|
Following is Forbes's analysis:
- Dartmouth
- Pennsylvania
- Chicago
- Columbia
- Yale
- Stanford
- Harvard
- Virginia
- Cornell
- Northwestern
Our rankings of business schools are based on the return on investment that graduates of the Class of 2000 received.
We sent surveys to 25,000 alumni of 111 M.B.A. programs around the world and heard back from 24% of them.
We asked for their pre-M.B.A. salaries as well as compensation figures for three of the first five years after getting their degrees. We compared their post-M.B.A. compensation with their opportunity cost (tuition and forgone salary while in school) and what they would have made had they stayed in their old jobs.
We adjusted salary figures to account for cost-of-living expenses and discounted the earnings gains, using a rate tied to money market yields.
I think the survey is oversimplified and too one dimentional. I can understand why the parttime programs can be positioned in such high ranks because its students do not lose opportunity cost. But I cant understand why Tuck and Wharton can be on Top. Does it mean that tuck and wharton students made so little money before they attended the mba program, so that they didnt lose as many opportunites costs as the harvard students did?
And what do they mean "we adjusted salary figures to account for cost-of-living expenses"?? So does making $10 in Africa mean making $100 in the States?? So given the fact that Tucks grads make about the same money as Harvards grads, the reasons that Tuck is ranked so high are 1. Tuck students worked a crappy jobs before they attended the school, or harvard students already made amazing money before they attended the school, or both; 2. Tuck students work in a little town in egypt after their graduation, or harvards all go to wall street.
"using a rate tied to money market yields." I dont understand this sentence at all. but IMO, this survey just doesnt make much sense?!?!
[此贴子已经被作者于2005-8-21 12:50:09编辑过] |