Business School Programs' Rankings:
Is it Time to Click the 'Refresh' Button?
A preliminary concept and rationale for Academy of Management Annual Meeting Panel Symposium Proposal
Many of you have heard about academic rankings of schools or universities; among these, there are several business school program rankings that are of special interest for business school faculty, students and administration. Specifically, I am referring to the two internationally leading and known rankings of graduate (Masters) business school programs, by the Financial Times (FT) and the Economist as well as the more N American oriented rankings by the Business Week and US News.
I want to share with you the thoughts and frustrations on the current state of these rankings and their potential detrimental effect, which motivated me to propose this symposium. At the outset, I want to emphasise that I am not attacking 'academic rankings' as a practice here: while there are many shortcomings to this quantitative exercise, there are various reasons that rankings, of all sorts, continue to be in high demand (and, I suspect, increasing) among students, employers, academics and other stakeholders. I think that rankings satisfy a wide need to compare and contrast and to reduce uncertainty in a very global and complex market. My aim is to create a public forum to discuss the relevance and validity of the criteria used in current business school rankings.
I have been in the Business School education business for over 12 years now, teaching and directing programs at the Masters level. As such, I am acutely aware of the importance that many leading (and, even more so, aspiring) businesses schools place on the outcomes of such rankings. I understand this and took part in my own school's efforts to that end. At the same time, I have grown increasingly frustrated with the narrowness of the criteria feeding into the main Business School Masters programs' ratings (in the context of a European-based international school, I am more aware of the criteria used by the FT and Economist). In short, the majority of criteria that indicate the outcomes of a Business Masters program relate to salary, status of job obtained (as measured by size of company or seniority of position) and employability after graduation.
I am frustrated because there is no reference (or very minimal) in these criteria to the outcomes, which so many of us, educators and other stakeholders, consider relevant and important in the learning & educational experience of graduate students, such as analytical skills, self awareness, critical thinking, creativity, various EQ competencies, appreciation of and comfort with diversity and developing socially aware perspectives on business.
I am frustrated because when we discuss program design and content of courses we consider various learning and practice (i.e., competencies and skills) outcomes. How many of us enter a class thinking 'how would what I teach my students today will earn them more money in their job?'. The Assurance of Learning frameworks, such as those used by various accreditation bodies (e.g., AACSB and EQUIS) also refer to demonstrating that our Masters students learn useful and relevant skills and that we can demonstrate that our educational programs created a change in our students' thinking, attitudes, and behaviour. But the rankings do not look at any of that. Sure, one could claim that good education translates itself to better employability and higher salaries but, in my view, this is such a rough and inaccurate proxy!
The main problem with this line of thinking is that it is old, very old and not representative of the values of current generations. Where does work-life balance enters here? Where are the preferences for a company that has a culture that the Masters graduate can respect? What about those graduates who prefer a lower paying job because it is more interesting or fulfilling?! In early December this year I attended the EFMD Annual Conference on Business Masters Programs. Anne-Fleur Barret, one of the speakers in a panel of masters programs alumni and employers, shared perspectives that stroke a cord. This very talented and well-educated person made a choice not to go into an executive position in her company, in spite of being invited to do so. While she likes the company she works in (HP), her choice reflected her life-work balance preferences. She asked us: am I a failure of my graduate school (which is well known and highly ranked) because I am not heading for an executive position? Even though I have a high level of career satisfaction and doing what I want to in life and at work? From the current ranking perspective the answer to her question is clear: you are not doing that well enough in your work; you have failed your Graduate Business School because you are not going for the formula of "higher, faster, more".
Yes, money and externally validated career success are important. I have no issue in stating that many of us, including myself, strive for status recognition, higher salary and various external indicators of success. But what we know from decades of research is that there are several other factors that tend to be ranked above financial outcomes. In the past couple of decades, rigorous empirical studies demonstrated the importance of internally determined job satisfaction, of working with good colleagues and managers, of feeling that your work is meaningful, of knowing that your company does good. How is it that none of these insights of what motivates us at work made its way to the career outcomes of business school graduates assessed in these rankings?
I am frustrated and worried because I am well aware of how measurement shapes practice. The rankings are here to stay but I wonder: Must they be so narrow? Do they truly represent what students want to get out of their Masters education? Is there a place to revisit these criteria and update them? I aim at convening a Symposium Panel with a broad representation of stakeholders to hold a lively and provocative discussion on these issues.