David L. Dinwoodie, Deputy General Director, EADA.
I just had coffee with a terribly depressed, apparently suicidal MBA director who kept repeating, “if only the response rate had been higher, if only the response rate had been higher…..” Obviously we just received the press release about the Financial Times European Business School Rankings and missed the top 50 ranking by two places.
“With great pride”, I told him. “We have just been recognized by the leading financial newspaper in the world as being in the top 7% amongst over 700 European MBA programmes.”
“Yes, but the world may never know!” he whimpered as he re-read the email, “We hope this news is not too disappointing and hope you continue to participate in the Financial Times rankings.” I imagine the scene was repeated in cities through out the world yesterday afternoon and would raise a few issues for reflection in this forum.
Firstly, recognize the bold stance taken by Santiago Iñiguez when he has publically stated amongst other business school deans that the ranking process is a positive element in helping MBA candidates differentiate between programmes and make informed decisions. The fact that some outstanding MBA programmes do not fit well into the specific criteria selected for this ranking does not negate the fact that there is great confusion in consumer perception. Thus the ranking process does aid young professional when trying to make a decision that will have a fundamental impact on their professional career. “Will a degree from this institution be recognized by the market?” Well, if the FT says it’s ok, that’s a good start.
Secondly, a concern. I deeply believe that responsible business schools have an obligation to contribute not only to the professional advancement of MBA participants but equally to their personal development and commitment to creating a sustainable corporate fabric that benefits society at large. These factors are noticeably absent in the ranking criteria and thus penalized by the market at crucial decision making moments: Do I choose this programme or that one? Do I recruit from this school or that one?
Thirdly, what role do or should the accreditation agencies play in the ranking game? A fundamental one I would suggest. In addition to pure market perception there should be an independent, external evaluator of academic quality introduced solidly into the informed decision making process. The fact that highly subsidized institutions can outspend smaller competitors in brand building efforts and thus influence market perception should be balanced to some extent by the institutional commitment to quality and attention to the transformation process of MBA participants while on the programme.
Surely factoring in academic accreditations from well established independent agencies could aid in balancing the effect of business school investment in “ranking spend” with investment in developing responsible business leaders.
Comments