Business Schools Navigate Ranking Paradox Amid Criticism

When the prestigious Harvard Business School fell to sixth place in the U.S. News MBA rankings in 2020, it sparked immediate backlash. Critics scrutinized the ranking methodology, highlighting long-standing concerns over the validity of such assessments. In 2025, U.S. News revealed that only about half of the ranked institutions participated in peer assessment surveys, raising further doubts about the reliability of the rankings. Despite these criticisms, conversations among business school deans across North America reveal a complex relationship with rankings—one that highlights a troubling truth about their impact on educational institutions.

Interviews conducted with four deans from Canadian business schools during the 2021-2022 academic year illustrate this dynamic. These deans represent approximately a quarter of management schools at research-intensive universities in Canada. The findings reveal a striking duality: while they publicly criticize rankings as flawed, they allocate substantial resources to improve their standings.

Contradictions of Ranking Investments

The phenomenon of ranking obsession within business schools is palpable. Each dean interviewed could detail specific investments in ranking-related activities. One dean mentioned that “all the data collection happened within the school” and highlighted a dedicated data analyst focused solely on ranking submissions. Another dean described employing “a senior staff member who is in charge of gathering the data” and coordinating efforts with media relations teams.

This contradiction becomes more pronounced when comparing the deans’ statements to their actions. In interviews, some expressed sentiments such as “we can never rank so it’s a waste of our time,” yet they also discussed conducting internal “education campaigns” aimed at helping stakeholders navigate rankings. They selectively choose which ranking systems to engage with based on where their programs might excel.

Blind Spots in Ranking Methodologies

The skepticism of these deans is well-founded. Current MBA ranking methodologies often overlook critical aspects of education. For instance, the Financial Times Global MBA Ranking heavily emphasizes post-graduation salary data and international diversity. In contrast, the QS World University Rankings assesses “thought leadership” based on media mentions and research publications. These metrics tend to favor specific types of programs while potentially disadvantaging institutions with different missions or regional focuses.

One dean bluntly stated: “The faculty that understand the rankings care less.” This perspective underscores a central issue; those most invested in the educational mission often view rankings as measuring the wrong criteria. Key elements such as teaching quality, mentorship, and curriculum innovation are absent from the formulas. Furthermore, rankings fail to capture whether graduates become ethical leaders or build meaningful careers over time.

Academic research indicates that ranking systems can distort institutional behavior. Studies show that business schools often “blindly follow the money,” neglecting social impact and educational quality in favor of ranking performance.

Financial Pressures and Strategic Choices

Despite their awareness of these flaws, deans continue to engage with rankings. This commitment is driven by financial realities. Canadian universities increasingly depend on international student tuition, particularly as government funding has declined. Between 2000 and 2021, international tuition revenue at Canadian universities surged from 14.4 percent to 25.6 percent of total revenue. For MBA programs, costs vary significantly. For example, at the Rotman School of Management at the University of Toronto, domestic students pay around $70,000, while international students face fees of approximately $109,000.

As one dean explained, “By accepting international students, we are helping domestic students from the funding cuts.” Another noted that “rankings are mostly important for international students,” who rely on these assessments when evaluating programs from abroad. This creates a compelling rationale: pursuing better rankings attracts international students, whose higher tuition fees help subsidize domestic students and enhance program quality.

As deans navigate this landscape, they interpret and shape the understanding of rankings among stakeholders. This dynamic reflects a broader paradox: deans must publicly dismiss rankings while privately investing significant resources in them, creating a persistent tension.

The Future of Business Education Rankings

Rankings have evolved from optional marketing tools to operational necessities within business schools. What began as a strategic choice has become an integral part of how these institutions function and communicate.

Prospective MBA students are advised to view rankings as just one data point among many. It is essential to review official employment reports that detail hiring companies and placement rates, connect with alumni through platforms like LinkedIn, and investigate which companies actively recruit at different schools.

For the broader field of business education, the ranking paradox underscores a system increasingly influenced by external accountability measures that often conflict with core educational missions. Until ranking methodologies evolve to better reflect the true value of business education, or until institutions discover alternative ways to communicate quality without relying on rankings, deans will continue to walk a delicate tightrope between public skepticism and private investment.

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.