THE 与 WSJ 首次联合发布 2019全球商学院排名 - ChaseDream

THE/WSJ Top Business School Rankings 2019 (Two-Year MBA degrees)

Rank	University	Country
1	Stanford Graduate School of Business	United States
2	Cornell University: Johnson	United States
3	Vanderbilt University: Owen	United States
4	University of Chicago: Booth	United States
5	Duke University: Fuqua	United States
6	University of Virginia: Darden	United States
6	Yale School of Management	United States
8	Carnegie Mellon: Tepper	United States
9	Purdue University: Krannert	United States
10	China Europe International Business School (CEIBS)	China
10	University of Michigan: Ross	United States
12	Rice University: Jones	United States
12	University of Pittsburgh: Katz	United States
14	Emory University: Goizueta	United States
14	University of California, San Diego: Rady	United States
16	University of California, Berkeley: Haas	United States
17	Fudan University School of Management	China
17	University of Maryland: Smith	United States
19	University of Texas at Austin: McCombs	United States
20	Washington University in St Louis: Olin	United States
21	Georgetown University: McDonough	United States
22	University of Minnesota: Carlson	United States
23	University of Southern California: Marshall	United States
24	University of California, Davis Graduate School of Management	United States
25	Georgia Institute of Technology: Scheller	United States
26	New York University: Stern	United States
27	William & Mary: Mason	United States
28	George Washington University School of Business	United States
29	University of California, Irvine: Merage	United States
30	University of Washington: Foster	United States
31	SMU: Cox	United States
32	TCU Neeley School of Business	United States
33	Brigham Young University: Marriott	United States
34	Ohio State University: Fisher	United States
35	Arizona State University: Carey	United States
36	Boston College: Carroll	United States
37	Pennsylvania State University: Smeal	United States
38	ESADE Business School	Spain
39	INCAE Business School	Costa Rica
40	University of Connecticut School of Business	United States
41	Tulane University: Freeman	United States
42	Willamette University: Atkinson	United States
43	Sasin School of Management	Thailand
44	American University: Kogod	United States
45	Miami Business School	United States
46	Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey	United States
47	Northeastern University: D’Amore-McKim	United States
48	McGill University: Desautels	Canada
49	Grenoble School of Management	France
50	University of Toronto: Rotman	Canada
51	North Carolina State University: Poole	United States
52	Yonsei University School of Business	Korea, Republic of
53	McMaster University: DeGroote	Canada
54	Rochester Institute of Technology: Saunders	United States

THE/WSJ Top Business School Rankings 2019 (One-Year MBA degrees)

Rank	University	Country
1	University of Hong Kong	Hong Kong, China
2	Indian School of Business	India
3	Indian Institute of Management Calcutta	India
4	S P Jain School of Global Management	Australia
5	IMD	Switzerland
6	Western University: Ivey	Canada
7	Cranfield School of Management	United Kingdom
8	Melbourne Business School	Australia
9	NUS Business School	Singapore
10	HEC Paris	France
11	Eada Business School Barcelona	Spain
12	TIAS School for Business and Society	Netherlands
13	Lancaster University Management School	United Kingdom
14	Imperial College Business School	United Kingdom
15	Adam Smith Business School, University of Glasgow	United Kingdom
16	ESMT Berlin	Germany
17	City, University of London: Cass	United Kingdom
18	Leeds University Business School	United Kingdom
18	Strathclyde Business School	United Kingdom
20	Durham University Business School	United Kingdom
21	Mannheim Business School	Germany
21	Nottingham University Business School	United Kingdom
23	EMLyon Business School	France
24	ESIC Business and Marketing School	Spain
25	University of Texas at Dallas: Jindal	United States
26	University of Tennessee, Knoxville: Haslam	United States
27	Queen’s University: Smith	Canada
28	University of Liverpool Management School	United Kingdom
29	University of Oklahoma: Price	United States
30	HEC Montreal	Canada
31	Maastricht School of Management	Netherlands
32	Copenhagen Business School	Denmark
33	IAE Business School	Argentina
34	University of Kentucky: Gatton	United States
35	University of Kansas School of Business	United States

THE/WSJ Top Business School Rankings 2019 (Master's in Management)

Rank	University	Country
1	Thunderbird School of Global Management	United States
2	HHL Leipzig Graduate School of Management	Germany
3	WHU: Beisheim	Germany
4	Eada Business School Barcelona	Spain
5	Imperial College Business School	United Kingdom
6	University of Mannheim Business School	Germany
6	Wake Forest University School of Business	United States
8	IQS School of Management	Spain
9	ESSEC Business School	France
9	Maastricht University School of Business and Economics	Netherlands
11	Adam Smith Business School, University of Glasgow	United Kingdom
12	City, University of London: Cass	United Kingdom
13	Lancaster University Management School	United Kingdom
14	Grenoble School of Management	France
15	University of Bath School of Management	United Kingdom
16	Antwerp Management School	Belgium
17	Skema Business School	France
18	EMLyon Business School	France
19	Durham University Business School	United Kingdom
19	Hult International Business School	United States
21	Jönköping International Business School	Sweden
22	Nova School of Business and Economics	Portugal
23	University of Exeter Business School	United Kingdom
24	IÉSEG School of Management	France
25	Audencia Business School	France
26	Kozminski University	Poland
27	Rennes School of Business	France
28	Toulouse Business School	France
29	Burgundy School of Business	France
30	EM Strasbourg Business School	France

THE/WSJ Top Business School Rankings 2019 (Master's in Finance)

Rank	University	Country
1	Vanderbilt University: Owen	United States
2	Washington University in St Louis: Olin	United States
3	Eada Business School Barcelona	Spain
4	ESIC Business and Marketing School	Spain
5	Imperial College Business School	United Kingdom
6	Cranfield School of Management	United Kingdom
7	Purdue University: Krannert	United States
8	Tulane University: Freeman	United States
9	City, University of London: Cass	United Kingdom
10	Nottingham University Business School	United Kingdom
11	Skema Business School	France
12	Grenoble School of Management	France
13	ESSEC Business School	France
14	Adam Smith Business School, University of Glasgow	United Kingdom
15	Durham University Business School	United Kingdom
16	Nova School of Business and Economics	Portugal
17	EMLyon Business School	France
18	Lancaster University Management School	United Kingdom
19	UC3M Business	Spain
20	Strathclyde Business School	United Kingdom
21	Trinity Business School, Trinity College Dublin	Ireland
22	Kozminski University	Poland
23	National Sun Yat-sen University College of Management	Taiwan, China

THE/WSJ Analysis of Business Schools: Methodology

The rankings adopt a balanced scorecard approach, with 20 individual performance indicators combining to create an overall score that reflects the strength of each programme and school. The indicators are drawn either from institutional data or from a survey of business school alumni. In most cases, the data are normalised so that the values assigned in each metric can be compared sensibly with those in other metrics. These scores are then aggregated into four key areas, which we call pillars. The methodology is common to all four of the rankings, with the exception of the salary metric, with differences detailed below.

Resources

Faculty per student 11%

Teaching qualifications 6%

Career support staff per student 4%

Career support effectiveness 4%

This pillar reflects the human and instructional resources made available by the school to their students. Faculty per student gives a sense of whether the school has enough teachers to ensure students are fully supported. Teaching qualifications measures the proportion of teaching staff with a doctorate. Given the strong focus of business schools on career improvement, we also look at career support facilities, taking in both the number of career support staff per student and the effectiveness of the career support, according to the alumni surveyed.

The first three metrics are at the school level, and the last one is at the programme level.

Engagement

Learning engagement 5%

Interaction with teachers and

Students 5%

Student recommendation 5%

Real-world relevance 5%

Research in teaching 5%

This pillar is built entirely from data collected in our alumni survey, which elicited almost 23,000 responses from students from three different cohorts: those who finished their studies in 2012 (y−5), 2013 (y−4) and 2015 (y−2). Responses to 10 questions are compiled into five metrics.

To assess learning engagement, we look at the answers to four questions:

To what extent did the respondent’s school support critical thinking? For example, developing new concepts or evaluating different points of view;

To what extent did the teaching support reflection on, or making connections among, the things that the student has learned? For example, combining ideas from different lessons to complete a task;

To what extent did the teaching support the application of the students’ learning to the real world? For example, taking study excursions to see concepts in action;

To what extent did the classes challenge the respondent? For example, presenting new ways of thinking to challenge assumptions or values.

To capture a student’s opportunity to interact with others to support learning, we use the responses to two questions:

To what extent does the student have the opportunity to interact with faculty and teachers? For example, talking about personal progress in feedback sessions;

To what extent does the college provide opportunities for collaborative learning? For example, group assignments.

In view of the practical nature of business degrees and to assess the level of relevance to the real world, we asked alumni the degree to which real-world cases were used in teaching, and whether they had the opportunity to meet or work with professionals with current real-world knowledge (outside the teaching itself). To account for the use of research in teaching, we asked about the extent to which current research was used and discussed during class.

Finally, we asked alumni about the likelihood of their recommending the school to a friend or family member. All those metrics are at the programme level.

Outcomes

Salary difference 12% (MBA: difference after/before. MIM, MIF: after)

Network 6%

Social good 5%

Entrepreneurship 5%

Opportunities 5%

Worth 5%

This pillar looks at various measures of outcomes, using alumni data from our survey.

The salary metric looks at the reported salaries of alumni: in the case of the MBA ranking, we look at the difference between current and pre-MBA salary; in the case of the MIM and MIF rankings, we look at the current salary only.

All salaries are adjusted for location, sector and gender; we also account for the employment status of the respondents (self-employed or salaried) and their work frequency (part-time or full-time). This allows us to draw meaningful comparisons between both the various respondents and respondents’ “before” and “after” salaries (such as in cases where alumni moved from one sector to another, or changed country or work frequency).

The other metrics in the outcomes pillar are derived from scores given on several questions in the alumni survey.

For the opportunities metric, we asked alumni how useful their degree was in helping them find opportunities in their chosen professional field.

For the entrepreneurship metric, we asked about how useful the knowledge acquired during their degree was (or would be) in helping them set up their own business.

For the worth metric, we asked alumni to rate the extent to which their degree was worth the amount paid for it.

For the social good metric, we asked alumni whether they had volunteered during the last year.

For the network metric, we combined responses to four questions asking alumni to rate both how much they had used and contributed to the alumni network for both professional and non-professional interactions.

All those metrics are at the programme level.

Environment

International students 3%

Female students 3%

International staff 2%

Female staff 2%

Economic diversity 2%

This pillar looks at the make-up of the student and staff body at each school, helping students to determine whether they will find themselves in a diverse, supportive and inclusive university environment.

We examine the schools’ proportion of international students and international staff, which are key indicators of whether they are able to attract talent from across the world. It also demonstrates which institutions have cultivated a multicultural campus where students from different backgrounds have the opportunity to learn from one another.

We examine gender diversity, by measuring the percentage of female students and percentage of female staff.

Finally, in order to address the contribution of the business school to social mobility, we measure its proportion of first-generation students.

The first four metrics are at the school level, and the last one is at the programme level.