Some results from The Economist’s ninth ranking of international MBA programmes

Interesting, but is average job experience being weighted against average starting salary? Otherwise schools that simply cater to the already-employed are going to appear to perform much better than those that cater to youngsters trying to break into the field.

Harvard ranked #5?, Stanford ranked #8, Wharton ranked #15?
Apparently great journalism DOES NOT translate to great evaluation of business schools. This ranking has zero credibility. The Economist should go back to what it's good at and quit spreading misleading information by its using measurement metrics that NOBODY at B-school actually care about (since when did applicants care about how many languages, or how many countries were represented?)

Surely any student questioned for this study has a self-interest in grading their school as high as possible to move it up the ranking, increase its prestige, and thus the student's as a graduate of that school. Seems to me that this a fairly large methodological problem. Did the Economist make any attempt to control it?

these numbers are pure science fiction, unbelievable.

Anyone believing his/her salary will jump 100 or even 260% because of an MBA deserves being conned in paying these absurd amounts.

still, it is clearly better to stay out of work for 10-11 months instead of 2 years, and pay less in tuition fees ve similar salaries once out

Hasnt the ranking always been:

1. Harvard
2. Wharton
3. Stanford

I understand there are strong personality types who may prefer Wharton over Harvard (finance) and Stanford over Harvard (entrepreneurship) but Harvard is typically always the top choice?

It is interesting to note how low these average starting salaries are, despite an average graduating age of around 28. Here in California, the highest flying tech firms routinely pay substantially higher salaries to "kids" straight out of college.

So much for the "management getting rich off of outsourcing productive jobs to low wage countries" myth. At least in the highest profile portions of the software field.

Don't waste your breath, the only rankings of any consequence are those of FT and BusinessWeek.

Economist has some really silly criteria to judge a business schools

1. % of graduates finding jobs through career services - which clearly discounts start-ups, or people who got a job through career services but chose something else, or Consultants and Bankers who return to their "sponsoring" employer. How does it matter how you got the job - as long as you got one within 3 months of graduating.

2. Some of the criteria include the entrance criteria like the GMAT score - LBS and Insead's average GMAT is 710 and that of Harvard and Wharton is similarly in early 700s, whereas those of Indian schools in 750+...so go figure.

3. Increase in salary is measured pre and post MBA unlike FT which measures it 3 years after MBA to take into account entrepreneurs, job changers (between coutries - Forex impact) etc.

All in all - waste of my subscription money - could be spent on improving the iPhone app.

Impossible McCombs School of Business (UT Austin) is not even on the list. Should easily be in the top 15 spots. Highly recommend you guys at the Economist do some better research. Nationally ranked MBA, #1 Accounting program in the nation, #1 in best professors. Look it up.

hook 'em.

Congratulations to Tuck, their success is very well deserved. I know it is the smallest of the top schools, but it stands for what business education is all about. It's also good to see Darden up there too. Both schools have invested heavily in their quantitative aspects on their programs over the years, leading to a very rigorous education.

@SET Sail I graduated from University of Virginia's Darden Graduate School of Business in 1998 and I went from $36K pre-MBA to $85K base + commission + $20K signing bonus. So no, these numbers are not science fiction. My earnings increased over 100%.

Pffff all these "class" rankings are bullshit for me. In Spain there are also many private universities with a lot of awards, references, etc, and the difference with the public universities is that only the idiots with money who couldn't get the mark to study in the public education are attending them. Of course...learning? not at all, they are paying for the Diploma so you can guess how much they must study... :)

where is our ISB, Hyderabad ?

@SET Sail - If you can read the chart, you can see that the only 1-year programs in the top of the ranking that generate higher salaries are schools in Western Europe where (a) salaries overall are higher, and (b) students have twice as much work experience as compared to students in the American schools.

As far as salary increase goes, I know many people who went from <60K to 120K. 100% increase right there. And that is not taking into account foreign students who definitely multiply their salaries by merit of getting a post-MBA job in the US. I personally came from afar and went from $25K to $130K, do the math. There are also students after military service, sportsmen, non-profit people and former/current entrepreneurs for whom naturally the salary comparison does not make sense. So, why don't you do some research?

I was just reading this, and i searched how many top tier MBA schools in Asia. Then i noticed, for some reason, not even one MBA program in this ranking is from Japan. I am not Japanese, I have no idea how academic system work in Japan. But the result does seem a bit absurd. After all japan is the third largest economy in the world. So can anyone enlighten me ?

IMD's tuition fee of 57K is nonsense. Fees are 85,000 CHF, which is ca. $92,000.

Last time I checked Rice University was not in Spain?

I was just reading this, and i searched how many top tier MBA schools in Asia. Then i noticed, for some reason, not even one MBA program in this ranking is from Japan. I am not Japanese, I have no idea how academic system work in Japan. But the result does seem a bit absurd. After all japan is the third largest economy in the world. So can anyone enlighten me ?

@cell2011

The fact salaries are higher in Europe is only due to slightly higher average age, witness the GDP per person and all indicators you care to account for.

Still one wonders why sacrificing 2 years of wage earning life if one can do the work, right ?

Also the fact that you know people that increased more than 100% is precious, but bear in mind these are averages. So when you take numbers 9 and 10, quoting some 127 and 150% respectively, you realize that All students at those universities scored that much right ? Cookoo land

Oh, why don'I do research ? I actually hire mbas, for some years now...guess I get to see only unlucky ones

I really enjoyed this article and be a college student, I found this article very insightful. I knew that a Master's degree in Business Administration is one of the top ranking Master's degrees that can be obtained. I found it interesting that Harvard feel down to third in the rankings. That goes to show that Harvard may not be that far ahead of other schools. Harvard always had the reputation of the "best" school, but these rankings show that the playing field is becoming more evened out. The average starting salaries coming out of these schools is very appealing, but how much does that increase over time? I would expect it to increase by a substantial amount, but I think they should have included that in the chart. The problem is, being such top schools they are extremely difficult to get into so I would like to see a chart of non top 25 business schools and see how they compare to these top schools. The most import thing factored in is potential growth prospect, by how much are the pays of these jobs going to increase over time? Overall, this article just shows that obtaining and using a MBA will lead to a successful career and a good incoming salary.

There seems to be a lot of hurt pride and damaged ego on here!

Firstly, I think Tuck is a fantastic school with a unique education, and there are also some excellent other schools (if your school isn't Tuck, then there's no need to slate the system and feel insecure - your school is also probably very good!). As I remember, somewhere over 70% of all alumni give back to Tuck each year, so you have to cut the school some slack in its profound effect upon its student body and their lives, especially when you think that the next highest is around the mid-30%.

The top schools, maybe the top ten, are all very good schools. If you apply to them and get accepted to them, you will see that each have unique traits, so if you get accepted by more than one then see how it fits you in terms of teaching, lifestyle and content. Also, see what type of person they are that attends these schools, not by GMAT, but by their backgrounds, their character, their nature and their friendliness. Not all schools are the same, so take time to find out what suits you best.

This brings me to my point. Any of the top schools will give you the chance at the career you want, so think about where you want to spend 2 years (and several hundred thousand dollars) of your life, and with what type of people you want to be associated with going forward. That's the most important thing.

Yes, I can drive a coach and horses through any ranking and metric, but for this ranking you should be pleased for Tuck and accept that under this criteria they deserve their success. There remain some excellent schools out there (though almost exclusively in the US), so take your time and find out what suits you, your life and your future.