Business School Rankings: Deans Navigate Flawed Metrics

When Harvard Business School dropped to sixth place in the U.S. News MBA rankings in 2020, it sparked immediate debate about the validity of ranking methodologies. Critics highlighted concerns over low participation rates, particularly noting that in 2025, only about half of the ranked schools participated in peer assessment surveys. These surveys gauge how administrators perceive other institutions. Despite these critiques, business school deans across North America engage in nuanced discussions about rankings, revealing a complex relationship between institutional reputation and ranking systems.

Interviews conducted with four Canadian business school deans during 2021-2022 revealed a striking contradiction. While publicly dismissing rankings as unreliable, these leaders allocate substantial resources toward improving their schools’ standings. Each dean acknowledged concrete actions taken to influence their rankings. For instance, one dean mentioned a dedicated data analyst focused solely on gathering ranking submissions, while another highlighted a senior staff member responsible for coordinating data collection with media relations teams.

The disparity between public skepticism and private investment in rankings becomes evident when examining the statements made by deans. Many expressed views like, “we can never rank so it’s a waste of our time,” and “if the ranking aligns with your mission, who cares?” Yet, they also described conducting internal “education campaigns” aimed at helping stakeholders understand rankings, carefully selecting which ranking systems to engage with based on where their programs might excel.

The deans’ skepticism is well-founded, as current MBA ranking methodologies often overlook significant factors in education. For example, the Financial Times Global MBA Ranking emphasizes post-graduation salary data and international diversity, while QS World University Rankings prioritizes “thought leadership” through media mentions and research publications. Such metrics tend to favor certain programs, potentially disadvantaging schools with differing missions or regional focuses.

One dean bluntly stated, “The faculty that understand the rankings care less.” This sentiment reflects a broader concern among educators that rankings fail to measure vital aspects of education, such as teaching quality, mentorship, and curriculum innovation. Metrics often highlight what is easy to quantify, neglecting essential elements like ethical leadership and long-term career success.

As schools increasingly chase rankings, research indicates that they may inadvertently divert focus from enhancing the academic experience. The Rockefeller Institute found that institutions prioritizing ranking factors often do so at the expense of genuine educational improvement. Furthermore, studies suggest that ranking systems frequently follow financial incentives, overlooking the social impact and quality of education provided.

The financial realities facing Canadian universities contribute to the ongoing paradox of rankings. With diminishing government support, Canadian universities have become more reliant on international student tuition. Between 2000 and 2021, tuition revenue for Canadian institutions rose from 14.4 percent to 25.6 percent of total revenue. International students typically pay significantly higher tuition fees compared to domestic students. For example, at the Rotman School of Management at the University of Toronto, domestic students face costs of around $70,000, while international students pay approximately $109,000.

Deans recognize that attracting international students is crucial for maintaining funding and quality. “By accepting international students, we are helping domestic students from the funding cuts,” one dean explained. Another noted that “rankings are mostly important for international students” who heavily rely on these metrics when evaluating programs.

This creates a compelling rationale for pursuing better rankings: they not only attract international students but also help subsidize domestic education and enhance program quality. Consequently, academic leaders reconcile their skepticism of rankings with the market realities they face.

As deans navigate this complex landscape, they influence how stakeholders understand rankings while also adapting to them. This dynamic reveals a broader tension within business education, where deans publicly dismiss rankings while actively investing resources to improve their standings.

The implications of this situation are significant. Rankings have evolved from a marketing tool to an operational necessity, shaping how business schools function and communicate. For prospective MBA students, it is crucial to treat rankings as just one of many data points. They should also review official employment reports detailing hiring companies and placement rates, connect with alumni for firsthand experiences, and investigate which companies recruit at various schools.

For the future of business education, the ranking paradox underscores a system increasingly driven by external accountability measures that may not align with educational missions. Unless ranking methodologies evolve to better reflect the true value of business education or institutions develop alternative ways to communicate quality, deans will continue to navigate this challenging tightrope, publicly dismissing rankings while privately striving to enhance their performance.

Catherine Heggerud has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond her academic appointment and does not work for, consult, own shares in, or receive funding from any organization that would benefit from this article.