There's only so much that rankings can tell you about these programs. For one, I would take the Economist ranking with at least a shred of skepticism - it's the first year they've run the EMBA rankings, and their MBA rankings have received a lot of criticism for the methodology.
While the other two big ones (FT and Businessweek) both focus strongly on post-EMBA salary, there are minor differences that might explain the placement discrepancies. I would say that the biggest is that FT has more of an international focus - that's why the joint global programs (Kellogg/HKUST, Columbia/LBS, Trium) lead the rankings. Whereas Businessweek's is obviously more of a US-focused ranking.
As to your school selection, these are a pretty wide range of EMBA programs. I think the Wharton program is a good, modern program with a nice range of electives and high-quality cohorts. It's sort of in a different tier than the other programs you mentioned - so I'm a bit curious to as why you would group these together.
There's only so much that rankings can tell you about these programs. For one, I would take the Economist ranking with at least a shred of skepticism - it's the first year they've run the EMBA rankings, and their MBA rankings have received a lot of criticism for the methodology.
While the other two big ones (FT and Businessweek) both focus strongly on post-EMBA salary, there are minor differences that might explain the placement discrepancies. I would say that the biggest is that FT has more of an international focus - that's why the joint global programs (Kellogg/HKUST, Columbia/LBS, Trium) lead the rankings. Whereas Businessweek's is obviously more of a US-focused ranking.
As to your school selection, these are a pretty wide range of EMBA programs. I think the Wharton program is a good, modern program with a nice range of electives and high-quality cohorts. It's sort of in a different tier than the other programs you mentioned - so I'm a bit curious to as why you would group these together.
