Best B-Schools
Bloomberg Businessweek – Business Schools
http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-11-15/the-complete-2012-business-schools-ranking
The table below shows how each school fared on each element of Bloomberg Businessweek’s ranking methodology: our student surveys, employer surveys, and intellectual capital measure. The 2012 rank is based on the ranking index, which represents the weighted total of all three elements. (Index numbers have been rounded and what appear to be ties are not.) A methodology change this year resulted in some big shifts, including Southern Methodist’s fall from No. 12 to No. 29. For more information, see our methodology and historical ranking.
International Business Schools
|
Rank 2012 |
Rank 2010 |
School |
Student Survey Rank |
Employer Survey Rank |
Intellectual Capital Rank |
Ranking Index |
|
1 |
5 | London Business School | 4 | 2 | 2 | 100.0 |
|
2 |
1 | INSEAD | 5 | 1 | 3 | 99.6 |
|
3 |
3 | IE Business School | 1 | 12 | 18 | 91.3 |
|
4 |
2 | Queen’s | 3 | 5 | 11 | 90.3 |
|
5 |
16 | Oxford (Saïd) | 8 | 7 | 6 | 81.7 |
|
6 |
4 | ESADE | 10 | 6 | 16 | 78.0 |
|
7 |
6 | Western Ontario (Ivey) | 9 | 8 | 14 | 77.1 |
|
8 |
12 | IESE | 6 | 11 | 5 | 76.1 |
|
9 |
7 | IMD | 2 | 14 | 17 | 75.6 |
|
10 |
11 | McGill (Desautels) | 15 | 3 | 8 | 72.7 |
| 11 | 8 | Toronto (Rotman) | 19 | 4 | 1 | 62.8 |
| 12 | NR | Mannheim Business School | 12 | 10 | 15 | 61.1 |
| 13 | NR | Imperial College London | 7 | 16 | 13 | 60.7 |
| 14 | 9 | York (Schulich) | 17 | 9 | 7 | 59.9 |
| 15 | 14 | HEC-Paris | 13 | 13 | 9 | 55.2 |
| 16 | 18 | SDA Bocconi | 16 | 15 | 12 | 43.6 |
| 17 | NR | Erasmus (Rotterdam) | 11 | 18 | 10 | 42.4 |
| 18 | NR | Hong Kong University of Science & Technology | 14 | 19 | 4 | 33.2 |
| 19 | 17 | Manchester Business School | 18 | 17 | 19 | 29.4 |
| 20 | ||||||
US Business Schools
|
Rank 2012 |
Rank 2010 |
School |
Student Survey Rank |
Employer Survey Rank |
Intellectual Capital Rank |
Ranking Index |
|
1 |
1 |
Chicago (Booth) |
11 |
1 |
5 |
100.0 |
|
2 |
2 |
Harvard |
12 |
3 |
9 |
97.5 |
|
3 |
3 |
Pennsylvania (Wharton) |
16 |
2 |
7 |
96.5 |
|
4 |
5 |
Stanford |
8 |
5 |
11 |
95.1 |
|
5 |
4 |
Northwestern (Kellogg) |
13 |
4 |
24 |
93.7 |
|
6 |
6 |
Duke (Fuqua) |
22 |
7 |
1 |
93.0 |
|
7 |
13 |
Cornell (Johnson) |
2 |
12 |
2 |
93.0 |
|
8 |
7 |
Michigan (Ross) |
14 |
6 |
12 |
92.0 |
|
9 |
10 |
MIT (Sloan) |
9 |
10 |
15 |
90.2 |
|
10 |
11 |
Virginia (Darden) |
5 |
9 |
32 |
89.4 |
| 11 | 15 | Carnegie Mellon (Tepper) | 3 | 17 | 23 | 87.9 |
| 12 | 14 | Dartmouth (Tuck) | 4 | 11 | 20 | 87.7 |
| 13 | 8 | UC-Berkeley (Haas) | 10 | 13 | 3 | 87.6 |
| 14 | 9 | Columbia | 20 | 8 | 19 | 87.5 |
| 15 | 19 | Indiana (Kelley) | 1 | 20 | 46 | 86.6 |
| 16 | 18 | NYU (Stern) | 7 | 16 | 16 | 85.1 |
| 17 | 16 | North Carolina (Kenan-Flagler) | 18 | 14 | 25 | 80.1 |
| 18 | 17 | UCLA (Anderson) | 21 | 19 | 6 | 78.9 |
| 19 | 25 | Texas-Austin (McCombs) | 28 | 15 | 4 | 78.5 |
| 20 | 24 | Notre Dame (Mendoza) | 17 | 18 | 37 | 76.6 |
| 21 | 21 | Yale | 19 | 27 | 17 | 74.6 |
The Student Survey Rank is based on three surveys of MBA grads (2012, 2010, and 2008) with 27,523 total responses that combined contribute 45 percent to the final ranking. The Employer Survey Rank is based on three surveys of MBA recruiters (2012, 2010, and 2008) with 663 total responses that combined contribute an additional 45 percent. The Intellectual Capital Rank is based on a review of faculty research published over a five-year period in 20 top academic journals, and faculty books reviewed in the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, and Bloomberg Businessweek over the same period. It contributes the final 10 percent. The Ranking Index represents the sum of the Student and Employer surveys and the Intellectual Capital measure, and is the number on which the overall rank is based. Letter grades are based on one or more questions from the 2012 student survey. A+=top 20 percent; A=next 25 percent; B=next 35 percent; C=bottom 20 percent. No D’s or F’s awarded. Data: Bloomberg Businessweek, Cambria Consulting
Interactive table by Thomas Meimarides for Bloomberg Businessweek
♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦
MBA Programs
Bloomberg Businessweek – Business Schools
http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-01-28/mba-rankings-top-schools-for-diversity
As part of the 2012 Best B-Schools ranking, Bloomberg Businessweek asked MBAs from the Class of 2012 to tell us, via an online survey, about the full range of their business school experience, from getting in to getting a job. One section of the survey singled out specific aspects of the business program and asked the students to rate them on a scale from “poor” to “outstanding.” Over the next few weeks, we will look at the top 10 B-schools in each of nine specialty areas, from e-business to information technology, culminating with publication of the entire specialty MBA ranking, including each of the 82 ranked schools.
Today we look at diversity. Based on graduate feedback, most student survey respondents defined diversity as the combination of country of origin, gender, and ethnicity, so schools with a large international population, or a high percentage of female students, tended to fare best. With this in mind, it’s hardly surprising that eight of the top 10 MBA programs in this specialty area are based outside the U.S., as these schools tend to get a more globally diverse set of applicants.
The ranking is based on student responses to the question asking them to rank their program’s diversity. Points are awarded for each response—one point for “poor” through six points for “outstanding”—and then averaged for each school. The average diversity score for all 82 U.S. and international schools in the ranking was 4.71. At the top of the list is the Fontainebleau (France)-based INSEAD.
BLOG: MBA Rankings: Top Schools for Sustainability
INSEAD boasts an MBA student population that is 95 percent international. Eighty nationalities are represented in the classroom. INSEAD also benefits from having campuses in France, Singapore, and Abu Dhabi. “The diversity at INSEAD is unparalleled,” says 2012 MBA grad Adrian Lai. “I cannot imagine being teamed up on a group project with a Spanish architect, a French management consultant, an Indian private banker, and an Israeli intelligence officer anywhere else.”
Following INSEAD in the diversity ranks are London Business School, IMD in Switzerland, ESADE in Spain, and Thunderbird in Glendale, Ariz.
One outlier on the list is Carnegie Mellon’s Tepper School of Business, which ranks eighth. On the surface, Tepper appearing in the top 10 for diversity seems odd because the majority of students at Tepper are white, American men. True, 40 percent of MBAs at Tepper are from outside the country, which is high for a U.S. school, but the number pales in comparison with the other top schools, which average just over 87 percent. So why is Tepper on the list? Grads say it’s the school’s “diversity of thought.” Tepper routinely attracts as many students with engineering and information technology backgrounds as those with financial-services and consulting experience, which brings a valuable mix of viewpoints and experiences into the classroom.
BLOG: MBA Rankings: Top Schools for Entrepreneurship
Top MBA Programs by Specialty: Diversity
| 1. | INSEAD (France) | 5.95 |
| 2. | London Business School (U.K.) | 5.90 |
| 3. | IMD (Switzerland) | 5.74 |
| 4. | ESADE (Spain) | 5.71 |
| 5. | Thunderbird (U.S.) | 5.69 |
| 6. | IESE Business School (Spain) | 5.68 |
| 7. | Erasmus – Rotterdam (Netherlands) | 5.66 |
| 8. | Carnegie Mellon – Tepper (U.S.) | 5.59 |
| 9. | Manchester Business School (U.K.) | 5.58 |
| 10. | HEC – Paris (France) | 5.52 |
Join the discussion on the Bloomberg Businessweek Business School Forum, visit us on Facebook, and follow @BWbschools on Twitter.
♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦
How We Ranked the B-Schools
Bloomberg Businessweek
Business Schools
http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-11-15/how-we-ranked-the-b-schools
For more than two decades, this publication has been ranking full-time MBA programs, using essentially the same methodology. There have been slight modifications through the years, but for the most part, Bloomberg Businessweek judges business schools on how well they serve their two main constituencies: students and corporate recruiters.
To begin the ranking process, we sent our ranking survey to 18,640 MBA graduates from the graduating class of 2012 at 114 schools in North America, Europe, and Asia. We received 10,439 responses for a response rate of 56 percent. The Web-based survey asks students to rate their programs on teaching quality, career services, and other aspects of the B-school experience, using a 10-point scale.
The results of the 2012 survey were then combined with those from 2010, when we received 9,820 responses, and 2008, when 7,264 students answered the poll, for total responses of 27,523. We then created a weighted average of the three student surveys, with 2012 counting for 50 percent and 2010 and 2008 contributing 25 percent each.
Using our three most recent student surveys effectively ensures that short-term issues—a new B-school building or unpopular dean—won’t skew results one way or the other. As an added precaution, we also asked David M. Rindskopf and Alan L. Gross, professors of educational psychology at the City University of New York Graduate Center, to analyze the data. By running statistical tests against the survey data, Rindskopf and Gross are able to determine if there were any attempts to influence the outcome of the survey and guarantee the poll’s integrity.
The second stage of the ranking process involves a survey of employers. This year, we surveyed 566 corporate recruiters and received 206 responses for a response rate of 36 percent.
The employer survey asks recruiters to rate the top 20 schools they’re familiar with (at which they have actively recruited, on- or off-campus) on the perceived quality of grads and the company’s experience with MBAs past and present. Each No. 1 rating earns a school 20 points, each No. 2 rating gets it 19 points, and so on. Using each school’s point total—along with the information on where the company recruits and how many MBAs it hires—we calculate a recruiter score. We then combine the 2012 recruiter score with those from 2010, when we had 215 responses, and 2008, when 242 employers answered our poll, for total responses of 663. We then create a weighted average of the three employer surveys, with 2012 counting for 50 percent and 2010 and 2008 each contributing 25 percent.
For the first time in 2012, we modified the way the employer survey results are tabulated. In calculating the recruiter score for each of the three surveys, we first calculated the average number of times each school was mentioned as a recruiting target for 2008 to 2012, as well as the median of those averages for all schools in the ranking. When a school’s average was at or above the median, the three-year recruiter score was not changed. But when the average fell below the median, the score was adjusted downward to reflect the fact that fewer companies recruited there. By making this change, which we first incorporated in our ranking of undergraduate business programs in March, schools with few mentions that are all highly positive no longer have an advantage over schools with many mentions.
While the change had little impact on schools at the top of the 2012 list, it resulted in much lower ranks for some schools further down the list. The methodology change was the reason behind the fall of Southern Methodist University’s Cox School of Business from No. 12 to No. 29 and the drop by the University of Georgia’s Terry College of Business from No. 36 to No. 52.
At this stage of the ranking process, we eliminated 32 schools with poor response rates on one or more ranking surveys. Four schools had an inadequate response rate on our 2012 student survey: China-Europe Business School, DePaul, Pepperdine, and the University of California, Davis.
Sixteen schools had an inadequate response rate on our 2012 employer survey: American, Baylor, Case Western, William and Mary, Cranfield, EDHEC, HEC Montreal, Melbourne, Strathclyde, Tulane, Alberta, Arizona, UC San Diego, Cambridge, Connecticut, and Pittsburgh. Twelve schools had inadequate response rates on both surveys: Asian Institute of Technology, Baruch, Concordia, E.M. Lyon, Florida International, Grenoble Ecole de Management, Hofstra, Rouen Business School, University College Dublin, Arkansas, British Columbia, and University of Miami.
The final stage of the ranking process involves calculating the intellectual capital rating for the remaining 82 schools, tallying the number of articles published by each school’s faculty in 20 publications that range from the Journal of Accounting Research to the Harvard Business Review, and awarding extra points if a professor’s book was reviewed in the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, or Bloomberg Businessweek. When the tally was complete, the scores were adjusted for faculty size.
With all three pieces of the ranking in place, calculating the ranking is a matter of simple arithmetic. The three combined student surveys contribute a total of 45 percent, as do the the three combined employer surveys, with the intellectual capital score contributing the final 10 percent. To help readers understand each school’s relative position in the ranking—how far apart one school is from another—we also supply the ranking index number on which the final rank is based. It represents the sum total of all ranking elements and is shown on a 100-point scale.
In addition to the overall rank, we calculate each school’s relative position in the three parts of our methodology: the weighted average of the student surveys, the weighted average of the employer surveys, and the intellectual capital score. We also award letter grades, based on the 2012 student survey, that highlight each school’s performance in specific categories such as teaching quality. Since these letter grades are each based on one or more questions from the survey, some schools might have a high overall rank but a low grade in one or more areas (or vice-versa). The top 20 percent in each category earn A+s, the subsequent 25 percent get As, the next 35 percent get Bs, and the bottom 20 percent receive Cs. No Ds or Fs are awarded.
Posted by philworldwide | 29/01/2013, 11:10 pm