How Well Are Business School Rankings Reflecting The New Challenges Particularly in CEE? Jim. Ellert Visiting Professor, IEDC and Professor Emeritus, IMD, IMTA Program Director, CEEMAN CEEMAN Deans and Directors Meeting September, 00 00 IMD International and IEDC. Not to be used or reproduced without permission.
There Is A Wide Range Of Methodologies Used To Rank Business Schools An Emphasis on Objective Indicators An Emphasis on Subjective Indicators The Financial Times: 0 indicators with the highest weights on salary data (0%) and FT research rank (0%) Business Week: survey of MBA graduates (%), survey of MBA recruiters (%), intellectual capital rating (0%) Forbes: a single indicator return on investment (00%) The Economist: data provided by business schools (0%) and student and alumni surveys (0%) U.S. News and World Report: subjective ratings by business school deans and directors (%) and recruiters (%), placement success (%), student selectivity (%) Poets and Quants: subjectively weighted blend of the prior rankings IMD/IEDC 00
Different Methodologies Produced Different Rankings in 00 Rankings of U.S. Business Schools (listed alphabetically for schools ranked in the top by at least one ranking report) Berkeley Chicago Columbia Dartmouth Harvard MIT Northwestern Stanford Michigan Wharton BW 0 Econ. 0 Forb FT USN P&Q BW = Business Week; Econ. = The Economist; Forb = Forbes; FT = The Financial Times Of London; USN = U.S. News and World Report; P & Q = Poets and Quants IMD/IEDC 00
European Rankings Also Show Divergences in 00 Rankings of European Business Schools (listed alphabetically for schools ranked in the top by at least one ranking report) Cambridge ESADE HEC Paris IdEmpresa IESE IMD INSEAD LBS Leuven Oxford BW Econ. Forb FT P&Q BW = Business Week; Econ. = The Economist; Forb = Forbes; FT = The Financial Times of London; P & Q = Poets and Quants IMD/IEDC 00
Each Business School Ranking Methodology Draws Critics: Some Representative Examples of Potential or Real Flaws Do subjective ranking surveys of dean and recruiters measure reputation (rather than actual program quality)? (Business Week, U.S. News and World Report) There are many well-known biases associated with MBA participant and graduate surveys. (Business Week, The Economist) Salary data should be adjusted for country/region differences in addition to industry adjustments. (Financial Times, Forbes) Is there a direct relationship between PhD program success and quality MBA program delivery? (Financial Times) Does origination of academic intellectual capital have a direct bearing on MBA program quality? (Business Week, Financial Times) Can MBA program quality be adequately reflected in a single measure? (Forbes) Is successful innovation in program design adequately recognized and rewarded? (general) Is there adequate validation of data provided by individual business schools? (general) IMD/IEDC 00
Are Current Bussiness School Ranking Methodologies Aligned with CEE Challenges? Probably not if we see challenges such as: developing innovative program designs increasing the stock of relevant teaching materials that are region-specific enhancing opportunities for Western accreditation IMD/IEDC 00
Is CEE Ready For a Regional Business School Ranking System? It would be difficult to agree on common and objective ranking criteria and their relative importance. There are large CEE variations across countries in salary levels and salary adjustment norms. Rankings based on reputation could discourage innovation and not give sufficient recognition to high-quality emerging schools and programs. CEE MBA recruitment is more local than regional. Do CEE Deans and Directors want to devote scarce energy to managing stakeholder expectations regarding ratings? Or are we better advised to edge out by recognizing exceptional achievements? (e.g. CEEMAN Champions Awards) IMD/IEDC 00