Abstract
League tables are of great interest to universities. This is particularly true for business schools, for which the Financial Times (FT) produces a suite of rankings of programme areas on a rolling annual cycle. Despite publication by the FT of most of the inputs and outlines of the methodologies, these are often little used by business school managers or researchers. This is the first of a pair of papers that show how the FT's data and methodology can be used to reconstruct the underlying calculations to a very high degree of fit. This can help business school managers understand strengths and weaknesses and thus inform strategic decisions. Researchers can also test hypotheses they advance or search for patterns more robustly. This article concentrates on the FT's programme area rankings, using the MBA rankings as the main example; the second paper turns to their more complex aggregate European Business Schools ranking.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Antunes, D. and Thomas, H. (2007) The competitive (dis)advantage of European business schools. Long Range Planning 40 (3): 382–404.
Bradshaw, D. (2007) Business school rankings: The love-hate relationship. Journal of Management Development 26 (1): 54–60.
Clarke, C. (2011) Methodology: Behind the scenes. Business Education, 31 January, p. 39, http://www.ft.com/businesseducation/mba2011, accessed 11 July 2011.
Devinney, T., Dowling, G.R. and Perm-Ajchariyawong, N. (2008) The Financial Times business schools ranking: What quality is this signal of quality? European Management Review 5 (4): 195–208.
Dichev, I.D. (2008) Comment: The Financial Times business schools ranking: What quality is this signal of quality? European Management Review 5 (4): 219–224.
Financial Times. (2011) Business Education, 31 January 2011, http://www.ft.com/businesseducation/mba2011, accessed 11 July 2011.
Hopwood, A. (2008) The rankings game: Reflections on Devinney, Dowling and Perm-Ajchariyawong. European Management Review 5 (4): 209–214.
Kogut, B. (2008) Editors’ Introduction: Rankings, schools, and final reflections on ideas and taste. European Management Review 5 (4): 191–194.
Köksalan, M., Büyükbasaran, T., Özpeynirci, Ö. and Wallenius, J. (2010) A flexible approach to ranking with an application to MBA Programs. European Journal of Operational Research 201 (2): 470–476.
Naudé, P., Henneberg, S. and Jiang, Z. (2010) Varying routes to the top: Identifying different strategies in the MBA marketplace. Journal of the Operational Research Society 61 (8): 1193–1206.
Ray, S.C. and Jeon, Y. (2008) Reputation and efficiency: A non-parametric assessment of America's top-rated MBA programs. European Journal of Operational Research 189 (1): 245–268.
U-Multirank. (2011) A multi-dimensional global university ranking: The feasibility study. U-Multirank Consortium: Enschede, NL, http://www.u-multirank.eu/, accessed 19 July 2011.
Wedlin, J. (2006) The role of rankings in codifying a business school template: Classifications, diffusion and mediated isomorphism in organizational fields. European Management Review 4 (1): 24–39.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Proudlove, N. Cracking the rankings Part (i): Understanding the Financial Times MBA rankings. OR Insight 25, 221–240 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1057/ori.2011.21
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/ori.2011.21