Text
While acknowledging Robert Zemsky’s criticisms, Glick argues that rankings are entrenched due to their role in shaping stakeholder perceptions, despite their flawed methodologies and focus on superficial metrics like GMAT scores and starting salaries. He highlights how rankings homogenize business education, incentivizing schools to prioritize narrow metrics over innovation or mission-driven goals. Glick proposes two solutions to mitigate these issues. First, mass customization of rankings would allow stakeholders (e.g., students, recruiters, donors) to weight criteria based on individual priorities (e.g., leadership development, regional job placement, research output) rather than relying on one-size-fits-all media lists. He identifies existing platforms (e.g., GMAC’s Pathfinder, Princeton Review) that could evolve to support this approach. Second, stakeholder education is essential to help users interpret rankings critically, emphasizing long-term outcomes over simplistic averages. For instance, recruiters often conflate high GMAT scores with program quality, while students may overlook salary growth trajectories. Glick concludes that while media rankings will persist, mass customization and education can empower stakeholders to make informed decisions aligned with their values. By shifting focus from journalist-driven metrics to personalized evaluations, business schools can reduce conformity pressures and recenter their missions on meaningful educational outcomes.
Call Number | Location | Available |
---|---|---|
AMP2201 | PSB lt.dasar - Pascasarjana | 1 |
Penerbit | Briarcliff Manor, NY: Academy of Management 2008 |
---|---|
Edisi | Vol. 22, No. 1, Feb., 2008 |
Subjek | educational metrics business school rankings mass customization stakeholder education MBA Programs GMAT Scores recruiter perceptions |
ISBN/ISSN | 15589080 |
Klasifikasi | NONE |
Deskripsi Fisik | 6 p. |
Info Detail Spesifik | Academy of Management Perspectives |
Other Version/Related | Tidak tersedia versi lain |
Lampiran Berkas |