|
首先，个人认为，虽然商学院排名在就业中占重要地位。但是学校的牌子永远都不是最重要的东西。我见过很一般的商学院出来的毕业生拥有一流的个人素质，也见过harward回来并不如何的MBA. <转贴> 斯坦福大学(Stanford University)第30位！！！
哈佛商学院(Harvard Business School)第8！！！
而名不见经传的塔克商学院长期处于第2或第1！！！
你相信这样一份[华尔街日报排名]吗？
从2004年起美国的最高学府哈佛商学院和欧洲的最高学府INSEAD联手抵制[华尔街日报排名]
参与抵制的还有斯坦福大学和伦敦商学院等权威商学院。
以下是来自INSEAD的网站文章
While it is not generally INSEAD's policy to comment publicly on rankings, there are issues with the recent WSJ Ranking which need clarification.
Last year, INSEAD was ranked number 37 in the WSJ recruiter ranking. This year, we were not included in the top-50. The WSJ ranking strongly contradicts that of other respected rankings. The INSEAD MBA Programme is ranked 6th worldwide and number 1 in Europe/Asia by the Financial Times. Business Week also ranks our MBA number 1 outside of the US.
It is difficult for us to understand how we can be rated first, sixth and then outside the top 50 simultaneously. This is particularly true when we have evidence that our graduates are continuing to command the highest average post-MBA salaries of all programmes in Europe and Asia (FT, 08.09.2003).
The WSJ launched their MBA Recruiter ranking in 2001. The methodology used has been the subject of much debate since the beginning, particularly among European schools, which feel that the survey has major flaws and is biased in favour of US schools. In fact, the highest ranked European school this year was Instituto de Empresa at number 36. This is due to the methodology used to select firms which recruit MBAs (the WSJ does not use any form of random sampling), and to the ultimate imbalance of recruiters between the US and Europe when compared to the number of schools from each region.
It is also worth noticing that the WSJ allows multiple respondents from each company to be included in the sample of 2,129 respondents but does not provide any information as to how many companies are actually represented.
We did address these issues following last year’s disappointing results in a joint approach by the Deans of INSEAD, London Business School and IESE. A follow up meeting was held in Barcelona with Ron Alsop, the author, and Joy Sever from Harris Interactive, the firm employed to devise and oversee the methodology of the ranking. They indicated that they were not willing to move on their choice of methodology, which also includes a 50% weighting for performance in previous years rankings.
There are some puzzling comments in the survey, including one which rates INSEAD as “number 2 worldwide among schools cited for excellence in international business” while not making the top-50 overall. When the full recruiter sample of 2,129 respondents (1,691, or 80% of which recruit predominantly in the US) is used to rank schools, the top 15 schools are American. When the sub-sample of 438 “international” recruiters is used, not a single school from the US is in the top 10.
This would indicate that the geographic location of a sampled respondent is the determining factor in the ranking of a school’s graduates. Furthermore, the mixture of the international recruiters is peculiar in itself: 105 Spanish respondents, 96 Canadian companies, 57 Mexican respondents, 48 UK companies, 31 French respondents… This tells us a lot about the international ranking positions.
A further comment plays on the fact that INSEAD’s latest MBA intake on the Asia campus is down 50% from the previous year because of the impact of SARS. In fact, this September’s intake has decreased from 102 to 99 (3%). There is an element of editorial bias throughout the supplement which we intend to take up with the editor of WSJ Europe.
Best regards
Pekka HIETALA, Dean of the MBA Programme
Inger TALVITIE, Director of the MBA Programme | 
京公网安备11010202008513号 京ICP证101109号 京ICP备12012021号
发表于 2004-4-9 10:13:00
发表于 2004-4-9 10:21:00
楼主
