MBA Rankings this year

RickJammme...

1 2

Posted May 22, 2020 16:48

I noticed that Bloomberg has decided to suspend its MBA Rankings this year. I am honestly not sure why, given that the coronavirus situation doesn't really influence the data that the ranking is based on (or does it?)

Timing wise we've already had some of the major publications produce their own full-time MBA rankings this year - the Financial Times (January) and then US News (March I believe.)

Below are some things I have been thinking about in the wake of this, mostly concerning the FT's Global MBA ranking because I consider it the premier and most legitimate of all the rankings out there.

- will this put pressure on the FT do delay / cancel their EMBA ranking? I guess it would normally be published in November / December.

- looking to next year, how will the coronavirus situation impact the rankings? I guess the fallout from the pandemic will probably negatively influence MBA salaries, which means that some of the core indicators in the FT's Global MBA ranking (salary and salary increase) will not look so good for most schools.

Will those negative signs on the salaries mean that the FT will just decide to cancel their ranking next year? Will the reevaluate their methodology?

quote

StuartHE

1.200 720

Posted May 22, 2020 17:43

My take:- Running the ranking is not compulsory. The cost of running and auditing the ranking is high, and the audit must be harder. The FT seems to have skipped the MiF ranking and that would not be the base if the added revenue was much greater than the cost. - Salaries in the three years after the MBA will perhaps be the least impacted. Unlike top managers, stock-based and target-based compensation is a majority of the compensation for recent graduates. MBAs are more likely to stay in work than non-MBAs. The bigger impact will be macro-economic. - I can't see any way to change the methodology, or any need to.

My take:<div>- Running the ranking is not compulsory. The cost of running and auditing the ranking is high, and the audit must be harder. The FT seems to have skipped the MiF ranking and that would not be the base if the added revenue was much greater than the cost. </div><div>- Salaries in the three years after the MBA will perhaps be the least impacted. Unlike top managers, stock-based and target-based compensation is a majority of the compensation for recent graduates. MBAs are more likely to stay in work than non-MBAs. The bigger impact will be macro-economic. </div><div>- I can't see any way to change the methodology, or any need to.</div>

quote

RickJammme...

1 2

Posted May 22, 2020 18:14

Interesting. Do you think the FT didn't run the MiF ranking this year due to poor performance on the salary indicators? I agree with your other points - that MBAs should be relatively insulated from the worst, but it seems like the covid19 situation shouldn't have had any impact on the MiF ranking, as it would have been published earlier in the year.
In any case, it would be a bit disconcerting that a publication like this could be so bottom-line about the rankings, which should be rooted fundamentally in objectivity. If they just don't publish the ranking one year because of cost / revenue performance, what else might they be capable of, in the service of revenue?

Interesting. Do you think the FT didn't run the MiF ranking this year due to poor performance on the salary indicators? I agree with your other points - that MBAs should be relatively insulated from the worst, but it seems like the covid19 situation shouldn't have had any impact on the MiF ranking, as it would have been published earlier in the year. <div><br></div><div>In any case, it would be a bit disconcerting that a publication like this could be so bottom-line about the rankings, which should be rooted fundamentally in objectivity. If they just don't publish the ranking one year because of cost / revenue performance, what else might they be capable of, in the service of revenue? </div>

quote

StuartHE

1.200 720

Posted May 22, 2020 18:40

No, I think it didn't run the MiF ranking due to low advertising revenue from MiF programs. The FT is not a charity.

quote