divergence among the different rankings, especially FT and WSJ.

Over time, I came to view an individual ranking, or at least a school's spot on a particular ranking, as essentially meaningless. When we look at the rankings, we usually want someone to tell us, "Which school is the best?" or "Is this school better than this other school?". And ultimately, these questions have no answer.

My view is that the rankings are useful in summary, to get a general overview of the b-school landscape. Taken together, the rankings give you a good intuitive feeling for which schools populate each tier. Considering how different BW's ranking system is from, say, WJS's methods, you can be confident that any school near the top of both is widely respected. You will not, however, be able to definitively claim that "Kellog is better than Haas". Those statements have much more to do with a particular student's interests and background than the opinion of the community-at-large.

Frankly, I appreciate the specialty rankings much more than the overall ones. For example, if you are sure you want to pursue a career in the nonprofit world, look here:
http://grad-schools.usnews.rankingsandr ... non_profit
The specialty rankings distill somewhat this obscure knowledge into an accessible reference.

In summary: don't waste your time ranking the rankings. If you're really serious about graduate school, read them all and get a gut feeling for which schools support your goals. Or, better yet, discuss your interests with someone who already understands the wide world of business schools.

I would add that rankings are best understood as a predictive model. They tell prospective students where they kind find like-minded colleagues and classmates. They tell employers where they can find employees. Without some sort of compass, there would be no way to chart a course. Beyond that, they can be a bit meaningless. Parsing the different rankings for some sort of magical difference is fruitless, as is choosing a program simply because it ranks a place or two higher on one metric. Not only that, but understand that these rankings are claiming to be objective measurements, yet they are comprised of a great deal of subjective data (peer evaluations, for instance). All told, I agree with Guy that they work best as a way to get your finger on the pulse - to understand where people like you are attending, where people are recruiting, and maybe even which schools are trending up or down. But if you are trying to gauge educational quality, or specific program offerings, you need to dig a whole lot deeper.

Maybe one of you too (spelled "too" on purpose) learned gentleman can riddle me this: If rankings don't matter, why do people from top 5 ranked schools get paid so much more than people from schools ranked in the 10-15 range?

On the contrary, that's the exact benefit I see to the rankings ... the predictive nature. The top schools attract top talent and therefore top recruiters. It becomes circular, but no less true. And I think return on investment is one of the biggest reasons to consider the rankings. It's just that the rankings alone (or even at all) can't help you much when it comes to determining where you will learn the most or discover the best fit. In other words, definitely trust in their predictive qualities, but don't bank on them for much more than that. Not sure if that makes sense.

(And to take it a step further with regard to which rankings to then adhere to, I would go straight to the attribute in question, be it recruitment or average salaries or whatever. In other words, use the raw data rather than the corresponding ranking system.)

But the rankings already take most of these variables into account. Why redo all that work when it's already done for you.

It seems to me that people that get accepted to marginal schools (literal meaning) are the ones that push the notion of not focusing too much on the rankings. People at top 10 schools, even the 9's and 10's, have eaten their humble pie and washed down that heavy meal with a pint of acceptance. People that go to schools ranked in the teens are always talking about how their school is just as good as HBS, or Stanford, or Haas. I haven't even applied yet, but even I know that Michigan is nowhere as good as Haas. Regardless of how wonderful the lifestyle in lovely Ann Arbor is.

That's why US News sells a bazillion magazines. They are indeed doing much of the work for you. But these rankings also use subjective elements, they can be manipulated (do a little research on how law schools use part-time students to game the rankings and how US News is responding), and they only help so much with identifying fit.

Look, I'm someone who largely values the rankings and think that grad school is the time to take them into account, and heavily at that. But the research shouldn't stop there, that's all. Good stuff though. Is there a more interesting topic than school rankings? Maybe LeBron James signing with the Knicks or the underrated nature of Titian's paintings. That's about it.

I believe "Diana and Actaeon" just sold for like $50 million dollars, that's plenty appreciation. Speaking of money, Lebron should go where the money is, he can play street ball if he's looking to enjoy himself. The question is: will his career be able to withstand being on the Knick's roster? Even the savior of basketball might not be able to rebuild purgatory into something more grand.

Speaking of going where the money is: I noticed that the average exiting salary of school's in the top 10 of US News is nearly 20% greater than those in the 11-20 range. So it looks like Haas and Tuck take the lead over University of Texas (Austin) and Yale.

FT started runing a new ranking called "ranking of the rankings", which weight the majors rankings and give you a perpective of those schools that still managed to make it to the top 10.

http://media.ft.com/cms/4bdda8dc-afba-1 ... 9e2340.pdf

Another important thing to consider is the size of the class. It is not the same to share the benefits a school can offers amoung 100-300 graduates, than to share the same with 1000+. You can find information about class size in http://www.topmba.com and in the Business week MBA site.

Above is just my humble opinion. Good luck in your search!

Thanks for the info. You can also learn more about the top programs on our web site: http://www.veritasprep.com/mba/business-school/. Towards the right, you can click on any of those schools to learn more.

I like the idea of looking at a schools class size before determining fit. Ultimately, you're right in thinking that students share resources.