Issue link: http://www.e-digitaleditions.com/i/58910
Positions in various MBA rankings in 2005 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 Economist Which MBA Financial Times America Economia Wall Street Journal Different publications rank different aspects of schools' programs sometimes even in different geographical areas, so it's no surprise that the positions of schools vary widely from publication to publication. The danger is to generalize the ranking for a specific program to all programs in a business school, a tendency that administrators and consumers alike should avoid. rankings do not respect similarity laws; they're currently driven more by the business of publishing than by science. The fact that rankings results vary so widely from one pub- lication to another is proof in itself that the information should be interpreted with caution. Factor in the diversity of schools in Europe—and around the world—and such interpretations become even more complex. To offer useful and valid comparisons, rankings should refer to only one parameter. For instance, the Fortune 500 ranks companies based on their revenues. Forbes magazine ranks CEOs based on compensation. Business schools, too, could be ranked according to the number of programs, the size of their student body, or the percentage of interna- tional faculty. To compare multiple facets of business schools, a system of ratings would be much more appropriate—and more reliable. Much like a report on new digital cameras might award each model a number of stars, rather than a specific number, based on a complex comparative methodology, publications could use a similar system of ratings. However, ratings are less appealing to readers and publishers than rankings, which are tremendously popular and attract wide readership. That mass audience for rankings makes their continued presence all but inevitable. The only rational solution seems to be to go toward a combination of rankings and ratings. If publications offer the public both options—rankings based on a single param- eter and ratings based on many parameters—they maintain their readership and offer a more valid basis of comparison. Everyone receives the benefits of rankings and must cope with fewer of their inherent drawbacks. Right now, the best course of action for European schools is to educate all stakeholders about what rankings measure—and what they don't. European schools may be new, comparatively speaking, to the rankings game. Still, they must develop strategies that may lead to greater value and accuracy of rankings on a global basis. Business schools everywhere must participate in this effort. ■ z Andrea Gasparri is the managing director of SDA Bocconi's School of Management in Milan, Italy. Gasparri also serves on the board of AACSB International and is a member of AACSB's European Affinity Group. Ranking simulation using alternative weighting systems G 13 17 21 25 29 33 37 41 45 Five simulations show what happens in the positions of the second group of 20 schools in the Financial Times' MBA rankings when the weighting system is slightly changed. The starting simulation depicts the FT's weight of two factors at 20 percent each. Then, subsequent simulations changed those weights to 18 percent and 22 percent (S1); 15 percent each (S2); 21 percent and 19 percent (S3); 15 percent each once again, but with a different weighting system (S4); 25 percent each (S5). As the chart above shows, minor changes produced changes of up to ten places in the relative positions of two schools. Such variability indicates that the interpretation of the rankings should be done only with the awareness that weights can significantly influence the results. BizEd NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2006 45 S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 Position Rank