Well according to the website(http://www2.agsm.edu.au/agsm/web.nsf/Content/News-MediaReleases-AGSMFTRankings07), they are ranked in the FT rankings No. one in Australia, and 44 worldwide, so i guess you can say its pretty good.

Andy

Interestingly, AGSM doesn't appear in the Economist's Top 100, although Melbourne Business School and Curtin both do (at 26 and 94). The nos.1 and 39 rankings given on AGSM's website are taken from a study conducted by the Australian School of Business, NSW, which one can only assume reflects some kind of methodological difference.

AGSM is not in 2008 FT's rankings, whereas it was in 2007 ramkings. So does it specify that quality of education has dropped.

I don't know what it means, but it certainly is suspicious - as i understand, rankings are calculated over years,and not only for one year at a time - so what can make a school disappear from them?

maybe you can try and mail FT for the answer.

The thing that always confuses me about the Economist's rankings is the statement at the bottom of the page, under the section entitled Unranked Schools, which reads: "The following schools were not included in the 2008 rankings. The inability to include them in the rankings does not reflect any shortcoming of the programme."

Never seen that one before..... It kind of undermines the hole rating system, isn't it?

i guess they just do it to avoid being dragged in to court by the schools not in the list.

Yeah, its a pretty ambiguous statement, though I don't know that it completely undermines the ranking system; it just adds another tier - those relatively big name schools that can't even make it into the top 100. Having said that, I do find it hard to believe that some of the b-schools in the 'not-quite-good-enough' list really aren't good enough. Maybe it reflects the fact that some of them haven't been established for long enough yet, didn't fill in some piece of paperwork properly, or for some reason didn't meet the assessment criteria in the way the others did. I really don't know. Ultimately, I suppose, it just tells once again what we already knew: rankings aren't perfect. Far from it, when there seems to be so much variation depending on which one you look at. I believe there was an article on here about this very subject a little while ago.