Business Week Rankings - An Alternative Perspective
Luis Sada, MBA2
Issue date: 10/2/00 Section: Opinions
In the wake of all the controversy that the 2000 Business Week rankings has brought upon the school’s student body, and in response to the article published in last week’s MSJ, I would like to offer an alternative perspective and analyze these rankings in a different light.
Can we really dismiss these rankings as bogus and bizarre? Are we right in blaming our descent solely on the new Intellectual Capital component? If this is the case, why did Northwestern place #2 and Harvard #3 with a ranking of 18 and 13 in Intellectual Capital, respectively? Why weren’t they hammered like we are assuming that it hurt us? We are somehow imagining that we were cheated out of our Top 5 ranking by this new metric.
Rather I would ask the following questions: Why are we not considered an innovative school anymore? Why did we drop out of the Top 5 in all disciplines except for General Management and completely disappeared from Technology? Maybe we should blame the fact that we dropped from 3 to 5 in the Graduate Poll, from 5 to 6 in the Corporate Poll and scored a B on curriculum. Even though these rankings may contain subjective and questionable criteria, it is myopic to consider them valid when they serve our purposes and garbage when they don’t. This attitude comes dangerously close to denial.
I argue that we cannot afford not to be critical of our school. We are doing ourselves a disservice by dismissing these signals the market is sending. Our position has declined in both US News and Business Week rankings, consecutively in the latter. It is our job to scrutinize the school’s performance and expect improvement in all areas from the Dean and faculty. We should be asking the questions, but not providing all the answers. It is up to us to come up with the problems and voice them through the SGA. It is not up to us to create solutions for all of them, although I would encourage everybody to try.
Like shareholders in a company, it is our job to raise a red flag when we see our stock price declining. As the firm’s management team, it is the responsibility of the Dean and faculty to anticipate these changes in the market environment and successfully adapt in order to thrive in the new market conditions. There are countless cases of companies dismissing new trends or conditions as nonsense, only to find themselves out of business shortly thereafter. Apparently the playing field has gone through some changes and there is work to be done.
It is relatively easy to get to the top. The trick is finding a way to hold on to the lead. Those who remain on top are the ones that are constantly self-critical and master everything the changing environment throws at them.
I must say that I am very pleased with the reaction from the faculty, especially Susan Ashford, in trying to find areas of improvement without expecting us to have all the answers. I would also like to recognize Dean White’s exceptional leadership and constant effort to put UMBS at the forefront of business education.
Can we really dismiss these rankings as bogus and bizarre? Are we right in blaming our descent solely on the new Intellectual Capital component? If this is the case, why did Northwestern place #2 and Harvard #3 with a ranking of 18 and 13 in Intellectual Capital, respectively? Why weren’t they hammered like we are assuming that it hurt us? We are somehow imagining that we were cheated out of our Top 5 ranking by this new metric.
Rather I would ask the following questions: Why are we not considered an innovative school anymore? Why did we drop out of the Top 5 in all disciplines except for General Management and completely disappeared from Technology? Maybe we should blame the fact that we dropped from 3 to 5 in the Graduate Poll, from 5 to 6 in the Corporate Poll and scored a B on curriculum. Even though these rankings may contain subjective and questionable criteria, it is myopic to consider them valid when they serve our purposes and garbage when they don’t. This attitude comes dangerously close to denial.
I argue that we cannot afford not to be critical of our school. We are doing ourselves a disservice by dismissing these signals the market is sending. Our position has declined in both US News and Business Week rankings, consecutively in the latter. It is our job to scrutinize the school’s performance and expect improvement in all areas from the Dean and faculty. We should be asking the questions, but not providing all the answers. It is up to us to come up with the problems and voice them through the SGA. It is not up to us to create solutions for all of them, although I would encourage everybody to try.
Like shareholders in a company, it is our job to raise a red flag when we see our stock price declining. As the firm’s management team, it is the responsibility of the Dean and faculty to anticipate these changes in the market environment and successfully adapt in order to thrive in the new market conditions. There are countless cases of companies dismissing new trends or conditions as nonsense, only to find themselves out of business shortly thereafter. Apparently the playing field has gone through some changes and there is work to be done.
It is relatively easy to get to the top. The trick is finding a way to hold on to the lead. Those who remain on top are the ones that are constantly self-critical and master everything the changing environment throws at them.
I must say that I am very pleased with the reaction from the faculty, especially Susan Ashford, in trying to find areas of improvement without expecting us to have all the answers. I would also like to recognize Dean White’s exceptional leadership and constant effort to put UMBS at the forefront of business education.
