Emory B-School Ranked 3rd by Bloomberg

<p><a href="http://shared.web.emory.edu/emory/news/releases/2011/03/goizueta-undergraduate-bba-program-ranked-third-by-bloomberg-businessweek.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://shared.web.emory.edu/emory/news/releases/2011/03/goizueta-undergraduate-bba-program-ranked-third-by-bloomberg-businessweek.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>"Emory University's Goizueta Business School ranked No. 3 in the annual ranking of undergraduate business programs compiled by Bloomberg BusinessWeek released today. This is the highest ranking the program has received from the publication. In 2010, the undergraduate BBA program ranked seventh in the nation.</p>

<p>The program received high marks in student (fourth overall) and recruiter satisfaction (second overall)."</p>

<p>A link to the rankings:</p>

<p>Best</a> Undergraduate Business Schools 2011 - Businessweek</p>

<p>It is so weird to see Wharton Under Emory =]</p>

<p>“weird” is not the exact word I would use…wonder if job placement stats are included in these rankings…</p>

<p>still know kids unemployed who graduated from there in 2009…</p>

<p>Yeah how should those rankings be viewed? I’m sorry but we all know Wharton is better than Goizeuta.</p>

<p>Everyone knows these things just fluctuate all of the time, just chill. Of course Wharton is better at placement than GBS if only because it’s more prestigious. I have no idea how B-Schools work and how you can tell differences in academic quality, I’d imagine they would be somewhat similar, but additional prestige can afford many advantages in terms of future placement/recruitmenr and ability to gain an internship. In this case, regardless of “academic” quality, Wharton is certainly much better. I can only hope that they are indeed much better academically (you know, besides the heavier courseloads) so that the difference in recruitment is justified. I would guess that they are better here also, but can’t be sure. </p>

<p>Also, I don’t like the whole student:faculty ratio thing. That tells nothing about quality either. What if a great deal of the profs sucked at teaching? Though they may be indeed doing great things in their field
outside of teaching, ideally for UG education, teaching quality should be a priority)? For example I know that math and physics classes at Georgia Tech are both taught better and at a higher level than Emory’s, but Emory has a far lower student:faculty ratio. Without good teachers, that ratio should mean nothing, unfortunately no ranking/no one cares to truly measure what students think of the teaching quality and rigor of the programs.</p>

<p>Sorry meant better than here. If anything, if Emory wants to get better it should be more practice oriented and perhaps more rigorous. There should be no need for a grading distribution. Some courses should not be so easy that so many folks earn 90+ that people within that range have to be curved downward (had a friend who told me of several instances in which the averages are so high that his grades are curved down versus a normal scale) to meet the 35% requirement (and for electives, a whopping 45%, this is really high anyway). This is completely contrary to what I experience in the sciences where lower grades have to be curved up so that A grades compose anywhere between 10-35% of the grades. The fact that there is a grade distribution tells a lot about how hard those courses are, despite some students merely saying that the distribution is what makes them hard. In a truly rigorous course, not enough people would even make A range (normal, non-adjusted Emory scale) grades on a normal scale to justify such a distribution.</p>

<p>One can only wonder if such measures need to be taken at our peer institutions. I can’t help but wonder if the grades are that high at UVA, Wharton, or Notre Dame (I’m going to assume that sloan doesn’t have a problem). I also wonder what make their individual courses different from ours.</p>

<p>Sloan does have an undergrad program. It’s ranked 9th by BusinessWeek.</p>

<p>Yeah, I know it has an UG program, I was just saying that it probably doesn’t have much of an issue with grade in/deflation. Sorry that I didn’t make that clear.</p>

<p>Do we all know that? Rankings are somewhat arbitrary, but they do mean something. People think Wharton is better because of reputation, not necessarily because it actually is better. And yes, reputation is important, which is why it is considered in a number of the factors taken into account in the rankings: starting salary and recruiter survey. But reputation is not everything.</p>

<p>Hasn’t their B-school program been around longer? They at least initially had to be doing something more than being merely associated with Penn (though now, that is indeed probably all that matters) just as Emory, Notre Dame, UVA, and schools like Sloan are doing more than being associated with the respective institutions. I mean, Sloan ranks 9 for some reason. I have to wonder what’s the difference between say top 10-15 UG B-schools and those perhaps ranked in the 30s or lower. Is it merely the student-faculty ratio or them being associated with prestigious UG institutions (despite Emory being 20, it isn’t really perceived as being that prestigious). They could indeed be seeing past the prestige in doing those rankings. However, I really fear that they over-rate things like student-faculty ratio for the reason already stated. </p>

<p>I was just saying that Wharton’s prestige is extremely beneficial as it unfortunately allows them to easily gain a lock on certain recruiters. Even if they replaced their facult/teachers, with some who are much less apt. at teaching, recruiters won’t see it. They’ll just know that “it’s Wharton”. Same goes for recruiting even outside of B-schools at most Ivy Leagues (and some non-Ivies). </p>

<p>Schools like Emory suffer from this type of quasi-elitism I guess. Even if its faculty was indeed better (again I doubt, but it could be on par. We do at least know it is very well-qualified regardless of if it’s qualified compared to say Wharton. It’s still top league), recruiters and others(say students) will simply assume that the Ivy/MIT is better just because of them being “who they are”, essentially based upon their past success and being more well-known. It’s lesser so about quality education and consequently quality employees than about the companies/students being associated with the aurora and prestige of going to or recruiting from an Ivy/Ivy-like school (MIT, Stanford, those schools). Basically, even if Emory did become better (for certain, because we don’t go to these places, so we don’t actually know, we can only guess) than Wharton or some other peers one day even in terms of academics/qualifications, we’ll still be edged out (in terms of prospective student desirability and recruitment) by bigger names that have been around longer and have more prestige (despite rank). Prestige inflation makes it hard for noobs like us to gain credibility, so you make a good point. Once the school is solid, prestige does kind of rule. Wharton will get more play at this point merely because it’s associated with an Ivy. Keep in mind that most B-school students are primarily worried about job placement and recruitment (and in many cases, placement on Wall Street). Wharton can get complacent at this point (regardless of its rank), while ours certainly has to keep striving to make itself more visible to recruiters and prospectives so as to gain more credibility than what even these rankings can show. We have to get to the point that we are indeed so good that everyone knows it even without opening up the rankings section in a magazine. Seems as if Emory as a whole is making some progress in visibility, so if they keep it up, they’re heading in the right direction. Of course once the name is pumped up, it has to constantly strive to improve w/e to make sure it lives up to its name. You don’t want many to come here be set up for disappointment. As some posters in the past have said about our B-school; though very solid, many improvements can be made. The same can be said for the college.</p>

<p>Well, I just saw a breakdown of some comparisons, and it seems as if Wharton is not that much more rigorous than we are and its job placement is similar. None of them (top ones ) have classwork hours/week over 20 hours. However, I think the overall study time average is like 10-11 (really low compared to several decades ago) hours whereas all of these exceed 14.0. One difference is that, it seems as if Emory has less faculty members. Either that or larger classrooms because the other schools have smaller average class sizes. I ignored start salary because that mainly depends on where the students pursue jobs. If you’re pursuing in the south expect to make less, but be able to afford more off of less money, so seeing the Ivies w/60-70K does not impress me because, provided that students pursue jobs in those areas, cost of living is significantly higher than, say, Atlanta. The schools indeed seem very similar in some senses. I would have to see credentials of faculty members to check for differences. Maybe the “experience” is richer at our peers.</p>

<p>[best-undergraduate-b-schools-2011:</a> Personal Finance News from Yahoo! Finance](<a href=“http://finance.yahoo.com/college-education/article/112273/best-undergraduate-b-schools-2011]best-undergraduate-b-schools-2011:”>http://finance.yahoo.com/college-education/article/112273/best-undergraduate-b-schools-2011)</p>

<p>This puts what I was saying at the end into context.</p>

<p>Obviously bloomberg is looking past mere numbers. They perhaps see some other qualities in each program that justify their rankings despite students only caring about start salary and placement. Interesting! I get the feeling that the rankings were done perhaps with some care for things that we perhaps do not value as much (but maybe we should) as students.
Maybe I lied and they do indeed consider quality in a manner that numbers cannot measure that well. Who knows!?</p>

<p>You can read about the methodology here:
[How</a> We Ranked the Schools - BusinessWeek](<a href=“Bloomberg - Are you a robot?”>Bloomberg - Are you a robot?)</p>

<p>Here’s the breakdown:
Student survey – 30% (50% from 2011 survey, 25% each from 2009 and 2010)
Recruiter survey – 20% (50% from 2011 survey, 25% each from 2009 and 2010)
Starting salaries – 10%
MBA feeder school measure - 10%
Academic quality - 30% (equally weighted measures: average SAT scores, the ratio of full-time students to faculty, and average class size, percentage of business majors with internships, and the hours students spend every week on schoolwork)</p>

<p>This means that average class size counts for 6% of the ranking. As to the actually quality of the teachers, this comes through in the student survey (how well students liked their teachers) and recruiter survey (how prepared students were for their work).</p>

<p>the ranking is for undergrad studies and not graduate school so maybe thats why wharton is ranked lower? but at the end, especially when it comes to business, its more about networking/connections than ranking so it makes sense people from wharton would get much easier time finding jobs and ect</p>

<p>Emory83: Yeah, but the problem is that they don’t according to the stats. Notre Dame and UVA are doing a bit better, and we don’t lag as much behind as expected. The primary difference is the start salary, so those who get jobs at Wharton are getting the higher end jobs within whatever region. That is indeed impressive.<br>
But yeah, UG vs. Grad. makes a difference. Quality is measured differently for UG programs.</p>

<p>icfireball: So I’m guessing that Emory is doing well in those areas (the student survey). That’s good to know (except that students can simply like teachers because they are easy, but I’ll give people the benefit of the doubt). </p>

<p>It’s just so scary that 15-17 hours is actually the high end for study/classwork load/week. Do students in our B-School also tend to take courses in the college which may actually add to the 15.7 hour average spent in the B-School? Or do most only take courses in the B-School. If the former, then Emory and institutions with students who do take a decent amt. of courses outside of the Business are actually reasonably rigorous I suppose (as it would probably amount to well over 20 hours which is way beyond average, especially for non-science/engineering majors). This would indicate that I underestimate the workload in these majors which I’m completely fine with admitting.</p>