After contacting 1600 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.
Placing the 2017 top MBA institutes rankings against those we conducted in the previous years, a comparison of the performance of the institutes over the years is clearly visible. Harvard University, Stanford University and University of Pennsylvania have retained their 1st, 2nd and 3rd rank respectively. INSEAD has jumped to rank 4 this year from its previous rank 6. Yale University has made it to the top 10 this year from its rank 12 previously. IIM Ahmedabad and IIM Calcutta have both shown progress and have risen up two spaces to rank 16 and rank 18 this year. In the B-schools list again, American institutes have been taking a top spot barring INSEAD, IE and London Business School.
If you were to take a look at the B-school rankings list, you will see that the four Indian institutes that have always appeared in our rankings are still the same, and we haven’t seen any new colleges rising up to the top 100. For IIM Ahmedabad it has been a one space jump from rank 17th to rank 16th this year. IIM Calcutta has also shown considerable progress jumping up two spaces from Rank 20 to rank 18. Indian School of Business however, has shown a drop from rank 22 last year to rank 23 this year. For SPJ Institute of Management, it has been a four spaces jump from the 56th rank to rank 52 this year.
The rankings of Indian institutes this year has reflected more jumps than drops. However, with only four universities in the top 100 global rankings, we really need to make sure we step up the game for the students. There are often instances when we hear of dearth of good Indian universities to study at which forces students to step out abroad. Sadly, with only few Indian universities in the list, we hope to see a positive change and progress in the coming year.
B-School Rankings 2017
Top MBA Worldwide
Top 50 Executive MBA
Top 50 Online MBA
- View the complete rankings of top 50 schools click here
TOP 30 Finance
Top 30 Marketing
- View the complete rankings of top 30 schools click here
Top 30 Management
- View the complete rankings of top 30 schools click here
Ranking Methodology
How did we choose institutes?
We chose 1600 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
We sent invitations to 1600 institutes. Institutes were provided a password 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 15000 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:
| Information reported by the institute | Information reported by current students | Information reported by alumni | |
| Diversity of Students | 2% | 2% | 2% |
| Diversity of Faculty | 2% | 2% | 2% |
| Innovation of Programs | 2% | 2% | 2% |
| Innovation in Teaching Methodologies | 2% | 2% | 2% |
| Value for Money | 2% | 2% | 2% |
| Campus Support | 2% | 2% | 2% |
| Career Service | 4% | 4% | 4% |
| Exchange Programs | 2% | 2% | 2% |
| Student Satisfaction | 2% | 2% | 2% |
| 20% | 20% | 20% |
| Information reported by recruiters | |
| Recall of institute where to recruit from | 10% |
| Likelihood of recruiting from same institute again | 10% |
| Overall satisfaction with students recruited | 10% |
| Satisfaction with institute career cell | 10% |
| 40% |
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 1st.
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 1600 institutes that were contacted, 130 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.
