Global B-School Rankings 2018

After contacting 1650 institutes and having discussions with students, recruiters and faculty, Youth Incorporated brings out the top 100 Global B-School Rankings.  We also consulted professional organizations such as AMBA, EQUIS and AACSB. Youth Inc’s Research Unit (YRU) also studied domestic rankings in various countries to find the best institutes.

This year’s rankings saw the University of Pennsylvania dethrone Harvard University to claim its spot as the top-ranked B-School in the world, two spots ahead from last year’s ranking. Harvard ranked 2^nd this year with a near perfect score, followed by Stanford University at the 3^rd position. London Business School has jumped to rank 4 this year from its last years 6^th rank. Yale University, which made it to the top 10 last year, fell one position short this year. The University of Chicago rounded off the top 10 list. American Universities continue to maintain top spots yet again.

This year’s B-School rankings also see the standard four Indian institutes that have always appeared in our rankings, and we haven’t seen any new colleges rising to the top 100. IIM Ahmedabad moved up one position and came in at 15^th rank this year. IIM Calcutta retained its last year’s 18^th position on the list.

The India School of Business, which fell in its rankings last year, moved up this year to the 21^st rank. SP Jain Institute of Management continued its steady climb on the list with a two space jump, at 50^th rank this year from last year’s 52th rank. With the four institutes making some progress in the top 100 this year, we will hopefully see more Indian universities make their way to the list in the coming years.

B-School Rankings 2018

TOP MBA WORLDWIDE

TOP 50 FINANCE

TOP 50 MARKETING

TOP 50 MANAGEMENT

TOP 50 EXECUTIVE MBA

TOP 50 ONLINE MBA

Ranking Methodology

How did we choose institutes?

We chose 1650 institutes across the world after having discussions with students, recruiters and faculty. We also consulted professional organizations such as AMBA, EQUIS and AACSB. Youth Inc’s Research Unit (YRU) also studied domestic rankings in various countries to find the best institutes.

All the institutes were sent identical surveys. We then contacted current students, alumni as well as local and international recruiters and gathered specific information about the institutes.

Factors considered

1. Recruiter Perception – Identical surveys were sent to recruiters worldwide. The recruiters were asked to rate the institutes that they were most likely to recruit from. The recruiters were also asked to rate the students they have recruited from specific business schools on several criteria including leadership potential and strategic thinking.
2. Diversity of Students– The institutes were asked to report the total number of students on campus and what percentage of the students were international and speak two or more languages. Gender diversity of the students was also considered.
3. Diversity of Faculty – The institutes were asked to report the total number of faculty on campus and what percentage of the faculty was international, hold a doctorate degree and accredited with their own publishing material. Gender diversity of faculty was also considered.
4. Innovation of Programs – We considered the different ways to construct degree programs as well as the choice students have in terms of selecting electives.
5. Innovation in Teaching Methodologies – Institutes were asked to select different teaching methodologies that we considered innovative. Some of these included company visits, dual or multiple majors and course collaborations between different departments at the institute. Our list was selected after surveying students across different campuses worldwide.
6. Value for Money – We considered students and alumni opinions on whether a particular institute was perceived as ‘value for money’. We also asked institutes to state the percentage of students who received some sort of funding from the institutes.
7. Campus Support – We asked the institutes, current students and alumni to select the different types of assistance provided by the student office or a similar body on campus. Our list was selected after surveying students across different campuses worldwide.
8. Career Service – We asked the institutes, current students and alumni about the availability and functioning of a career service cell and how active such a service was for the students. We also considered what percentage of students were actually placed through the institute’s career service cell, how long it look for such placements and what the average starting salaries were.
9. Exchange Programs – Institutes were asked to report the percentage of students that opted for exchange programs. We also considered the exchange students present on the institute’s campus.
10. Student Satisfaction – Current students and alumni were asked to rate their institutes on various factors including career services, attitude of staff and professors, location, and course content.

Actual Methodology

Institutes were provided a code using which they could send us their completed survey online. They were asked to answer questions relating to full-time faculty, career service, student and program information and all the factors listed above.

We contacted current students and alumni of the institutes and asked them to rate specific statements which were pertaining to the factors we considered in this ranking. All the institutes preferred to send the survey links to their students and alumni directly.

Over 16000 recruiters were sent emails with a survey. The recruiter list was prepared from the responses of the institutes and also included internationally well known recruiters. The recruiters were asked to enlist institutes that they were likely to recruit from.

Below is a summary of the factors and the weight-age given to each factor when we ranked the institutes:

Each factor was made up of a set of questions. The total percentage attributed to that factor was based on the average score of the responses multiplied by the assigned weight-age. We then totalled the score from all factors and sorted the scores from highest to lowest. The institute with the highest score was ranked 1^st.

Not just numbers!

After we received the total computed scores for the institutes, we subjectively analyzed the data provided by the institutes, current students, alumni and recruiters. If we found discrepancies in the satisfaction scores and the subjective descriptions, we omitted the data.

Institutes that did not fill out the survey reports in time

Out of the institutes that were contacted, 125 institutes did not complete the survey on time or did not respond. We used publicly available information on the institutes to include them in our ranking. We also contacted current students, alumni and recruiters of these institutes and compared the data we received with the data from institutes that did participate.

Special notes

Masters in Finance – The programs include the pre-experience as well as the post-experience Masters programs. The ranking also includes the programs which are recently established.

Masters in Management – Certain Masters of Management programs with specializations are also included in the ranking.

Masters in Marketing – Combination courses of Marketing with communication and other fields are also included in the ranking.

Online MBA – Certain factors such as Campus Support and Exchange Programs were omitted in the factors considered for the ranking.

Executive MBA – Certain factors such as Campus Support and Exchange Programs were omitted in the factors considered for the ranking.

For the above 5 rankings, scores obtained by the institutes were rounded off.

For further information and complete list of rankings, visit www.youthincmag.com/rankings