Maketing PhD ranking by Group in North America

[another user]

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. The end

 

What statistical evidence? I'm just saying that (1) Rochester is an example of school with a great program but only 6 professors and therefore it's difficult for them to have faculty as Chief Editors. I believe UCSD is a similar case. This happens a lot so just by looking at where Chief Editors work or where they got their PhD is not very informative; and (2) rigor of curriculum is very subjective thing and cannot be measured.

[another user]

What statistical evidence? I'm just saying that (1) Rochester is an example of school with a great program but only 6 professors and therefore it's difficult for them to have faculty as Chief Editors. I believe UCSD is a similar case. This happens a lot so just by looking at where Chief Editors work or where they got their PhD is not very informative; and (2) rigor of curriculum is very subjective thing and cannot be measured.

[hngu178]

What statistical evidence? I'm just saying that (1) Rochester is an example of school with a great program but only 6 professors and therefore it's difficult for them to have faculty as Chief Editors. I believe UCSD is a similar case. This happens a lot so just by looking at where Chief Editors work or where they got their PhD is not very informative; and (2) rigor of curriculum is very subjective thing and cannot be measured.

Try to do thing yourself, you will know how to do. I did not just look at Chief, these are just examples . I have data from schools, I even know salary of all Prof in publics schools and many private schools.You will see that salary to professors closely corresponds to productivity not by placement or Name of school. I keep track data every year. You say cannot measure rigor but I did. Not difficult for statistician although not perfect. I am here, tried to help people in the forum that I benefit from 7 years. People are free to use my ranking, and adjust based their own criteria. You don’t like my ranking, this is not my business to explain and argue with you!

Edited April 7, 2018 by hngu178

[another user]

Can you share the data?

[hngu178]

Can you share the data?

Never. A lot of private info

[another user]

I made my own ranking based on prestige (as measured by US News MBA ranking and Bloomberg-Businessweek rankings), research productivity (as measured by UTD ranking for the journals JM, JMR, JCR, Mkt Sci) and student selectivity (as measured by average GMAT).

Only US schools.

 

This is the result and I think it's better:

 

[TABLE]

[TR]

[TD]University of Chicago (Booth School of Business)[/TD]

[TD=width: 64, align: right]1[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]University of Pennsylvania (The Wharton School)[/TD]

[TD=align: right]1[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]Harvard University (Harvard Business School)[/TD]

[TD=align: right]3[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]Stanford University (Graduate School of Business)[/TD]

[TD=align: right]4[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]Massachusetts Institute of Technology (Sloan School of Management)[/TD]

[TD=align: right]5[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]Northwestern University (Kellogg School of Management)[/TD]

[TD=align: right]5[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]Columbia University (Columbia Business School)[/TD]

[TD=align: right]5[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]Yale University (School of Management)[/TD]

[TD=align: right]8[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]Duke University (The Fuqua School of Business)[/TD]

[TD=align: right]8[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]University of Michigan at Ann Arbor (Ross School of Business)[/TD]

[TD=align: right]8[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]Cornell University (Samuel Curtis Johnson Graduate School of Management)[/TD]

[TD=align: right]11[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]University of California at Berkeley (Walter A. Haas School of Business)[/TD]

[TD=align: right]12[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]University of California at Los Angeles (Anderson School of Management)[/TD]

[TD=align: right]12[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]New York University (Leonard N. Stern School of Business)[/TD]

[TD=align: right]14[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]University of Southern California (Marshall School of Business)[/TD]

[TD=align: right]14[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]University of Washington at Seattle (Michael G. Foster School of Business)[/TD]

[TD=align: right]16[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]Carnegie Mellon University (Tepper School of Business)[/TD]

[TD=align: right]16[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (Kenan-Flagler Business School)[/TD]

[TD=align: right]18[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]University of Texas at Austin (McCombs School of Business)[/TD]

[TD=align: right]19[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]Washington University at St. Louis (Olin School of Business)[/TD]

[TD=align: right]20[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]Emory University (Goizueta Business School)[/TD]

[TD=align: right]21[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]Georgetown University (The McDonough School of Business)[/TD]

[TD=align: right]22[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]Pennsylvania State University at University Park (Smeal College of Business)[/TD]

[TD=align: right]23[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]University of Florida (Warrington College of Business)[/TD]

[TD=align: right]23[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]University of Wisconsin at Madison (Wisconsin School of Business)[/TD]

[TD=align: right]25[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]University of Maryland at College Park (Robert H. Smith School of Business)[/TD]

[TD=align: right]26[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]Boston University (Questrom School of Business)[/TD]

[TD=align: right]26[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]Ohio State University (Fisher College of Business)[/TD]

[TD=align: right]28[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]Boston College (Carroll School of Management)[/TD]

[TD=align: right]28[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]Texas A&M University at College Station (Mays Business School)[/TD]

[TD=align: right]28[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]University of Minnesota at Twin Cities (Carlson School of Management)[/TD]

[TD=align: right]31[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]Indiana University at Bloomington (Kelley School of Business)[/TD]

[TD=align: right]32[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]University of Georgia (Terry College of Business)[/TD]

[TD=align: right]33[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]University of Miami (School of Business Administration)[/TD]

[TD=align: right]33[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign (Gies College of Business)[/TD]

[TD=align: right]35[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]University of Pittsburgh (The Joseph M. Katz Graduate School of Business)[/TD]

[TD=align: right]36[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]University of South Carolina at Columbia (Darla Moore School of Business)[/TD]

[TD=align: right]37[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]University of Colorado at Boulder (Leeds School of Business)[/TD]

[TD=align: right]37[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]University of Arizona (Eller College of Management)[/TD]

[TD=align: right]39[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]University of Cincinnati (Lindner College of Business)[/TD]

[TD=align: right]40[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]University of Kentucky (Gatton College of Business and Economics)[/TD]

[TD=align: right]41[/TD]

[/TR]

[/TABLE]

[hngu178]

For PhD or MBA?

For PhD: yours looks nearly the same mine, not significantly different, excerpt for Georgia, Kentucky, and Cincinnati.

 

Georgetown University (The McDonough School of Business)

Boston College (Carroll School of Management)

do not have PhD Marketing

Edited April 7, 2018 by hngu178

[hngu178]

duplicate

[another user]

If I could build a perfect PhD ranking I would take into account placements and program quality, but we cannot make inference on program quality. The thing is, we can't build a ranking simply based on placements either, because how would we rank the placements in the first place? It would be a circular ranking.

 

To solve this problem, I'm assuming placements are a function of school prestige (using MBA rankings) and research quality. I'm also assuming that research productivity as measured by UTD is a good proxy for the quality of research done by PhD candidates.

 

I simply mixed the rankings I mentioned with equal weights. If a school is missing from one of the rankings, I remove it. Also, I know that some of the schools don't have PhD programs but the idea is simply to build a B-school ranking that measures research and prestige.

 

It's not completely different from yours, but the thing is, I think you got the groups wrong probably because I disagree to where to draw the line for each group. For example, nobody would choose UCLA, USC, WUSTL, Cornell over Stanford, Harvard, MIT, Berkeley, Yale. These schools can't be in the same tier. Besides, Toronto, Michigan, Maryland, Minnesota could be chosen over UCLA, USC, WUSTL, Cornell, and vice versa. So, in my opinion, they should be in the same group (that is, if we believe in the 'wisdom of the crowds').

 

I understand that some of the schools seem a little off in my ranking as well, probably because our perceptions of ranking are not linear in prestige. For example, I expect people to feel like Berkeley should be higher in my ranking.

[Mandalorian]

Choosing to attend and choosing to hire from are two different things. Of course students would choose Harvard, MIT, Berkeley, Yale, Stanford, Chicago, etc over UCLA, USC, Cornell, WUSTL, etc, but things are not so concrete for hiring/placement. For a top-tier employer both groups have candidates eligible for the same positions. The A+ school students might have a bit of an advantage based purely on name reputation of the school, but someone from the A tier with a strong record is just as viable a contender. In fact someone from the A tier with good pubs is probably better than an A+ without.

[another user]

Choosing to attend and choosing to hire from are two different things. Of course students would choose Harvard, MIT, Berkeley, Yale, Stanford, Chicago, etc over UCLA, USC, Cornell, WUSTL, etc, but things are not so concrete for hiring/placement. For a top-tier employer both groups have candidates eligible for the same positions. The A+ school students might have a bit of an advantage based purely on name reputation of the school, but someone from the A tier with a strong record is just as viable a contender. In fact someone from the A tier with good pubs is probably better than an A+ without.

 

 

 

Yes, but we're talking about the average students not special cases of a UCLA/USC/WUSTL/Cornell graduate with top pubs against a MIT/Stanford/Harvard graduate without pubs. Everything else held constant, prestige makes a difference. Also, choosing to hire and choosing to attend are not completely different as students often take a look at placements when choosing the school, and they tend to choose those which give them the best chances of being hired at top schools.

 

I'm not saying that WUSTL, UCLA, USC, Cornell are not great schools, they are. I just can't see them at same level of MIT, Harvard, Stanford, Berkeley, Yale and I don't think I'm alone here. I believe this is the common perception as people never choose them over MIT/Stanford/Berkeley etc.

[Mandalorian]

Y

 

I'm not saying that WUSTL, UCLA, USC, Cornell are not great schools, they are. I just can't see them at same level of MIT, Harvard, Stanford, Berkeley, Yale and I don't think I'm alone here. I believe this is the common perception as people never choose them over MIT/Stanford/Berkeley etc.

 

I agree with you that there is certainly a prestige advantage for the tier 1 schools, you are not alone there, but my point is there is not a disadvantage for the other schools. Also given the size of the programs, I don't think there are really many "average" students out there. It's not like tens of thousands are matriculating every year. Maybe a couple hundred at best.

 

The problem with "everything held constant" comparisons is they're too easy and too unrealistic. From the armchair, yes it's tempting to want to exactly rank schools like that, but in the real world it's less clear.

[littlechild]

The entire discussion here is so funny...

 

1. It's crazy to include Harvard to the top-tier marketing PhD programs.

 

2. There're definitely people who chose, say, WUSTL/UCLA/USC over MIT/Harvard/Stanford etc.

 

3. CMU, which has one of the best marketing PhD programs for a long time, is often substantially underrated.

[Daisy]

2. There're definitely people who chose, say, WUSTL/UCLA/USC over MIT/Harvard/Stanford etc.

doubt it

[hngu178]

The entire discussion here is so funny...

 

1. It's crazy to include Harvard to the top-tier marketing PhD programs.

Not crazy since many people still love its reputation

 

]2. There're definitely people who chose, say, WUSTL/UCLA/USC over MIT/Harvard/Stanford etc.

100% agree, depends on track Modeling or Strategy or CB and advisor. Many people apply to MKT for school reputation only, they do not completely how important faculty profile research is!

 

3. CMU, which has one of the best marketing PhD programs for a long time, is often substantially underrated.

100% agree. The schools has produced many influential scholars and foundation fathers for MKT field, I can call the names of these persons for sure!

[hngu178]

I agree with you that there is certainly a prestige advantage for the tier 1 schools, you are not alone there, but my point is there is not a disadvantage for the other schools. Also given the size of the programs, I don't think there are really many "average" students out there. It's not like tens of thousands are matriculating every year. Maybe a couple hundred at best.

 

The problem with "everything held constant" comparisons is they're too easy and too unrealistic. From the armchair, yes it's tempting to want to exactly rank schools like that, but in the real world it's less clear.

100% agree, very good reasoning. Very few stellar persons can get have choices between Harvard, MIT, Berkerley vs USC, UCLA, UWSL. In theory, they can. But in practice, the probability of getting admission for both schools is extremely small or nearly zero. One applicant can has admission from MIT, but still can easy be rejected by lower rank school. The application and admission process is not as straight forward as ranking.

The number of applicants per year increases exponentially, the schools do not need to chase to some students, there are more than stellar applicants than the number of slots they can admit per year. This fact is true for this year, even for A- and B group. Do not count on absolute ranking to apply, spreading application to B group or even C group can increase the chance of admission.

Edited April 9, 2018 by hngu178

[hngu178]

doubt it

I do not doubt it, for sure. Many persons who have strong research experience will make decision by specific advisors not by school reputation

[macaumoon]

@whatever123

 

Hi, may I ask you here what is the difference between quant marketing and marketing strategy?

 

Did you apply for both quant and strategy and then end up going to a "strategy" program? Or did you just apply to only strategy programs from the beginning?

 

Any advice to new PhD students entering a PhD Marketing program (more strategy track) and the job market later on? I am actually quite confused how do we differentiate ourselves from the quant students... Are we more "soft quant" students actually?

 

Also, just curious, do you know how are other marketing faculty at Mizzou?

[BrazilianPhD]

 

Hi, may I ask you here what is the difference between quant marketing and marketing strategy?

 

Did you apply for both quant and strategy and then end up going to a "strategy" program? Or did you just apply to only strategy programs from the beginning?

 

Any advice to new PhD students entering a PhD Marketing program (more strategy track) and the job market later on? I am actually quite confused how do we differentiate ourselves from the quant students... Are we more "soft quant" students actually?

 

This is actually hard to answer, and you can find some very different opinions about it. I had a Marketing Strategy course where we talked about it.

 

What I learned is something like this.

 

In the past, Marketing Strategy people could be identified because they were more worried about the questions regarding the topics (strategy applied to marketing resources and activities), and less about the tools (statistics, econometrics). So, they could be worried about the best definition of "brand equity" for example, but not that much about the econometrics behind it. Then, they could be "soft quant" as you said.

 

On the other hand, in the past Quantitative Marketing people were mostly worried about the statistical problems, not much the topics. They were more worried about questions like "How to show causality?" or "How to deal with endogeneity?". Just being very good at Math was a great asset.

 

However, the huge advancements of statistical software changed that. With the support of those new tools, Marketing Strategy people are now able to do great statistical analysis too. And just being good at Mathematics is not such a huge asset for Quantitative Marketing people anymore.

 

So, Marketing Strategy and Quantitative Marketing started to merge. In a way that nowadays they are often the same thing. Or, if not the same thing, a Marketing Strategy researcher is often expected to be able to do a Quantitative Marketing research and vice-versa.

 

When I applied, I noticed that very few schools offered both Marketing Strategy and Quantitative Marketing. If there was the option to choose Marketing Strategy, I applied for that. But if there was only Quantitative Marketing, I applied for that instead of Marketing Strategy.

 

About differentiating yourself, I guess your papers will talk a lot about that. If I see a researcher with papers like "Improving the statistical performance of...", or "Multivariate approach to...", I think about Quantitative Marketing. But if the papers are more like "Measuring online brand equity" or "Effects of sharing information with distribution channels", I think about Marketing Strategy. But that doesn't mean that the Quant papers are not related to the concepts of Marketing Strategy, and also doesn't mean that the math used in Marketing Strategy papers are soft in any way. It's a matter of emphasis.

[Daisy]

I do not doubt it, for sure. Many persons who have strong research experience will make decision by specific advisors not by school reputation

 

This is a very specific case and you're basically saying that advisor trumps school. If this is completely true then school rankings wouldn't matter because people would only care about professors. I'm sure this happens, but it's the exception not the rule.

Anyway, I'm pretty sure that 9 out of 10 times people would chose Stanford or MIT over UCLA or Cornell, at least for quant.

 

Maybe this is not true for strategy and CB, but if this is the case it's probably not a good idea to put strategy, CB and quant all in the same ranking. From the quant side the groups presented are kinda misleading. Maybe this is the problem after all, since there are people here who seem to like it.