Search results

University rankings and metrics have become an increasingly prominent basis of student decisions, generalized university reputation, and the resources university’s attract. We review the history of metrics in higher education and scholarship about the influence of ranking on the position and strategic behavior of universities and students. Most quantitative analyses on this topic estimate the influence of change in university rank on performance. These studies consistently identify a small, short-lived influence of rank shift on selectivity (e.g., one rank position corresponds to ≤1% more student applicants), comparable to ranking effects documented in other domains. This understates the larger system-level impact of metrification on universities, students, and the professions that surround them. We explore one system-level transformation likely influenced by the rise of rankings. Recent years have witnessed the rise of enrollment management and independent educational consultation. We illustrate a plausible pathway from ranking to this transformation: In an effort to improve rankings, universities solicit more applications from students to reduce their acceptance rate. Lower acceptance rates lead to more uncertainty for students about acceptance, leading them to apply to more schools, which decreases the probability that accepted students will attend. This leads to greater uncertainty about enrollment for students and universities and generates demand for new services to manage it. Because these and other system-level transformations are not as cleanly measured as rank position and performance, they have not received the same treatment or modeling attention in higher education scholarship, despite their importance for understanding and influencing education policy.

Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB) member schools often compare their faculties’ research records to journal lists of their “peer and aspirational” programs. They often survey faculty and administrators’ perceptions of journal quality; number of Social Sciences Citation Index downloads; or “count” the number of faculty publications – but rarely analyze accounting programs’ actual journal quality lists. To examine this issue, we use a survey of national accounting programs. We identify a set of quality-classified journal lists by sampling 38 programs nationwide, varying by mission (e.g., urban or research), degrees granted (e.g., doctoral degrees in accounting), and national ranking (e.g., classified as a Top 75 Research Program) – from which we derive 1,436 data points that classify 359 journals that appear on these 38 programs’ journal lists. We also describe a case study that an accounting program used to revise its old journal list. We also find that while programs generally use generally accepted “bright lines” among the top three categories (A+, A, A−), they tailor their listings from the wide variety of B or C classified journals to create their own sets of acceptable journals in these categories. The study provides guidance and data for accounting programs who wish to develop or revise their own journal lists. While many studies have examined journal rankings, this is the first study to document the use of journal lists by accounting programs with a wide array of missions.

The purpose of this paper is to assess the value of the media rankings of business schools from the perspective of students, business schools and the media.

The paper analyses the rankings given to various schools by various publications.

The media rankings give the perception that there are more significant differences between similar MBA programs than actually exist. Indeed, many times it is the arbitrary weighting assigned by the media to the variables in the ranking rather than the quality of the school that accounts for differences across similar programs. A more accurate description of quality would be obtained by rating schools in groups of programs of similar quality.

Business school applicants can utilize media rankings to identify the top 100 MBA programs but should not base their decision between different programs on a specific ranking of one school relative to another. Rather, the applicant should examine the raw data behind the ranking, along with many other non‐quantitative factors, in assessing which is the program best matches their particular interests and aspirations.

Published rankings of business schools and MBA programmes have created considerable controversy. This paper describes the rationale and approach of one of the leading global rankings.

The paper describes the rationale and approach of the Economist Intelligence unit's Which MBA?

The validity and relevance of rankings of business schools and programmes are directly related to the choice of criteria against which the ranking takes place. The criteria used by the Economist Intelligence Unit/Which MBA? ranking are student‐centric and comprise a serious attempt to distinguish those business schools and programmes that best meet the factors that potential MBA students consistently say they are looking for.

Compared with a decade ago there is considerable information available about business schools and MBA programmes. Published rankings help to distil this information, allow less‐publicised schools on to the “radar” of potential students and extend choice.

The paper seeks to describe the rationale behind the Financial Times business school rankings and some of the problems inherent in developing and publishing them.

The rationale behind the Financial Times business school rankings is discussed, as are the ways in which business schools use the rankings.

Business schools have an ambivalent relationship to business schools rankings, openly criticising them but using favourable aspects of the rankings in their schools' marketing.

Business school rankings are probably here to stay. Most business schools are developing ways of using them for their own purposes.

This paper sets out to examine the affect of rankings on business schools from the perspective of a business school director.

The paper critiques the methodologies of ranking systems, their statistical validity, the factors used, and the weightings given to them.

Rankings are significant drivers of a school's reputation. Good performance can double inquiries and applications and allow schools to charge prestige premiums. Financial Times top decile MBA programmes charge, on average, just below $80,000 for an MBA. Bottom decile schools charge only $37,000.

This paper finds that it is impossible to challenge the criteria set out by a variety of rankings organisations and it is ill‐advised to boycott rankings. Schools are advised to consider which criteria reflect areas needing improvement and to continue “playing the game”.

This paper aims to examine how the Master of Business Administration (MBA) curricula of top-ranked business schools are offering stand-alone courses on ethics and corporate social responsibility (CSR). To provide additional evidence, this study tests some hypotheses to contrast the effect of different variables on the inclusion of stand-alone courses on ethics and CSR. Also, the paper provides a comparative analysis in two ways: one comparison aims to analyse how the presence of ethics and CSR stand-alone courses in the MBA programmes over the past 10 years has evolved, and the other comparison seeks to explore whether there are differences between different rankings with regard to the inclusion of ethics and CSR stand-alone courses in the MBA curricula.

A Web content analysis was conducted on the curricula of 92 of the top 100 global MBA programmes ranked by the Financial Times in their 2013 ratings.

The findings show that there is a trend towards the inclusion of stand-alone courses on CSR and ethics as electives. Empirically, the findings suggest that the presence of ethics and CSR elective stand-alone subjects in the MBA programmes is explained by the following variables: public/private, business school’s accreditation and cultural influence. Comparatively, the findings suggest that requiring CSR and business ethics stand-alone courses in the MBA programmes ranked by the Financial Times have not increased over the past 10 years. In addition, when we have compared the results of this study with other rankings, we have appreciated that there are important differences between top MBA programmes in accordance with the aims and scope of rankings.

The findings of this study seem to suggest that business schools included in the Financial Times ranking have not changed their view based on a shareholder approach, which is focused on providing an economics-centred training.

This study builds on previous investigations on the scholarship of social work faculty using h-index scores. The purpose of this paper is to compare two methods of determining the excellence of social work doctoral programs.

This study compared rankings in 75 social work doctoral programs using h-index vs the US News and World Report (USNWR) list. The accuracy of predicting scholarly productivity from USNWR rankings was determined by joint membership in the same quantile block. Information on USNWR rankings, h-index, years of experience, academic rank, and faculty gender were collected. Regression analysis was used in creating a predictive model.

Only 39 percent of USNWR rankings accurately predicted which programs had their reputation and scholarly productivity in the same rating block. Conversely, 41 percent of programs had reputations in a higher block than their scholarly productivity would suggest. The regression model showed that while h-index was a strong predictor of USNWR rank (b=0.07, 95% CI: 0.05, 0.08), additional variance was explained by the unique contributions of faculty size (b=0.01, 95% CI: 0.01, 0.02), college age (b=0.002, 95% CI: <0.001, 0.003), and location in the southeast (b=−0.22, 95% CI: −0.39, −0.06).

For many programs, reputation and scholarly productivity coincide. Other programs have markedly different results between the two ranking systems. Although mean program h-indices are the best predictor of USNWR rankings, caution should be used in making statements about inclusion in the “top 10” or “top 20” programs.

The ranking of business schools has been a controversial subject for a number of years. It is only recently, however, that they have become popular and generally accepted. The Carter Report, the Ladd & Lipset Survey, and the survey of now defunct MBA Magazine all appeared in 1977. Carter used a measurement of the frequency with which the faculty published in academic journals as his basis to rank the schools, Ladd & Lipset questioned business school faculty about which schools they thought were best, and MBA Magazine had the deans of the business schools vote on the best programmes. Although those who were knowledgeable about business schools at the time were skeptical of the procedure, the results were not generally available to the public and, therefore, made little difference to the schools. In recent years, however, ranking of all colleges has become popular with the press, and has been highly publicised. As a matter of fact, one of the principal reasons for the rankings has been the ability of the articles to boost the circulation of the magazines.

The purpose of this paper is to generate an understanding of the value-added to students enrolled in selected undergraduate business programs from an academic and market perspectives. Although there are numerous studies that rank undergraduate colleges and universities, the selection of the “best value” undergraduate business program is a formidable task for prospective students. This study uses data envelopment analysis (DEA), a linear programming-based tool, to evaluate undergraduate business administration programs. The DEA model connects costs (inputs) with benefits (outputs) to evaluate the value-added to students by undergraduate business programs from a market as well as academic perspectives. The study’s findings should assist prospective students in selecting business programs that provide the best value from their individual perspectives. The results can also help schools to identify their corresponding market niche and allocate their recourses more effectively.

Use DEA method. DEA was developed by Charnes et al. (1979) to evaluate the performance of multi-input and -output production operations. The analytical and computational capacities of DEA are firmly based on mathematical theory.

This study takes a different approach toward the ranking of college programs. Most studies rank-order programs (universities) based on arbitrary weightings of attributes of quality and provide a general ranking of programs that is said meet the needs of many different constituencies including students, parents, donors, administrators’ faculty and alumni.

This is an original research using DEA and The Bloomberg/Businessweek online data for business school ranking.