Methodology
Rankings are little more than an indication of the MBA market at a particular time. They reflect the prevailing conditions such as salaries, jobs available and the situation at a school at the time the survey was carried out. Results of rankings can be volatile, so they should be treated with caution. However, our ranking takes data over a three-year period, which helps provide a more rounded picture.
How did we choose which schools to rank?
The Economist ranking of full-time MBA programmes was based on an initial selection of 132 leading business schools around the world. All 132 schools were invited to take part in our two-stage survey, which requires input from schools and students/alumni. Of these, we were unable to rank 17 schools (see table below). The global top 100 schools were gleaned from the remaining 115. Schools outside the top 100 were given a regional ranking only.
To qualify for inclusion in the ranking, the schools with full-time MBA programmes that responded to our survey had to meet various thresholds of data provision, as well as attaining a minimum number of responses to a survey gauging the opinion of current students and alumni who graduated within the last three years. These were set as a proportion of the annual intake of students to the programme as shown in the table below.
Data were collected during spring 2010 using two web-based questionnaires, one for business schools and one for students and recent graduates. Schools distributed the web address of the latter questionnaire to their own students and graduates. A total of 18,712 students and graduates participated. All data received from schools were subject to verification checks, including, where possible, comparison with historical data, peer schools and other published sources. Student and graduate questionnaires were audited for multiple or false entries.
Memory has been built into the rankings by taking a weighted average of 2010 (50%), 2009 (30%) and 2008 (20%) data to provide a rounded picture of the school. Sudden movements in data, which might not produce an immediate increase in quality, are thus reflected gradually, much as the improvement would affect students.
The table below summarises the measures used to calculate the rankings together with their respective weightings. Salaries, where possible, were converted at average 2009 exchange rates. Student and alumni ratings make up 20% of the total ranking, and 80% is based on data provided by schools. The statistical methodology adopted for the ranking gives each business school a unique score (known to statisticians as a z-score). Unlike some other rankings, we do not include any “equal” schools (for example, four schools ranked equal sixth followed by one ranked tenth). However, it should be noted that differences between some schools might be slight.
Rankings
Stay informed
Full-time MBA ranking breakdowns
Which MBA? special reports
Latest student diaries
Advertisement
Advertisement
Subscribe to The Economist's free e-mail newsletters and alerts.
Subscribe to The Economist's latest article postings on Twitter
See a selection of The Economist's articles, events, topical videos and debates on Facebook.
Advertisement
Readers' comments
The Economist welcomes your views. Please stay on topic and be respectful of other readers. Review our comments policy.
Sort:
HEC Paris as #1 in salary seems suspect... who audited these #s?
I graduated from one of the top 10 business schools last year and I did not receive any invitation from my business school to fill out a questionnaire or survey for this ranking. That said, to whom did the school invite to complete the aforementioned survey? So if the alumni and students had been previously chosen by the school, the answers would be skewed and not reflect the actual opinion of recent graduate and current students. This is an example of the lack of ETHICS of business schools. I hope The Economist change its methodology otherwise its prestige would be questionned.
This ranking is useless. I can't believe some of the schools I am seeing in the top 10 - Bath? Henley? Huh? And Stanford, MIT and other heavy hitters like INSEAD are ranked so low relatively speaking, but weaker schools like ESADE are in the top. It's just ridiculous. Whoever puts together this report should be laughed at - the methodology is clearly flawed. The only solid rankings it seems come from the FT and BusinessWeek. Economist - maybe you should still to Economics and leave the MBA rankings to those who understand it.
Every ranking has its weak points, but all in all they are good guidelines for future students. FT and Economist seem to be the most reliable sources from a European perspective.
@MRKinParis: I think you didn't read or comprehend the introduction to this article. The fact that the economy tanked severely hurt one dimensional schools like LBS and INSEAD, who are heavily reliant on the banking and consulting industries, respectively. Anyone paying attention, knows that there were fewer jobs in finance by a large margin and that bankers earned SIGNIFICANTLY less than in years past. Consulting faced a similar decline, though not to the same degree. Thus, schools, like HEC Paris, who have a very diversified recruiting base that includes luxury goods and industrial companies, were less affected and, accordingly, outperformed schools whose salary data and rankings rode the bubble before the crisis. An additional tailwind for HEC salary data has been the strengthening of the euro versus the dollar, since a high percentage of HEC graduates stay in Europe. These two factors make it extremely logical that HEC has a very high salary. Is it possible that HEC is number 5 and not number 1? Of course, but such is the nature of these surveys.
@Miguel VC: A business school can only send you a survey if they have your latest email on file. It is less a question of ethics and more a question of organization/alumni staying in touch. Secondly, the Economist is the only of the rankings who actually openly describes their methodology in detail. FT, Business Week and others use very similar methodologies without disclosure. You should be lauding the Economist for their transparency rather than criticizing them because you don't agree with their results. On a side note pertaining to ethics, any one who thinks that well-organized alumni networks of traditionally top schools do not influence who answers surveys and how they answer them is deluding themselves. The reason nobody complained before is because the surveys aligned with "conventional wisdom." Now, that newer schools are improving their quality and challenging the established powers, people suddenly complain.
@JuliaMBA: See both points above.
There are some significant weaknesses with this system which would unfairly punish some schools and promote other schools. For example:
1) by rewarding the % of students that find jobs through career services, you are punishing schools where students pursue non-traditional careers, entrepreneurial opportunities, and/or students who find opportunities through alumni connections. This would also unfavorably rank students who are sponsored by their company to attend the school
2) By weighting average work experience, this essentially punishes school with a younger average age and would punish schools with more consultants or bankers that tend to go to business school after 2-3 years. Top performers would also typically attend business school sooner to further advance their career.
It's also unfortunate that the ranking does not incorporate student extra-curricular opportunities for development. There is no weighting for the presence of conferences, speaker series, experiential learning and non-profit work, etc.
Based on this approach, the people who constructed the survey clearly never attended business school.
I appreciate being able to see the methodology used for this ranking. The context is great; it allows us all to judge the relevance of the ranking to our needs and wants. For example: If someone was looking to pursue higher education for the purpose of something silly (oh I don't know...)like education. They may find the overall weight of 17% which is placed on the actual education quality (faculty quality, and education experience)hilarious.