When Harvard Business School slipped to sixth place in the U.S. News MBA rankings in 2020, it reignited debate over how these rankings shape higher education. Critics quickly questioned the validity of the methodology, echoing long-standing concerns about how schools are evaluated.
Skepticism toward ranking systems remains strong. In 2025, U.S. News revealed that only about half of the schools included in its rankings participated in peer assessment surveys, which measure how administrators view other institutions. Despite such doubts, new research shows that business school leaders still devote considerable effort to improving their ranking performance.
Interviews with four Canadian business school deans conducted between 2021 and 2022 revealed a striking contradiction: while these leaders dismiss rankings as flawed, they continue to allocate resources toward climbing the lists. Each dean described internal processes to support ranking submissions, including staff dedicated to data collection and coordination with communications teams. One dean even acknowledged that rankings do not align with their school’s mission, yet admitted to running internal campaigns to help stakeholders understand and strategically approach ranking systems.
Their concerns are not unfounded. Major rankings such as the Financial Times Global MBA Ranking emphasize post-graduation salaries and international diversity, while the QS World University Rankings focus on “thought leadership” measured by research output and media mentions. These criteria tend to favor elite, globally oriented programs while overlooking schools serving different regions or educational goals.
One dean noted that “the faculty that understand the rankings care less,” underscoring how academic priorities often diverge from what rankings reward. Critical elements like teaching quality, mentorship, and curriculum innovation rarely appear in ranking formulas. Nor do rankings assess whether graduates become ethical or socially responsible leaders.
As the Rockefeller Institute observed, when institutions chase ranking success, they often improve their scores rather than their educational impact. Research on business schools supports this, showing that ranking systems emphasize financial outcomes while neglecting broader measures of quality and social value.
The persistence of rankings in strategic planning is largely tied to financial realities. As government funding for Canadian universities declines, international student tuition has become a vital revenue source. Between 2000 and 2021, tuition’s share of total university income rose from 14.4 percent to 25.6 percent. For MBA programs, the gap between domestic and international tuition can exceed $30,000, with international students paying much higher rates.
One dean acknowledged, “By accepting international students, we are helping domestic students from the funding cuts.” Another added that rankings matter most to prospective international students, who rely on them when comparing schools abroad.
This economic logic keeps deans engaged in a system they privately critique. Better rankings attract more international students, whose tuition helps sustain programs and support domestic peers. The result is a paradox: administrators publicly question rankings while privately investing in them.
Rankings have evolved from marketing tools into operational necessities. For prospective students, experts recommend viewing rankings as only one part of the decision-making process. Employment reports, alumni insights, and recruiter connections can provide a clearer picture of a program’s true value.
Until ranking methodologies better reflect educational quality and long-term outcomes, business school leaders will likely remain caught in this balancing act—challenging the very system that continues to define their success.
Related Readings:
