(Go: >> BACK << -|- >> HOME <<)

Last visit was: 03 Jun 2024, 09:16 It is currently 03 Jun 2024, 09:16
Close
GMAT Club Daily Prep
Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.

Customized
for You

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track
Your Progress

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Close
Request Expert Reply
Confirm Cancel
SORT BY:
Date
User avatar
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
Joined: 25 Jan 2004
Posts: 311
Own Kudos [?]: 69 [0]
Given Kudos: 0
Location: Milwaukee
Send PM
User avatar
CEO
CEO
Joined: 15 Aug 2003
Posts: 2876
Own Kudos [?]: 1650 [0]
Given Kudos: 781
Send PM
User avatar
Manager
Manager
Joined: 06 Aug 2005
Posts: 91
Own Kudos [?]: 26 [0]
Given Kudos: 0
Send PM
User avatar
Director
Director
Joined: 18 Nov 2004
Posts: 679
Own Kudos [?]: 198 [0]
Given Kudos: 0
Send PM
[#permalink]
Silly rankings, better to ignore them.

Harvard and Stanford below Yale, UNC, Darden and Michigan (no offense to current students there)....not sure which world they live in. WSJ is known for stupid rankings. Sometime back I think they put in "Princeton Univ" in the MBA rankings and Princeton doesn't even have a MBA program. I think US News / BW rankings are better, specially US News rankings are well respected.
User avatar
CEO
CEO
Joined: 17 Jul 2004
Posts: 3249
Own Kudos [?]: 515 [0]
Given Kudos: 0
Send PM
[#permalink]
The funny thing is this ranking is actually an improvement over previous ones by the WSJ- remember in '02 when Stanford was #39?
User avatar
CEO
CEO
Joined: 15 Dec 2003
Posts: 2708
Own Kudos [?]: 1543 [0]
Given Kudos: 0
Send PM
[#permalink]
And I believe in the 2003 edition, LBS was #45 or so. That dates back to when int'l schools were not separated from US schools but I believe 45 was a bit low... In any case, no matter how LBS is ranked, the experience is just intense and very enriching.
avatar
Intern
Intern
Joined: 28 Sep 2004
Posts: 4
Own Kudos [?]: 1 [0]
Given Kudos: 0
Send PM
The 2005 rankings....(corrected) [#permalink]
Pravin,

I guess you got the old rankings in there. Check the latest ranking at

https://www.careerjournal.com/reports/bschool_article/20050921-table-national.html

Code:
2005 Rank   2004 Rank   University (Business School)
1   3   Dartmouth College (Tuck)
2   1   University of Michigan (Ross)
3   2   Carnegie Mellon University (Tepper)
4   7   Northwestern University (Kellogg)
5   6   Yale University
6   4   University of Pennsylvania (Wharton)
7   15   University of California, Berkeley (Haas)
8   8   Columbia University
9   11   University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill (Kenan-Flagler)
10   --   University of Southern California (Marshall)
11   12   University of Virginia (Darden)
12   9   Massachusetts Institute of Technology (Sloan)
13   5   University of Chicago
14   13   Harvard University
15   10   Stanford University
16   17   New York University (Stern)
17   14   Duke University (Fuqua)
18   18   Cornell University (S.C. Johnson)
19   19   University of California, Los Angeles
User avatar
Manager
Manager
Joined: 28 Nov 2004
Posts: 62
Own Kudos [?]: 2 [0]
Given Kudos: 0
Send PM
[#permalink]
I contacted WSJ on the methodology used in ranking business schools and found that WSJ surveyed ~3600 recruiters and based their rankings on the "input" received from the recruiters. For instance, if many recruiters felt that Harvard and Stanford graduates were "arrogant" and/or "rude" they (recruiters) lowered the ranking of the school the individuals graduated from. On the contrary, if the recruiters interaction with the graduates of a certain school, say Michigan, was very pleasant, they raised the ranking of that particular school.

So at best the WSJ rankings are "silly" and not intellectual. It is best to term the ranking as an output of a survey.

My two cents.

spiderman_xx
User avatar
Director
Director
Joined: 16 Aug 2005
Posts: 516
Own Kudos [?]: 113 [0]
Given Kudos: 0
Location: France
Send PM
[#permalink]
The WSJ rankings are not an overall rankings of best schools. In fact, there is no best school...there are only best schools for you. The WSJ rankings are just the recruiters take on which schools' graduates they have the best experience with and whom they like hiring. Basically, you are on corporate recruiters better side if you are graduating from one of these top schools...thats all. Stanford ranking lower than Michican only means that this past year, recruiters enjoyed hiring Michigan graduates more than they did with Stanford graduates. If your goal is to look best in recruiters eyes then follow these rankings, otherwise dont.
avatar
Intern
Intern
Joined: 06 Jun 2005
Posts: 39
Own Kudos [?]: 1 [0]
Given Kudos: 0
Send PM
[#permalink]
i think the FT rankings (global) are the best out there since it considers at least 20 factors into consideration - which is a wide range of measure..i wish BW would club the international schools along with the US schools in their rankings instead of 2 seperate ones.
avatar
Intern
Intern
Joined: 06 Feb 2006
Posts: 1
Own Kudos [?]: [0]
Given Kudos: 0
Send PM
[#permalink]
any information about ISB, hyderabad???
[#permalink]