QS TopMBA-The Global Top 100 Business Schools
Top 5 European Business Schools.
Top 5 North American Business Schools.
| School Name | Country | % |
|---|---|---|
| Source: QS TopMBA.com International Recruiter Survey 2007 | ||
| INSEAD | France | 100% |
| Thunderbird, The Garvin School of International Management | USA | 91% |
| Harvard Business School | USA | 79% |
| The Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania | USA | 61% |
| IE Business School (Instituto de Empresa) | Spain | 52% |
Top European Business Schools - Financial Times
Rank '07 | Rank '06 | Business school name | Country | MBA '07 | MBA sal. ($) | MBA increase | EMBA '07 | EMBA sal. ($) | EMBA increase | Masters '07 | Masters sal. (€) | Open EE '07 | Custom EE '07 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 1 | HEC Paris | France | 7 | 111,223 | 125 | 1 | 251,699 | 95 | 1 | 57,975 | 9 | 4 | |
| 2 | 2 | London Business School | U.K. | 1 | 135,522 | 122 | 3 | 238,259 | 95 | - | - | 5 | 7 | |
| 3 | 10 | Insead | France / Singapore | 2 | 140,551 | 94 | 5 | 216,830 | 65 | - | - | 4 | 5 | |
| 4 | 3 | IMD | Switzerland | 4 | 153,148 | 91 | 9 | 163,218 | 65 | - | - | 1 | 1 | |
| 5 | 4 | IE Business School | Spain | 3 | 113,450 | 149 | 4 | 169,332 | 163 | - | - | 2 | 22 | |
| 6 | 5 | Iese Business School | Spain | 6 | 104,284 | 136 | 7 | 158,246 | 70 | - | - | 3 | 2 | |
| 7 | 6 | ESCP-EAP European School of Management | France / U.K. / Germany / Spain / Italy | - | - | - | 10 | 121,182 | 78 | 3 | 52,003 | 13 | 10 | |
| 8 | 7 | RSM Erasmus University | Netherlands | 12 | 104,062 | 105 | 16 | 149,773 | 53 | 9 | 42,437 | - | 20 | |
| 9 | 13 | EM Lyon | France | 31 | - | - | 23 | 95,882 | 77 | 5 | 43,091 | 14 | 16 | |
| 10 | 11 | Esade Business School | Spain | 10 | 97,982 | 136 | - | - | - | 10 | 38,990 | 11 | 11 |
| 2007 Rank  |
School |
Location |
2005 Rank |
2003 Rank |
Grad Poll |
Director Poll |
Total Tuition ($) |
Women (%) |
Minorities (%) |
Grad's Year of Mgmt. Exp. |
Teaching |
Curriculum |
Support |
| Northwestern (Kellogg) | Evanston, Ill. | 1 | 1 | 135,000 | 23 | A | A+ | A | |||||
| Pennsylvania (Wharton) | Philadelphia | 2 | 3 | 142,440 | 14 | A | B | A+ | |||||
| Chicago | Chicago | 3 | 2 | 120,000 | 17 | A+ | B | C | |||||
| Michigan (Ross) | Ann Arbor | 4 | NR | 120,000 | 10 | A+ | A+ | A | |||||
| USC (Marshall) | Los Angeles | 8 | 12 | 84,850 | 11 | A | A+ | A | |||||
| Columbia | New York | NR | 15 | 133,200 | 7 | A+ | A+ | A+ | |||||
| Emory (Goizueta) | Atlanta | 6 | 10 | 88,000 | 17 | A+ | A+ | A+ | |||||
| UCLA (Anderson) | Los Angeles | 14 | 7 | 95,116 | 10 | A+ | A+ | A | |||||
| Duke (Fuqua-Global) | Durham, N.C. | 9 | 9 | 123,500 | 20 | A+ | A | A+ | |||||
| UNC (Kenan-Flagler) | Chapel Hill, N.C. | 5 | 5 | 67,200 | 20 | B | A | A+ | |||||
| SMU (Cox) | Dallas | 16 | 18 | 84,135 | 17 | A | A+ | B | |||||
| Georgetown (McDonough) | Washington, D.C. | 10 | 11 | 93,935 | NA | A | B | B | |||||
| Cornell (Johnson) | Ithaca, N.Y. | 17 | 14 | 122,400 | 14 | A+ | A | A+ | |||||
| Ohio State (Fisher) | Columbus | 13 | NR | 64,900 | 2 | A | B | B | |||||
| Instituto de Empresa | Madrid | NR | NR | 63,500 | NA | B | C | B | |||||
| IMD | Lausanne, Switzerland | 7 | 6 | 101,000 | NA | B | B | A | |||||
| IESE (University of Navarra) | Barcelona, Spain | 15 | NR | 126,244 | NA | A+ | A | B | |||||
| INSEAD | France/Singapore | NR | NR | 110,000 | NA | A | A | B | |||||
| New York (Stern) | New York | 19 | 13 | 128,000 | NA | B | A+ | B | |||||
| London Business School | London | 25 | 23 | 85,000 | NA | B | A | B | |||||
| ESADE | Barcelona | NR | NR | 66,690 | NA | B | C | B | |||||
| Thunderbird | Glendale, Ariz. | NR | NR | 67,000 | 42 | A | B | A | |||||
| Queen's | Kingston, Ont. | 21 | NR | 69,000 | NA | A | A | A | |||||
| Washington (Olin) | St. Louis | NR | 17 | 83,900 | 12.5 | A | A | A | |||||
| Villanova | Philadelphia | NR | NR | 85,000 | 26 |
Executive Education rankings 2007Compare data for the top EMBAs as compiled in this ranking. Use our interactive table to sort the data and find the best programme.
Interactive EMBA ranking 2007 (22nd October, 2007)
Download as PDF
(40 KB)
1. Kellogg/Hong Kong UST Business School China
2. Trium: HEC Paris/LSE/New York University: Stern France/UK/US
3. University of Pennsylvania: Wharton US
4. Columbia/London Business School US/U EMBA
5. IE Business School
Financial Times article, "Stanford tops alternative ranking", October 11 2007.
..."The biennial survey run by the Aspen Institute looks at how well social and environmental issues are incorporated into the training of future business leaders."...
..."Aspen CBE sees its role as creating business leaders who combine social value with the vision and knowledge needed to integrate corporate profitability."
Business Week article, "Stanford Tops Sustainability Rankings", October 10, 2007.
..."Indeed, the outlook is bright this year for business-school students
with an environmental leaning, says Rich Leimsider, director of New
York's Aspen Institute Center for Business Education"...
..."the Aspen Institute's "alternative" ranking solely examines how MBA programs are integrating social and environmental topics into their core classes, electives, and academic research. The institute surveyed 111 institutions, 71 in the U.S. and 40 international schools, representing a total of 18 countries."...
The Aspen Institute's -(Centre for Business Education) Beyond Grey Pinstripes
is a biennial survey and ranking of business schools.
Their mission is to spotlight innovative full-time MBA programs that are integrating issues of social and environmental stewardship into curricula and research.
2007-2008 Beyond Grey Pinstripes Top Global 100 (see bschool profiles in the US and Europe rankings below)
Some of the findings of Beyond Grey Pinstripes, while elaborating the ranking:
Continue reading "Aspen Institute - Ranking of MBA programs" »
Via PrincetonReview, news release 8th October 2007, publication 9th October.
This year we surveyed more than 19,000 students at 290 business schools and used the information that they reported to us, along with school statistics provided by school administrators, to create 11 ranking lists. None of these lists purports to rank the schools in terms of overall quality; but by using the lists in conjunction with the Students Say profiles and the school statistics, you will be able to identify the attributes of a business school that are important to you—and ultimately, generate a list of the schools that can best help you achieve your personal and professional goals. We wish you the best of luck in your business school search!
The Times Good University Guide 2008 : The top institutions, plus subject rankings, university profiles, student guides and survival tips
The gap between Oxford and Cambridge at the top of The Times Good University Guide is the narrowest since the league tables were first published 14 years ago.
Oxford remains at the top of the table for the sixth consecutive year. But the margin between the two academic powerhouses has closed to only five points out of a total possible score of 1,000, the closest it has been since 1993, when they tied.
Only St Andrews breaks into the “golden triangle” of Oxford, Cambridge and London this year, moving up 13 places to get into the Top Five. It overtakes Edinburgh, which ranks 13th, to become the top university in Scotland. Other institutions showing substantial rises this year include King’s College London, at No 10, Exeter, at No 17 and City University, which is up 17 places to joint 40th. Only half the Russell Group of 20 research-intensive universities feature in the Top 20, with Leeds at 30, Queen’s University Belfast at 33 and Liverpool at 34....
Opening paragraphs of an article of The Times of India, 20 August, 2007.
BANGALORE: Recruiters around the world
are on a big MBA talent hunt. The UK is now paying the highest salaries for MBAs
worldwide.
China is the hottest market with more and more MBAs
joining Chinese companies. Asian students are among the highest GMAT scorers in
the world. The Top MBA International MBA Recruitment and Salary Report 2007,
made available to TOI, reveals these and other interesting trends of MBA
education in 35 countries.
The survey is the most extensive and
presents an unrivalled view of the World MBA recruitment market with responses
from 489 companies worldwide.
Business-Education Distance-Learning Rankings 2007 
(32KB) March 19 2007
Picking a course: Table points to widespread disparity in programme formats Della Bradshaw, March 19 2007.
...Not everyone agrees. Indeed, the business programme accreditation bodies are at intellectual loggerheads over the subject.
At the Association of MBAs, based in London, accreditation requires a minimum of 120 hours of face-to-face teaching to be included in the MBA programme...
...In Brussels, the European Federation of Management Development (EFMD) takes a more liberal view. For programmes to earn the EFMD’s Cel qualification for technology-enhanced learning, at least 20 per cent of the teaching must be supported by e-learning...
Distance Learning March 2007 Selection of articles.
Up close and very personal Linda Anderson, March 19 2007
...The phrase e-learning, she suggests, should perhaps be replaced by
mobile learning, personalised learning or even ubiquitous learning. But
it is not only the vocabulary that is altering...
...It would seem that e-learning and distance learning are no longer stand-alone subjects. Boundaries have blurred to the point that they can no longer be readily distinguished, with business schools and corporate universities alike using elements to support their teaching...
The 100 top global MBAs, as compiled in this ranking. Use our interactive table to select the best MBA to suit your needs.
Interactive MBA ranking 2007 Download as PDF
Della Bradshaw, The Financial Times Business Education editor.
Why is Edinburgh Management School not ranked among the top 5 in UK by Financial Times. In UK, University of Edinburgh has a brand value while this does not reflect in the rankings. It is among the top 5 universities in UK and top 10 in Europe.
Why is there so much a gap in the rankings placed by Economist Intelligence Unit and Financial Times???
Della Bradshaw's reply:
There are several answers to your question. The reputation of a university is not necessarily reflected in the reputation or the standing of the business school. This is particularly true when the business school is relatively new, as is often the case in Europe.
As to why the school is ranked differently in different rankings.....Each ranking uses different criteria. If you change the criteria you change the ranking, it's as simple as that. T he best schools will do well in all rankings.
Indian students return home from the US - May 2, India Times
A current first-year (MBA) states “it is no longer a question of if, but when”. Timing
the return is always a big question mark. The incentives to return change as
people settle into their careers and become more averse to changing geographies
India's Top-Ranking B-Schools Are at a Crossroads - May 12, WorldPress.org
Includes a buisness today ranking
Tags(clickable): India
Universum's American MBA Edition is an independent
research survey that offers detailed information on the work-related
opinions of MBA's at the leading business shools in the US. Their survery of 2006 has been used in several articles including:
Fortunes list of "100 top MBA Employers"
Financial Times,
CNN,
College Recruiter and Zdnet
Tags(clickable): Google, MBA jobs
Della Bradshaw, The Financial Times Business Education editor.
Should journalists become members of industry organisations such as Equal? It is a very interesting question - though I think you would have to create a new category for us!
As an aside, I do know that the Financial Times is a corporate member of EMBAC, the EMBA Council.
Della Bradshaw, The Financial Times Business Education editor.
I think I have to take issue with Prof Policano's comment that there is a "trade off between making more money and reporting more accurately".
At the FT - and I'm absolutely certain this is true at other publications which rank business schools - reporting accuracy is NEVER compromised in order to make money, be that selling advertising or newspapers. Indeed, anyone can view all our rankings on ft.com completely free of charge - it is a non-subscription service.
At the FT we have spent years trying to make our rankings more stable, not less stable. We compile salary data and alumni opinion over three years, for example. And when a ranking has been running for more than three years, we introduce a three year average score, which we tell our readers is a better indicator for schools, especially ESTABLISHED schools, notably those in the US.
We also "band" schools, into four bands for our MBA rankings - equivalent to the ratings Prof Policano is looking for - and point out in the footnotes that schools are ranked in these clusters.
Because the FT is a global ranking - not a US one - we include very fast-growing schools, in both Europe and Asia. Just to give you one specific example, the FT ranks the University of Oxford's MBA at number 25 in the world. Ten years ago this programme did not exist.
Prof Policano's argument that that top 50 US schools are much the same schools, year in, year out, has some validity. But the top 50 or 100 global schools are certainly not!
Prof Policano notes that at his previous school, the MBA programme did not change much from year to year. But there are schools where the programmes do change, and the schools involved want that recorded through the rankings. A rating system may not achieve this.
For every dean that wants more stability in the rankings there is one that doesn't..... one complaint I often hear is that our three-year weighting system penalises innovative schools. This is particularly true in our executive education rankings where these shorter programmes are revamped on a near-annual basis - or even replaced completely.
On a final note, one often-voiced complaint is that rankings should be more transparent. Wouldn't a move from rankings to ratings make them less transparent?
Andy Policano, Dean of The Paul Merage School of Business, University of California, Irvine
In my recent article “What Price Rankings?” in BizEd, I examine a number of the items that are discussed by Della Bradshaw, Howard Thomas and Santiago Iniguez. Let me comment on just one of those points which my good friend Howard Thomas alluded to in his comments.
I am sure that Howard would agree with Della Bradshaw that the media should make money. The disagreement comes from the trade off between making more money and reporting more accurately. Let me provide an example. A major point of my BizEd article is that the set of the top twenty schools has not changed significantly in the last 18 years and that the numerical scores that the media compute for these schools show little statistical difference between them. All of these programs are excellent and all provide a top notch environment. Still, there are more complex differences across these programs than reflected in the rankings that might cause a prospective student to choose one over another. Because there is little statistical difference in the numbers computed by the media for these schools, one of the least important determinants of that decision should be the media ranking. The same conclusion can be reached for the schools that fall in the next group of say 30 schools. These observations suggest that a more accurate way to portray the quality of business schools is to “rate” not “rank” them. Schools in the first tier receive an "A"; schools in the next tier a "B" and so on. Students would then investigate the important differences between schools based on a deeper comparison of the specific attributes of the schools and their own preferences.
So, why don’t the media simply report the raw data for each school and then rate and not rank schools? The stark reality is that there would be little new in the ratings from one year to the next—thus, no news. If the media adopted this strategy, which would avoid creating the misperception that there are sharp differences between schools with the same rating, much of the hype of the rankings would diminish and rankings issues would be less popular.
While there is nothing wrong in the concept that the media should make money, there is something wrong in the concept that the media are inventing news that really isn’t there. For example, I began my investigation of the rankings while I was Dean at Wisconsin when in one year the US News ranking of the MBA program rose 20 places. We had done nothing different in that year. It was then that I discovered that the schools are so closely bunched together that a minor blip in one component of the ranking can cause major changes in the school’s relative position. The truth was that there was no substantial change in the quality of the program. If the media had rated rather than ranked programs, a more accurate portrayal would have been relayed to the public.
In sum, the media should rate, not rank schools. In fact, Business Week does this for their 30 – 50 group and their 50+ group. They list these schools alphabetically, most likely because they find it difficult to draw distinctions between these schools. The rest of the media should move in this direction.
Here is EQUALS´s "Rankings - Guide for the media (69 kb)" that was indirecly linked to in Santiago Iñiguez's last post and futhermore EQUAL´s "Rankings - Guide for Students and Employers (70 kb)"
The Blogmaster.
Della Bradshaw, The Financial Times Business Education editor.
Again, I am really interested in what EFMD/Equis/Equal are doing in this area. In particular I am intrigued by Prof Iniguez's comment: "EQUAL, the think tank for EQUIS, published a document with the requirements that, according to the business education community, rankings should desirably meet".
How many newspapers did they circulate this document to? Was it sent to the Financial Times, the Economist or BusinessWeek? Did anyone from Equis/Equal/EFMD ever discuss this document over the phone or face-to-face with any journalist?
I can't help feeling, though, that business schools grouping together to decide a list of "requirements" is a bit like a bunch of journalists getting together to decide what makes a great newspaper.
As a newspaper we only survive if our readers and advertisers believe we are supplying them with the information and comment they need in the format they need it.
Is there a message here for business schools?
Della Bradshaw, The Financial Times Business Education editor.
I am always rather amused when business schools point an accusing finger at newspapers and complain that we are there to make money.
Is making money such a bad thing? Is that what you teach in business school?
If newspapers didn't make money through sales and advertising, how on earth could they continue to "educate, entertain and inform"?
I am also rather concerned about Prof Thomas's comments that rankings are too important to be left to the media, and should be carried out by the industry bodies, such as AACSB, AMBA, Equis and GMAC.
To begin with, I do not believe organisations which are financed by the business schools are best placed to carry out these kinds of rankings, nor that this type of assessment would carry weight with potential students and employers.
Second, I think you would have a hard time persuading 500-1,000 schools to accept a single set of criteria.
At the FT we constantly ask business schools to assess topics, such as the research publications we use to compile our rankings. It never ceases to amaze me how many professors write to me, often in quite insulting tones, to tell me the FT research list is ludicrous because it does not include the "Journal of socio-accounting political economics in the Isle of Wight", or somesuch.
I really do think organisations such as AACSB and Equis have a vital role in helping to define industry standards. That was why I think it is so important that they talk to each other. As Prof Iniguez writes, Equis is now publishing a glossary of terms for business schools to adopt. But will this be seen as an end in itself, or a starting point for working with AACSB and GMAC in the US to produce international standards?
Perhaps Prof Thomas, with experience as a dean in both Europe and the US, could act as honest broker here?
Howard Thomas, Dean of Warwick Business School
I agree with Paul Danos that rankings are both controversial and important. Perhaps, however, they are too important to rely so much on media organisations which are there not only to ‘educate, entertain and inform’ - but also to sell newsprint and advertising space.
Many rankings contain useful information for prospective candidates but how many of these see further than the numerical list from 1 to 100? Even if they did so, there is insufficient information in most rankings for a serious candidate to make an informed choice. Given that many schools can be separated by just a few points, perhaps banding, such as that now adopted by the US National Research Council in their forthcoming assessment of Doctoral programmes would be more useful.
An honest broker would have to ask a couple of supplementary questions to the enquiry ‘Which is the best business school for me?’ Schools which specialise in developing entrepreneurs or taking many candidates from the public or not for profit sectors lose out considerably in most rankings. Additionally, most rankings are seen as business school rankings and they are not, they are attempts to rank programmes or, in the case of the MBA, parts of programmes (Full Time, Executive and Distance).
Having experience as Dean in both US and UK schools, I can testify to the fact that the differences between the management education styles in these two countries is not reflected in rankings currently, neither is the rich diversity of styles within Europe or the USA. More information in this area, evident in recent commentary by the Financial Times, would prove more useful to prospective candidates than a strict numerical rank.
There are so many rankings now that, apart from the resource needed to participate, how can perspective candidates sort the wheat from the chaff? Currently, none of these rankings are endorsed by bodies such as EFMD, AACSB, AMBA or GMAC. Perhaps by working more closely with these organisations, more credible, consistent and methodologically sound information could be produced.
Tags(clickable): mba, Warwick, mba rankings, education, business school, management education
Della Bradshaw, The Financial Times Business Education editor.
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.
Tags(clickable): mba, Della Bradshaw, mba, MBA rankings, education, business school, management education
Continue reading " Rankings | - "Two different sets of 'standard' data."" »
The Times:
Recent Comments