Cracking the rankings Part (i): Understanding the Financial Times MBA rankings
نویسندگان
چکیده
منابع مشابه
Cracking the rankings Part (i): Understanding the Financial Times MBA rankings
League tables are of great interest to universities. This is particularly true for business schools, for which the Financial Times (FT) produces a suite of rankings of programme areas on a rolling annual cycle. Despite publication by the FT of most of the inputs and outlines of the methodologies, these are often little used by business school managers or researchers. This is the first of a pair...
متن کاملA Psychometric Assessment of the Businessweek, U.S. News & World Report, and Financial Times Rankings of Business Schools’ MBA Programs
This research investigates the reliability and validity of three major publications’ rankings of MBA programs. Each set of rankings showed reasonable consistency over time, both at the level of the overall rankings and for most of the facets from which the rankings are derived. Each set of rankings also showed some levels of convergent and discriminant validity, but each has room for improvemen...
متن کاملThe Longevity of Rankings
Whenever we use Google’s search engine, shop for bargains on Amazon, or evaluate a colleague through citation measures such as the h-index, we are relying on rankings to bring order into large and complex datasets. We would be much better at making decisions if we could thoroughly understand the mechanisms that drive these rankings. Can we trust a ranking system to point out the items of highes...
متن کاملProportional Rankings
In this paper we extend the principle of proportional representation to rankings. We consider the setting where alternatives need to be ranked based on approval preferences. In this setting, proportional representation requires that cohesive groups of voters are represented proportionally in each initial segment of the ranking. Proportional rankings are desirable in situations where initial seg...
متن کاملCollaborative Rankings
In this paper we introduce a new ranking algorithm, called Collaborative Judgement (CJ), that takes into account peer opinions of agents and/or humans on objects (e.g. products, exams, papers) as well as peer judgements over those opinions. The combination of these two types of information has not been studied in previous work in order to produce object rankings. Here we apply Collaborative Jud...
متن کاملذخیره در منابع من
با ذخیره ی این منبع در منابع من، دسترسی به آن را برای استفاده های بعدی آسان تر کنید
ژورنال
عنوان ژورنال: OR Insight
سال: 2011
ISSN: 1759-0477
DOI: 10.1057/ori.2011.21