In a prior post, we looked at changes in Business Week’s rankings of MBA program in the 10-year period from from 2000 to 2010.
The key observations:
- 13 MBA programs (e.g. HBS, Wharton, Kellogg) held their top 30 positions – plus or minus a spot or two – between 2000 and 2010
- 6 MBA programs were in the 2000 Top 30 and improved their position by 6 or more spots between 2000 and 2010
- University of Chicago jumped 9 spots to take over the #1 ranking
- 6 MBA programs that weren’t in the Top 30 in 2000 broke into the 2010 Top 10 (more on that later)
- 5 MBA programs dropped a whopping 15 places or more from 2000 to 2010 (more on that later, too)
- Another 6 MBA programs dropped 5 spots or more between 2000 to 2010
Among the 6 MBA programs that weren’t in the Top 30 in 2000 and broke into the 2010 Top 10, SMU is the shining star.
SMU came out of nowhere – unranked as late as 2006 – and soared to #12 in 2010.
How did they do it?
Here are the details that support the SMU ranking in 2008 – SMU’s first time in the Top 30:
Answer: heavy emphasis on Teaching (A+) and Career Services (A) yielded a #17 ranking among Corporate Recruiters … and a number #18 overall ranking.
Not bad! But, apparently, not good enough for SMU.
Things got even better in 2010.
SMU kept Teaching at an A+ level and boosted Career Services from a plain old A to an A+ … the result: up to #6 with Corporate Recruiters and #12 overall.
Source: Business Week – 2000 & 2010 MBA Rankings
* * * * *
Bottom line: Get good students, teach them a lot, help them find jobs …. and, BINGO, MBA program success.
You’d think that’s common sense, right? No surprise.
Well, tomorrow we’ll look at one of the biggest losers … with a twist that may surprise some of you.
Tags: MBA Rankings
The Homa Files 
March 27, 2012 at 11:11 pm |
No surprise that Georgetown’s drop in the rankings comes at the same time as chronic turnover in the career management department.