I don't know it, but I see it is on the lowest level of the Eduniversal ranking, which is a very reliable guide to the school's standing in the business school community: www.eduniversal-ranking.com/business-school-university-ranking-in-south-africa.html

Hi Duncan,

So what does it mean when an institution is on the lowest level of the Eduniversal ranking? Does it possibly mean is less recognized?

Yes, I think it's fair to say that the ranking reflects the overall perception of the school. All of these schools are real, nationally-accredited schools. But some of them are better, and others are better than average. Tshwane is probably seen as lower quality than most of the schools on this list by employers who are familiar with the MBA.

Hi Tebogo,

I noted with interest your query about TUT's MBA. Please take note that the current MBA programmes in SA are all equivalent or on par. The reason is that they have all gone through a rigorous assessment process whereby only the best got the CHE accreditation. However, you must take note that in life,no two things are the same. The core module content of all MBAs is basically the same. The only slight difference is on electives or areas of specialisation.

As big corporate companies, we don't look at the name of the institution when we hire MBA graduates. For your information, there are candidates who come from the so-called B-grade business schools who outclass those from the so-called A-grade schools. Besides our advisory and oversight functions as board of directors, one of our functions is to hire or fire CEOs. Beleive you me, the name of the institution counts for almost nothing.

Prospective MBA students should bear in mind that the Eduniversal ranking is based on the perceptions of a number of stakeholders such as MBA graduates and employers. Obviously human nature is such that, MBA graduates are more likely to rate highly the school where they did their own MBA. On the other hand, in case an employer has studied for an MBA at a particular school, they also tend to recruit graduates from that school. It is a self-reinforcing virtuous cycle and is ultimately a market perspective rather than an assessment based on rigorous educational criteria.

There is no empirical evidence to back any of the so-called rankings by organisations such as Eduniversal and our own local Financial Mail. Therefore I would advise you to ignore these unproven perceptions and enrol for your MBA at any of the South Africa's CHE-accredited business schools. At the end of the day, it is not about the logo on that certificate, but it is about how the holder of that certificate can apply the knowledge gained.

Cheers,
Paul

Paul is mistaken. The Eduniversal rankings are based of a huge volume of survey data. The Financial Times uses salary data. These show there are huge differences in outcomes. Of course all degrees have to meet the same minimum standards, but it is not credible to say that the MBA experience at TUT is on a par with UCT.

There's no point engaging with Paul on this question: since he thinks that only those with "experience of studying or teaching at four or five different universities in SA" are qualified to comment, the idea of making conclusions on the basis of objective data like the FT rankings, QS studies and so on is discounted by him.

I invite readers to make their own conclusions: considering the different outcomes that each school has for its MBA alumni, it is reasonable to assume that all MBAs are the same?

PS I have an MBA from London Business School and worked for a while in SA. However, I don't think that either qualification makes me more or less valid as an user of data collected by the FT and QS surveys. The data stand on their own merits, even if the average outcomes do not reflect Paul's perceptions.

I rest my case.

How charming.