Gordon W. Cheung PhD Professor Department of Management, The Chinese University of Hong Kong

The Financial Times uses 20 different criteria to assess MBA programs, with each criterion carrying a different weight, which may not reflect what one really wants from an MBA program. Because of cultural differences, one might even prefer a lower rating in some cases.

In the Financial Times' survey, the weighted salary and salary percentage increase are the two most important criteria, with each representing 20% of the total score.

The weighted salary is a weighted average of salaries received three years after graduation, with adjustments for variation between industrial sectors.

Since this index does not determine starting salaries, it should only be used as an indicator of the MBA program's market position.

Instead, the salary percentage increase, which measures the percentage increase in salary from the start of the MBA course to three years after graduation, is a more useful index because it reflects how the program has added to a graduate's value.

The rating of faculty by international journals, which carries 10% of the final score, is the 3rd most important criterion in determining the rankings.

However, I wonder whether the criterion's importance might be overrated because MBA programs should emphasise more on the application of theories in the business world, not on the development of academic research.

Bear in mind that in most cases, the research agenda of even a renowned professor does not cover more than 20% of the materials present in an MBA course.

The international mobility of the alumni carries 6% of the final score. Due to economic globalization, this is an important indicator of the quality of the alumni. However, students in Hong Kong should perhaps be more concerned about the MBA alumni's mobility in Mainland China.

Then comes the number of doctoral graduates and faculty with doctorates. Each of these carries 5%. Since most MBA graduates in Hong Kong will not pursue a Ph.D., the number of doctoral graduates bears little significance to the quality of an MBA program.

One should be very careful when looking at high numbers of teaching staff with doctorate degrees. While some people might see this as a good thing, shooting for 100% may not be ideal. A high percentage only reflects a business school's interest in research performance, which could result in teaching quality being compromised.

I have met some outstanding professors who do not have doctorates, but have valuable and extensive work experiences, which could greatly benefit their students.

The percentage of international students and international faculty each carries 4%. Although there are not many regular international students in Hong Kong, both the UST and the CUHK have many international exchange students, who can help broaden the international vision of their fellow Hong Kong students.

Of course, one better way to enhance one's international outlook is to study abroad for one or two semesters through an exchange program.

Because of the close relationship between the economies of Hong Kong and the Mainland China, one might want to look for an MBA program in which mainland students are taking part.

Again, one should not look specifically for a very high percentage of international teaching staff in the program.

Most of the top MBA programs have a foreign teaching staff of between 20% - 30% of the total teaching workforce. The number should not be higher, because foreign professors may not know the local culture well enough to show the students how to apply certain theories to local businesses. The number of foreign teachers in both the UST and the CUHK is exceptionally high, but that's because many of the local Chinese professors have overseas passports.

The above criteria already add up to about 75% of the score that determines the rankings.

However, as we have discussed, the importance of some criteria may not reflect what a prospective MBA student needs, and some criteria may not even be applicable in Hong Kong.

Prospective students are therefore advised to look carefully at each criterion, and use their own weighting systems to evaluate the ratings.

Financial Times 2002 MBA Rankings
Rank	Rank in 2001	School name	Country	Weighted salary (US$)	Salary percentage increase
1	1	University of Pennsylvania: Wharton	United States	165,277	228
2	2	Harvard Business School	United States	175,562	194
3	5	Columbia University GSB	United States	153,290	247
=	3	Stanford University GSB	United States	178,576	178
=	4	University of Chicago GSB	United States	157,790	252
6	7	Insead	France	136,817	148
=	6	MIT: Sloan	United States	161,024	191
8	10	New York University: Stern	United States	127,320	233
9	8	London Business School	United Kingdom	124,538	171
10	9	Northwestern University: Kellogg	United States	151,179	192
47	48	Hong Kong University of Science and Technology	China	63,361	99
67	--	The Chinese University of Hong Kong	China	58,548	155

Source: Financial Times

Taken from Career Times 2002/02/22