Although rankings are a great tool to help analyze business schools around the world, understanding what and what not particular ranking bodies focus on is important to take into consideration. A few days ago, IMBA alumnus Adam Pervez published an article on the Huffington Post website in which he calls for reforms in the Financial Times’ MBA Program Rankings, as methodologies and metrics appear to be perpetuating an antiquated and misguided vision of business management.
“[…] The FT states in its 2013 ranking methodology that graduates working in the non-profit sector as well as full-time teachers are excluded from the tabulation. […] My cohort was full of people working in the non-profit world (like the World Wildlife Fund), for-profit social enterprises that believe in shared stakeholder prosperity (like Emzingo Group), and I’m volunteering my way around the world on The Happy Nomad Tour. We are either not included at all in the FT’s antiquated ranking system, or we are and do harm to our school […].”
It is common knowledge that one of the main factors in business school rankings up to this day is how much a student earns after graduating.
“[…] My post-MBA salary was a decrease of 50 percent as a result of going from the lucrative oil industry to the fledgling renewable energy industry. Then I gave that up to volunteer my way around the world in search of happiness and inspiration to start my own non-profit organization. I made $900 in 2012, a decline of over 99 percent from my pre-MBA salary […].”
However, according to one of the comments made in response to Adam’s article, the more important thing is to solve the problem that has been uncovered as a result of the financial crisis: the pressing need for Responsible Leaders in business, government and the social sector.
“[…] Governments often can’t meet the needs of its people. More and more pressure is being put on social businesses and the non-profit world to fill the gaps and come up with innovative solutions. If there must be a system to rank business schools, shouldn’t the graduates’ accomplishments be more important than their increase in salary? Shouldn’t schools be rewarded in the rankings for admitting the next Jonas Salk instead of being penalized for it? Wouldn’t giving even a paltry 2 percent of the score to a category like “percentage of students who pursue non-profit careers” or “percentage of students who start their own company” be more representative of today’s reality […]?”
“It’s time to reward the schools that admit these do-gooders, who now do so to the detriment of their ranking.”
To read the entire article click here.