Do business school and MBA rankings matter? That may be a strange question to ask in the Financial Mail’s annual Ranking the MBAs publication, but it’s one increasingly being addressed by business school administrators and academics.
Rankings are fiercely contested around the world. The University of Cape Town’s Graduate School of Business (GSB) has been soul-searching since its full-time MBA programme dropped out of the Top 100 of the London Financial Times (FT) ranking in 2017. It had been a fixture for 12 years.
The school, however, remains on the FT’s executive education ranking, along with Stellenbosch University Business School and Pretoria University’s Gordon Institute of Business Science (Gibs). Gibs is also included in the executive MBA rankings.
The FT exercise, often considered the "gold standard" of global rankings, is one of many. Others include Bloomberg Businessweek, The Economist and QS (no-one uses the full name, Quacquarelli Symonds).
But at the same time as hundreds of schools around the world are fighting to be recognised, many question the rankings’ veracity. US college president Leon Botstein once wrote of a US News higher-education ranking: "It’s one of the black marks on the history of higher education that an entire industry supposedly populated by the best minds in the country is bamboozled by a third-rate news magazine."
The reality is that potential students are influenced by rankings. So are employers that hire graduates. University of the Free State Business School director Helena van Zyl says her students are mainly interested in curriculum and price, but research for this cover story shows that 48% of MBA graduates across all SA schools took rankings into account when deciding where to study.
The US News website reportedly had 10m visitors during the month in which its ranking appeared. Many of those were presumably looking for a comparison of educational options.
But what do rankings actually compare? Some are obscure, talking vaguely of canvassing the opinions of human resources directors, or asking deans around the world to rate other schools, many of which they have never heard of.
In some cases, schools themselves are excluded from the process. Gibs dean Nicola Kleyn says: "You get a letter from someone congratulating you on your position in their ranking and it’s the first you know of it. We’ve had situations where they want to rank us on a qualification we don’t offer."
Other rankings are transparent. The FT, for example, explains every percentage point towards the final score. Besides salary increases, which account for up to 40% of the total on some MBA rankings, its criteria include research, value for money, job satisfaction, alumni relations, career support, international reach, faculty qualifications and diversity of students, teachers and school boards.
But are these the right criteria? Kleyn says there is over-emphasis on salary. Zaheer Hamid, director of the Graduate School of Business at the Management College of Southern Africa (Mancosa), says rankings haven’t moved with the times. "They are too narrow, too traditional. It should no longer be about me, me, me. Rankings should also consider the impact of business schools within their communities. What are they doing in terms of social impact, and what are their graduates going on to contribute?"
Regent Business School’s Ahmed Shaikh agrees: "Business schools aren’t islands. How are they contributing to development? What is the relevance of their MBAs?"
Cape Town GSB director Mills Soko says: "We know there are imperfections but if you want to take part, that’s what you work with."
Owen Skae, director of Rhodes Business School, describes rankings as a "blunt instrument". He says: "Too much is down to scale and size. What about graduates’ contribution to their company? How do you measure the impact of a graduate’s new skills and character? To do that requires deep reflection. You don’t get that through a questionnaire and a five-minute phone interview."
Milpark Business School dean Cobus Oosthuizen says rankings contain a level of "approximate truth" that offers students and recruiters a broad comparison of schools. But they should use rankings only as the entry point into the selection process.
"A single ranking number cannot be a substitute for a comprehensive assessment of business school quality," he says. "Gain insight into the curriculum, syllabus, course outlines and course outcomes. Is it relevant, contemporary and aligned to industry needs? What is the quality of faculty? Does the institution have international partnerships, accreditations, memberships, affiliations, collaborations, and the like? What service levels and student support can one expect? Does the institution demonstrate social responsibility, and what is the associated social impact?
"As with most things, outward appearance can be deceiving. You must get to the heartbeat of an institution."
Of course, if rankings had no value, schools would not pursue them so intently. One of the attractions is reputation. "Like it or not, people look at rankings," says Nelson Mandela University Business School’s Cecil Arnolds. "Get your name among the top schools and they notice you. You become an option."
And not just for students and corporate headhunters. Top lecturers and business leaders want to teach in your classrooms. "If you are highly ranked, it’s easier to attract top overseas faculty," says Kleyn. "Overseas schools are also more likely to want to partner with you."
The same is true of local companies wanting to fund research and academic chairs.
Rankings also help schools learn how the market perceives them, and to react accordingly. But they should not overreact. Rankings are snapshots, not definitive images. Conrad Viedge, academic head at Wits Business School, says schools must not allow their pursuit of rankings to sidetrack them from their core business of teaching and thought leadership.
Despite the costs and distractions, Soko has no doubt that reputable rankings are worth the effort. "For us, to be ranked highly provides a great marketing benefit. It shines an external light on us but also, internally, shines a light on areas where we want to improve. We know there are imperfections in rankings but we have to benchmark against the best in the world. It helps us identify where we are in relation to other schools and what we need to be better."
That’s why his school is putting a lot of effort into regaining its position in the FT Top 100. With the help of the FT rankings team, it has identified where its weaknesses lie. These include career support for graduates, alumni relations, published research and graduates’ salary increases.
"There’s not a lot we can do about salaries and though we publish a lot of research, it’s not necessarily in publications on the FT’s approved list," says Soko. "So we will see what we need to do, and act accordingly. We have already employed extra people in our careers and alumni departments. By our reckoning, it requires only small improvements in a number of areas to get us back on the ranking, which I think we can do quickly."
He adds: "To take part in rankings is expensive and time-intensive, and we have debated whether it is worth it. But the time and money are an investment in our reputation and therefore in our future. We must never forget that."
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.