Each ranking describes its methods. For an MBA employment point of view, the FT ranking is the one that matters. Shanghai doesn't rank business schools, does it? The THE and Eduniversal rankings gear around undergraduate teaching and research.

[quote] Shanghai doesn't rank business schools, does it? [/quote]

If you filter by subject you can see rankings for Management, Economics or Business Administration

http://www.shanghairanking.com/Shanghairanking-Subject-Rankings/business-administration.html

But, again, it's more of a University ranking than a Business School one

That is a crazy ranking. Leuven above London! Mad.

I do not see an emphasis on “undergraduate” teaching in the methodology explanations given for the THE University Rankings, apart from the fact that those schools that do not offer undegraduate degrees are excluded. They say they use 13 criteria under 5 categories, which are teaching, research, citations, international outlook, and knowledge transfer. Under the teaching category, there is a metric named doctorate-to-bachelor’s ratio, for example. (https://www.timeshighereducation.com/world-university-rankings/methodology-world-university-rankings-2018)

As for the Eduniversal, they have multi-step process involving a country-based quota approach, and I could not see an emphasis of “undergraduate” teaching there, either. (http://www.eduniversal-ranking.com/methodology/eduniversal-evaluation-system.html)

Look at the FT ranking. Most of the top schools do not offer undergraduate degrees, so the THE approach is broken. The schools it ranks are centred, generally, on undergraduate provision. Knowing that King's College has a great undergrad offer does not help with MBA choice.

I think “broken” is far too much. It ranks universities, including business studies; not only business schools nor only MBAs. If you say it is not fit for purpose when it comes to MBAs, that is understandable, although I still do not agree, as I tend to see a salary-focused-only evaluation of any degree kind of a narrow approach.

Indeed, but I don't think there are any rankings which use only salaries. And you're also right that 'broken' is too harsh, since these rankings clearly work in the marketplace for THE. 'Not fit for purpose' sounds better. Any business school ranking that excludes most of the top business schools is certainly not suitable.

What about this one?

https://www.theguardian.com/education/ng-interactive/2017/may/16/university-guide-2018-league-table-for-business-management-marketing

Cranfield not even mentioned (only has PG courses), Dundee 5th and Strathclyde 15th, and the list goes on...

Exactly the sort of undergraduate ranking to avoid.

[quote]

- Financial Times
- QS
- Shanghai ranking
- Times Higher Education
- Forbes
- Economist
- Eduniversal

[/quote]

Of this list the FT has the most reliable stats.

I don't trust the QS ranking at all, given that it applies its methodology across all subject areas, neglecting that students pursuing different disciplines will have vastly different values.

MBA students are a clear case in point here: I doubt the majority of MBA applicants really care about how many research citations per paper a faculty has received. Granted, academic excellence is a valid metric for ranking MBA programs, but the fact is that 3 out of 4 of QS' ranking sources are centered around academic excellence:

1. Academic reputation
2. Employer reputation
3. Research citations per paper
4. H-index

To its credit, QS adjusts the weightings of these categories based on academic discipline, but still, even for business programs (MBAs included), the combined weightings of sources 1, 3, and 4 (the academic excellence indicators) make up 70 percent of the ranking. This, to me, is unacceptable, as it probably is to most MBA applicants.

By contrast, the FT's Global MBA Ranking is much more balanced, in terms of identifying the factors that MBA students value. In the FT's ranking, a school's research rank makes up only 10 percent of its score. Taking into account other academic factors, including the number of PhD graduates and the number of faculty with doctorates, the total percentage of these factors adds up to 20 percent of the overall score, which is reasonable.

Instead, the FT looks at a wide range of factors, including weighted salary today - which is 20 percent of the overall score - Salary increase - also 20% - value for money, aims achieved, the number of students employed after three months, the number of international students, international mobility, etc., etc., etc.,

What this means is that the FT's rankings are much more nuanced and balanced in terms of what MBA students are after. The QS Ranking and other rankings that spread their methodologies across many subject matters are not useful at all, in my opinion.