WSJ: First ranking of accelerated MBA programs

Nine European schools, five American schools and one school from Latin America are among the 15 best programs worldwide. The Europeans hold the first three places with the Instituto de Empresa in Madrid, the IMD in Lausanne and the UK-based Cranfield School of Management.

Two American schools are in fourth and fifth place with the Kellogg School of Management and the F.W. Olin Graduate School of Business at Babson College. Insead landed in just 7th place, largely on account of the school’s relatively poor evaluation by their students. The University of St. Gallen reached 13th place, putting it ahead of the Durham Business School and the Said Business School in Oxford.

1,361 students and 735 alumni from 48 schools that offer a ten- to 15-month MBA program were surveyed. In addition to students’ satisfaction level, alumni were also asked about the impact of their degree on their career progress – including whether it has protected their career in recession.

More than 82 percent of those polled admitted to choosing the short program for the primary reason of being able to return to work faster. In choosing a school, the institution’s reputation played the most important role, followed by its international focus.
   
On this note, students and alumni share the opinion that European schools offer a significantly stronger international approach. For 86 percent of the students at non-American programs, the international focus was a key aspect in their choice. In contrast, this was the case for only 36 percent of students at US schools.

But the two-year programs also have their advantages – particularly for students aspiring to a career change. The internship lasting several months between the first and second years enables them to gain initial experiences in industries and the career services are often more comprehensive.

For the WSJ, the ranking is another attempt to establish itself in the ranking market. Up until now, the newspaper’s rankings were based on surveys from recruiting managers in the US and by nature were strongly tailored to the US market.

By explicitly rating only the short MBA programs now, the US newspaper raises another question. Exactly how meaningful is the ranking by the Financial Times, in which one and two-year programs are simply thrown into one lump? Isn’t that just comparing apples and oranges?

Wall Street Journal MBA Ranking