The Economist: The Renegade of the Ranking Systems
Defining quality in specific terms can cause controversy. Hot debates are born when politicians offer specific policy ideas instead of generalizations, which is why most prefer to talk about the importance of balancing the budget rather than exactly how they plan to do that. The ones who do offer specific ideas are the renegades, the ones who break from the norm. When it comes to MBA ranking systems, The Economist is that renegade.
The Economist's is the only ranking system that includes the category "personal development" or "open new career opportunities," and to define these categories in specific terms. The result is a system that jumbles the usual pecking order of ranked schools and offers a new way to assess MBA programs.
"When students come to look at these rankings, they have to understand that what we're looking at is different from others," said Bill Ridgers, Business Education Editor for The Economist. He explained that The Economist's MBA rankings are geared towards people who have about five years of work experience under their belt, since the schools they look at are in Europe, and European schools tend to have older student populations.
The Parameters
The Economist's ranking system contains twenty-one parameters, far more than any other system except the other global ranking system, the Financial Times, which uses twenty. The FT's rankings do not break from the norm quite as much as The Economist's, however, since their parameters are more closely related to the topics the other systems assess. The Economist is also the only system to identify explicitly what it values most in MBA education. This includes the likelihood that an MBA will "open new career opportunities," and offer "personal development/educational experience;" each worth 35 percent.
Other ranking systems measure whether schools open new career opportunities by looking at the length of time graduates take to secure jobs or how favorably recruiters speak of those students. In contrast, The Economist thinks that just because students tend to find jobs quickly after attending certain schools does not mean that those schools were instrumental in securing those jobs. It could be that certain schools attract a well-connected crowd able to secure jobs post-graduation without the help of the school. The Economist accounts for this by measuring the number of jobs found through the school's career services.
Within this category, three other important variables are defined: the diversity of the recruiters; students' assessment of the career services; and students' assessment of whether the program meets their career needs and expectations.
The FT does not define its focus so specifically in terms of personal development. While it shares The Economist's decision to include measures of diversity--such as international students, international faculty, and number of women faculty--the FT does not include other measures of personal development, such as the average GMAT score, or students' average length of work experience.
An In-Depth Approach
The issue-focused, analytical approach suits The Economist, which is adept at examining global issues in close detail and coming to its own unique conclusions. The Economist's articles tend to take a clear and unique stance--often one that ruffles some feathers--and back up that stance with meticulously detailed evidence. The newspaper is unafraid to tackle complex global issues with assertive arguments and rich displays of evidence, so it is fitting that its ranking system also delves deep into the details of the schools.
Student opinions make up roughly 20 percent of the weightings, but these opinions are focused on specific issues, such as an assessment of the facilities provided. And the other parameters stick to objective measures, such as the ratio of students to faculty, average GMAT score, and average length of work experience.
Considering that The Economist derived its collection of parameters from asking students what was most important to them in an MBA program, it is ironic that their methodology makes a lot of students mad.
Unpopular is an understatement for the way that readers have reacted in the comments section on their website. Of the 24 comments given, 23 were scathingly negative, and the one reader who offered defense for their methodology had reservations about it. Many of these comments were from students at schools ranking lower here than elsewhere, who were hoping to set the record straight.
The other two major categories The Economist looks at include "increases salary," worth 20 percent, and the “ability to network,” worth 10 percent. The salary category is 75-percent based on change in salary from pre- to post-MBA, and 25-percent on pure post-MBA salary. The “ability to network” category is based upon measures of the breadth of the alumni network, the internationalism of the alumni network, and the effectiveness of the alumni network, each weighted equally.
Conclusion
Editor Bill Ridgers is quick to point out that the usefulness of any methodology is limited to whether a student knows how to use it to suit their own needs. That's why The Economist's website, and an iPhone app, offer students the opportunity to construct their own ranking by entering their own weighting preferences for each parameter.
It's an effort well suited to a newspaper concerned with critically examining all the details.
Cover photo courtesy of Idea Launch.