I’ll save the heavy lifting on this one for business school deans who should rightly – and I would hope – be raising hell. U.S. News & World Report is implementing a significant change to its business school ranking methodology that will effectively exclude institutions without full-time residential MBA programs from its specialty rankings. This decision, is slated to take effect with the April 8th rankings publication.
Here are just the obvious points; I’ll save the many nuances for others.
- The change will inexplicably remove many business schools with outstanding individual specialty rankings from U.S. News’ lists. By definition, this means those lists no longer have any credibility and provide substantially incomplete market information.
- Many schools have strategically – and smartly for the benefit of their institutions and student prospects – pivoted away from traditional full-time MBA programs (as their enrollment and results decline) to focus on specialized master’s degrees, part-time programs, or online offerings that better serve today’s diverse student populations. I’ve seen the data. If they hadn’t done this, they should have received an F in business strategy.
- Then there are the A business strategy schools. The Gies College of Business, which discontinued its full-time MBA in 2019 to channel resources into online education. This strategy was so successful that its enrollments blew the roof off of Memorial Stadium. Under the new policy, Illinois’ exceptional accounting program (ranked 3rd nationally) will vanish from the rankings entirely. In what universe does that make sense?
Beyond the obvious problem of now creating incomplete, inaccurate lists of many categories of programs, this model implicitly endorses a traditional model of business education that does not serve all students’ needs, at a time when flexibility in education delivery has become increasingly important, especially for working professionals seeking to advance their careers without leaving the workforce.
Through my years of work at Eduvantis, I’ve seen many schools maintain full-time MBA programs at a financial loss, believing it was worth it solely for the “prestige and visibility that rankings provide” (I put that in parentheses because I think this is a specious belief). This new policy will likely pressure even more institutions to maintain programs they should quit, despite declining enrollment and financial unsustainability, potentially diverting resources from more innovative and financially viable educational offerings.
Just when business education needs to evolve to meet radically – and I mean radically – changing workforce demands, this policy change seems almost comical in the degree to which it would entrench rather than challenge the status quo, and inexplicably. (Almost as inexplicably, in my view, as how these dinosaur rankings have continued to survive in any case).
As prospective students navigate their educational options, they deserve complete information about program quality across the full spectrum of business education offerings. Inadequate as it is already, an irrational new methodology that now arbitrarily excludes excellent programs based on delivery format rather than educational outcomes is a profound disservice to both institutions and the students they aim to serve.
About the Author
Tim Westerbeck, President
Tim Westerbeck is a leading strategic advisor to higher education institutions around the world. His work focuses on helping institutions grow amidst significant disruption, by defining strategies and new business models aligned with the future.
He has served as a columnist for Businessweek and is a frequent commentator in The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, and other global media.
Tim is also a regular presenter at global industry forums, such as the Indian Management Conclave, AACSB International, The European Foundation for Management Development, and others.
