I believe that their methodology needs to be a little more transparent. Their "employability" score is based on an employer survey - which is a good idea, but that 1,995 'responses' came from the latest survey. It doesn't say what employers they talked to, or whether a 'response' is a single employer or from a single person at one employer. They could have surveyed 1,995 HR people across a handful of companies, which would make this metric not so useful. Also, they exclude employers who employ fewer than 50 people, which means that many startups and entrepreneurial ventures would be excluded.
Also, their 'research excellence' metric is based an analysis of faculty citations, which is reasonable, but couples that with results from a survey of those who have 'expertise in the fields of business and management.' Who are these people and what affect do their responses have on the analysis?
To me it seems like they're adding ambiguity in order to skew the results without transparency.
I believe that their methodology needs to be a little more transparent. Their "employability" score is based on an employer survey - which is a good idea, but that 1,995 'responses' came from the latest survey. It doesn't say what employers they talked to, or whether a 'response' is a single employer or from a single person at one employer. They could have surveyed 1,995 HR people across a handful of companies, which would make this metric not so useful. Also, they exclude employers who employ fewer than 50 people, which means that many startups and entrepreneurial ventures would be excluded.
Also, their 'research excellence' metric is based an analysis of faculty citations, which is reasonable, but couples that with results from a survey of those who have 'expertise in the fields of business and management.' Who are these people and what affect do their responses have on the analysis?
To me it seems like they're adding ambiguity in order to skew the results without transparency.
-(1)-94485.jpeg)
