Search results

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

Despite the general recommendation of using a combination of multiple criteria for research assessment and faculty promotion decisions, the raise of quantitative indicators is generating an emerging trend in Business Schools to use single journal impact factors (IFs) as key (unique) drivers for those relevant school decisions. This paper aims to investigate the effects of using single Web of Science (WoS)-based journal impact metrics when assessing research from two related disciplines: Business and Economics, and its potential impact for the strategic sustainability of a Business School.

This study collected impact indicators data for Business and Economics journals from the Clarivate Web of Science database. We concentrated on the IF indicators, the Eigenfactor and the article influence score (AIS). This study examined the correlations between these indicators and then ranked disciplines and journals using these different impact metrics.

Consistent with previous findings, this study finds positive correlations among these metrics. Then this study ranks the disciplines and journals using each impact metric, finding relevant and substantial differences, depending on the metric used. It is found that using AIS instead of the IF raises the relative ranking of Economics, while Business remains basically with the same rank.

This study contributes to the research assessment literature by adding substantial evidence that given the sensitivity of journal rankings to particular indicators, the selection of a single impact metric for assessing research and hiring/promotion and tenure decisions is risky and too simplistic. This research shows that biases may be larger when assessment involves researchers from related disciplines – like Business and Economics – but with different research foundations and traditions.

Consistent with the literature, given the sensibility of journal rankings to particular indicators, the selection of a single impact metric for assessing research, assigning research funds and hiring/promotion and tenure decisions is risky and simplistic. However, this research shows that risks and biases may be larger when assessment involves researchers from related disciplines – like Business and Economics – but with different research foundations and trajectories. The use of multiple criteria is advised for such purposes.

This is an applied work using real data from WoS that addresses a practical case of comparing the use of different journal IFs to rank-related disciplines like Business and Economics, with important implications for faculty tenure and promotion committees and for research funds granting institutions and decision-makers.

The spread of entrepreneurial rent seeking (or entrepreneurialism for short) and market-based performance measurement (accreditation, rankings) have transformed many business schools into risk-taking organizations. The establishment of formal risk management activities would represent the fitting counterpart to this development. The purpose of this paper is to examine the state of risk management activities in business schools and evaluates the presence of discrepancies from first-best practices found in the corporate sector.

The data for this study were collected through a structured questionnaire addressed to heads of internationally active business schools in cooperation with a major international accreditation provider. Non-parametric and parametric methods (logistic regression) were used to analyze the formalization of risk management in business schools, in particular the differentiating role of entrepreneurial rent seeking and international accreditation.

Risk management is still in the early stages of formalization compared to the corporate sector. The results indicate that entrepreneurial rent seeking does not encourage the institutional establishment of risk management in business schools, while holding international accreditation has the opposite effect.

Risk management has become a focus area of regulators and accreditation agencies. The rising number of business schools struggling financially also serves as evidence that risk taking is frequently not matched by formal risk management policies (further supported by descriptive statistics of the survey published separately). The largely uncontested statement of the R. Lyons, Dean of the Haas School/Berkeley, that 50 per cent of business schools will disappear within the next five to ten years can only be rationalized in the context of risk not being appropriately addressed by business schools.

The paper represents the first empirical study analyzing risk management practices in business schools. The study design follows the approach commonly employed in the corporate risk management literature to capture the design of the risk management process covering governance aspects as well as approaches to risk identification, risk assessment, risk mitigation and performance controlling.

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.

The purpose of this paper is to examine some challenges facing business schools and their continued legitimacy. Particular attention is paid to the problems of accreditation, regulation and rankings and how these constrain strategic choice.

The paper builds on existing literature to provide an analytical overview of the challenges currently facing business schools.

The paper assesses the current context of business schools and assesses to what extent they are becoming less relevant both in terms of practice and theories. It suggests changes business schools might make in order to increase relevance.

The paper suggests that business schools should change their central concerns to issues of central relevance to society and to policy. A wide range of such topics, ranging from climate change to exogenous events, is suggested.