Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of United States business school rankings

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted 20:25, 1 January 2008.

List of United States business school rankings

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: 15 days, 3 support, 0 oppose. Promote. Crzycheetah 20:25, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nominator. I am nominating this because it is a comprehensive list that adheres to WP:WIAFL. I have decided to stop at the top 25 because the first list that I looked at had a business school without a wikipedia page listed as the first school after the top 25 so I felt 25 was a good number to include notable schools.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 23:04, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Is this page actually necessary? There isn't a lot of information there, and List of business schools in the United States isn't an overly long page. I think it should be merged there. -- Scorpion0422 23:09, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This should not be merged with the general list. It would be like merging a list of Oscar award winners with a list of actors or merging a list of Bowl Championship Series ranked schools with a list of Division I-A football programs. I will try to beef up the WP:LEAD.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 23:39, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've struck my comments. It is better than it was before. -- Scorpion0422 22:32, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Identification of "Top" schools involves a subjective judgment. This is not a list with "well-defined entry criteria," as called for under item 1 in Wikipedia:Featured list criteria. --Orlady (talk) 23:27, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment These are not my top. These are the top schools by various education rankings experts or poll experts such as Harris Interactive. There is nothing subjective about my list.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 23:39, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I fully understand that these are not your top list, but that does not change the fact that these types of rankings are inherently subjective. Many subjective decisions can be hidden in a seemingly scientific ranking. (I've devised ranking schemes, and I know that I can "scientifically" arrive at a an absurd result if I design the ranking scheme to do so.) The large variance between a school's ranking on the different scales underlines the subjective nature of the choices made by the ranking organizations in devising their ranking systems -- if these systems were objective, it's very unlikely that one school would be ranked 12th in one system, 50th in another, and would not even be considered on two other lists. Schools can and do manipulate their rankings by working to improve metrics that are known to be tracked by the ranking organizations. For example, USNews gives a weight of 16.25% to incoming students' GMAT scores; a school could improve its ranking on that metric by encouraging its applicants to sit for that exam multiple times, then reporting each student's highest score. The article itself highlights the manipulative nature of the ranking process, saying: "Business school rankings are important to the various business schools because they are an important marketing tool used to recruit top students, and lure recruiters from the top companies. Business schools attempt to achieve higher rankings in order that they may obtain the top students who will over the course of their careers most likely benefit the school by achieving high ranking positions, attaining great influence, and accumulating great wealth." Finally, your decision to list 25 schools (not 20, 30, 50, 98, 100, or 125) is inherently arbitrary. --Orlady (talk) 04:39, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have revamped the text as per the comments above.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 02:15, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think part of the issue here is with "top". Maybe a title like "List of [...] by rankings" would be better (and it would be closer to the usual convention for ordered lists)? Circeus (talk) 05:07, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That would not avoid the problem of the arbitrariness of selectively including only schools that appear in the top 25 on somebody's ranking list. There is no clearly defensible reason for including those schools and excluding the business schools at (for example) Washington University in St. Louis (ranked 27 on two lists and 29 on a third), University of Notre Dame (ranked 26 on one list, 39 on another, and 43 on a third list), University of Rochester (ranked 28 on one list and 36 on two lists), and Michigan State University (ranked 29 on two lists and 32 on a third). These are not "tallest buildings" or "longest bridges" (for which it is inevitable that an arbitrary cut-off must be made); rather, these are entities that compete with each other, and it would be possible to define and list the complete set to which they belong (for example, accredited U.S. business schools offering the MBA degree in a full-time on-campus program). --Orlady (talk) 05:33, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Any cutoff would arguably be arbitrary. One could just a well argue the cutoff of all features List of tallest buildings is arbitrary. At least the article clearly represent some sort of consensus between several prominent lists. Circeus (talk) 05:52, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment On my last list, Lists of Michigan Wolverines football receiving leaders, I was told to choose a cutoff and be consistent across all lists. Now when I try to do it on this one I am getting run through the mill. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TonyTheTiger (talk • contribs) 07:12, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The universe of Michigan football receivers is not infinite, but it might as well be -- new receivers are recruited annually and the bottom guys on the complete list presumably have career yardage statistics in the negative numbers. There would be no purpose in attempting to create a comprehensive list. In contrast, there is a discrete number of accredited US business schools offering MBAs, their numbers are relatively stable, and all of them make claims to quality. Comprehensive lists could be created. You have not established "well-defined entry criteria" that clearly justify this particular list membership (and not some other list membership). --Orlady (talk) 14:35, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
O.K. Go here and tell me why no lists have been passed that fall under {{WikiProject Business & Economics}}. It seems to me that there is a clear need for more lists on this type of subject. This list could easily be passed. I suspect that people have been giving Business and Economics lists a little bit harder time than they should. Again there is really nothing wrong with this list other than should we have some sort of cutoff on who is included. When you get to the lower ranked schools you start getting into less notable schools as is evidenced by the fact that the first one below the top 25 on the U.S. News list does not even have its own article. The first opposition above seems related to the first sentence in this comment.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 17:38, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is true that a disproportionate fraction of featured lists are lists on "trivia-like" topics such as sports, TV episodes, and music (especially discographies). My interpretation of this is that it's relatively easy to create beautifully formatted lists about pop culture topics, whereas it can be challenging to write excellent articles about serious topics.
The lack of an article for University of Wisconsin-Madison School of Business does not necessarily indicate that Wikipedians don't think it's notable. There is an article about a specific program at that B school, suggesting to me that the lack of an article about the whole school is just an oversight on the part of the school's fans.
The selective (and elitist) list of top-ranked business schools does not meet Wikipedia:Featured list criteria. It lacks "well-defined entry criteria" to form a reasonable basis for "including every member of a set"; indeed, the selection criteria could be deemed "controversial" (for example, by deans of schools that consistently rank around 26 to 30).
If you are committed to creating a list of US business schools that truly qualifies as a featured list, do consider merging this list with List of business schools in the United States. I'd look favorably upon a merged list that is fully sortable, lists all respectable business schools (for example, all accredited schools with an on-campus full-time MBA program) and includes details on degrees offered (e.g., BS, MBA, doctorate), accreditation, and rankings (particularly if it included some of the rankings that are not included in the current list). --Orlady (talk) 06:07, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be against merging because when I went to business school (MBA Michigan 92) there were over 700 business schools. I imagine there might be close to 1000 business schools now. We only have 100 being listed as ranked. Merging them would degrade this list.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 23:28, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Would the name List of United States business schools by ranking by appropriate?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 21:11, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No. That would not resolve the issues with this list. --Orlady (talk) 06:07, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Do consider adding information on how US schools ranked in the Economist Intelligence Unit list. (See http://mba.eiu.com/ for information; see http://which-mba.com/index.asp?layout=2007rankings for the list.) --Orlady (talk) 06:15, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

O.K. I have added all the Schools and EIU. I have to explain the last methodology and will do so momentarily.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 16:39, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good addition. Additionally, the Wall St. Journal list has 3 sets of rankings: national recruiters (just 19 schools listed), international recruiters (24 schools listed, including 8 US schools that are also on the national list and one that is also on the regional list), and regional recruiters (51 schools listed). I think it would be worthwhile to add the international and regional rankings to the table, perhaps using alphanumeric "numbers" such as I4 and R13. --Orlady (talk) 16:47, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I will do it before the weekend. Above I explain why I am against a merger.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 23:29, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Green tickYdone--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 17:28, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Seeing your determination to have this become a featured list, I've put some time into improving the article -- including editing the lead to describe what appear to be the new inclusion criteria (which I am OK with). The experience of working on the article leads me to identify several more improvements that will be needed before this can be considered a Wikipedia exemplar:
  1. The default order of the list should be changed to something that will allow users to look up a specific program. The current method of ordering the list by the US News & World Report rank is not acceptable, as it is difficult to use and it gives undue weight to that one information source. Users can re-sort the list according to any ranking they prefer. I suggest listing the schools alphabetically by the name of the parent university (or the name of the freestanding business school, if such exists). I suggest sorting by university name rather than school name because the university names are more stable (at least one of these schools is actively soliciting a large donor, for whom they will rename the school) and more recognizable.Green tickY--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 22:30, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. The article title may need to be revised. Green tickY--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 06:48, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. The article subheadings should be reconsidered; the context of the titles "Importance" and "Techniques" is not obvious. Longer titles, such as "Ranking techniques", would be more meaningful.Green tickY--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 06:48, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. The article should link to some of the other articles on institutional rankings. (I added it to a relevant category.)Green tickY--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 22:54, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Within "Techniques," shouldn't the different methods be listed in the same order in which they appear in the table? Green tickY--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 06:48, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. I have mixed feelings about the photos. They are nice eye candy, and some are impressive photos of the business schools, but many of them have little to do with the business school with which they are paired. (Instead, they are photos from the university campus or even the associated city.)
  1. No images are of cities to my knowledge. They are all of buildings, structures, or land that represent the B-school or university with few exceptions. For Michigan, Duke and USC I chose sports related images because these schools are so big on sports that even the business students find it important to them. As a Wolverine I am prouder to see a picture of the Big House than any building you could show me on campus. Furthermore, it represents the most lasting image of the university for me. Personally, I like images. If there is a policy against them we can take them out, but I think the article is better with them. I like images. If I can get your vote with them in I would like to keep them.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 07:09, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
--Orlady (talk) 04:34, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I will address your issues by the weekend. I will realphabetize by University. I am changing the title now.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 06:23, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the images, I was confused by your listing for the University of Iowa business school. The list said the school was in Des Moines, but the image was of a building identified as being in Iowa City (but it was not identified as being on the campus). It turns out that the school is actually on the university's main campus in Iowa City (not in Des Moines), so I corrected the list entry. Also, it turns out that the building is on the campus (where it used as a museum), so I edited the image description to include that information. --Orlady (talk) 15:44, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
COMMENT What is the difference between U and NA.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 14:57, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
U means "unranked" (or "not ranked") in the given list. "NA" means that particular ranking list (i.e., rankings of schools that are primarily recruited by regional companies) does not apply to the given school because the school is ranked on a mutually exclusive and hierarchically superior list (i.e., rankings of schools that are visited heavily by recruiters for national companies). Actually, I don't think the WSJ "national" and "regional" lists should be displayed separately, as they are mutually exclusive. Rather, I think they should be displayed in the same column, but with an annotation on the regional rankings so the distinction is clear. --Orlady (talk) 15:45, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On my talk page, you said that the Us and NAs cause the sorting to be messed up. I added them because the sorting is messed up without them. Specifically, without these notations, the blank entries end up on top of an ascending sort. (Clearly, sorting is going to be a challenge.) --Orlady (talk) 15:45, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorting will be messed up in either case, but with the letter the numbers don't even sort in order. Also, the lists are not mutually exclusive. See Harvard or Columbia to name a few. I think the columns should be separate for this reason. It will aid sortability. I would like to remove the U and NA because they are unexplained in the article and confusing. Furthermore, they worsen the sorting.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 22:34, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed the U and NA so that the sort is numeric and not alphabetical (I.E. so that 10-19 do not come between 1 and 2). —Preceding unsigned comment added by TonyTheTiger (talk • contribs) 06:23, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I replaced the blank list entries with an invisible sortable field, so that the list will now sort properly. (That is, an ascending sort will begin with number 1, not with a long series of blanks.) --Orlady (talk) 18:52, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have not removed my "oppose" comment for this featured list nomination because I still have a general impression that this list is not quite ready -- perhaps it was nominated for featured status prematurely. Specifically, the introductory section is a bit rough still, the table may be too wide for many displays (this is something I've worked on), I find that I made a mistake in rendering the Economist rankings for just the U.S. schools (there should be only one #13, and all the subsequent rankings need to be incremented by one), and I don't know what to think about the new addition of "average" rankings. The article will get to featured status, but I don't think it's there yet... --Orlady (talk) 18:52, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't like the table, now is the time to say so because we can come to a consensus to remove it. I am not so crazy about it either.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 23:52, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I guess that makes two of us who say "take it out." --Orlady (talk) 17:00, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My main reason for taking it out is that there is little scientific validity in averaging these rankings. Another reason is that it gives the impression of advertising the top schools. Let the list stand by itself, IMO. --Orlady (talk) 19:09, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have fixed 14 and above.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 23:52, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If the text is rough can you clarify whether it is the lead, the first section, the section with the methodologies or all of the above.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 23:52, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I suggest you remove the images and keep the list as a clean table. The images does not add any value to the list while increasing significantly its size: How is the picture of an eagle, or a close-up of a tower clock or a statue could add value to the list and provide more information for each school? CG (talk) 10:49, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That recommendation would also resolve my concern about the width of the list, and it would make it easier to browse the list because individual rows would take less space. Instead, the introductory section of the article could be nicely illustrated with photos of a few of the high-ranked business schools (captioned to mention their rankings), such as the photos of the Harvard, U of Chicago, Stanford, and MIT business schools. (Too bad that the Case Western Reserve b-school is so low-ranked; its photo is very interesting.) BTW, I removed my "oppose" statement, but have not yet moved over to "support." --Orlady (talk) 17:00, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed all images from the lists and placed the best pictures I could find for the #1's in the text.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 23:41, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yet another thing. I found that text is aligned right in the table which is odd. Could you fix it? As for the heigh of each row, it could be fixed if you increase the width of the first 3 columns, and replace the lists names with very short abbreviations (since there's a lot of wasted space for rankings) and explain these abbreviations just above the table. CG (talk) 18:54, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I found yet another set of rankings, from the Financial Times (linked from the Thunderbird article): Financial Times top 10 lists. That page does not describe methodology (it probably is on another page) and it does not provide overall rankings (schools are ranked by several different attributes), but it probably needs to be acknowledged in the article. (As I indicated, this article does not feel "fully formed" yet... This is just one more reason...) --Orlady (talk) 23:54, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
PS - That link may not work, but the search result link does work. --Orlady (talk) 23:56, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Financial Times poll and methodologies are now incorporated.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 15:54, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support - This is a valuable page to anyone seeking information on b-schools in the US. It collects together information that is spread around Wikipedia in the various school articles, information which is often out of date or selectively disclosed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vantelimus (talk • contribs) 21:23, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Continue this discussion without me. I don't have time to think about this right now, and anyway I don't have a particular interest in the subject matter. --Orlady (talk) 19:08, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/List_of_United_States_business_school_rankings&oldid=1143867661"