looks like the AP football poll isn’t the only ranking that U-M is plummeting in… http://online.wsj.com/article/SB118961224646225232.html?mod=loomia&loomia_si=1
I likes these rankings better than US News rankings. US News rankings seem so subjective. I appreciate the WSJ rankings.
kkent Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I likes these rankings better than US News > rankings. US News rankings seem so subjective. I > appreciate the WSJ rankings. I only took a quick look at them, but they seemed funky. IIRC, UNC was like #6 or 7, while Stanford was #19 or 20. My rankings would definitely not be in that order…
Yeah these always seem to be a bit more funky since they are based on recruiters opinion’s instead of the US News number crunching rankings
Honestly, these rankings bounce all over the place from year to year, although the same names seem to continue to appear in the Top 20.
I think they probably slotted U of M in the right spot where they should have been all along. And if you read the article, they comment on the “arrogance” factor, which I think hits it right on the head. U of M’s dean of the business school sent an e-mail out to all alumni today commenting on the ranking. That goes to show how much rankings matter–the dean felt compelled enough to comment on it. With that said, however, I just don’t see how there can be such volatility in rankings. U of M wasn’t the only school to fall–look at how much MSU dropped too.
whats the big deal about U. Michigan anyway? no lucrative industries around campus, with GM dying state of Michigan is becoming a ghost-town with zero prospects. No major strenghts in any category be it Finance/Marketing/Management, etc, I always wondered how can this school appear in top 15 in any Poll?
this list is a joke. it’s as if they just drew names out of a hat. they can claim it’s based on recruiter surveys all they want, but this list doesnt REMOTELY reflect reality. what recruiters are they talking to??? obviously not the ones that actually recruit on campuses. not that the world needs another school ranking list anyway…
I wouldn’t say that the list is a “joke”, merely that it is hard to accurately distinguish between the top 10-20 schools. It’s just like undergrad schools, is there really any appreciable difference in quality among the top 20 schools? Check out this link and you can see how clustered the top 10 are in their various metrics…the only real difference is in size. http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/info-mbacompare07.html
Wow, compensation is WAY dow from a few years ago. I remember a few years ago US News was reporting something like $120,000 average start for Wharton graduates. Now, the top of the list is around $102,000. Welcome back to reality.
is it really a joke, though? sometimes i think people in finance are overly obsessed with “prestige” because the industry is hyper-competitve. in finance, it’s basically H / S / W / Chi / Col or nothing, but the reality is that these programs, as noted above, probably aren’t that much better than any other top 20 program. the truth is that quality grads from any of the top 20 schools are more than capable or working in a variety of functions and industries, many of which lie outside of wall street. let’s not throw the baby out with the bathwater here – lots of people who never want to work on wall st get MBAs and do very well. saying that a list is flawed because it doesn’t reflect wall st’s obsessions (“reality”) is a pretty weak argument, imo.
I’m not sure if those comp numbers include bonus…could just be base. If that’s total comp, that seems awful low.
DirtyZ, even if it’s just base, it still shows that total comp has stagnated (if base is 100k, total average comp probably isn’t much greater than 120k).
asdffdsa Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > is it really a joke, though? sometimes i think > people in finance are overly obsessed with > “prestige” because the industry is > hyper-competitve. in finance, it’s basically H / S > / W / Chi / Col or nothing, but the reality is > that these programs, as noted above, probably > aren’t that much better than any other top 20 > program. the truth is that quality grads from any > of the top 20 schools are more than capable or > working in a variety of functions and industries, > many of which lie outside of wall street. let’s > not throw the baby out with the bathwater here – > lots of people who never want to work on wall st > get MBAs and do very well. saying that a list is > flawed because it doesn’t reflect wall st’s > obsessions (“reality”) is a pretty weak argument, > imo. these are totally valid points. what i mean is a couple things. first, this list is in no way reflective of students’ preferences - and it should be. there just arent a lot of people out there turning down HBS (i’m just using that as an example) to go to yale. so recruiters can claim whatever they want, but students arent beating down UCLA’s door to get it. which brings me to my second beef. the reason they’re not saying no to HBS is because students arent dumb, they know they’ll have more opportunities and better job offers at HBS. for most students, that’s just a fact. and isnt that the point of business school for most students?? so shouldnt these lists reflect that? and none of this is knocking yale or UCLA or whatever…they’re all great schools.
Well…I just hope some people care about “Regional” schools.
“the reality is that these programs, as noted above, probably aren’t that much better than any other top 20 program” not talking from experience, but this isn’t necessarily the case. a friend of mine at chicago just finished a semester at lbs and told me that the classes at lbs were definitely inferior to those at chicago. he was actually pretty dissapointed b/c there were several classes at chicago he would have liked to have taken if he didn’t go abroad. he said go for the cultural and not the educational. i’m sure lbs is comparable to a lot of “top 20” schools. what’s interesting about this is that the education is the one thing that most people say will likely be the same regardless of where you go (ie you’ll be learning the same thing at harvard as you do at u of texas, etc). granted this is just one person’s experience comparing two schools, so you don’t know.
Harvard B-school ranked 14? Not sure what recruiters they’ve been talking to
Best line: Harvard University and Stanford University – two schools that typically rank low despite reputations for academic excellence – again were criticized for what recruiters said were their students’ inflated egos and excessive expectations. Nevertheless, their graduates still end up landing some of the highest paying jobs.
considering the thrust of the rankings, it doesn’t surprise me where harvard, stanford, et al end up. a lot of these people are pretty accomplished before they go to school, so coming out they want the best jobs (ie highest paying, though not always) they can get. usually, those jobs aren’t at john deere (no knock on john deere, just an example). so when john deere comes to campus to recruit and they don’t get much love while they see lots of love from students at ross and tuck, guess who gets the higher marks when folks from the wsj come calling?
in fairness to the wsj, i remember interviewing for an analyst position in boston at Fidelity a few years back. the gal told me they stopped recruiting out of harvard because they grew sick of the egos. still though, who’s gonna turn down HBS based on some anecdotal story like that? these recruiters can moan all they want about a-holes from HBS, but it sure hasnt shown up in the salary/offer stats yet.