Not surprisingly, I am prepared to jump into the rankings debate with both feet.
I think Prof Danos' comments are particularly generous. I am sure some schools do have concerns about breaches of privacy when students, alumni and recruiters are surveyed, but I know of no example at the FT - or any other newspaper or journal - where this has happened.
As to the time it takes to complete the surveys....this is an issue we take seriously at the FT and we only ask schools for information that we actually use in the rankings.
We have always supported the GMAC initiative to work towards a standardised set of data that we can use in our rankings. Our only concern is that the definitions should take into account MBA programmes internationally, not just those run in the US.
Indeed, my biggest worry at the moment is a European initiative to develop a similar set of standardised data - designed to measure European MBA programmes.
The last thing anyone needs is two different sets of "standard" data.
On a final note....for the past five years the FT has audited the data supplied to us by the schools for our MBA rankings, using auditors KPMG. What has become clear to us through this is that the processes in place to collect data in the different business schools vary enormously.
The differences are not related to the size or nationality of the schools, nor to whether they have huge endowments or exist on state hand-outs. Some of the top schools are brilliant at supplying data, others are woeful.
Presumably this relates directly to the time it takes to complete the surveys?