USNews 和 Business Week的ranking 哪个更加权威？

kikiff8

话说回来，其实你们觉得那个权威没什么用处，关键是雇主对什么RANK更看重才重要

lhn8848

我也有个相关的问题：
USNews里面的Best Business School比BW里面的Full Time的学校多很多，大概要多200来所，是不是可以认为BW里面出现的Full Time学校会比 “在USNews里面有，但是没在BW Full-Time里面"的学校好点呢？ 望了解的TX可以指教下~

taktha

你所在的那个学校排名在哪个排行榜上高，哪个排行榜就最权威。
学校不是都这么样的？再滥的学校也可以说自己在某某排行榜某个专业排到前10名了。

wordance

照LS的来，我觉得还是BW靠谱……

-- by 会员 narcisuss (2010/2/10 18:05:46)

not necessarily.
On the BW ranking,
Student satisfaction is too subjective. Degree of satisfaction depends largely on initial expectation. To use an extreme example, if a no-name school admit a bunch of Walmart cashiers who would graduate to become a cashier manager, making $50k usd a year, these people I imagine would be very satisfied. But that doesn't put their school above Harvard, where students might be more picky and demanding and therefore possibly less satisfied.
The problem with employer survey is that we don't know what the weightage of employers from different industries are. If the composition is tilted heavily towards finance, then consulting powerhouses like kellogg and MIT would be affected. If the composition is mainly industry companies then finance schools like chicago and columbia would be affected.
These are just random examples I throw out to cast reasonable doubt over rankings in general.

dennisz

记得CD上有个排名把USNews, BW, WSJ, Forbes 进行的加权
USNews占55%, BW 20%....
感觉这个更靠谱一点。
top 20:
排名    学校    加权积分    US NEWS09    BW 09    FT09    Forbes09
1    Harvard    1.55    1    2    2    3
2    Stanford    3    2    6    4    1
3    ennsylvania (Wharton)    3.1    3    4    1    5
4    Chicago (Booth)    4.4    5    1    7    4
5    Northwestern (Kellogg)    4.55    3    3    10    8
6    MIT (Sloan)    6.7    5    9    5    14
7    Columbia    7.4    9    7    3    6
8    Dartmouth (Tuck)    8.2    8    12    8    2
9    UC Berkeley (Haas)    9.45    7    10    16    12
10    Duke (Fuqua)    11.15    12    8    11    13
11    NYU (Stern)    11.25    11    13    6    17
12    Michigan (Ross)    11.75    13    5    12    18
13    Yale    12.65    10    24    9    10
14    Virginia (Darden)    14.45    15    16    14    9
15    UCLA (Anderson)    14.65    14    14    15    19
16    Cornell (Johnson)    14.8    17    11    17    7
17    Carnegie Mellon (Tepper)    17.95    15    19    24    23
18    Texas-Austin (McCombs)    18.65    18    21    23    11
19    UNC (Kenan-Flagler)    19.05    20    17    21    15
20    Emory (Goizueta)    20.85    22    23    13    22

cannedpineapple

照LS的来，我觉得还是BW靠谱……

-- by 会员 narcisuss (2010/2/10 18:05:46)

not necessarily.
On the BW ranking,
Student satisfaction is too subjective. Degree of satisfaction depends largely on initial expectation. To use an extreme example, if a no-name school admit a bunch of Walmart cashiers who would graduate to become a cashier manager, making $50k usd a year, these people I imagine would be very satisfied. But that doesn't put their school above Harvard, where students might be more picky and demanding and therefore possibly less satisfied.
The problem with employer survey is that we don't know what the weightage of employers from different industries are. If the composition is tilted heavily towards finance, then consulting powerhouses like kellogg and MIT would be affected. If the composition is mainly industry companies then finance schools like chicago and columbia would be affected.
These are just random examples I throw out to cast reasonable doubt over rankings in general.

-- by 会员 wordance (2010/2/11 9:51:28)

I don't know about you, but I rather go to a place and hang out with students who are satisifed. Sure, it may have to do with expectation, but I prefer self-secure, happy classmates; to demanding and picky ones who are never happy.

And so in my opinion it's perfectly fine to use these rankings. After all, I'm paying so much to come here. I don't want two years of misery, and to be an alumnus of a miserable school that I was unhappy at.

BTW, this tends to lead to a virtuous cycle. Happy students become happy alumni, who are in turn happy to help the next batch of students. I speak only from my own experience here, but I've found that my UChicago alumni have been the most helpful bunch of students for me. In contrast, when you are unhappy, you tend to not be so keen to help out the next batch. So maybe Booth students go there expecting alumni to help them, and it happens, so they are happy. They then become helpful alumni themselves. Maybe students at some other schools are less happy, because they expect alumni to help them, but guess what, the alumni aren't so helpful because they weren't that happy when they were students either. They then in turn become unhelpful alumni. The cycle goes on.

Apart from the 'happiness' of the culture itself, another simple reason why students might be happy at a school is that some schools may be better at others at finding students who 'fit' the culture. This has nothing to do with expectations.

Just because something is 'subjective' (and yes, happiness is absolutely subjective) doesn't make it an unimportant measure to consider. Be wary of falling into the trap of objectivity = right, and subjectivity = wrong. Besides, businessweek editors are editors of a business magazine that has been in publication for many years and has an important reputation to uphold. Do you think they would continue keeping this measure as their biggest criteria if it was that pointless? Personally, I prefer to think that these experienced editors know what they're doing, and then try to understand why.

taktha

Maybe it's perfect to use happiness to rate a B-School. But I think 'Happiness' is quite judgemental. So I would say 'fit' is much better criteria. My 2 cents.

taktha

Besides, businessweek editors are editors of a business magazine that has been in publication for many years and has an important reputation to uphold. Do you think they would continue keeping this measure as their biggest criteria if it was that pointless? Personally, I prefer to think that these experienced editors know what they're doing, and then try to understand why.

That's interesting. It's the part I do wantto mention in my previous post. But after second thought, Lehman got talentedpeople, and talents doesn’t work all the time.

I want to dig out why BW editors put such hugeweight on students’ satisfaction surveys as well. As you know, employee selfperformance review would NEVER, EVER be a big concern in your promotion, annualbonus if you work in a company. I totally agree BW editors are smarter than me.They must have some good reasons to do so because lots of MBA schools follow BW ranking system. I would also appreciate if BWcan give some rationale behind it.



I agree with you, everything must have a reason no matter it's a good one or a bad one. I'm trying my best to think out of the box.
For example:
Maybe UK
students always give positivefeedback. That’s why UK MBA can be ranked higher.Maybe Harvard always eliminates bottom students andthese students gave bad comment. So Harvard isn’t as good as Ohio IndustryUniversity MBA.

djcong

Besides, businessweek editors are editors of a business magazine that has been in publication for many years and has an important reputation to uphold. Do you think they would continue keeping this measure as their biggest criteria if it was that pointless? Personally, I prefer to think that these experienced editors know what they're doing, and then try to understand why.

That's interesting. It's the part I do wantto mention in my previous post. But after second thought, Lehman got talentedpeople, and talents doesn’t work all the time.

I want to dig out why BW editors put such hugeweight on students’ satisfaction surveys as well. As you know, employee selfperformance review would NEVER, EVER be a big concern in your promotion, annualbonus if you work in a company. I totally agree BW editors are smarter than me.They must have some good reasons to do so because lots of MBA schools follow BW ranking system. I would also appreciate if BWcan give some rationale behind it.



I agree with you, everything must have a reason no matter it's a good one or a bad one. I'm trying my best to think out of the box.
For example:
Maybe UK
students always give positivefeedback. That’s why UK MBA can be ranked higher.Maybe Harvard always eliminates bottom students andthese students gave bad comment. So Harvard isn’t as good as Ohio IndustryUniversity MBA.

-- by 会员 taktha (2010/2/12 13:41:17)

好像有一年wharton and hbs说不再支持bw的排名survey,

cannedpineapple

That's interesting. It's the part I do want to mention in my previous post. But after second thought, Lehman got talented people, and talents doesn’t work all the time.

-- by 会员 taktha (2010/2/12 13:41:17)

Good point. But most of the time talent does work, no?

As for schools supporting rankings.. There's a reason for everything too. I recall this conversation.. We may have stopped providing data for these rankings because we want to send a strong signal that rankings are simplistic and derivative. We don't want people thinking 'Wharton is number 1, so that must be the best place to go. Why would I go to xyz non-Wharton school if I get into Wharton?' This seems to be very much the case particularly for foreign students, who may have less information about American schools.

Instead we'd rather focus our energies on getting students that are a good 'fit'. Unfortunately rankings provide only one measure of 'fit'- '#1 vs #2 vs #3 vs #4' etc- "If you're a #1 student, you go to #1 school!' It's not something healthy, and so we don't want to encourage this. Instead hence we have activities like S2S, VAC, and that's why I come here to post so much. I do so to slowly try and change the idea that 'it's obvious which school we'll go into. No question about it. #1, we go here... #2, we go here... etc'