| Global MBA Rankings: Review and Recommendations | |

|

Table of Contents Executive Summary 3 Review of Existing MBA Ranking Methodologies 3 A New MBA Ranking Methodology 5 KPI Categories 6 1. Internationalism 6 2. Career 6 3. Salary 6 4. Network and Student body 6 5. Faculty and Education 7 Data Collection and Standardization 7 Summary 7 Appendix 1: List of KPIs 9 Appendix 2: KPI Descriptions and Definitions 10 1. Internationalism KPIs 10 2. Career KPIs 10 3. Salary KPIs 11 4. Network & Student Body KPIs 12 5. Faculty and Education KPIs 12 Appendix 3: Salary Adjustment Process 14 Appendix 4: Data Standardization Processes 15 Appendix 5: School Questionnaire 16 Appendix 6: Alumni Questionnaire 17 Appendix 7: 2010 Survey Data 18 Internationalism 18 Career 19 Salary 20 Network and Student Body 21 Faculty and Education 23 References 24 Post Script: Lessons Learned 25

Executive Summary
Over the last few weeks we have taken on the task of assessing the relevance of the two most recognized annual Global MBA ranking systems, published by the Financial Times and the Economist. We have concluded the need for a new ranking system that would address some of the key shortcomings of these systems. This new system would continue to build on the successes of the esteemed publications.

We believe that a new system needs to take into account the needs of the emerging Y-generation, the millennials, a lower emphasis on salary and a greater one on impact, both local and global. We believe that our proposed ranking will address these needs, as we have put more emphasis on the internationalism of the MBA along with weighting salaries to reflect high-impact, low income industries such as government and non-for-profits.

Over the next few pages and the attached appendixes, you will get more details on the reasons that have driven our recommendation.

Review of Existing MBA Ranking Methodologies
In preparation of this report we have extensively analysed and reviewed two highly recognized MBA rankings, the Financial Times (FT) and The Economist. The purpose of the review was to identify the strong hold and weaknesses in each of the rankings. Our analysis reviewed the KPIs used by both publications, the weightings provided by each of the rankings. *
Financial Times
Considered one of the most popular and accepted ranking methodologies by both business schools and prospective students. It is supported by the strong brand and reach of the Financial Times newspaper. The FT ranking focuses its assessment around three different categories. The first being Alumni salaries and career development, the second is the diversity and international reach of the business school and its MBA programmed and finally the research capabilities of each school.

After reviewing in high detail each of the three categories that FT takes into consideration, we have identified the following:

Strengths of the FT ranking include * It solicits input from both the business schools and the alumni. By increasing the data sources, the FT ensures a more accurate assessment * The use of more than 30 KPIs in the three categories above insures that the ranking takes into account different aspects and is not to simplistic * The large number of KPI’s and the need for input from both the school and alumni reduces the probability of fraud by the schools * By requiring European and American schools to be accredited in order to be considered in the ranking, it ensures that it focuses on assessing schools that meet a specific quality benchmark Weaknesses of the FT ranking include * Assigns more than 40% only on salary components, which we think is too high as it doesn’t give enough weight to the other KPIs * Does not take inputs from potential recruiters or industry experts * Accreditation is applicable only to European and US schools, this can result in the inclusion of lower quality schools that would include bias in the data * Does not include salary data for students with work experience in government and NGOs * Takes into consideration the salary mean rather than its median. With the ranking eliminating the low salary outliers through elimination of NGO and public employees, this would result in a negatively skewed distribution of the data * Significantly downplays the significance of internationalism, which is one of the key reasons for many of perspective students to pursue a global MBA program

The Economist
The Economist published an annual global ranking of business schools. The Economist ranking again is supported by the strong reach and brand of The Economist magazine. This ranking is different than the financial times in quite a few aspects. In our opinion the most vital is how it uses a more evenly weighted methodology. The Key Performance Indicator (KPIs), the assessment criteria, categories for The Economist are Career Opportunities, Personal Development and Education experience, Earning Potential and finally Networking Potential. Each of these groups has KPIs with different weights assigned to each of them. The target group for the survey is identical to the FT ranking with the concentration on the alumni and the business schools to gather the data.

Strengths of The Economist include * Takes the weighted average of last three years and thus tries to reduce high degree of variation in rankings from one year to another * Balanced approach between post MBA salary and greater emphasis on career development * Present a Balanced score card for each school based on the identified groups * Provides end users with the possibility of re-weighting the 4 KPI categories based on individual preferences

Weaknesses of The Economist include * Ratings provided by students form only 20% while the schools contribute 80% of the total KPIs. The strong imbalance between both stakeholders could result in overriding the data provided by students * Does not take inputs from potential recruiters or industry experts to indicate relevance of MBA to industry * The ranking does not have KPIs that take into consideration the internationalism of the MBA programs

A New MBA Ranking Methodology

Our research of existing MBA ranking methodologies has helped identify the need for a new ranking. A ranking that capitalizes on the strengths of the Financial Times and The Economist rankings while minimizing their apparent shortcomings. The following criteria outline the strengths and differentiators between our proposed ranking system and the market strongholds, The Economist and Financial Times: * A larger emphasis will be put on the internationalism of the schools and their offerings. * Focus on Global Full time MBA programs and collect data from Business Schools and Alumni * Salary data, while important, will have a less weight in our ranking to make space to other important items (see internationalism above) * Salary median will be used along with the mean, this would allow us to minimize impact of positively and negatively skewed data * A balanced score card of ranking, this will avoid influence of a single factor like salary increase or career opportunity to influence the ranking by a great effect * Similar to the Economist we will have our suggested weighting of groups, but users will be able to re-weigh based on individual priorities

KPI Categories
The new ranking will consist of five categories, in the order of importance they are:

Internationalism
In today’s world internationalism is an important factor in business; it plays an important role in every aspect, from outsourcing, to complex supply chains. Many businesses need a strong understanding of the international factors influencing them. From the student’s prospective the MBA represents a period of time break from the day-to-day life and students are looking for a challenging, innovative and inspiring environment in which they can really leverage this life-experience. Therefore, most of the people want to be immersed in an international mindset in which they have the opportunity to get to know different reality. This category will measure how international each school is and will weigh 30% of the overall ranking.

Career
More than salary we believe that potential career growth is a higher influence of perspective students. This category will measure the success career services offices at individual school in supporting their MBA student’s career goals. Additionally this will measure if alumni have found their MBA significant in accomplishing pre-MBA career goals. This grouping will weigh 25% of the overall ranking.

Salary
Salary data is considered the most quantifiable factor in an MBA ranking, although it is easy to state it is difficult to objectively calculate. In this category we will be collecting the Salary data while adjusting them Power Purchasing Parity (PPP) and industry, both pre and post the MBA. Additionally we will take into consideration the return on investment of the actual degree. Salary growth will contribute 20% of the overall ranking.

Network and Student body
This category is designed to focus on the value added that each school provides through networks. This can be measured through one’s ability to connect with students and alumni from different industries and backgrounds and measuring how impactful such network was to ones success. The network and the student body will weigh 20% of the overall ranking.

Faculty and Education
The academics are an important part of the MBA experience, and its quality is vital for both future employers and to students. This category will assess the quality of the academic experience provided by the school. Faculty and education will weigh 5% of the overall ranking.

Data Collection and Standardization
Two surveys will be distributed to complete the ranking annually, the first is to the business schools, while the second would be to its alumni. The first survey will capture the overall characteristics of the school MBA program, while the second one will capture the inputs of year prior graduating class. Schools will need to complete the survey and have at minimum 30 alumni from the year prior complete the survey to be considered in this ranking. Once the data has been received, it will be audited to ensure that it has not been manually manipulated before being processed according to the ranking algorithms. The data processing will include us standardizing the data to ensure we can critically compare each of the KPIs and identify their influence on the overall ranking.

It is important to note that to ensure the data reflects market turbulences and sudden economic changes; the ranking will take into consideration three years of data. For example, for the 2011 data we would tabulate and assess data from 2008 to 2010. The weighting of the data will be as follows: 2010 results (50%), the 2009 rankings (30%) and the 2008 rankings (20%).

Summary
In order to validate our proposed method, we have moved forward and sampled 30 schools to generate a preliminary ranking. We believe that this ranking validated that our designed methodology supports our ranking needs. Appendix 7 lists the data that we have collected.
Upon collection of the data we have further analyzed data from IMD, UCLA Anderson and Rotterdam School of Management to identify the accuracy of our methodology in reflecting our needs. In Figure 1 below, you can note how each of the schools performed in each of the ranking categories. As expected, schools that ranked high on Internationalism had an overall high Final Score. Similarly high scores in lower priority categories like Career or Student Body and Network had a less significant impact on the final score.

Figure [ 1 ] In conclusion, we believe that by re-prioritizing the KPIs of the existing ranking systems, and introducing a handful of new ones that captures the needs of todays perspective MBA students, we have produced a more accurate ranking. Our new ranking will prioritize schools that invest in Internationalism over schools that only focus on salary.
Appendixes
Appendix 1: List of KPIs Category | KPI | Type | TargetAudience | Weight in group | Weight of total | Internationalism | % of International students | Quantitative - Ratio | School | 25% | 8% | | Number of nationalities in class | Quantitative - Ratio | School | 10% | 3% | | Exchange Opportunities | Quantitative - Ratio | School | 15% | 5% | | Student's International Experience | Quantitative - Ratio | School | 25% | 8% | | International faculty | Quantitative - Ratio | School | 25% | 8% | Career | % of students Employed at 3 months | Quantitative - Ratio | School | 30% | 8% | | % of students finding jobs through career office | Quantitative - Ratio | School | 20% | 5% | | Effectiveness of career center support | Quantitative - Interval | Alumni | 20% | 5% | | Significance of MBA degree in accomplishing career goal | Quantitative - Interval | Alumni | 30% | 8% | Salary | Current salary Mean | Quantitative - Ratio | Calculated | 30% | 6% | | Salary increase | Quantitative - Ratio | Calculated | 30% | 6% | | ROI | Quantitative - Ratio | Calculated | 30% | 6% | | Current Salary Median | Quantitative - Ratio | Calculated | 10% | 2% | Network and student body | Students: Alumni ratio | Quantitative - Ratio | School | 20% | 4% | | Alumni network effectiveness | Quantitative - Interval | Alumni | 30% | 6% | | % of active alumni in senior executive roles | Quantitative - Ratio | School | 20% | 4% | | % of female students | Quantitative - Ratio | School | 10% | 2% | | Number of industries represented within the student body | Quantitative - Ratio | School | 20% | 4% | Faculty and education | Ratio of faculty/ student | Quantitative - Ratio | School | 15% | 1% | | Number of industries represented by faculty members | Quantitative - Ratio | School | 15% | 1% | | The average number of lectures given by industry SMEs per academic month | Quantitative - Ratio | School | 40% | 2% | | Students' academic satisfaction | Quantitative - Interval | Alumni | 30% | 2% |

Appendix 2: KPI Descriptions and Definitions 1. Internationalism KPIs
Primary KPIs: * Percentage of International Students: This is a numeric KPI provided by the school and will give us an overall picture of the international environment of the MBA class in the school. * Number of Nationalities in Class: This is a numeric KPI capturing the number of countries represented in the MBA class. It provides more depth to the Percentage of International Students KPI as it weights a larger number of countries. * Exchange Opportunities: This numeric KPI will be collected from the school and is designed to capture the percentage of students participating in an exchange during their education. * Student’s International experience: This categorical KPI will capture the diversity of the students’ experiences. It will display the percentage of students who have lived in a foreign country for more than 2 years prior to the program. This information will be collected by the school. The one challenge might be the availability of the data as we are not aware if schools collect this data. * International faculty: This numeric KPI will again been reported to b the school and will represent the percentage of foreign faculty among total faculty. This numeric KPI should be easy to collect.

2. Career KPIs
Primary KPIs * Percentage of students Employed at 3 months post graduation. This categorical KPI will capture how successful have students of a given school in getting job offers within 3 months of graduation. The university will be responsible for the collection of this data. * Career office performance. This categorical KPI will be responsible for capturing the ability of the career centre in supporting students at their job hunt. The challenge with this KPI is possible bias from self reporting. To reduce this risk the following KPI was introduced * Effectiveness of career centre support. This numeric KPI will capture the students perspective on the effectiveness of the career centre. This will be accomplished by alumni indicating on a scale of 1-5 how useful the career centre was. * Significance of MBA in accomplishing career goals: This numeric KPI will capture how significant of a role does the MBA play in helping them achieve their goal. On an Interval scale of 1-5 alumni will indicate
Secondary KPI * Career change: This is a nominal categorical KPI, where alumni will indicate whether they had specific career goals prior to the MBA. If they answer No, then their answer to “Significance of MBA in accomplishing career goals” will be discounted by 50%.

3. Salary KPIs
Primary KPIs * Current Salary Mean: It represents the mean of the US dollar POWER PURCHASING PARITY (PPP) and industry-adjusted values of the current salaries. This parameter provides additional insight on the total distribution and minimizes distortions due to outliers. The higher the mean, the higher the school scores. * Current Salary Median: It represents the median of the US dollar POWER PURCHASING PARITY (PPP) and industry-adjusted values of the current salaries. This parameter provides additional insight on the total distribution and minimizes distortions due to outliers. The higher the mean, the higher the school scores. The median will provide us with more insight along with the mean data, resulting in a lower influence of outliers. * Salary increase: Salary increase is a calculated numeric KPI that captures the difference between mean of the Pre MBA Salary and the mean of the Post MBA Salary (after adjustment for industry and location). It is one of the best indicators of the benefits of attending the program. * Return on investment: The return of investment calculates the time (in years) in which the MBA student recovers their money. It is one of the key decision drivers for prospective students. The higher the years the lower the score in this KPI.
Secondary KPIs * Pre MBA Salary: This nominal data will be collected from alumni, and will be used as input to calculate the mean of salary increase. The challenge with this data is accuracy as it is self reported and after a long period of time. * Pre and Post-MBA Country of residence: This Categorical KPI will capture country of residence of the interviewee defines the Power Purchasing Power (POWER PURCHASING PARITY (PPP)) conversion factor to be applied on his current salary. This allows for equalization of current incomes based on US dollars. Please see Appendix 6 for complete table of POWER PURCHASING PARITY (PPP) factors. * Pre and Post MBA Industry: The industry in which the alumnus is(was) currently working is paramount to adjust salary figures. * Program cost: Program cost is the total amount of money invested during the duration of the program. It includes tuition fees, books and living expenses. This is a key parameter when the overall return of investment (ROI) is calculated. This will be obtained from the school. * Length of the program: Length of the program is the number of months in takes to complete the program. It is necessary to calculate the return of investment. This again will be taken into consideration to calculate the programs ROI.

4. Network & Student Body KPIs
Primary KPIs * Percentage of female on board: This school sourced qualitative KPI is an indicator of a gender diversity of the student body shows one aspect of the academic phenomena, it is also an indicator about how open the university is. The higher the percentage, the more harmony the studying phenomena should be, from the gender prospect. Traditionally we would put an upper limit around 50% for this KPI before reducing the score, yet since almost all business schools have a low intake of women we did not see the need to do so. * Number of industries students have relevant experience in. In an MBA program, academic progressing is important, but not the only reason/ attraction to business professors. Number of industries that students have relevant experience will indicate how diverse the students’ experiences are. This data will be sourced from * Students’ academic satisfaction. This quantitative ordinal KPI will be captured through asking alumni to rate their satisfaction on a scale of 1-5. * Breadth of alumni network. This quantitative KPI will measure the ratio of registered alumni to current students. As the breadth of alumni network would give students the ability to tap into larger companies. * Alumni effectiveness: This KPI will measure how effective was the alumni network to students. This quantitative interval KPI will rank responses on a scale of 1-5. * Current alumni position: This numeric KPI will capture the percent of alumni how are employed as part of the senior management team in their respective firms.

5. Faculty and Education KPIs
Primary KPIs * Ratio of faculty/ student: This quantitative KPI will be collected from the business schools and will allow us to measure the availability of faculty to students. The higher the ratio the better. * The number of industries represented by faculty members: This numeric KPI will allow us to measure the breadth of the industry experience held by the faculty.
The average number of lectures given by industry/subject matter experts in one month: This numeric KPI captures the diversity in educational sources; it is as well a tricky KPI as it will be difficult for us to verify quality of SMEs.
Appendix 3: Salary Adjustment Process
The KPIs related to the salaries (Pre-MBA and Post-MBA) of the alumni have been adjusted to US dollar Power Purchasing Parity terms in order to allow a fair comparison between alumni located in different geographies. For this purpose this methodology has utilized secondary KPIs as Pre-MBA and Post-MBA country of residence along with PPP factors drawn from the World’s Bank database.

Furthermore the salaries have been corrected according to industry factors allowing for a better and fairer representation of what has been the true school’s impact on the alumni salary development. Please refer to table xyz. This adjustment addresses the distortion on school’s graduate salaries that can be generated from the fact that the school is putting too many graduates in a particular industry (either highly or lowly-paid). Strategy & Finance | 0,8 | Government & Non-profit organizations | 1,2 | Others | 1 |
Table [ 1 ]
The factors have been determined arbitrarily based on the understanding and insight of the authors. The amount (3) of factors tries to broadly represent the corresponding industry salary. No additional have been added as all other industries have similar salary ranges.

The calculation of three alumni salaries from three different school and living in three different countries is shown below in table 2 to illustrate the methodology.

Table [ 2 ]
From table 2 we see that the PPP adjusted salary is calculated from the current salary and further multiplied by an additional factor to result in the final salary.

Lastly, the median salary has been also adjusted to US dollar PPP terms. The motivation for using the median along with the mean is to account for any distortion due to potential outliers.

Appendix 4: Data Standardization Processes
For each of the survey questions we collected the data for each 30 schools, from both alumni and the school itself. After collection of the data, we have spent time standardizing the data to ensure appropriate comparisons are made. The process was as follows: * Data collected for each of the question is sorted from highest to lowest * In case the data collected per school contain multiple data points we obtain an average of this subset, (e.g. all data collected from alumni) * Assign the maximum value in the data set as 100%. This became our reference point to assign proportional weights to the other data points that are less than the maximum value. * Calculate the other data set values as a percentage of the max value thus giving us percentile values for comparison. * Multiply the obtained value for each school with the weight assigned to the KPI. * Repeat the process for each of the KPIs and add all values to calculate the total score per school.

Examples 1. To evaluate the schools on the % Salary increase parameter we do the following steps * Collect the old salary data from students of all schools * Collect the new salary data from students of all schools * Calculate the difference in new salary and old salary per student per school * Compute the average percentage increase in salary per school and order this data from highest to lowest * Assign the highest average value as 100% and calculate the remaining as a percentile value * Multiply the final values with the weight of this parameter in the Salary group

2. How useful and effective is the alumni network in expanding your professional network? * Collect the data from the students based on the five options provided * Compute the average value per school and order this data from highest to lowest * Assign the highest average value as 100% and calculate the remaining as a percentage value wrt to the highest value * Multiply the final values with the weight of this parameter in the Network group

Appendix 5: School Questionnaire SCHOOL QUESTIONNAIRE | ANSWERS | How many % of the MBA class 2010 are international students? | % | How many nationalities are represented in the MBA class 2010? | | What is the ratio of the number of student who went in exchange compare to the overall number of participant of the Full–Time MBA class 2010? | / | How many % of the MBA class 2010 had previously lived in a different country than their home country at least for more than 1.5 years? | % | How many % of the faculty members are international professors? | % | How many % of the class 2010 graduates student are employed within three months? | % | How many % of the class 2010 MBA graduates are finding their jobs through career office? | % | What is the ratio of registered alumni (divided by the year of establishment) to the number of MBA students in class 2010? | / | How many % of the active and registered alumni work in senior executive roles at the end of year 2010? | % | How many % of the MBA class 2010 are female? | % | How many number of industries represented in the MBA class 2010? | | What is the ratio of number of faculty members to number of students for the MBA class 2010? | / | What is the ratio of number of industries represented by faculty members to number of total faculty members? | / | What is the average number of lectures given by industry SMEs per academic year? | |

Appendix 6: Alumni Questionnaire ALUMNI QUESTIONNAIRE | ANSWERS | How useful and effective is the career office role and performance in assisting MBA graduates job-finding process? *) | [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] | Have you planned to have career changes before commencing your MBA program? **) | Yes / No | How useful and significant an MBA degree in accomplishing your career changes goal? *) | [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] | How much is your annual post-MBA salary in USD? (excluding Bonus) | USD | Where is your Pre and Post-MBA Country of residence? | Pre- MBA :Post MBA : | What is your Pre and Post MBA Industry? | Pre- MBA :Post MBA : | How much is your annual pre-MBA salary? (excluding Bonus) | USD | How much is your MBA program cost (excluding living expenses)? | USD | How long is the program length? | years | How useful and effective is the alumni network in expanding your professional network? *) | [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] | How satisfactory the lectures given by professors in class 2010? *) | [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] |

*) Please answer according your
[1] Extremely not useful
[2] Quite useful
[3] Moderate role
[4] Useful and effective
[5] Very useful and effective

**) Please choose one answer

Appendix 7: 2010 Survey Data Ranking | School | Final score | * Internationalism | | | | % of international students | International diversity | Exchange Opportunities | International students experience | International faculty | 1 | IMD | 0.59 | 0.97 | 0.92 | 0.78 | 0.89 | 0.53 | 2 | New York University: Stern | 0.58 | 0.93 | 0.74 | 0.45 | 0.39 | 0.97 | 3 | University of Michigan: Ross | 0.58 | 0.33 | 0.90 | 0.92 | 0.77 | 1.00 | 4 | Indian School of Business | 0.57 | 1.00 | 0.82 | 0.26 | 0.86 | 0.70 | 5 | University of Oxford: Saïd | 0.56 | 0.71 | 0.28 | 0.43 | 0.70 | 0.97 | 6 | London Business School | 0.56 | 0.61 | 0.72 | 0.89 | 0.84 | 0.32 | 7 | UCLA: Anderson | 0.54 | 0.93 | 1.00 | 0.09 | 0.22 | 0.77 | 8 | Ceibs | 0.54 | 0.56 | 0.92 | 0.23 | 0.53 | 0.82 | 9 | Yale School of Management | 0.53 | 0.96 | 0.98 | 0.60 | 0.29 | 0.75 | 10 | University of Pennsylvania: Wharton | 0.53 | 0.60 | 0.68 | 0.09 | 0.54 | 0.57 | 11 | Imperial College Business School | 0.52 | 0.52 | 0.38 | 0.43 | 0.58 | 0.45 | 12 | IE Business School | 0.51 | 0.92 | 0.48 | 0.61 | 0.24 | 0.88 | 13 | Australian School of Business: AGSM | 0.51 | 0.74 | 0.50 | 0.37 | 0.10 | 0.67 | 14 | Stanford University GSB | 0.51 | 0.33 | 0.68 | 1.00 | 0.63 | 0.82 | 15 | Duke University: Fuqua | 0.51 | 0.99 | 0.04 | 0.89 | 0.36 | 0.72 | 16 | Iese Business School | 0.50 | 0.15 | 0.20 | 0.78 | 0.77 | 0.65 | 17 | City University: Cass | 0.49 | 0.89 | 0.78 | 0.73 | 0.08 | 0.33 | 18 | Northwestern University: Kellogg | 0.49 | 0.48 | 0.38 | 0.86 | 0.02 | 0.87 | 19 | University of California at Berkeley: Haas | 0.48 | 0.61 | 0.34 | 0.85 | 0.53 | 0.42 | 20 | SDA Bocconi | 0.48 | 1.00 | 0.50 | 0.59 | 0.07 | 0.10 | 21 | Cranfield School of Management | 0.46 | 0.60 | 0.42 | 0.18 | 0.46 | 0.60 | 22 | Rotterdam School of Management | 0.46 | 0.31 | 0.94 | 0.59 | 0.07 | 0.05 | 23 | Georgetown University: McDonough | 0.46 | 0.54 | 0.52 | 0.66 | 0.31 | 0.21 | 24 | University of Chicago: Booth | 0.46 | 0.05 | 0.04 | 0.56 | 0.35 | 0.65 | 25 | University of Maryland: Smith | 0.45 | 0.24 | 0.60 | 0.14 | 0.74 | 0.06 | 26 | Hong Kong UST Business School | 0.45 | 0.15 | 0.56 | 0.46 | 0.75 | 0.54 | 27 | Cornell University: Johnson | 0.45 | 0.06 | 0.78 | 0.48 | 0.73 | 0.72 | 28 | Dartmouth College: Tuck | 0.45 | 0.82 | 0.58 | 0.30 | 1.00 | 0.47 | 29 | Esade Business School | 0.44 | 0.23 | 0.68 | 0.09 | 0.43 | 0.08 | 30 | Insead | 0.44 | 0.44 | 0.74 | 0.03 | 0.43 | 0.52 |

Ranking | School | Final score | * Career | | | | Employed at 3 months | % of students finding jobs through career office | Effectiveness of career center support | Significance of MBA degree in accomplishing your career goal? | 1 | IMD | 0.59 | 0.84 | 0.62 | 0.66 | 0.27 | 2 | New York University: Stern | 0.58 | 0.86 | 0.63 | 0.98 | 0.73 | 3 | University of Michigan: Ross | 0.58 | 0.74 | 0.12 | 0.80 | 0.55 | 4 | Indian School of Business | 0.57 | 0.69 | 0.25 | 0.20 | 0.67 | 5 | University of Oxford: Saïd | 0.56 | 0.81 | 0.40 | 0.80 | 0.78 | 6 | London Business School | 0.56 | 0.86 | 0.59 | 0.68 | 0.43 | 7 | UCLA: Anderson | 0.54 | 0.89 | 0.69 | 0.52 | 0.92 | 8 | Ceibs | 0.54 | 0.18 | 0.05 | 0.72 | 0.92 | 9 | Yale School of Management | 0.53 | 0.28 | 0.26 | 0.38 | 0.94 | 10 | University of Pennsylvania: Wharton | 0.53 | 0.55 | 0.18 | 0.34 | 1.00 | 11 | Imperial College Business School | 0.52 | 0.63 | 0.88 | 0.60 | 0.88 | 12 | IE Business School | 0.51 | 0.16 | 0.61 | 0.30 | 0.86 | 13 | Australian School of Business: AGSM | 0.51 | 0.87 | 0.02 | 0.80 | 0.59 | 14 | Stanford University GSB | 0.51 | 0.40 | 0.87 | 0.82 | 0.24 | 15 | Duke University: Fuqua | 0.51 | 0.60 | 0.53 | 0.42 | 0.02 | 16 | Iese Business School | 0.50 | 0.46 | 0.40 | 0.98 | 0.41 | 17 | City University: Cass | 0.49 | 0.95 | 1.00 | 0.94 | 0.57 | 18 | Northwestern University: Kellogg | 0.49 | 0.92 | 0.32 | 1.00 | 0.94 | 19 | University of California at Berkeley: Haas | 0.48 | 0.65 | 0.74 | 0.96 | 0.51 | 20 | SDA Bocconi | 0.48 | 0.61 | 0.59 | 0.84 | 1.00 | 21 | Cranfield School of Management | 0.46 | 0.47 | 0.29 | 0.48 | 0.86 | 22 | Rotterdam School of Management | 0.46 | 0.69 | 0.42 | 0.30 | 0.98 | 23 | Georgetown University: McDonough | 0.46 | 0.27 | 0.80 | 0.30 | 0.63 | 24 | University of Chicago: Booth | 0.46 | 0.63 | 0.97 | 0.28 | 0.22 | 25 | University of Maryland: Smith | 0.45 | 0.74 | 0.93 | 0.96 | 0.61 | 26 | Hong Kong UST Business School | 0.45 | 0.82 | 0.41 | 0.00 | 0.35 | 27 | Cornell University: Johnson | 0.45 | 0.29 | 0.01 | 0.82 | 0.55 | 28 | Dartmouth College: Tuck | 0.45 | 0.16 | 0.11 | 0.38 | 0.67 | 29 | Esade Business School | 0.44 | 1.00 | 0.48 | 0.62 | 0.71 | 30 | Insead | 0.44 | 0.01 | 0.81 | 0.88 | 0.96 |

Ranking | School | Final score | * Salary | | | | Salary Mean | Salary increase | Return of Investment (ROI) | Salary Median | 1 | IMD | 0.59 | 1.00 | 0.55 | 0.08 | 0.02 | 2 | New York University: Stern | 0.58 | 0.76 | 0.20 | 0.18 | 0.59 | 3 | University of Michigan: Ross | 0.58 | 0.73 | 0.19 | 0.32 | 1.00 | 4 | Indian School of Business | 0.57 | 0.86 | 0.69 | 0.08 | 0.94 | 5 | University of Oxford: Saïd | 0.56 | 0.84 | 0.97 | 0.06 | 0.90 | 6 | London Business School | 0.56 | 0.76 | 0.39 | 0.11 | 0.57 | 7 | UCLA: Anderson | 0.54 | 0.70 | 0.73 | 0.09 | 0.04 | 8 | Ceibs | 0.54 | 0.77 | 0.98 | 0.06 | 0.06 | 9 | Yale School of Management | 0.53 | 0.93 | 0.90 | 0.07 | 0.76 | 10 | University of Pennsylvania: Wharton | 0.53 | 0.93 | 0.92 | 0.09 | 0.67 | 11 | Imperial College Business School | 0.52 | 0.73 | 0.07 | 0.46 | 0.41 | 12 | IE Business School | 0.51 | 0.69 | 0.43 | 0.09 | 0.90 | 13 | Australian School of Business: AGSM | 0.51 | 0.90 | 0.78 | 0.08 | 0.76 | 14 | Stanford University GSB | 0.51 | 0.97 | 0.52 | 0.10 | 0.45 | 15 | Duke University: Fuqua | 0.51 | 0.88 | 0.66 | 0.11 | 0.45 | 16 | Iese Business School | 0.50 | 0.87 | 1.00 | 0.06 | 0.35 | 17 | City University: Cass | 0.49 | 0.70 | 0.75 | 0.09 | 0.00 | 18 | Northwestern University: Kellogg | 0.49 | 0.78 | 0.17 | 0.16 | 0.88 | 19 | University of California at Berkeley: Haas | 0.48 | 0.75 | 0.38 | 0.13 | 0.35 | 20 | SDA Bocconi | 0.48 | 0.90 | 0.69 | 0.06 | 0.65 | 21 | Cranfield School of Management | 0.46 | 0.91 | 0.50 | 0.10 | 0.43 | 22 | Rotterdam School of Management | 0.46 | 1.00 | 0.38 | 0.16 | 0.06 | 23 | Georgetown University: McDonough | 0.46 | 0.90 | 0.80 | 0.06 | 0.35 | 24 | University of Chicago: Booth | 0.46 | 0.91 | 0.78 | 0.04 | 0.51 | 25 | University of Maryland: Smith | 0.45 | 0.73 | 0.24 | 0.22 | 0.04 | 26 | Hong Kong UST Business School | 0.45 | 0.69 | 0.86 | 0.08 | 0.35 | 27 | Cornell University: Johnson | 0.45 | 0.81 | 0.17 | 0.19 | 0.92 | 28 | Dartmouth College: Tuck | 0.45 | 0.91 | 0.21 | 0.13 | 0.04 | 29 | Esade Business School | 0.44 | 0.74 | 0.65 | 0.11 | 0.55 | 30 | Insead | 0.44 | 0.91 | 0.51 | 0.09 | 0.00 |

Ranking | School | Final score | * Network and Student Body | | | | Alumni to Students ratio | Alumni network effectiveness | % of active alumni in senior executive roles | % of female students? | Number of industries represented within the student body | 1 | IMD | 0.59 | 0.00 | 0.68 | 0.38 | 0.60 | 1.00 | 2 | New York University: Stern | 0.58 | 0.48 | 0.53 | 0.96 | 0.63 | 0.80 | 3 | University of Michigan: Ross | 0.58 | 0.83 | 0.53 | 0.57 | 0.47 | 0.67 | 4 | Indian School of Business | 0.57 | 0.49 | 0.74 | 0.66 | 0.59 | 0.07 | 5 | University of Oxford: Saïd | 0.56 | 0.36 | 0.15 | 0.62 | 0.98 | 0.27 | 6 | London Business School | 0.56 | 0.67 | 0.64 | 0.85 | 0.61 | 0.47 | 7 | UCLA: Anderson | 0.54 | 0.93 | 0.09 | 0.71 | 0.18 | 0.27 | 8 | Ceibs | 0.54 | 0.03 | 0.60 | 1.00 | 0.32 | 0.67 | 9 | Yale School of Management | 0.53 | 0.30 | 0.43 | 0.71 | 0.64 | 0.20 | 10 | University of Pennsylvania: Wharton | 0.53 | 0.09 | 0.55 | 0.61 | 0.66 | 0.93 | 11 | Imperial College Business School | 0.52 | 1.00 | 0.64 | 0.75 | 0.68 | 0.53 | 12 | IE Business School | 0.51 | 0.92 | 0.85 | 0.53 | 0.00 | 0.67 | 13 | Australian School of Business: AGSM | 0.51 | 0.83 | 0.38 | 0.34 | 0.06 | 0.93 | 14 | Stanford University GSB | 0.51 | 0.83 | 0.79 | 0.22 | 0.33 | 0.73 | 15 | Duke University: Fuqua | 0.51 | 0.22 | 0.60 | 0.79 | 1.00 | 0.27 | 16 | Iese Business School | 0.50 | 0.32 | 0.79 | 0.57 | 0.24 | 0.67 | 17 | City University: Cass | 0.49 | 0.01 | 0.34 | 0.66 | 0.95 | 0.60 | 18 | Northwestern University: Kellogg | 0.49 | 0.42 | 0.64 | 0.59 | 0.93 | 0.13 | 19 | University of California at Berkeley: Haas | 0.48 | 0.73 | 0.02 | 0.87 | 0.50 | 0.87 | 20 | SDA Bocconi | 0.48 | 0.19 | 0.81 | 0.47 | 0.79 | 0.13 | 21 | Cranfield School of Management | 0.46 | 0.26 | 0.30 | 0.44 | 0.30 | 1.00 | 22 | Rotterdam School of Management | 0.46 | 0.41 | 0.96 | 0.75 | 0.69 | 0.07 | 23 | Georgetown University: McDonough | 0.46 | 0.92 | 0.30 | 0.92 | 0.68 | 0.20 | 24 | University of Chicago: Booth | 0.46 | 0.47 | 0.74 | 0.53 | 0.69 | 0.60 | 25 | University of Maryland: Smith | 0.45 | 0.91 | 0.47 | 0.75 | 0.48 | 0.60 | 26 | Hong Kong UST Business School | 0.45 | 0.58 | 0.13 | 0.73 | 0.57 | 0.20 | 27 | Cornell University: Johnson | 0.45 | 0.54 | 0.64 | 0.94 | 0.87 | 0.07 | 28 | Dartmouth College: Tuck | 0.45 | 0.37 | 0.15 | 0.31 | 0.42 | 0.60 | 29 | Esade Business School | 0.44 | 0.41 | 0.66 | 0.18 | 0.75 | 1.00 | 30 | Insead | 0.44 | 0.29 | 0.36 | 0.88 | 0.99 | 0.40 |

Ranking | School | Final score | * Faculty and Education | | | | Ratio of faculty/ student | The # of industries faculty originate from. | The average number of lectures given by industry SMEs per academic month | Students’ satisfactory percentage of lectures given by professors | 1 | IMD | 0.59 | 90% | 87% | 76% | 22% | 2 | New York University: Stern | 0.58 | 33% | 93% | 35% | 58% | 3 | University of Michigan: Ross | 0.58 | 46% | 73% | 96% | 78% | 4 | Indian School of Business | 0.57 | 35% | 40% | 41% | 38% | 5 | University of Oxford: Saïd | 0.56 | 48% | 60% | 41% | 14% | 6 | London Business School | 0.56 | 58% | 13% | 100% | 80% | 7 | UCLA: Anderson | 0.54 | 15% | 53% | 51% | 82% | 8 | Ceibs | 0.54 | 31% | 60% | 61% | 92% | 9 | Yale School of Management | 0.53 | 40% | 60% | 27% | 14% | 10 | University of Pennsylvania: Wharton | 0.53 | 54% | 7% | 2% | 50% | 11 | Imperial College Business School | 0.52 | 73% | 67% | 94% | 32% | 12 | IE Business School | 0.51 | 69% | 40% | 8% | 32% | 13 | Australian School of Business: AGSM | 0.51 | 44% | 80% | 37% | 42% | 14 | Stanford University GSB | 0.51 | 6% | 53% | 69% | 42% | 15 | Duke University: Fuqua | 0.51 | 98% | 87% | 63% | 62% | 16 | Iese Business School | 0.50 | 98% | 13% | 84% | 8% | 17 | City University: Cass | 0.49 | 10% | 53% | 2% | 100% | 18 | Northwestern University: Kellogg | 0.49 | 50% | 13% | 2% | 40% | 19 | University of California at Berkeley: Haas | 0.48 | 98% | 60% | 47% | 34% | 20 | SDA Bocconi | 0.48 | 13% | 47% | 12% | 50% | 21 | Cranfield School of Management | 0.46 | 50% | 87% | 39% | 6% | 22 | Rotterdam School of Management | 0.46 | 38% | 40% | 41% | 66% | 23 | Georgetown University: McDonough | 0.46 | 13% | 93% | 43% | 84% | 24 | University of Chicago: Booth | 0.46 | 88% | 80% | 88% | 76% | 25 | University of Maryland: Smith | 0.45 | 19% | 60% | 96% | 78% | 26 | Hong Kong UST Business School | 0.45 | 100% | 80% | 10% | 48% | 27 | Cornell University: Johnson | 0.45 | 4% | 67% | 61% | 72% | 28 | Dartmouth College: Tuck | 0.45 | 65% | 80% | 59% | 6% | 29 | Esade Business School | 0.44 | 35% | 27% | 20% | 14% | 30 | Insead | 0.44 | 63% | 80% | 0% | 80% |

References
How the FT compiles its MBA League tables. 2009. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/8091207c-e8de-11dd-a4d0-0000779fd2ac.html#ixzz1DK1teRL5 February 8th 2011.
Which MBA? The Economist 2010 http://www.economist.com/whichmba/2010/premium-ranking-tool
February 8th 2011.
Kay, F. 2004. Brilliant business connection. Oxford, England: How To Books Ltd.

Post Script: Lessons Learned

Lessons Learnt from the assignment
Developing a proposed new MBA ranking methodology has derived into some general learning points related with the statistical survey methodology as follows:

* The importance of identifying a measurable and feasible KPI
Selection of relevant KPI is critical to the survey result. In developing a new MBA ranking methodology, we tried to identify new KPIs, which have never been measured by the existing ranking methodology, such as the Financial Times or the Economist. However, we found that the new KPI might be difficult to be measured and unfeasible to be collected from the school since the school has never been assessed it. For example, in the new MBA ranking methodology we included a new KPI related with the students’ international experience, while we doubt all schools have collected this data from their students. A proper KPI in the new MBA ranking methodology requires ease of data collection as well as the correct target group of respondent.

* The difficulties in KPI standardization
The KPIs measured in the new MBA ranking methodology consist of qualitative and quantitative KPI, with various scale of measurement, including nominal scale, interval scale and ratio scale. The weighting process of these various scale of measurement in order to provide an objective ranking was difficult and judgmental, especially for the interval scale. A disproportionate weight to a specific KPI can cause severe imbalance to the score since it drastically reduces the impact of other KPI’s. Additionally, we noted a direct correlation between the numbers of KPI used with the difficulties in KPI standardization.

* The difficulties in questionnaire design
Questionnaire is the data collection instrument, which will be sent to all respondents of this new MBA ranking methodology, including schools and alumni. Proper wording in the questionnaire design is critical since it will avoid ambiguity and data error. Further, the questionnaire also need to briefly explain the KPI to avoid respondents’ misunderstanding.
A proper and effective question will help the respondent to give a sufficient and valid answer for our statistical data process.

--------------------------------------------
[ 1 ]. Appendix 2 includes breakdown of each of the KPIs and their definitions
[ 2 ]. Appendix 3 reviews Salary Adjustment process in detail
[ 3 ]. Appendix 5 lists the student survey
[ 4 ]. Appendix 6 includes the business school survey
[ 5 ]. Detailed description of the Data Standardization process can be found in Appendix 5