Posts Tagged ‘Rankings’

On the Batten Fund and rankings

Wednesday, April 22nd, 2009

I recently I sat in on the final presentation for the Batten Investment Fund.  This is the ten-year anniversary and, as in all previous years, I was again struck by the excellence of the student presentation and the value of the experience.  Yesterday I sent a note of appreciation to Frank and Jane Batten, along with a copy of this year’s presentation.

You can view videos of four of this year’s Batten Fund analysts — Stefan Martinovic, Meg Sherwood, Joanna Hayes and Matt Kusek — talking about their experiences on the Mason YouTube channel.

For all of you 150 or so Batten Fund Alumni, what do you think of the idea of having a Batten Fund reunion next year in our new building?

I know Dean Krapfl mentioned this topic in a recent posting, but gaining the recognition in the rankings that we believe we rightly deserve will likely be Job One for the Mason School next year.  You will be hearing more about this but let me simply share an excerpt from a letter I sent to my fellow deans last fall that I believe raises an important broader issue:

Most of us have recently revised our programs to emphasize leadership, experience-based learning, and greater interaction with companies and executives.  However, these important efforts to prepare workforce-ready MBA students are not directly measured by the traditional rankings.  The rankings take careful assessments of both ends of our production process but, ironically, make no effort to evaluate what takes place in the middle, which is what occupies most of our time and attention.

What if the criteria by which we are measured actually reflected what we are doing?  Novel thought.  The current rankings are, of course, useful tools for prospective students and others.  But there is virtually nothing in them that I can see that actually attempts to assess and measure the direct value-added of the educational experiences we provide through traditional teaching or more innovative means.

If they did, perhaps the rankings could do a better job of informing prospective students of the real choices that are available to them.  Think also of the potential benefits for recruiters.

Like so many of you, we at William and Mary’s Mason School of Business have worked hard to create an educational experience that we believe prepares our students in the skills and behaviors that really matter in business.  We now measure important aspects of what we do so others can verify our claims.  For example, we promise our students substantial one-on-one interaction with executives, which we assess through our Executive-to-Student ratio and Face-Time-with-Executives measure…

I will keep you apprised of this conversation as it moves forward.

Rankings don’t accurately measure Mason, but they matter

Friday, March 20th, 2009

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?