We have not, historically, spent much time and effort on the rankings. There are so many of them, and they each have their own criteria for consideration. However, the rankings are not something we can ignore any longer. They have too much to do with student recruiting, and even something to do with corporate interest in hiring our students.
This last year we were dropped from the Financial Times ranking because we did not have enough alumni in their third year out complete fully the required responses. So, if an alum completed a survey on the school, but failed to include his/her current salary, their review would not be included.
The Financial Times has a requirement that it receive a certain minimum number of responses. It is the same number whether the class size is 65, (as it was at W&M three years ago) or 1,200 as it is at some of the larger schools. Our proportion of required alumni responses, therefore, is much higher. So this year, we were not only not ranked, we weren’t even considered because we did not meet minimum threshold responses for responding.
I think we would have risen in these rankings, but that is not something that prospective students would know. They only know that you are there or not there, and with a certain ranking. International students, especially, pay a great deal of attention to Financial Times ranking, so our absence is damaging to us.
Ranking affect the quality of students and faculty attracted to the school and the ability to raise private financial support for the programs. They are not necessarily entirely sensible in what or how they measure, but they are necessarily important in any case.
Next year rankings will be job 1. We need to start moving up the chain where we truly belong.
What do you think about the Financial Times and other bschool rankings?
