Interestingly, executive education rankings by various publications produce results which seem all over the map. In fact, the results within each one of these publications may very wildly from year to year. My general news Bible happens to be the Financial Times (FT). FYI, in 2011 Harvard was #4, IMD #5, Columbia #17, Stanford #32, UCLA #36, and my alma mater MIT Sloan, #54!
This seems like such BS.
For example, last year MIT ranked 33. Did it really drop 21 places in a single year? (In other words 19 universities displaced it in a single year! And Boston U. School of Management, ranked number eight, beat out MIT Sloan by 46 places?
Executive Education - for such an expensive decision, could the reviewers make their analyses a bit more credible?
Whoops – the data which I provided above, is sub-labeled “the top 65 customized program providers. Several pages later is another chart with a sub label: ”the top 65 open–enrollment program providers”! It always pays to read carefully…. MIT came out number 12 in this ranking. In other words it scored reasonably well in its open–enrollment program, and poorly in its customized programs.
For the readers’ benefit, the open–enrollment rankings were based upon participants’ (student?) feedback re 10 variables: preparation, course design, teaching materials, faculty, quality of participants, new skills and learning, follow–up, aims achieved, food and accommodation, and facilities. Variables used for evaluating customized programs, were based upon inputs from both participants, and from other business schools which provided raw data on numbers of international clients, international participants, overseas programs, partner schools, and faculty diversity.
Nowhere was the weighting of different parameters disclosed. Readers must love to read rankings, regardless of the inevitable and often egregious inaccuracies.
215 Comments