A Rank by Any Other Name

"For the great majority of mankind are satisfied with appearance as though they were realities and are often more influenced by the things that seem than by those that are."
- Machiavelli

Business school rankings are everywhere.

Among many others, BusinessWeek, US News & World Report, the Wall Street Journal, the Financial Times, Forbes, and the Economist each have their own respected rankings. Each elevates a select few programs to a yearly (sometimes bi-yearly) pantheon of greatness. And, of course, each brews these lists using different (sometimes only slightly different) ingredients.

US News uses a quantifiable combination of incoming class GMAT scores, GPA's, percent of applicants accepted, employment rates, salaries, and dean/director survey results. The Wall Street Journal uses recruiter feedback. The two lists are different, but not so much so that the top 15 schools (or so) don't show up (mostly). In other words, if you take a step back, the lists don't change much from publication to publication, or even year to year.

These rankings have their critics, of course. It doesn't take a PhD in sociology to know that people too often turn appearance into reality. At their heart, these rankings are based on opinions. Even a student body's average GMAT score reflects the opinion of those students who apply at - and eventually attend - their institution.

That, then, raises some key questions - questions that will eventually make a big difference when I whittle down my list of target programs.

First, do rankings really matter at all? If so, how much do they matter and which rankings matter to me?

The answer to the first question is, my opinion, 'yes,' they matter. They matter because most people think they matter. Employers will pay more for a top-10 MBA, on average, than they will for a top-25 MBA ... more recruiters visit top programs, expanding the opportunities for top-flight students ... the brightest students are attracted to the top programs for the reasons I just mentioned, and so on.

The fact is, the more highly ranked your program, the better chance you have of finding a cool job and making more money. It's that simple.

I know; you're about to say that I think this because I read it in the same magazines that sell me rankings. That might be partially true, but I also know several people who have experienced this phenomenon. Many of my co-workers have an MBA from the University of Denver's Daniels School of Business. While this degree seems to provide its applicants with a very good education, it doesn't seem to lead to the jobs so many of them would have hoped. Too many settle for less money, less responsibility, and, frankly, less job satisfaction than their top-tier MBA counterparts. Does this mean they're any less adept at solving business problems? I seriously doubt it. It does mean, however, that the perception in the market, the career services at their school, and their alumni network are simply not as strong as they are at the Harvard's and Stanford's of the business world.

Then again, those who push rankings as a good assessments of a program's inherent merit would say that rankings do what they're supposed to do: reflect superior quality. That's a chicken/egg argument and, frankly, I'm not sure it matters. All I know is that, while my friends who went to Daniels seem to have received a great education, my friends who went to Stanford, Kellogg, and Duke also got great educations - and much cooler job offers. And, by the way, these programs all cost about the same.

So, if rankings matter - at least to me - then it's logical to try to find the degree to which the various positions make a difference in overall job satisfaction (including salary, opportunity, etc.) Rather than peal apart the numbers -and I'm sure many have - I'm going to give a gut assessment that seems to resonate with others: I'll go top-15, top-10 if I can, or I'll reconsider going at all.

Movement within the top-15 is, of course, the topic of much angst, argument, and speculation. US New ranks Harvard, Stanford, and Wharton in the top-5 virtually every year. BusinessWeek shuffles all three around, but they always land in the top ten. The Wall Street Journal usually ranks these three in the top-15 but, nevertheless, they almost always remain above that 15-slot watermark. Programs like Michigan seem to float from #1 (WSJ) to #11 (US News). Kellogg and Tuck hang around in the top 5'ish, UCLA and, on occasion, the University of Texas, seem to hover around the lower 15.

That's a long way of saying that the lists change, but they don't change a great deal. Wharton, Chicago, Columbia, etc are almost always in the top-15. Notre Dame, Daniels, and the University of Illinois - all good programs - are almost never ranked that high.

I hope these schools get a fair shot but, honestly, I'm glad there's a little continuity. That makes building my list a lot easier. But it still leaves me questioning which lists and, ultimately, which individual programs, fit me best.

For example, if I simply wanted name recognition, I could Google "business school" and use the top hits as my list. Here's what it would look like:

1. Harvard
2. Wharton
3. Stanford
4. Colombia
5. Michigan
6. University of Washington
7. NYU
8. University of Texas

Other than U of W, the list looks pretty familiar, doesn't it?

How about if I used the WSJ's information on recruiting numbers to determine my list? Ranking schools as a percentage of the class that gets hired with top strategy firms (my goal after graduation), the list looks like this:

1. Wharton (18%)
2. Kellogg (14%)
3. Columbia (12%)
4. MIT (11%)
5. Dartmouth (11%)
6. Chicago (6%)
7. Michigan (6%)
8. Yale (4%)
9. Duke (4%)

(Stanford and Harvard don't report employment numbers by firm, but I'm sure they'd make this list's top-5)

This list could show up in any respected publication's rankings and be taken very seriously. In other words, there's no magic list that provides all the answers. Dissecting each ranking with excruciating detail is probably going to confuse an applicant more that it will help reveal the "right" school.

Of course, I'll use the lists above and I'll consider what BusinessWeek and the WSJ say. Ultimately, however, rankings are simply a way to quickly gather the general body of institutions from which I hope to eventually choose one. Beyond that, rankings are interesting, but can't possibly tell the whole story. Thanks to rankings, I have a general target group. Now each program's individual strengths - academic approach, teaching focus, student collegiality, alumni network, location, etc - have to inform my next decision: where to actually apply.