Jump to content
Urch Forums

Maketing PhD ranking by Group in North America


hngu178

Recommended Posts

[TABLE=width: 500]

[TR]

[TD]A+[/TD]

[TD]A[/TD]

[TD]A-[/TD]

[TD]B+[/TD]

[TD]B[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD][TABLE=width: 285]

[TR]

[TD]Columbia University[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD] Cornell University[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD] Duke University[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD] University of California at Berkeley[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD] University of Chicago[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD] University of Pennsylvania[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]Carnegie Mellon University[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]Harvard University[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]Massachusetts Institute of Technology[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]New York University[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]Yale University[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]Stanford University[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]University of California at Los Angeles[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]University of Southern California[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]Washington University at St. Louis[/TD]

[/TR]

[/TABLE]

[TABLE=width: 342]

[TR]

[TD][/TD]

[/TR]

[/TABLE]

[/TD]

[TD][TABLE=width: 342]

[TR]

[TD]Ohio State University[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD] Pennsylvania State University[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD] University of Pittsburgh[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD] University of Texas at Austin[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]Emory University (Quant only)[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]Indiana University at Bloomington[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]Texas A&M University at College Station[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]University of British Columbia[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]University of Colorado at Boulder[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]University of Florida[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]University of Rochester (Quant only)[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]University of Maryland at College Park[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]University of Michigan at Ann Arbor[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]University of Minnesota at Twin Cities[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]University of Toronto[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]University of Wisconsin at Madison

 

University of Washington[/TD]

[/TR]

[/TABLE]

[/TD]

[TD][TABLE=width: 324]

[TR]

[TD]Boston College[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]Baruch College[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD] Florida State University[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD] Michigan State University(Quant only)[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD] Purdue University(Quant only)[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD] University of Alberta[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD] University of Arizona[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD] University of Connecticut[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD] University of Iowa[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD] University of Miami[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]Arizona State University[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD] University of Missouri at Columbia[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD] University of Oregon[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD] University of South Carolina at Columbia[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD] Virginia Tech[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]Georgia Institute of Technology[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]Georgia State University(Quant only)[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]University of California at Irvine[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]University of California at San Diego[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]University of Houston[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]University of Texas at Dallas(Quant only)[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]Western Ontario University[/TD]

[/TR]

[/TABLE]

[/TD]

[TD][TABLE=width: 306]

[TR]

[TD] McGill University[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD] Temple University[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD] University of Arkansas[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD] University of Calgary[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD] University of California at Riverside[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD] University of Central Florida[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD] University of Cincinnati[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD] University of Georgia[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD] University of Kentucky[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]University of Kansas[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD] University of Nebraska at Lincoln[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD] University of Utah[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]Rutgers University[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]Syracuse University[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]University of Texas at San Antonio[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD] York University

 

SUNY at Buffalo

 

University of Tennnesse[/TD]

[/TR]

[/TABLE]

[/TD]

[TD][TABLE=width: 326]

[TR]

[TD] Colorado State University[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD] Drexel University[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD] Florida International University[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD] Iowa State University[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD] Oklahoma State University[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD] Simon Fraser University[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD] University of Alabama at Tuscaloosa[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD] University of Illinois at Chicago[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD] University of Louisville[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD] University of Mississippi[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD] University of Oklahoma[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD] University of South Florida[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD] University of Texas at Arlington[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD] University of Wisconsin at Milwaukee[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]Louisiana State University[/TD]

[/TR]

[/TABLE]

[/TD]

[/TR]

[/TABLE]

PhD in Marketing | Georgia Tech

Source: Georgia Tech University- Marketing Department

My purpose of ranking is not to compare which one is better than others. The ranking is good for later applicants who want to increase the chance of admission by sending applications from group A to B.

The competitiveness is equally measured by GMAT, GPA, undergrad university. 70%

The rigor of curriculum is measured by level of Quantitative(Econ, Math) and Psychology, Sociology. 30%

I tried to take into account the strength of 3 track in Marketing: Strategy, Modelling, and Consumer Behavior which varies by schools. Therefore, Between the neighbor group like A+, A or A- etc, there are overlapping elements like Toronto may be in A+ for Quant and Strategy, but can be A for consumer. The same for Duke, CMU, Michigan...

Some programs are very picky and admit only one student per year. Grouping is not 100% correctly, some overlapping schools between groups exists.

My Ranking criteria are based on the difficulty on admission ( competitiveness) and the rigor of curriculum. Quant only is the program that does not have Consumer Behavior track.

If the schools are in the same group, they are nearly equal in term of reputation, admission rate, rigor of curriculum, and placement. The schools in the A+ group are more likely to hire the students from other schools within group, sometimes hire from group A, hardly or never from group A- or B and so on.

Group A hires from A+, within A, sometime A- , hardly B+( depend on student ability and advisor reputation)

If the programs are within the same group, it very hard to say which one is better than other. The choices of school within group are often based on research interest, adviser reputation. Thus, the variance within group is small, but variance between groups is higher.

 

In group A+ and A:

Degree Requirement for Quant-Track: Series of graduate Micreconomics and Econometrics in ECON dept, Marketing Seminars, 3-6 courses in Statistics Dept. Therefore, the schools tend to admit the students who have strong quantitative background similar to students in ECON Dept in the same school. The qualifying exam is very rigorous.

Degree Requirement for CB-Track: Series of Psychology courses or Sociology, Marketing Seminars, 3-6 courses in Statistics Dept.

In group A- and below:

Degree Requirement is less rigorous: Marketing seminars, ECON and Statistics are elective.

Some exceptional programs such as Houston, Texas Dallas, Georgia State, Temple, South Carolina are on the up trend of research activities, they have many influential professors in Marketing field. Therefore, some years, we can see the placement on A school, but again it depends much on student performance in the program and adviser reputation.

If you have many offers, you can use following criteria to make a wise decision:

1.Look at the curriculum of each program.

2.Know the content of course work, and who will teach the class.

3.Who will be the mentor for your research, the most important thing.

4. Know the research activity of professors in the program.

5. Location

6. Stipend

7. Marketing research Center and research facillity

8. Opinion from current students.

9. Placement records

10. Your plan after graduation: teaching or research schools, or balanced ones

11. Assistantship duties: too many teaching duties may affect academic performance

 

Please feel free to remind me programs that are not in the ranking, so that I can add up, OR you can consider the universities in the list Phd Programs in Marketing

To be continued...

 

Edited by hngu178
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Important tips for those of you going into strategy.

 

I'm a recent graduate now, but wished I knew some of these things beforehand.

 

Choose a school based on your connection with the faculty--NOT rank. Note below may sound harsh, but I think this is the best way to let future students know what to look out for. PhD is not as glamerous as it sounds. Also, many of you may be going into it because of big ego purposes, and not because you love research. And you should go in knowing that you cannot know whether you love research until you have been through the entire publication process. It sounds fun as an idea, but when you get in the trenches, you will see what I mean. Also, some students get big because they are glorified RAs, and not because of their own work. So figure out which route you want to take.

 

 

Here is an example based on word of mouth of a bad school:

 

University of Georgia is a terrible school. I've met some students there, and there is a lot of faculty conflict/personality issues at UGA. Take a look at their placement record, and you will see that they place well below their peer ranked schools. Their methods training is also pretty weak.

 

Sundar Bharadwaj is known to be an ineffective teacher/adviser; he will only see you as a data collection pig, and not help you with any intellectually related work. I've heard from two occasions that he stole a coauthor's data, and worked on another project without letting the original coauthor know about this data sharing. Unethical person.

 

Son Lam is a socially awkward person to meet at conferences, and has screwed over many previous coauthors. For example, he consistently has a habit of kicking people off of papers, and then suddenly changing his mind about doing that.

 

John Hulland is someone who will be nice to you up front but not behind the scenes.

 

Really ask yourself if you want to live out 5 years of your PhD in a hostile environment.

 

Here is an example of a good school, base on word of mouth:

 

Missouri is a good school in terms of training and being taken care of by the faculty. Those people have good intentions, based on my interactions with them at conferences. Their students sometimes place well above their rank.

 

I've heard nice things about Lisa Scheer as a person, and that she steers you in the right direction with honest feedback.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How do you measure difficulty on admission and rigor of curriculum? Not even admission rate is a good measure for this, you would need data on students choice and their possible choices (what school they chose when they could have chosen others) to make a revealed preference approach. Or at least have the enrollment rate of those admitted. Do you have this data or this is just your feeling?

 

Maybe I have a biased sample here but I can tell you that I know lots of people who chose some schools from group A and A- over some of the group A+. To be more specific, I find hard to believe that UCLA, USC and WUSTL are in group A+ while Michigan, Maryland, UCSD and Toronto are not. Also, following the criteria presented, it's very weird to think that UCSD and Dallas are in the same group as Western Ontario and Florida State for example, and in the group below that of Boulder and Florida.

 

From what I've seen for the two first groups it should be (in no specific order):

A+: Harvard, Stanford, MIT, Chicago, Yale, Columbia, NYU, Northwestern, Penn, Berkeley

A: UCLA, USC, UCSD, Duke, Michigan, Cornell, CMU, WUSTL, Maryland... maybe UW, Rochester, Minnesota, Toronto (I think these are slightly below).

A- should include Dallas, Emory, UBC, UNC, Wisconsin, Ohio State, Penn State, Austin ... maybe Indiana, Houston, TAMU.

 

But I don't have access to any kind of data on admissions, so my ranking would be based on my perceptions about students' choices and on placements after graduation for quant.

 

As for rigor of curriculum, this may vary a lot especially if the classes are taken with the economics students, because some of these universities have very different rankings in economics. For example, USC, UW, CMU, WUSTL have considerably worse economics programs compared to their quant program, Michigan, Duke, Cornell, UCLA have similar ranked programs (top 15), and Wisconsin and Minnesota are better ranked in economics.

Also some schools have very flexible structure and students don't all take the same courses (Cornell and USC are examples).

 

Nice exercise anyway, better than just take a look at UTD.

Edited by another user
was just testing because the forum doesn't let me post sometimes
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Trying to create a ranking is always a big problem. But, more important than the ranking, hngu178 provided the reasoning behind the ranking. Each one may come up with a different ranking, because it is really a personal thing. But the things to think about are more or less the same. So, very good.

 

 

Just to add my two cents.

 

 

I did some sort of ranking for myself when I was applying. But if I tried to do a ranking again now, after a few months of experience doing a PhD, it would be very, very different. And, curiously, it would be much harder now (yeah, having more information and experience can make things even more confusing). I know my experience is still limited, my sample is small, there is a lot of survival bias etc. But the more I learn, the more rankings seem less and less relevant, at least for me.

 

 

I've met professors and PhD students from other schools, at different levels of ranking. I've seen them presenting their research, talking about their careers, etc.

 

 

I've been greatly impressed by some research from lower level schools, and really disappointed by some presentations from people from A+ schools. A very eye-opening moment to me was to see a presentation from a guy from a really top school get completely crushed when someone in the audience pointed a major flaw in his reasoning that made everything he was showing useless. Beautiful math, wrong reasoning, useless work.

 

 

I've talked with professors from A+ schools talking about their experiences, and thinking that's not what I'd like to do with my life. I've talked with professors who left A+ schools (really dream school level) and are now at a lower ranked school, doing much better.

 

 

By now, it seems to me that the ranking of a school is weakly correlated with the quality of the work produced by their PhD students for at least the top 50 schools. There doesn’t seem to be a really significant difference between A+, A, and A-, and even if there is a difference in general, there are many exceptions to the rule. It is no wonder that hngu178 said that A schools hire from A+, A, A-, and even A+ schools can hire from A-.

 

 

And, by now, it seems to me that the ranking of a school is also weakly correlated with the quality of the job they offer to their professors. Several professors from several schools mentioned something like that in one way or another.

 

 

So, if the goal is to get a good job, getting too fixed on ranking can be a very bad strategy. It can make you go to a bad job at an A+ school, instead of getting a great job at an A- school, for example. Particularly if a positive working environment is more important than status for you. I've seen some bad things said about a few A+ schools, by people who are there and people who decided to leave them. And some great things about schools that were completely off my radar.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By now, it seems to me that the ranking of a school is weakly correlated with the quality of the work produced by their PhD students for at least the top 50 schools. There doesn’t seem to be a really significant difference between A+, A, and A-, and even if there is a difference in general, there are many exceptions to the rule. It is no wonder that hngu178 said that A schools hire from A+, A, A-, and even A+ schools can hire from A-.

I believe the quality of the work is very highly correlated with the placement. Consider the ranking I proposed in my previous post and check out their placements, you'll see that it does make sense (at least for quants). So school ranking should also be correlated with research quality, although it is not a perfect correlation.

 

But if we consider a student's ability as given, I don't think it makes that difference being in A+, A or A- (my ranking). That's why I agree with this:

So, if the goal is to get a good job, getting too fixed on ranking can be a very bad strategy.

It's definitely important to consider other aspects besides ranking, such as location, funding, program structure, research interests in common with faculty, and so on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agree, like a moderation or mediation effect from research quality to placements.

 

Yeah, that sounds a lot like what I heard recently from a professor from another university who is now responsible for evaluating profiles of people who are applying to tenure-track positions.

 

"School" is like a moderator. But not exactly "school ranking", by what he told us. A lot of professors I talked with are extremely skeptical about a ranking for PhD programs. It's more about "school reputation", which is different from ranking. Reputation includes schools' strengths and weaknesses, cultural values, teaching philosophies, lines of research they are specialized, faculty they know, etc. That reputation can help them to identify the applicants with better odds of fitting with what they are looking for.

 

Let's say they are looking for someone for empirical research, to try to strengthen ties between the school and firms. For that particular purpose, probably there are some A schools that are actually better than some A+ school. Or they are looking for someone who can teach MBA courses, since many top schools also have a need for teaching. Again, some A schools may be known to provide better training for teaching than some A+ schools that are only focused on research. So, school is a moderator, but not necessarily ranking.

 

Let me use my own school as example. University of Houston/Bauer is rising, but is not yet a really top school. However, if some top school is looking for people who do research about sales management, lots of them know that we have some of the very best researchers for that kind of thing here. Even if the school is not a top school by itself, Dr. Michael Ahearne is a powerhouse name for that particular line of research.

 

The professor who is hiring for his school told us another example related to "ranking". He very clearly told us that they look for people who may be hidden gems from schools with fewer resources (so, probably lower ranked schools). People who could do much better if they had access to better resources, resources that his school can provide.

 

So, of course school ranking is a variable to take into consideration. But its importance compared to other aspects of those schools and also of the students is really something to think about. Rankings sometimes seem like an obsession here at Urch, but I don't see that when I talk with professors from several universities. And, as you can guess, tips about getting a tenure-track position is one of the things we always ask when we meet them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some schools do care about prestige when hiring but more and more (at least within management) what hiring committees look at is ability to publish. When going on the market, if you are on an A journal (solo or first-authored is best) this is a very good signal to hiring committees regardless of where you did your PhD (within reason...)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

While I certainly agree strongly that ranking is extremely over inflated on here, and that it matters significantly less to hiring committees, there is an implicit ranking system that schools use. For example whether they admit it or not, coming from a Wharton or a Stanford will open more doors, given the exact same profile, than coming from UIUC. That being said if you're first author on an A pub and have a strong pipeline, that will open a lot of doors no matter where you're from.

 

Basically what I'm getting at is that profs often pay lip service to what really matters being research, and I truly believe that they believe this cognitively. But there are often subconscious (and sometimes explicit) rankings that affect their decision to interview someone for a job. We could spend days going over whether a degree from a top school correlates with stronger research and if so, does that imply an inherent value to rankings. But I don't really want to do that. I do, though, want to state that whether that is true or not, and whether faculty say that or not, there is an understood hierarchy in the hiring process. It's not nearly as nuanced as those trying to decide where to apply want it to be. And nothing is ever straightforward in the hiring process. For instance maybe a school is looking for a particular type of research, or more likely specifically not looking for a certain type of research. But the hierarchy does exist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How do you measure difficulty on admission and rigor of curriculum? Not even admission rate is a good measure for this, you would need data on students choice and their possible choices (what school they chose when they could have chosen others) to make a revealed preference approach. Or at least have the enrollment rate of those admitted. Do you have this data or this is just your feeling?

 

Maybe I have a biased sample here but I can tell you that I know lots of people who chose some schools from group A and A- over some of the group A+. To be more specific, I find hard to believe that UCLA, USC and WUSTL are in group A+ while Michigan, Maryland, UCSD and Toronto are not. Also, following the criteria presented, it's very weird to think that UCSD and Dallas are in the same group as Western Ontario and Florida State for example, and in the group below that of Boulder and Florida.

 

From what I've seen for the two first groups it should be (in no specific order):

A+: Harvard, Stanford, MIT, Chicago, Yale, Columbia, NYU, Northwestern, Penn, Berkeley

A: UCLA, USC, UCSD, Duke, Michigan, Cornell, CMU, WUSTL, Maryland... maybe UW, Rochester, Minnesota, Toronto (I think these are slightly below).

A- should include Dallas, Emory, UBC, UNC, Wisconsin, Ohio State, Penn State, Austin ... maybe Indiana, Houston, TAMU.

 

But I don't have access to any kind of data on admissions, so my ranking would be based on my perceptions about students' choices and on placements after graduation for quant.

 

As for rigor of curriculum, this may vary a lot especially if the classes are taken with the economics students, because some of these universities have very different rankings in economics. For example, USC, UW, CMU, WUSTL have considerably worse economics programs compared to their quant program, Michigan, Duke, Cornell, UCLA have similar ranked programs (top 15), and Wisconsin and Minnesota are better ranked in economics.

Also some schools have very flexible structure and students don't all take the same courses (Cornell and USC are examples).

 

Nice exercise anyway, better than just take a look at UTD.

Your statement could be true for Quant, but not true for CB. Columbia has professors from Baruch and UCLA: Keith Todd Wilcox | Columbia Business School Directory My ranking is for 3 tracks not only for Quant.

USC has placement at MIT, Chicago, Michigan even in finance, more heavily quantitative:PhD Program | USC Marshall

even for Quant Marketing, Harvard has Prof from Pittsburgh Rohit Deshpande

- Faculty & Research - Harvard Business School.

Stanford has 2 Prof from Duke, 2 from Ohio state in CB track.

Ranking in Economics does not matter that much in Business School.

Edited by hngu178
Link to comment
Share on other sites

While I certainly agree strongly that ranking is extremely over inflated on here, and that it matters significantly less to hiring committees, there is an implicit ranking system that schools use. For example whether they admit it or not, coming from a Wharton or a Stanford will open more doors, given the exact same profile, than coming from UIUC. That being said if you're first author on an A pub and have a strong pipeline, that will open a lot of doors no matter where you're from.

 

Basically what I'm getting at is that profs often pay lip service to what really matters being research, and I truly believe that they believe this cognitively. But there are often subconscious (and sometimes explicit) rankings that affect their decision to interview someone for a job. We could spend days going over whether a degree from a top school correlates with stronger research and if so, does that imply an inherent value to rankings. But I don't really want to do that. I do, though, want to state that whether that is true or not, and whether faculty say that or not, there is an understood hierarchy in the hiring process. It's not nearly as nuanced as those trying to decide where to apply want it to be. And nothing is ever straightforward in the hiring process. For instance maybe a school is looking for a particular type of research, or more likely specifically not looking for a certain type of research. But the hierarchy does exist.

I agree with you

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Trying to create a ranking is always a big problem. But, more important than the ranking, hngu178 provided the reasoning behind the ranking. Each one may come up with a different ranking, because it is really a personal thing. But the things to think about are more or less the same. So, very good.

 

 

Just to add my two cents.

 

 

I did some sort of ranking for myself when I was applying. But if I tried to do a ranking again now, after a few months of experience doing a PhD, it would be very, very different. And, curiously, it would be much harder now (yeah, having more information and experience can make things even more confusing). I know my experience is still limited, my sample is small, there is a lot of survival bias etc. But the more I learn, the more rankings seem less and less relevant, at least for me.

 

 

I've met professors and PhD students from other schools, at different levels of ranking. I've seen them presenting their research, talking about their careers, etc.

 

 

I've been greatly impressed by some research from lower level schools, and really disappointed by some presentations from people from A+ schools. A very eye-opening moment to me was to see a presentation from a guy from a really top school get completely crushed when someone in the audience pointed a major flaw in his reasoning that made everything he was showing useless. Beautiful math, wrong reasoning, useless work.

 

 

I've talked with professors from A+ schools talking about their experiences, and thinking that's not what I'd like to do with my life. I've talked with professors who left A+ schools (really dream school level) and are now at a lower ranked school, doing much better.

 

 

By now, it seems to me that the ranking of a school is weakly correlated with the quality of the work produced by their PhD students for at least the top 50 schools. There doesn’t seem to be a really significant difference between A+, A, and A-, and even if there is a difference in general, there are many exceptions to the rule. It is no wonder that hngu178 said that A schools hire from A+, A, A-, and even A+ schools can hire from A-.

 

 

And, by now, it seems to me that the ranking of a school is also weakly correlated with the quality of the job they offer to their professors. Several professors from several schools mentioned something like that in one way or another.

 

 

So, if the goal is to get a good job, getting too fixed on ranking can be a very bad strategy. It can make you go to a bad job at an A+ school, instead of getting a great job at an A- school, for example. Particularly if a positive working environment is more important than status for you. I've seen some bad things said about a few A+ schools, by people who are there and people who decided to leave them. And some great things about schools that were completely off my radar.

thank you for understanding my ideas. Merrit based hiring system still works here to improve productivity. But we accept that Biased process exists!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your statement could be true for Quant, but not true for CB. Columbia has professors from Baruch and UCLA: Keith Todd Wilcox | Columbia Business School Directory My ranking is for 3 tracks not only for Quant.

USC has placement at MIT, Chicago, Michigan even in finance, more heavily quantitative:PhD Program | USC Marshall

even for Quant Marketing, Harvard has Prof from Pittsburgh Rohit Deshpande

- Faculty & Research - Harvard Business School.

Stanford has 2 Prof from Duke, 2 from Ohio state in CB track.

 

Ok then check out the last 5 years of placements (Marketing +Strategy) for Toronto and Michigan, which you put in group "A":

 

Toronto: City University HK, New South Wales, Northwestern (2x), Dalhousie U., INCAE Bus. Sch., Southern California, UCSD, LBS, U. Groningen, U. Technology Sydney, Western Ontario, MIT, Duke, Queen's, Rochester, Ryerson, Paris Inst. of Tech, Penn State.

 

Michigan: Duke, LBS, U. Tech Sydney, Arizona State, SKEMA Business Sch., National U. Singapore, U. Florida, Southern California, UC-Davis, Wisconsin, California State (Long Beach), U. Kansas, Oregon State, Georgia Tech, Iowa State, Facebook

 

Rochester: Brandeis U., U. of Buffalo, Purdue U., Adobe, Wash U., Nielsen Marketing

 

Now look at the following:

 

Florida: Oxford, Denver, City U. of HK, Renmin U. of China, Xiamen U., U. of Cincinnati (2x), Walsh College, U. of Mississippi

 

Pittsburgh: their website is a mess, it's not in chronological order and some of the students listed under the "marketing" have something else on their CV, like the first person listed. His CV says he has a PhD in Information Systems and Technology Management despite his placement being listed under "Marketing" on Pittsburgh website.

Just check out their placements (PhD Student Job Placements | University of Pittsburgh Katz Graduate School of Business) and you'll see it's nowhere close that of Toronto, Michigan or Rochester, even though your ranking puts all of them in the same group.

 

Also, check out the placement for the following schools, which according to your ranking should be a tier above:

 

Wash U: Pacific U., Ohio State, UBC, Rutgers, UT-Austin, UC-Riverside, Amazon, Peking U., Georgia State, U. Singapore, Illinois Urbana Champaign, U. of Alberta, Fudan U., Shangai U., Catolica Lisbon, UBC

 

UCLA: Chapman, Columbia (2x), Catolica de Chile, Wharton, SMU Cox, Post Doc at CMU, No placement (2x), Michigan, Rutgers, Wisconsin, U. of Hong Kong, South Carolina, Boston U., Azusa Pacific U.

 

How is this a better placement record than those of Toronto, Michigan, and Rochester? I don't see it. Furthermore, your ranking has way too many schools in each group, and ranking Quants + CB + Strategy all together is also weird since those are very different things (especially quant and CB).

I think you just browsed Wharton, Stanford, Chicago, Harvard and whatever other schools you think are great to see where the professors got their PhD from, but you're not considering that those guys may be outliers. IMHO we should pay attention to the median placements, not the outliers.

 

Ranking in Economics does not matter that much in Business School.

 

That's not the point. You said that your ranking is based on two things: first the competitiveness in admissions and second the rigor of the curriculum. Most quants take the microeconomics and econometrics sequences at economics department, therefore you should also look at the economics ranking as a way to measure coursework rigor (better-ranked schools attract better students and can afford to design more difficult/complete courses). Personally, I don't think you can measure how difficult courses are, and that's why I don't see how you can make a ranking based on something you can't measure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your statement could be true for Quant, but not true for CB. Columbia has professors from Baruch and UCLA: Keith Todd Wilcox | Columbia Business School Directory My ranking is for 3 tracks not only for Quant.

USC has placement at MIT, Chicago, Michigan even in finance, more heavily quantitative:PhD Program | USC Marshall

even for Quant Marketing, Harvard has Prof from Pittsburgh Rohit Deshpande

- Faculty & Research - Harvard Business School.

Stanford has 2 Prof from Duke, 2 from Ohio state in CB track.

 

Ok then check out the last 5 years of placements (Marketing +Strategy) for Toronto, Michigan and Rochester which you put in group "A":

 

Toronto: City University HK, New South Wales, Northwestern (2x), Dalhousie U., INCAE Bus. Sch., Southern California, UCSD, LBS, U. Groningen, U. Technology Sydney, Western Ontario, MIT, Duke, Queen's, Rochester, Ryerson, Paris Inst. of Tech, Penn State.

 

Michigan: Duke, LBS, U. Tech Sydney, Arizona State, SKEMA Business Sch., National U. Singapore, U. Florida, Southern California, UC-Davis, Wisconsin, California State (Long Beach), U. Kansas, Oregon State, Georgia Tech, Iowa State, Facebook

 

Rochester: Brandeis U., U. of Buffalo, Purdue U., Adobe, Wash U., Nielsen Marketing

 

Now look at the following, which are also group "A":

 

Florida: Oxford, Denver, City U. of HK, Renmin U. of China, Xiamen U., U. of Cincinnati (2x), Walsh College, U. of Mississippi

 

Pittsburgh: their website is a mess, it's not in chronological order and some of the students listed under the "marketing" have something else on their CV, like the first person listed. His CV says he has a PhD in Information Systems and Technology Management despite his placement being listed under "Marketing" on Pittsburgh website.

Just check out their placements (PhD Student Job Placements | University of Pittsburgh Katz Graduate School of Business) and you'll see it's nowhere close to that of Toronto, Michigan or Rochester, even though your ranking puts all of them in the same group.

 

Also, check out the placement for the following schools, which according to your ranking should be a tier above:

 

Wash U: Pacific U., Ohio State, UBC, Rutgers, UT-Austin, UC-Riverside, Amazon, Peking U., Georgia State, U. Singapore, Illinois Urbana Champaign, U. of Alberta, Fudan U., Shangai U., Catolica Lisbon, UBC

 

UCLA: Chapman, Columbia (2x), Catolica de Chile, Wharton, SMU Cox, Post Doc at CMU, No placement (2x), Michigan, Rutgers, Wisconsin, U. of Hong Kong, South Carolina, Boston U., Azusa Pacific U.

 

How is this a better placement record than those of Toronto, Michigan, and Rochester? I don't see it. Furthermore, your ranking has way too many schools in each group, and ranking Quants + CB + Strategy all together is also weird since those are very different things (especially quant and CB).

I think you just browsed Wharton, Stanford, Chicago, Harvard and whatever other schools you think are great to see where the professors got their PhD from, but you're not considering that those guys may be outliers. IMHO we should pay attention to the median placements, not the outliers.

 

Ranking in Economics does not matter that much in Business School.

 

That's not the point. You said that your ranking is based on two things: first the competitiveness in admissions and second the rigor of the curriculum. Most quants take the microeconomics and econometrics sequences at economics department, therefore you should also look at the economics ranking as a way to measure coursework rigor (better-ranked schools attract better students and can afford to design more difficult/complete courses). Personally, I don't think you can measure how difficult courses are, and that's why I don't see how you can make a ranking based on something you can't measure. What I suggested is just a (lousy) way to proxy for coursework rigor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your statement could be true for Quant, but not true for CB. Columbia has professors from Baruch and UCLA: Keith Todd Wilcox | Columbia Business School Directory My ranking is for 3 tracks not only for Quant.

USC has placement at MIT, Chicago, Michigan even in finance, more heavily quantitative:PhD Program | USC Marshall

even for Quant Marketing, Harvard has Prof from Pittsburgh Rohit Deshpande

- Faculty & Research - Harvard Business School.

Stanford has 2 Prof from Duke, 2 from Ohio state in CB track.

 

Ok then check out the last 5 years of placements (Marketing +Strategy) for Toronto, Michigan and Rochester which you put in group "A":

 

Toronto: City University HK, New South Wales, Northwestern (2x), Dalhousie U., INCAE Bus. Sch., Southern California, UCSD, LBS, U. Groningen, U. Technology Sydney, Western Ontario, MIT, Duke, Queen's, Rochester, Ryerson, Paris Inst. of Tech, Penn State.

 

Michigan: Duke, LBS, U. Tech Sydney, Arizona State, SKEMA Business Sch., National U. Singapore, U. Florida, Southern California, UC-Davis, Wisconsin, California State (Long Beach), U. Kansas, Oregon State, Georgia Tech, Iowa State, Facebook

 

Rochester: Brandeis U., U. of Buffalo, Purdue U., Adobe, Wash U., Nielsen Marketing

 

Now look at the following, which are also group "A":

 

Florida: Oxford, Denver, City U. of HK, Renmin U. of China, Xiamen U., U. of Cincinnati (2x), Walsh College, U. of Mississippi

 

Pittsburgh: their website is a mess, it's not in chronological order and some of the students listed under the "marketing" have something else on their CV, like the first person listed. His CV says he has a PhD in Information Systems and Technology Management despite his placement being listed under "Marketing" on Pittsburgh website.

Just check out their placements (PhD Student Job Placements | University of Pittsburgh Katz Graduate School of Business) and you'll see it's nowhere close to that of Toronto, Michigan or Rochester, even though your ranking puts all of them in the same group.

 

Those are not on par with the first 3. Also, check out the placement for the following schools, which according to your ranking should be a tier above, "A+":

 

Wash U: Pacific U., Ohio State, UBC, Rutgers, UT-Austin, UC-Riverside, Amazon, Peking U., Georgia State, U. Singapore, Illinois Urbana Champaign, U. of Alberta, Fudan U., Shangai U., Catolica Lisbon, UBC

 

UCLA: Chapman, Columbia (2x), Catolica de Chile, Wharton, SMU Cox, Post Doc at CMU, No placement (2x), Michigan, Rutgers, Wisconsin, U. of Hong Kong, South Carolina, Boston U., Azusa Pacific U.

 

How is this a better placement record than those of Toronto, Michigan, and Rochester? I don't see it. Furthermore, your ranking has way too many schools in each group, and ranking Quants + CB + Strategy all together is also weird since those are very different things (especially quant and CB).

I think you just browsed Wharton, Stanford, Chicago, Harvard and whatever other schools you think are great to see where the professors got their PhD from, but you're not considering that those guys may be outliers. IMHO we should pay attention to the median placements, not the outliers.

 

Ranking in Economics does not matter that much in Business School.

 

That's not the point. You said that your ranking is based on two things: first the competitiveness in admissions and second the rigor of the curriculum. Most quants take the microeconomics and econometrics sequences at economics department, therefore you should also look at the economics ranking as a way to measure coursework rigor (better-ranked schools attract better students and can afford to design more difficult/complete courses). Personally, I don't think you can measure how difficult courses are, and that's why I don't see how you can make a ranking based on something you can't measure. What I suggested is just a (lousy) way to proxy for coursework rigor.

 

By the way, I used Toronto, Michigan and Rochester as examples but I'm pretty sure others such as Minnesota, Maryland and UT-Austin are also a tier above Florida and Pittsburgh. Also, at least for quants, I can tell you I'm pretty confident that it's way more difficult to be accepted at Toronto, Michigan, Rochester, Maryland than Pittsburgh,Boulder, UNC, Florida, TAMU, Indiana, Penn State...

Edited by another user
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok then check out the last 5 years of placements (Marketing +Strategy) for Toronto, Michigan and Rochester which you put in group "A":

 

Toronto: City University HK, New South Wales, Northwestern (2x), Dalhousie U., INCAE Bus. Sch., Southern California, UCSD, LBS, U. Groningen, U. Technology Sydney, Western Ontario, MIT, Duke, Queen's, Rochester, Ryerson, Paris Inst. of Tech, Penn State.

 

Michigan: Duke, LBS, U. Tech Sydney, Arizona State, SKEMA Business Sch., National U. Singapore, U. Florida, Southern California, UC-Davis, Wisconsin, California State (Long Beach), U. Kansas, Oregon State, Georgia Tech, Iowa State, Facebook

 

Rochester: Brandeis U., U. of Buffalo, Purdue U., Adobe, Wash U., Nielsen Marketing

 

Now look at the following, which are also group "A":

 

Florida: Oxford, Denver, City U. of HK, Renmin U. of China, Xiamen U., U. of Cincinnati (2x), Walsh College, U. of Mississippi

 

Pittsburgh: their website is a mess, it's not in chronological order and some of the students listed under the "marketing" have something else on their CV, like the first person listed. His CV says he has a PhD in Information Systems and Technology Management despite his placement being listed under "Marketing" on Pittsburgh website.

Just check out their placements (PhD Student Job Placements | University of Pittsburgh Katz Graduate School of Business) and you'll see it's nowhere close to that of Toronto, Michigan or Rochester, even though your ranking puts all of them in the same group.

 

Those are not on par with the first 3. Also, check out the placement for the following schools, which according to your ranking should be a tier above, "A+":

 

Wash U: Pacific U., Ohio State, UBC, Rutgers, UT-Austin, UC-Riverside, Amazon, Peking U., Georgia State, U. Singapore, Illinois Urbana Champaign, U. of Alberta, Fudan U., Shangai U., Catolica Lisbon, UBC

 

UCLA: Chapman, Columbia (2x), Catolica de Chile, Wharton, SMU Cox, Post Doc at CMU, No placement (2x), Michigan, Rutgers, Wisconsin, U. of Hong Kong, South Carolina, Boston U., Azusa Pacific U.

 

How is this a better placement record than those of Toronto, Michigan, and Rochester? I don't see it. Furthermore, your ranking has way too many schools in each group, and ranking Quants + CB + Strategy all together is also weird since those are very different things (especially quant and CB).

I think you just browsed Wharton, Stanford, Chicago, Harvard and whatever other schools you think are great to see where the professors got their PhD from, but you're not considering that those guys may be outliers. IMHO we should pay attention to the median placements, not the outliers.

 

 

 

That's not the point. You said that your ranking is based on two things: first the competitiveness in admissions and second the rigor of the curriculum. Most quants take the microeconomics and econometrics sequences at economics department, therefore you should also look at the economics ranking as a way to measure coursework rigor (better-ranked schools attract better students and can afford to design more difficult/complete courses). Personally, I don't think you can measure how difficult courses are, and that's why I don't see how you can make a ranking based on something you can't measure. What I suggested is just a (lousy) way to proxy for coursework rigor.

 

By the way, I used Toronto, Michigan and Rochester as examples but I'm pretty sure others such as Minnesota, Maryland and UT-Austin are also a tier above Florida and Pittsburgh. Also, at least for quants, I can tell you I'm pretty confident that it's way more difficult to be accepted at Toronto, Michigan, Rochester, Maryland than Pittsburgh,Boulder, UNC, Florida, TAMU, Indiana, Penn State...

Look here please : PhD in Marketing | Georgia Tech

https://www.ama.org/academics/Documents/2017-Who-Went-Where.pdf

You may not understand my points because you look at placement for Strategy( Strategic Management not MTK Strategy) According to AMA, Marketing is an integrated and broad field that includes:

1)Quantitative modeling: Analytical(Statistical Modeling from real world data to make inference) and Empirical(Mathematics and Econometrics Modeling) 20%

2)Marketing strategy: focus on the application of marketing theories and its effect on firms and consumers. 30%

3) Consumer Behavior: Pyschology and Sociology, neuroscience, behavioral science 45%

4) Other tracks: Logistics, advertising, ethics, innovation, sales, sales management, and marketing & entrepreneurship 5%

What you try to explain is just 20% of the persons in Marketing which follow Microeconomics and Econometric Modeling.

Fun fact: My wife is Economist (BA, and PhD), I am also PhD student in Economics. A half of my friends is Economists. We agree that although Microeconomics training is good for PhD in Marketing, but not sufficient or totally required in all tracks. We need more than Economics to be productive researcher. Many Economists do not know or do not care about Marketing sub-fields such as CB, sales, innovation.

Therefore, I do not want to include ECON ranking to the my ranking, it will add more bias. For us, top 30 microeconomics and econometric courseworks are good enough for Marketing because they are nearly the same format and content. The important thing is how well students perform in the class and how well they use the knowledge for their research. I know many people who have GPA 4.0 in ECON but still get stuck on research. My professors now nearly did not have ECON training, but he is now one of top 10 quantitative researchers in MKT in term of productivity and contribution to the field ( Ranked by AMA) and editor also.

More importantly, the placement for PhD program you see is just initial placement, not tenure placement. The ranking for MKT placement is already on urch, I do not repeat the same thing. 4 year ago, I did the same things you did, looking for the initial placement posted by all top 100 in MKT. Later, I see that this way may not work well. Initial placement is good, but many people are unable to hold their position or promote to tenure-track or Associate Prof, and have to go to lower rank schools because they do not have good pubs on Top A journal.

Some professors, I sent you a link are just some examples for many of persons who work hard, have creative mind in research, so they can hold tenure- position, the best reward. Chief Editor is the more than the best

In MKT, we should know the persons following:

Chief editor Journal of Marketing Research: PhD from Cincinnati, initial placement Washsington State, later Pen State, now at North Carolina.

Chief editor Journal of Marketing: PhD Texas Austin, next person will be Duke female Prof. 4 years ago is the prof from Emory who has PhD from Pittsburgh

Chief editor of Marketing Science: Yale prof, but PhD from Cornell

Chief editor of Consumer Research: PhD Texas Austin.

If you look at the ranking of AMA: researcher by productivity. Nearly 60% comes from lower rank A, A-, or B+ school.

Looking at school ranking without thoroughly studying the faculty research profile is useless work.

I appreciate young assistant prof by initial placement, but I much more appreciate and respect the persons who contribute very much on MKT field. They are not outliers, they are hard working and have creative mind.

Many people used term "Outlier" to describe The trend that they cannot explain why.

In statistics, if too many Outliers exist, we need to reconsider our assumption, conceptual framework and model. The Outliers can be very influential points for a hidden trend that you have not figured out at first!!!

 

Initial Placement may last for a few years, but the Top A publications and tenure professors will last forever!

Edited by hngu178
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What you try to explain is just 20% of the persons in Marketing which follow Microeconomics and Econometric Modeling.

Fun fact: My wife is Economist (BA, and PhD), I am also PhD student in Economics. A half of my friends is Economists. We agree that although Microeconomics training is good for PhD in Marketing, but not sufficient or totally required in all tracks. We need more than Economics to be productive researcher. Many Economists do not know or do not care about Marketing sub-fields such as CB, sales, innovation.

Therefore, I do not want to include ECON ranking to the my ranking, it will add more bias. For us, top 30 microeconomics and econometric coursework is good enough for Marketing because they are nearly the same format and content. The important thing is how well students perform in the class and how well they use the knowledge for their research. I know many people who have GPA 4.0 in ECON but still get stuck on research. My professors now nearly did not have ECON training, but he is now one of top 10 quantitative researchers in MKT in term of productivity and contribution to the field ( Ranked by AMA) and editor also.

I'm not saying that economics training is the most important thing in marketing; I'm just pointing out the fact that measuring rigor of curriculum is nearly impossible and depends on other things such as the quality of the Economics/Psychology/CS/Stats departments. I just used Economics as an example, the point is that marketing is a multidisciplinary field and the courses are often taken in other departments so if you want to measure how difficult and complete the courses are, you should take that into account.

 

More importantly, the placement for PhD program you see is just initial placement, not tenure placement.

 

The school can't be responsible for what happens to former students during their whole lifetime, it doesn't make sense to talk of a "tenure placement" or tracking the publication record over their entire career. The value added by the PhD ends with the program and culminates in the initial placement.

To look at tenured people of today and where they got their PhD is at best a lagging indicator of program quality.

 

Same goes for Chief editors and where they got their PhD. Those guys graduated 20 years ago and rankings change (if you're from economics you probably know how Rochester, for example, went from top 10 to top 30 in 20 years). Also, like I previously said, they can be outliers and this is 1 observation per journal, hardly informative. You should at least look at the whole editorial board to get more observations.

Moreover, some programs simply graduate more people and increase the chance of having a former student in the editorial board. The same goes for current professors and department size: Rochester, for example, has only 6 professors while other larger departments such as USC have over 20.

 

Many people used term "Outlier" to describe The trend the they cannot explain why.

In statistics, if too many Outliers exist, we need to reconsider our assumption, conceptual framework and model. The Outliers can be very influential points for a hidden trend that you have not figure out at first!!!

 

Becoming Chief Editor of a top journal means to be an outlier even if they came from, say, Stanford. It's not a normal thing to become Chief Editor, this is definitely not the trend. I don't think anyone should go to a PhD program thinking they will have the best initial placement (or in the case of Chief Editor, the best career outcome). So looking at the initial median placement still makes more sense to me.

 

I understand that people may rank schools according to different criteria, but I really don't think you're measuring the things you said your ranking would (competitiveness to be admitted and rigor of curriculum).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not saying that economics training is the most important thing in marketing; I'm just pointing out the fact that measuring rigor of curriculum is nearly impossible and depends on other things such as the quality of the Economics/Psychology/CS/Stats departments. I just used Economics as an example, the point is that marketing is a multidisciplinary field and the courses are often taken in other departments so if you want to measure how difficult and complete the courses are, you should take that into account.

 

 

 

The school can't be responsible for what happens to former students during their whole lifetime, it doesn't make sense to talk of a "tenure placement" or tracking the publication record over their entire career. The value added by the PhD ends with the program and culminates in the initial placement.

To look at tenured people of today and where they got their PhD is at best a lagging indicator of program quality.

 

Same goes for Chief editors and where they got their PhD. Those guys graduated 20 years ago and rankings change (if you're from economics you probably know how Rochester, for example, went from top 10 to top 30 in 20 years). Also, like I previously said, they can be outliers and this is 1 observation per journal, hardly informative. You should at least look at the whole editorial board to get more observations.

Moreover, some programs simply graduate more people and increase the chance of having a former student in the editorial board. The same goes for current professors and department size: Rochester, for example, has only 6 professors while other larger departments such as USC have over 20.

 

 

 

Becoming Chief Editor of a top journal means to be an outlier even if they came from, say, Stanford. It's not a normal thing to become Chief Editor, this is definitely not the trend. I don't think anyone should go to a PhD program thinking they will have the best initial placement (or in the case of Chief Editor, the best career outcome). So looking at the initial median placement still makes more sense to me.

 

I understand that people may rank schools according to different criteria, but I really don't think you're measuring the things you said your ranking would (competitiveness to be admitted and rigor of curriculum).

I remember nearly all broad name of members of top 4 journal and where they had PhD. Data I collect from websites and admission Committees. Ranking does not matter that much, your right: School Name cannot help people entirely their life, then personal ability is the most important factor. 60 percent cannot be Outliers in AMA ranking. You may not be updated with AMA. I attended AMA in New Orleans this Feb, met people and Chief there. The trend of city Business school in Big cities going up is here. Discussed with Profs. You are trying to refute the statistical evidence by your own perception. I know Rochester , 6 young Prof very few pubs, so fewer advantages for student to come there than USC in LA. More opportunities more competitive obviously fact . Rigor of curriculum is only 30%. Then It Counts little . Measurement Is simple if PhD Courses in hard sciences: categorical variables Low Medium High. It is not perfect but ok for me.

Edited by hngu178
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...