Did you know that for the first time in 25 years, Financial Times (FT) changes its ranking methodology? The ranking strategy had always been more focused on salary levels and wage increases but now 15 of the 21 categories have been influenced by either change in weightage, the addition of new categories or the removal of some entirely. The updated methodology still puts great emphasis on outcomes, accounting for average weighted salary(16%), salary increase (16%) and research rank(10%) while shedding more light on the standard of education provided at these universities.
FT indicates that high rankings universities are usually flexible, have high ad hoc orientation, a liberal style and informal relationships with their students and alumni. Considering the importance of these parameters, the change in rankings, especially when it comes to Columbia Business School earning the top spot and IESE ranking third is more apparent.
Even if salary levels still account for a 32% majority of the methodology, FT has reduced it from 40% which gives leverage to other factors like research ranking, value for money, international mobility, and faculty with doctorates. Due to the high weighted salaries and availability of post-graduate jobs in the US for international students, US universities continue to dominate the top 20s with 14 entries, 5 of which are Ivy League schools.
Due to this change, for the first time, Columbia Business School leads the global ranking after securing the third-highest average weighted salary and the second-highest rank in the research category, both categories amounting to 36% of the methodology combined while consistently performing across all other categories. As far as 2019, Columbia’s lowest FT rank was 9th but this renewed focus on the overall quality of education instead of the outcomes has benefited several institutes with impressive faculties, research backgrounds and value for money.
Now adding new categories like alumni network rank and carbon footprint has made it possible for the previous year’s 10th-ranked IESE to progress to third place leaping beyond US favourites like Harvard Business School and Stanford Graduate School of Business at fourth and fifth place, respectively. The addition of these categories shows that FT wants to highlight other aspects unrelated to return on investment.
Notably, the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School held the top spot more than any other university and has been dropped from the rankings entirely due to inadequate alumni survey responses. The university’s shocking disappearance from the list has been accounted to classes being entirely online during the pandemic while most schools settled for a hybrid approach. Being the only M7 school with no in-person lectures made students feel discontent with the coursework and a survey of Wharton MBA students showed the desire of students to defer to other universities, given the financial means. FT requires at least 30 alumni to answer the anonymous survey to rank any given school, and not meeting this 20% requirement of alumni survey responses was possibly a direct result of the displeasure expressed by students since the pandemic.
What do you think? Is this year’s FT ranking the start of something new and exciting or was the old methodology more suitable for MBA programs?
