Wash U Tops 2013 FT EMBA Ranking

by John A. Byrne on

Washington University's Olin School of Business

Washington University’s Olin School of Business

Washington University’s Olin School of Business emerged the big winner today (Oct. 21) in The Financial Times annual ranking of the best Executive MBA programs. With an overall rank of sixth, it was the highest ranked standalone EMBA program on the FT’s list. Rounding out the top five standalone programs are the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School, Duke University’s Fuqua School, the University of Chicago’s Booth School of Business, and CEIBS in China.

The Olin program moved up three spaces to surpass Wharton and CEIBS. According to the British newspaper, graduates of Olin’s EMBA program were making on average $263,291 three years after graduation, a 61% increase from their pre-EMBA pay. The catch? It was Olin’s EMBA program in China at Fudan University–and not its program in St. Louis where the school is based.

Northwestern University’s joint EMBA program with Hong Kong University of Science and Technology was again ranked first overall. It was the highest ranked of five joint programs that topped the list. The strong showing by joint programs on the FT list is largely a function of the newspaper’s methodology which heavily weights and then “adjusts” the salaries of survey alumni in ways that distort compensation. The adjustment to “purchasing power parity” tends to favor programs that enroll a larger percentage of sponsored students from emerging economies. The FT said the average salary of a graduate of the Kellogg/Hong Kong UST program currently makes $416,806 a year, a number adjusted by the FT.

The No. 2 school this year is the joint program between INSEAD and Tsinghua University which brings in a lot of students from China and Singapore and the United Arab Emirates. That program jumped two spots from the previous year. The joint EMBA run by Columbia University and London Business School was ranked third. Trium, the innovative partnership among New York University’s Stern School, HEC Paris and the London School of Economics, is fourth, while UCLA’s EMBA with the National University of Singapore was fifth.

FIVE U.S. SCHOOLS DROP IN DOUBLE DIGITS ON THE RANKING

Of the seven schools on the list that fell in double digits, five were U.S. EMBA programs. The University of Texas-Dallas EMBA plummeted  21 places to finish 87 from 66th last year. The University of Minnesota’s Carlson School EMBA fell 17 places to a rank of 97th from 80th in 2012. The University of Rochester’s Simon School dropped 16 spots to 96th from 80th, while Boston University’s School of Management fell 15 places to rank 81st from 66th.

Oddly enough, of the seven schools that rose in double digits, only one was based in the U.S. Georgia State University’s EMBA program moved up 12 places to a rank of 51 from 63rd last year.

It’s not immediately clear why these changes occurred, though the FT said there were “minor changes to the calculation of international diversity measures for 2013. In addition to the percentage of schools’ students and faculty that are international – the figures published – the composition of these groups by individual citizenship informs a diversity-measuring score that feeds into the calculation.”

SALARY COUNTS FOR THE LARGEST SINGLE PART OF THE RANKING’S METHODOLOGY

The FT’s methodology uses 16 separate metrics to rank the school’s EMBA programs. Five of these measures are taken from a survey of alumni, ten of them are school reported, and the remaining metric is a count of articles in 45 journals by the newspaper. The FT said that 136 programs participated in its ranking this year including 17 offered jointly by more than one school.Some 5,550 graduates completed its alumni survey this year, a response rate of 54%.

The alumni surveys account for the most heavily weighted portion of the methodology, some 55% of the ranking. Despite the use of 16 metrics, salary–current and the increase from pre-EMBA pay to three year out grads–accounts for a whopping 40% of the ranking. Current salary alone–adjusted by the FT to weed out grads in non-profit and public sector and converted into U.S. dollars using purchasing parity rates–makes up a full 20% of this ranking. Programs in emerging economies tend to do better when the adjustment is made because of the level of poverty in those countries. Another factor in this ranking is that many of the joint programs at the top tend to enroll a larger number of sponsored executives who are being selected by their companies as up-and-comers who most likely will experience more rapid salary increases.

All told, The Financial Times ranked 100 EMBA programs, with two schools tied for 99th place: the University of Houston’s Bauer School and Stockholm School of Economics. A dozen of the EMBA programs that were not on the list last year made it onto the 2013 list, including No. 13 Nanyang Business School in Singapore, No. 31 Shanghai Jiao Tong University in China, and No. 58 the University of Strathclyde Business School.

DRAMATIC CHANGES IN YEAR-OVER-YEAR RANKS UNDERMINE THE CREDIBILITY OF THE SURVEY

Although the FT attaches a numerical rank on each EMBA program it ranks, the British newspaper points out that “the pattern of clustering among the schools is equally significant.” Some 245 points separate Kellogg/Hong Kong UST Business School at the top, from the school ranked number 100, discloses the FT. “The first 18 business schools, from Kellogg/HKUST Business School to Kellogg/WHU Beisheim, form the first tier of schools,” The Financial Times said. “The second tier is headed by IMD, about 90 points above National Sun Yat-sen University at the bottom of this group. HHL Leipzig Graduate School of Management heads the third tier.”

Not accounting for the EMBA programs that dropped completely off the list, some 24 different programs experienced double-digit changes in their ranks, including the newcomer programs. That level of volatility in a single year greatly undermines the credibility of this list because it’s not possible that year-over-year changes in a program would account for those types of dramatic swings. Instead, the lack of consistency in the ranking suggests that the differences between and among ranked schools is so small as to be statistically meaningless so minute changes or errors can result in massive changes in numerical rank.

The Best EMBA Programs Ranked By The Financial Times In 2013

School2012 RankChange
  1. Kellogg/Hong Kong UST1——
  2. Tsinghua/INSEAD4+2
  3. Columbia/London2-1
  4. Trium/HEC Paris/LSE/NYU3-1
  5. UCLA/National U. of Singapore5——
  6. Washington University (Olin)9+3
  7. Pennsylvania (Wharton)8+1
  8  Duke University (Fuqua)16+8
  9. University of Chicago (Booth)10+1
10. CEIBS7-3
11. INSEAD6-5
12. IESE Business School14+2
13. Nanyang Business School—–—–
13. CUHK Business School17+4
15. Georgetown/ESADE19+4
15. IE Business School12-3
17. National University of Singapore26+9
18. Kellogg/WHU18——
19. IMD20+1
20. London Business School15-5
21. Warwick Business School24+3
22. Korea University12-10
23. University of Oxford (Said)38+15
24. Northwestern (Kellogg)23-1
25. ESCP Europe21-4

Source: The Financial Times 2013 Global Executive MBA Ranking

1 2 3 4
  • xyz

    Hi,

    Question regarding the adjusted salary: in the explanation of the salary column un the ranking it says average salary 3y out and does not mention any adjustment – are all the numbers not the actual earnings of alumni? How are the numbers different from the real salaries?

    BR

    • JohnAByrne

      All the salaries are adjusted and are not the actual salaries.

  • RankingsGuru

    John, Simple correction to para 4, line 1, where you say “The No. 2 school this year is the joint program between London Business School and Tsinghua University which brings in a lot of students from China and Singapore and the United Arab Emirates.”

    I think you mean INSEAD/Tsinghua rather than LBS/Tsinghua – unless you have a scoop for us…

    • JohnAByrne

      Yes, indeed. Thanks for the catch. It’s fixed now.

  • jackofalltrades

    Hi John,

    I, along with many others, would like to get a better appreciation of the legitimacy and reputation of being enrolled in a “joint program” such as the INSEAD/Tsinghua EMBA. In most cases, one of the partner schools would have a better standalone reputation than the other. Going by the example above, INSEAD is likely the more reputable school in the partnership for the majority. My question is: Can a graduate of a joint program actually say that he graduated from INSEAD, or should it always come with a statement saying that it is a joint program with Tsinghua? If an employer would like to search the graduate database of INSEAD, would the schools imply say that they are not actual “alumni” of the school but rather an “affiliated alumni”? It is bothersome to think that if you are a graduate of a joint program, both schools could somehow possibly sever their relationship and end the actual master’s degree you graduated in.

    Thanks for your feedback.

    • EMBA-123

      I think it depends on the specific partnership program. For examle, I attend a “dual degree” partnership program, which is the Cornell-Queen’s EMBA. In this “dual degree” program, students are awarded two seperate and distinct MBA degrees: One from Cornell University and a second from Queen’s University School of Business. So to answer your question – yes, in this case you would correctly say you graduated from each school and you have a seperate diploma from each school as proof. I liked this aspect a lot.
      In joint degree programs – this is not always the case. You are often awarded one diploma with the names of each school named on the one diploma. For some this may not matter or it may make a big difference. it is likely a personal matter. However, it is an issue/topic that is worth consideration.

      • jackofalltrades

        That makes complete sense. The program I was referring is the Masters degree in finance jointly offered by HKUST and NYU Stern, which means that a diploma will be conferred by both schools. I would say that both school’s academics are well represented in the program as faculty and location is split equally between the 2, however, I just can’t get my head around thinking that a standalone program would appear to hold more weight. The website of the program also mentioned that a graduate would be an alumni of both HKUST and NYU. They also claim that the student’s academic record will be kept at both school’s program offices, whatever that means. Are employers likely to take this degree program as a “diluted” NYU degree?

  • Richard Branson

    In a partnership,Sometimes two or more partners act as a president and CEO but more commonly one partner will function as President and CEO and another will function as vice president ,treasurer and secretary.The Whole knowledge of CEO,President and vice President is to be studied in EMBA.So if You want to know about that so go through EMBA.
    http://www.temple.sg/emba

Partner Sites: C-Change Media | Poets & Quants | Tipping the Scales | Poets & Quants for Undergrads