JAt the same time, however, I find it surprising that you have asked for people to take a look at the methodology and yet not analyzed it yourself. Understanding the methodology is very different from analyzing it to draw some conclusions about validity. Visit this blog to get some guidance on the areas where the methodology could use some improvement.
Let me wear a Suit. Please! necromonger @ INSEAD MBA Blog: Financial Times FT MBA Rankings 2008 - Analysis and Review Part I
Well, given that I do not represent FT, I do not require your offer of guidance to improve the methodology. Frankly, if you have any issues with this process, it will be really nice of you to write to FT instead.
And this post of mine that you have quoted was in response to people who were shouting their mouths off saying (due to whatever reason) that the whole ranking is fraudulent without even understanding how it was constructed.
Good methodology or bad, any Indian or Chinese B-school will score very highly on it due to the kind of salaries and salary growth alums from these institutes would have got. And of course 100% placement rates. That is one reason why you see 2 Chinese schools also in the top 20 ranks.
Further, whether I understood the methodology and analyzed it, whether I feel this is incorrect or not is something that is not discernible from my post because it was made for some other reason. So i do not see how you can claim whether or not I analyzed it or understood it. So my friend, stop speculating.
indianMBA2008 Says Secondly, IIMA and IIMC have become more truly global in a sense by emulating other institutions by introducing both a "freshers" MBA program (PGP) and one for experienced candidates (PGPX/PGPEX).
No argument with that, I havent said anything to the contrary anywhere.....
indianMBA2008 Says I remember reading an interview mbauniverse.com had held with the FT rankings head, where they said that PGPX did not qualify for the rankings because it's not been around for 4 years yet. If they were eligible to take part, their average salary of 22L would have converted to $240K. Do you really think that's a valid number? I suspect the only reason why the $169K salary figure for ISB was allowed to stand is because it wasn't drastically outside the salary range of other institutes.
It doesnt matter if it is valid or invalid as per me. I do not represent FT. But if PGPX programs were to be rated, and if this methodology is to be followed, then this might be the salary that will be quoted.
And your suspicion about whether the 169K was quoted by FT because it is" believable: is mere speculation. Unless of course you spoke to the FT team and they confirmed that they only quote numbers that look "believable".
Finally, in the same interview, the FT rankings head said that IIMA's PGP program would qualify for another ranking they have - the Master of Management ranking which is for programs with a high percentage of students without experience.
I think ISB's a great institute that has done a lot in a very short time. But get to #20 in the world? Not quite yet.
Good to hear that....
And Finally, this is a controversial topic and there will be people who will have different opinions, so my suggestion to people is to offer their viewpoints and accept that other will have different view points rather than offer unsolicited "guidance", which in my opinion smacks of arrogance. Given the nature of this topic and unending possibility of debate, this will be my final post on this topic.