Quote:
Originally Posted by glorfindel79
Can anyone give me some information about the reputation of INSEAD in Strategy phd?
I try to find a ranking of schools in Strategy Phd but I can't find any.
Can someone help me?
Thank you
|
Unfortunately, there is no "ranking" for Strategy PhD per se. What you find in this particular thread is mostly MBA-based ranking with perhaps a strategy twist. Some would argue that their source of ranking (from Financial Time, or other well known MBA ranking) specifically indicates "research" or "PhD" ranking, but my experience is that those rankings do not reflect the Strategy PhD market at all.
As stated in my previous post, business school ranking for MBA do not correlate with the PhD program quality the way that other academic departments' master's level and doctoral level programs correlate. Some top schools, like Harvard, Wharton, Chicago Booth (still not used to this new name.. GSB sounds much better..), do also have top PhD programs, but each department does not focus on the same research area, or adopt the same research approach. You can also refer to UT Dallas's ranking of research output, and use journal selection to target a particular area. But you might find the ranking somewhat difficult to reconcile with the usual business school ranking of "prestige." For example, if you select ranking based on top strategy journals (SMJ, AMJ, AMR, ASQ, OS, etc), you will see Illinois is ranked # 9 in the world, whereas Berkeley is ranked #23, and Chicago #29. This flies in the face of the sense of business school ranking we typically would assign to these three schools.
This does not mean the ranking is biased. In fact, of all the rankings out there, UT Dallas's ranking is perhaps the most objective (with no peer assessment, or other subjective elements. It simply counts top journal publication adjusted to department size.) This seemingly inconsistent ranking is due to a few important "facts" in this academic area:
1.) as mentioned, MBA ranking is the main source of prestige for business schools. Unlike other graduate programs, wherein PhD programs tend to be the source of academic prestige.
2.) in the field of strategy, not all departments agree on the boundary of the field. Some departments are explicitly economics-based, and their researchers publish in journals that econ departments would publish in (e.g., Chicago), some department is very "consulting" oriented, and would do case studies, and count top practitioner journals as academic publishing, (e.g., Harvard). So ranking like this obviously can not reflect the difference in program orientation.
3.) even for departments that share similar "orientations," there are minor variation in what is considered "top" journals, which would then affect their research focus and result in somewhat "unstable" ranking.
Therefore, I really would not base my admission decision on ranking alone. However, there seems to be correlation between "prestige" (MBA ranking) and eventual placement for PhD grads. If you care about that, sure, shoot for the stars. But I also need to warn you that only a small number of graduates from top departments (MBA ranking - wise) place among top schools. The rest fall down the list, and fall hard. Because middle tier ranking school (I'd say ranking #15-50) obviously would start paying attention to research productivity more than just pedigree, and some top schools don't necessarily focus on the "typical" research outlets, graduates from those departments who fail to place among the elite departments can end up at low ranking departments.
In the case of INSEAD, it is probably more known for the MBA program. Its reputation is more "consulting" like, (more similar to Harvard) than the academic type (like MIT or Chicago), their PhD program placement might not be as competitive. I am not aware of any placement in US top departments recently from INSEAD's PhD program. However, this might also be due to the "European" bias. European research program tends to be more qualitative (nothing wrong with that. my own research is more qualitative than the typical econometric type, but then placement-wise, US strategy departments still prefer the quantitative type). They also have a slightly different publishing outlets, so perhaps might not help their graduates place well in US departments.
Nevertheless, placement issue aside (I would not recommend using placement as the sole decision factor. You have to like your research first, before you worry about how well you place), INSEAD's strategy group is no doubt one of the strongest in the world. Prominent researchers at INSEAD who jump out of the top of my mind include Karel Cool, and with Bruce Kogut moving from Wharton to INSEAD in 2002, it has one of the most prominent strategy star on board. UT Dallas' research output ranking puts it at #5 in the world. (again, this is based on faculty research alone, might or might not relate to PhD program quality). I am somehow doubtful that stars like Cool and Kogut can tend to doc students as carefully as other emergent stars. This is based on some experience seeing students from these "stars" faculty not placing as well as I would imagine (but also not horrible). So, it's really a mixed bag.
Overall, I would recommend not focusing too much on ranking. Look at research interests, and contact the current students to learn about the program details. Insider stories are especially important. Some top departments (and some not so top but decent departments) have some pretty nasty horror stories. So I would not just jump onto those top departments based on prestige and placement record alone. Due to the sensitive nature of those "stories," I would not openly name the departments or faculty here. But I sure can tell you it can be so severe that doc students in those departments end up seeking counseling to deal with the stress and unreasonable treatments.
Best of luck.