The first DL MBA RANK by The Economist

Hey, there's already a thread about The Economist article about DL.

But what's not mentioned in that thread is that in the full report ( http://media.economist.com/media/WMBA/WMBA_Special_2010b.pdf ) we have basically the FIRST RANK OF DL MBAs by a traditional business magazine.

That's really important.

Until now most DL "ranks" weren't really ranks in terms of quality, but only in terms of number of students (a very stupid way of creating a rank by the way).

Everyone that wants a DL MBA should take a look in this rank.

This is the criteria used by The Economist for their rank:

Programme content (33%)

Ratio of faculty to students 8%
Percentage of faculty with a PhD 8%
Student rating* of faculty 8%
Student rating* of the programme content 8%

Fellow students (33%)

Percentage of students who complete the programme 11%
Average number of years’ work experience of students 11%
Student rating* of culture and classmates 11%

Distance learning elements (33%)

Student rating* of the effectiveness of the distance-learning materials 11%
Student rating* of their sense of connection to the programme 11%
Student rating* of the programme’s value for money 11%

 

Also, it's interesting to note that the top schools in their rank are rarely talked about here:

IE Business School and University of Florida (excellent rate) followed by Thunderbird, Indiana's Kelly School and the EuroMBA (all of themin the "good" rank).

 

What would you like to hear about?

 

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that they are rarely talked about because they require entrance exams, are not open admission, and are not cheap.

My observation over the last seven years of following this forum is that the majority of people are looking for the opposite of those three things.

 

True. But there's also a tradition in this forum of threads about the most prestigious DL degree.

Until now there wasn't any rank of DL programs (other than the stupid one counting only the number os students). Now there is at least one reference to talk about the more prestigious MBA.

 

Are there any indications on which basis they came up with these 16 schools? Is this just a selection of those which "sound" good?

 

While there is little utilty for this first attempt, it is hopefully going to develop into something very useful in the years to come. I look forward to seeing far more schools included on the list from the UK and Australia. The criteria for ranking each school is a far cry from anything in the past, perhaps this will flow down to DETC schools as well?

Anyway, good for them.

 

Awesome observation. It's funny how quickly some people will sell short on something that will, in part, define them for the rest of their lives.

When I enrolled at Union in the mid-80s there were just a few short-residency doctoral programs available. If it wasn't for the customizable aspect of Union, I'm sure I would have gone to Fielding. And today? With Union's real purpose long gone (although it has improved academically and financially), I know I would go elsewhere.

 

Woho, re-read my first post - I wrote the criteria and basis for the rank.

 

I'm a little surprised how bad UofL - Royal Holloway was rated. I'm sure this will break many hearts on this board.

 

Not intending to downplay the quality, admissions or program thoroughness of the listed universities; but per the Economist article, eleven of the 15-listed non-traditional MBA programs seemingly don’t entail an admission exam, or at least a minimum GMAT score for entry (e.g. N/A /not applicable (?)). And though admissions aren’t altogether open-enrollment, entry requirements don’t appear too dreadfully competitive, perhaps in comparison to their traditionally delivered MBA admission requirements, (e.g. the DL MBA’s ratio of applicants to available slots – ranging from three universities @ 3:1; six @ 2:1; two @ 1:1; and four with @ open /no limit, N/A, and not rated).

 

I think he means: why did they chose these particular schools to examine?

I am wondering that too.

 

I'd argue supply and demand - the full-time MBA program at Indiana has 227 people (2011 class profile) with an average GMAT of 664. Selectivity is going to be higher as there are fewer seats available to fill and it's a well-established Tier 1 top 20 (or 30 depending on the source) program.

For the DL program (and to some extent the part-time program in Indianapolis) there are less restrictions - you could have 500 or 1000 people as long as you have the appropriate number and quality of teaching staff - and can run the in-residence programs effectively. In-residences are held in the new executive education center, so there is room to do it in August and February during times where there is little other demand from the full-time students.

There is also a greater supply of potential candidates - people in China, India, Latin America and across the US who either cannot or don't wish to spend 2 years in Bloomington (however nice that it is).

Then there's the mode of delivery - some people will not be attracted to a DL program, regardless of the school.

So you have potentially more people, and more seats available to fill. From talking with admissions, right now the DL program at Indiana can potentially fill more seats. so selectivity will be lower, although it has been rising each year for the past 5.

There is a standard in place - I would severely doubt you could waltz in with a 450 GMAT and a 3.0 GPA even if you pay the freight.

I don't disagree with your argument, although I feel that selectivity will increase with well-regarded programs as demand increases, unless the school wants to decrease quality by using more adjuncts or decrease the amount of MBA credit hours required (Indiana just increased theirs from 48 to 51).

 

There are not enough programs to constitute a ranking... What about ASU, CSU, etc., etc., etc.? Still informative though...

 

It is not the first. In fact, the Economist Intelligence Unit ranked a small number of schools back in January 2008. http://www.floridamba.ufl.edu/docs/Economist2008.pdf

I said back then that it was inadequate due to the small number of schools included in the analysis. Many great programs are missing from the analysis altogether. Seems to be the case once again.

 

Indeed you make a valid point regarding supply and demand. My observation was that even though these institutions offer a credible DL MBA, the acceptance standards aren’t that demanding as regards their non-traditional degree route. Moreover, one’s GMAT score and GPA would /should be but two of the overall considered selection criteria.

 

Agreed totally - they are important, but not exclusive, selection criteria. I suspect that many use the GPA x GMAT formula to help boost their selectivity rankings in those annual MBA program reports.

The benefit of course of non-traditional degree routes is that it can attract non-traditional students (like myself) who otherwise wouldn't fit the mold of "typical" MBA enrollment.

 

I don't follow all the business threads, but this line jumped out at me. It's true in any field, and I hope people pay attention.

Interestingly, the higher-end business programs like Indiana/Penn seemed to be more a topic of interest in the first couple years of the forum. Is that anyone else's perception?

 

I think it had a lot to do with credibility( If Penn state and Indiana are doing it then it must be good). You must remember in many cases and even to some degree to day there is certain discrimination to those who do complete their degree through DL.

 

I don't think that's what he's getting at Hikaru. The rankings within the article are not linear; so what he's getting at is "How did the Economist choose those particular 16 schools as opposed to say Bill and Ted's excellent MBA program at San Dimas University?"

Best,
Al

(edit: nevermind, figured it out myself. Page 10 states that the programmes reviewed were in the Economist's top 100 programs for full time day programs. Which is interesting because that will by design eliminate the schools like Harvard, MIT and Yale that do not have online offerings.. so the quality bar slides into the top 120).