2020金融时报全球MBA排名 (Financial Times Global MBA Ranking 2020) - ChaseDream

2020 年 1 月 27 日，英国《金融时报》（Financial Times，以下简称“FT”）发布了 2020 年全球 MBA 百强排行榜。

哈佛商学院（Harvard Business School）、宾夕法尼亚大学沃顿商学院（University of Pennsylvania: Wharton）、斯坦福大学商学院（Stanford Graduate School of Business）、欧洲工商管理学院（Insead）和中欧国际工商学院（Ceibs）位列前五。其中，中欧国际工商学院连续两年跻身全球前五。

此次排名，中国共有 9 所商学院入选百强排行榜，分别是第 5 名中欧国际工商学院（Ceibs）、第 20 名香港科技大学工商管理学院（HKUST Business School）、第 33 名复旦大学管理学院（Fudan University School of Management）、第 37 名上海交通大学安泰经济与管理学院（Shanghai Jiao Tong University: Antai）、第 38 名中国人民大学商学院（Renmin University of China Business School (RMBS)）、第 49 名上海财经大学商学院（Shanghai University of Finance and Economics: College of Business）、第 50 名香港中文大学商学院（CUHK Business School）、第 56 名香港大学（The University of Hong Kong）和第 98 名香港城市大学（City University of Hong Kong）。其中，上海财经大学商学院和香港城市大学首次进入全球 MBA 百强排行榜。

FT 排名对 MBA 毕业后的薪资情况还是非常看重的。占比最大的两个权重分别是：毕业生三年后的平均薪资（占比 20%）和攻读 MBA 前后的薪资涨幅（占比 20%）。

2020 年度 FT 全球 MBA 百强排行榜单，即刻为大家揭晓排名结果。附件中的 PDF 包含了排名各项指标的得分。

更详细的排名各项指标的得分，请下载附件PDF：

Rank 2020	Rank 2019	3 Yr Avg.	School Name	Country
1	2	3	Harvard Business School	US
2	4	3	University of Pennsylvania: Wharton	US
3	1	2	Stanford Graduate School of Business	US
4	3	3	Insead	FR / SG
5	5	6	Ceibs	China
6	8	8	MIT: Sloan	US
7	6	6	London Business School	UK
8	9	8	Columbia Business School	US
9	19	16	HEC Paris	France
10	7	8	University of Chicago: Booth	US
11	14	12	Northwestern University: Kellogg	US
12	10	11	University of California at Berkeley: Haas	US
13	12	12	Iese Business School	Spain
14	11	13	Yale School of Management	US
15	17	17	National University of Singapore Business School	Singapore
16	15	16	Dartmouth College: Tuck	US
16	19	18	Duke University: Fuqua	US
18	23	24	University of Virginia: Darden	US
19	16	16	University of Cambridge: Judge	UK
19	18	17	HKUST Business School	China
21	13	20	University of Oxford: Saïd	UK
22	25	23	New York University: Stern	US
23	27	22	Cornell University: Johnson	US
24	21	22	Esade Business School	Spain
25	22	24	IMD Business School	Switzerland
25	26	25	UCLA: Anderson	US
27	33	32	Indian Institute of Management Bangalore	India
28	24	27	Indian School of Business	India
29	31	30	SDA Bocconi School of Management	Italy
30	28	28	University of Michigan: Ross	US
31	29	30	Georgetown University: McDonough	US
31	35	35	Carnegie Mellon: Tepper	US
33	34	36	Fudan University School of Management	China
34	39	44	University of Florida: Warrington	US
35	30	29	Nanyang Business School, NTU Singapore	Singapore
36	46	47	University of Southern California: Marshall	US
37	51	41	Shanghai Jiao Tong University: Antai	China
38	-	-	Renmin University of China Business School (RMBS)	China
39	52	43	University of North Carolina: Kenan-Flagler	US
40	37	40	University of Texas at Austin: McCombs	US
40	43	47	Indiana University: Kelley	US
42	49	56	Indian Institute of Management Calcutta	India
43	36	40	Warwick Business School	UK
44	54	49	Washington University: Olin	US
45	59	47	Alliance Manchester Business School	UK
45	52	57	Vanderbilt University: Owen	US
47	38	44	Emory University: Goizueta	US
47	49	48	University of Washington: Foster	US
47	-	-	Shanghai University of Finance and Economics: College of Business	China
50	57	50	CUHK Business School	China
50	64	53	City, University of London: Cass	UK
52	31	-	IE Business School	Spain
53	60	56	Georgia Institute of Technology: Scheller	US
54	42	49	Sungkyunkwan University GSB	S Korea
55	39	48	Imperial College Business School	UK
56	41	43	The University of Hong Kong	China
57	56	53	Rice University: Jones	US
57	58	64	University of Notre Dame: Mendoza	US
59	63	66	Pennsylvania State University: Smeal	US
60	66	69	Babson College: Olin	US
61	47	46	Indian Institute of Management Ahmedabad	India
62	43	56	Durham University Business School	UK
63	43	52	Singapore Management University: Lee Kong Chian	Singapore
64	71	76	WHU – Otto Beisheim School of Management	Germany
65	48	59	University of California at Irvine: Merage	US
66	55	53	Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University	Netherlands
67	68	74	Boston University: Questrom	US
68	69	66	University of St Gallen	Switzerland
69	-	-	Northeastern University: D'Amore-McKim	US
70	90	-	George Washington University	US
71	77	70	Mannheim Business School	Germany
72	84	75	Ohio State University: Fisher	US
73	72	67	University of Maryland: Smith	US
74	73	76	University of Pittsburgh: Katz	US
74	92	86	SMU: Cox	US
76	83	81	University of Rochester: Simon	US
77	-	-	University of Connecticut School of Business	US
78	81	81	University of Minnesota: Carlson	US
79	80	86	EMLyon Business School	France
80	61	69	Melbourne Business School	Australia
81	79	83	ESMT Berlin	Germany
81	96	90	University of Texas at Dallas: Jindal	US
83	78	76	Brigham Young University: Marriott	US
84	86	83	The Lisbon MBA Católica \| Nova	Portugal
85	75	72	Purdue University: Krannert	US
86	99	-	Texas A & M University: Mays	US
87	94	90	Western University: Ivey	Canada
88	70	74	AGSM at UNSW Business School	Australia
88	93	92	Essec Business School	France
88	-	-	Edhec Business School	France
91	87	85	McGill University: Desautels	Canada
92	81	81	Wisconsin School of Business	US
93	-	-	Miami Herbert Business School	US
94	85	88	University of Toronto: Rotman	Canada
95	87	85	University of Edinburgh Business School	UK
96	-	-	University of California at San Diego: Rady	US
97	74	-	Macquarie Business School	Australia
98	-	-	City University of Hong Kong	China
99	89	94	University College Dublin: Smurfit	Ireland
100	-	-	University of Georgia: Terry	US

Table Note

Footnotes:* KPMG reported on the results of obtaining evidence and applying specified audit procedures relating to selected survey data provided for the Financial Times 2020 MBA ranking for selected business schools. Enquiries about the assurance process can be made by contacting Lori Huber of KPMG at lahuber@kpmg.ca. The specified audit procedures were carried out between November and December 2019. The audit date published denotes the survey for which the specified audit precedures were conducted.

**These schools run additional courses for MBA students for which additional language skills are required. Although the headline ranking figures show changes in the data year to year, the pattern of clustering among the schools is equally significant. Some 170 points separate the top programme, Harvard, from the school ranked number 100. The schools are divided into four groups, indicated by bold lines: those in groups one and two score above the average for the cohort, and groups three and four are below it. The difference in score between schools ranked consecutively is greater within groups one and four than in groups two and three. The top 10 participants, down to University of Chicago: Booth, form the top group of MBA providers. The second group, headed by Northwestern University: Kellogg, spans schools ranked 11 to 35. The 49 schools within the third group are headed by University of Southern California: Marshall, at 36th. The remaining 16 schools headed by Purdue University: Krannert, at 85th, make up the fourth group.

Download the full ranking as a PDF

游客，如果您要查看本帖隐藏内容请回复

This ranking features the world’s best 100 full-time MBA programmes. A total of 156 schools took part in the 2020 edition. All participating schools meet the FT’s entry criteria, including being accredited by Equis or the AACSB.

The FT surveys alumni three years after completing their MBA. For schools to enter the ranking calculations, the FT requires that a minimum of 20 per cent of alumni reply to the survey, with at least 20 fully completed surveys per school. About 7,920 from the class of 2016 completed our survey — a response rate of 38 per cent.

The ranking has 20 different criteria. Alumni responses inform eight criteria that together hold a weight of 61 per cent. Eleven criteria are calculated from school data, accounting for 29 per cent of the ranking. KPMG audits a number of schools every year. The remaining criterion, the research rank, counts for 10 per cent.

Alumni-informed criteria are based on data collected over three years. Responses from the 2020 survey carry 50 per cent of total weight and those from 2019 and 2018, 25 per cent each. If only two years of data are available, the weighting is split 60:40 if data are from 2020 and 2019, or 70:30 if they are from 2020 and 2018. For salary figures, the weighting is 50:50 for two years’ data.

The first two alumni criteria are average income three years after graduation and salary increase compared with pre-MBA salary, both weighted at 20 per cent. For the latter, half of the weight applies to the absolute increase and half to the percentage rise (published). Current salaries are converted to US dollars using November 2019 International Monetary Fund purchasing power parity rates.

The salaries of non-profit and public sector workers and full-time students are removed, as are the highest and lowest salaries from each school, to calculate a normalised average. Finally, salaries are weighted to reflect differences between different sectors.

“Value for money” for each school is calculated by dividing their average alumni salary three years after graduation by their MBA’s total cost, including tuition, lost salary, opportunity cost and other expenses. Any financial help given to alumni is subtracted from the total.

The FT also collects information from schools on their current faculty, newly enrolled students and the latest graduating class. School criteria include the diversity of staff, board members and students by gender, nationality and the MBA’s international reach. For gender criteria, schools with a 50:50 composition score highest.

The research rank is based on the number of articles by full-time faculty in 50 internationally recognised academic and practitioner journals. The rank combines the number of publications from January 2017 to August 2019, with the number weighted relative to faculty size.

The corporate social responsibility rank is based on the proportion of teaching hours from core courses dedicated to CSR, ethics, social and environmental issues. It carries a weight of 3 per cent.

The FT Global MBA ranking is a relative listing. Schools are ranked against each other by calculating a Z-score for each criterion. The Z-score is a statistic that shows where a score lies in relation to the mean. These scores are then weighted as outlined in the ranking key and added together for a final score.

After removing schools that did not meet the response rate threshold from the alumni survey, a first version is calculated using all remaining schools. The school at the bottom is removed and a second version is calculated and so on until we reach the top 100. The top 100 schools are ranked accordingly to produce the 2020 list.

Judith Pizer of Jeff Head Associates acted as the FT’s database consultant. The FT research rank was calculated using Clarivate Analytics data from the Web of Science, an abstract and citation database of research literature.

Key
(weights for ranking criteria are shown in brackets as a percentage of the overall ranking.)

Salary today: average alumnus salary three years after graduation, US$ PPP equivalent. This figure is not used in the ranking.†

Weighted salary (20): average alumnus salary three years after graduation, US$ PPP equivalent, with adjustment for variations between sectors.†

Salary increase (20): average difference in alumni salary before the MBA to now. Half of this figure is calculated according to the absolute salary increase, and half according to the percentage increase relative to pre-MBA salary — the “salary percentage increase” figure in the table.

Value for money (3): calculated using salary today, course length, tuition and other costs, including lost income during the MBA.†

Career progress (3): calculated according to changes in the level of seniority and the size of company alumni are working in now, compared with before their MBA.†

Aims achieved (3): the extent to which alumni fulfilled their stated goals or reasons for doing an MBA.†

Careers service (3): effectiveness of the school careers service in terms of career counselling, personal development, networking events, internship search and recruitment, as rated by their alumni.†

Employed at three months (2): percentage of the most recent graduating class who had found employment or accepted a job offer within three months of completing their studies. The figure in brackets is the percentage of the class for which the school was able to provide employment data, and is used to calculate the school’s final score in this category.

Alumni recommend (3): calculated according to selection by alumni of three schools from which they would recruit MBA graduates.†

International faculty (4): calculated according to the diversity of faculty by citizenship and the percentage whose citizenship differs from their country of employment — the figure published in the table. ‡

International students (4): calculated according to the diversity of current MBA students by citizenship and the percentage whose citizenship differs from the country in which they study — the figure in the table. ‡

International board (2): percentage of the board whose citizenship differs from the country in which the school is based.

International mobility (6): based on alumni citizenship and the countries where they worked before their MBA, on graduation and three years after graduation.

International course experience (3): calculated according to whether the most recent graduating MBA class completed exchanges, credited short classes, study tours and company internships in countries other than where the school is based.

Faculty with doctorates (5): percentage of full-time faculty with a doctoral degree.

FT research rank (10): calculated according to the number of articles published by current full-time faculty members in 50 selected academic and practitioner journals between Jan 2017 and Aug 2019. The FT50 rank combines the absolute number of publications with the number weighted relative to the faculty’s size.

Corporate Social Responsibility (3): proportion of teaching hours from core courses dedicated to CSR, ethics, social and environmental issues.

Schools with a 50:50 (male/female) composition receive the highest possible score in the three gender-related criteria.

† Includes data for the class of 2016 and one or two preceding classes where available.

‡ While we recognise the distinction between Chinese and Taiwanese scholars and students, within China no such distinction may have been observed when recording diversity.