[Emo_Rhino]

Latest Ranking:
http://rankings.ft.com/businessschoo...xperience-2012

Previous Ranking:
http://rankings.ft.com/businessschoo...xperience-2011

Related News: http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/2/b848f...#axzz1y8EQH2tk

Oxford's place remains the same while Warwick and Imperial both dropped places.

Is this ranking flawed?

1) No LSE?
2) Cranfield is above Imperial?
3) Are France Universities really that good?

[InTheNameOf]

It does not make much sense to me either.

I don't understand the drop in ranking of Imperial and Warwick (imperial students make less now than a year ago?, c'mon....), especially if you consider the acceptance rate of both schools (90 students out of 2300+ applications for WBS's Msc Finance and 400 students for 3900+ applications for the whole IC Business School).

I am paricularily amazed, since I have accpeted the offer to attend Imperial's Msc Finance instead of IE's.

Everyone I know on the financial industry supports my decission and think it is the best I can do but, according to this ranking, I am wasting my time at Imperial.

Edit: LSE's abscense is retarded, and no, french schools are not that good (I have found in this forum a few HEC alumni quite disappointed about their Finance course).

[mmrvk]

Again flawed, how can you not have LSE, MIT, Cambridge, Bocconi etc ... its just wrong and I guess everyone that looks at those rankings knows it. WBS and IC are way above most of the mentioned schools in their rank (the only ones that deserve to be there in my opinion are Oxford, HEC Paris and maybe St. Gallen)

[InTheNameOf]

(Original post by mmrvk)
Again flawed, how can you not have LSE, MIT, Cambridge, Bocconi etc ... its just wrong and I guess everyone that looks at those rankings knows it. WBS and IC are way above most of the mentioned schools in their rank (the only ones that deserve to be there in my opinion are Oxford, HEC Paris and maybe St. Gallen)

MIT may be excluded because I think it is not more than 4 years old (a requirement for the FT ranking).
Cambridge programme is excluded I think because it is an academia-oriented programme.
Bocconi is right there on the list
LSE is excluded, but I have no idea why

[mmrvk]

(Original post by InTheNameOf)
MIT may be excluded because I think it is not more than 4 years old (a requirement for the FT ranking).
Cambridge programme is excluded I think because it is an academia-oriented programme.
Bocconi is right there on the list
LSE is excluded, but I have no idea why

AH! I saw Bocconi, #27, that's strange. I thought MIT's was a bit older than that

[Crusaders]

man.. cass has fallen

[effofex]

(Original post by Emo_Rhino)
Latest Ranking:
http://rankings.ft.com/businessschoo...xperience-2012

Previous Ranking:
http://rankings.ft.com/businessschoo...xperience-2011

Related News: http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/2/b848f...#axzz1y8EQH2tk

Oxford's place remains the same while Warwick and Imperial both dropped places.

Is this ranking flawed?

1) No LSE?
2) Cranfield is above Imperial?
3) Are France Universities really that good?

1. For some reason LSE doesn't often feature in the FT rankings. The close proximity to the City of London means there is a big advantage when it comes to networking. From what I have heard the course is not as quantitative as the French Grandes Ecoles and Imperial.

2. Cranfield tends to be more popular with people with substantial work experience, often outside the banking and investment industry - however these rankings are for pre-experience masters, right?

3. From what I have heard and seen the French schools tend to have much more representation on the quant side in London (DEA degrees) - including from the likes of engineering schools such as Ecole Polytechnique, ENSAE, Mines de Nancy etc. HEC (business school) is next to Ecole Polytechnique so you have the crossover of lectures. Maybe the French schools are more quantitative - the downside may be that there is less clear opportunity to network as much as if you were at the LSE. Also, in France there is a much clearer link between attending one of those schools and securing an internship (in order to graduate, you have to have completed an internship), which may be why the employment stats look better. The age at which they graduate too may be higher than in corresponding UK universities.

[lego]

So WBS and Cass have both fallen in the rankings after they decided to offer like 5 different MSc Finance courses. What a shock. Too bad LSE is not on the list, it would have shared the same destiny.

[Ghost6]

Complete bull****. Everybody knows the most prestigious finance degree is taught at Princeton.

[Tcastle]

(Original post by Ghost6)
Complete bull****. Everybody knows the most prestigious finance degree is taught at Princeton.

Hmmm, I suppose you're still in high school; then you might be excused. Actually most of the people that rely on rankings and that have some common sense (or have studied at a university) should see what the criteria are, but more importantly what data it is compiled of.

So first of all you should look at this :
http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/2/027df...#axzz1yVRiizfD

Then you might conclude if a very prestigious school isn't listed, it doesn't meet the criteria.

Furthermore the data consists of alumni. This is VERY subjective. The possibility of contributions isn't that impossible either...

High quality global journalism requires investment. Please share this article with others using the link below, do not cut & paste the article. See our Ts&Cs and Copyright Policy for more detail. Email ftsales.support@ft.com to buy additional rights. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/027df418-a...#ixzz1yVVBrobc

For programmes to be eligible for inclusion, a 20 per cent response rate is required from alumni, with a minimum of 20 responses. This year, 1,458 alumni responded for the two rankings

[Ghost6]

(Original post by Tcastle)
Hmmm, I suppose you're still in high school; then you might be excused. Actually most of the people that rely on rankings and that have some common sense (or have studied at a university) should see what the criteria are, but more importantly what data it is compiled of.

WTF are you talking about, I will begin graduate studies at Cambridge and I know just about everything about master's degrees. This ranking is complete bull**** but you are free to spend your money on one of these "top ranked" degrees only to find out when you apply for jobs or further study that you got fooled.

[InTheNameOf]

(Original post by Ghost6)
WTF are you talking about, I will begin graduate studies at Cambridge and I know just about everything about master's degrees. This ranking is complete bull**** but you are free to spend your money on one of these "top ranked" degrees only to find out when you apply for jobs or further study that you got fooled.

....and where would you put Imperial's Msc Finance?

[I smell like maths]

(Original post by Emo_Rhino)
Latest Ranking:
http://rankings.ft.com/businessschoo...xperience-2012

Previous Ranking:
http://rankings.ft.com/businessschoo...xperience-2011

Related News: http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/2/b848f...#axzz1y8EQH2tk

Oxford's place remains the same while Warwick and Imperial both dropped places.

Is this ranking flawed?

1) No LSE?
2) Cranfield is above Imperial?
3) Are France Universities really that good?

(Original post by InTheNameOf)
It does not make much sense to me either.

I don't understand the drop in ranking of Imperial and Warwick (imperial students make less now than a year ago?, c'mon....), especially if you consider the acceptance rate of both schools (90 students out of 2300+ applications for WBS's Msc Finance and 400 students for 3900+ applications for the whole IC Business School).

I am paricularily amazed, since I have accpeted the offer to attend Imperial's Msc Finance instead of IE's.

Everyone I know on the financial industry supports my decission and think it is the best I can do but, according to this ranking, I am wasting my time at Imperial.

Edit: LSE's abscense is retarded, and no, french schools are not that good (I have found in this forum a few HEC alumni quite disappointed about their Finance course).

(Original post by InTheNameOf)
MIT may be excluded because I think it is not more than 4 years old (a requirement for the FT ranking).
Cambridge programme is excluded I think because it is an academia-oriented programme.
Bocconi is right there on the list
LSE is excluded, but I have no idea why

(Original post by effofex)
1. For some reason LSE doesn't often feature in the FT rankings. The close proximity to the City of London means there is a big advantage when it comes to networking. From what I have heard the course is not as quantitative as the French Grandes Ecoles and Imperial.

2. Cranfield tends to be more popular with people with substantial work experience, often outside the banking and investment industry - however these rankings are for pre-experience masters, right?

3. From what I have heard and seen the French schools tend to have much more representation on the quant side in London (DEA degrees) - including from the likes of engineering schools such as Ecole Polytechnique, ENSAE, Mines de Nancy etc. HEC (business school) is next to Ecole Polytechnique so you have the crossover of lectures. Maybe the French schools are more quantitative - the downside may be that there is less clear opportunity to network as much as if you were at the LSE. Also, in France there is a much clearer link between attending one of those schools and securing an internship (in order to graduate, you have to have completed an internship), which may be why the employment stats look better. The age at which they graduate too may be higher than in corresponding UK universities.

Guys,

LSE doesn't feature in this league table because LSE do not have a business school.

LSE doesn't appear in a lot of the FT rankings is because they are usually about business schools. simples

[Econla]

(Original post by Ghost6)
Complete bull****. Everybody knows the most prestigious finance degree is taught at Princeton.

I agree with that. The best is Princeton, then you can see MIT.


This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App

[Econla]

(Original post by InTheNameOf)
MIT may be excluded because I think it is not more than 4 years old (a requirement for the FT ranking).
Cambridge programme is excluded I think because it is an academia-oriented programme.
Bocconi is right there on the list
LSE is excluded, but I have no idea why

Cambridge has also a professional oriented course.


This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App