The Financial Times 2025 MBA ranking is out, sparking the usual flurry of analysis and debate.
The Wharton School tops the list, with Columbia Business School at second and IESE Business School at the 3rd position. There is a tie between INSEAD and SDA Bocconi in the 4th position. MIT Sloan takes the 6th position, followed by London Business School and ESADE Business School. HEC Paris is ranked 9th and Kellogg Business School takes the 10th position.
HBS drops to #13, its lowest position in the history of FT rankings, and shares its position with Cornell Johnson. Stanford is absent from the rankings (apparently due to insufficient alumni survey responses) and CEIBS is the highest-ranked Asian program at #12. While the list offers a snapshot of the current landscape, it also raises important questions about methodology and what truly defines a top-tier MBA program.
Let’s delve into some key takeaways:
- The Internationalization Imperative: Schools with diverse student bodies, international faculty, and curricula focused on global business continue to be highly valued. This reflects the interconnected world we live in. While valuable, this emphasis may over-index internationalism, disproportionately benefiting European schools that attract a large proportion of international students- Six of the top 10 schools are European schools.
- Career Outcomes Under the Microscope: As doing an MBA is a huge investment- ROI Matters. The focus on career outcomes, particularly salary levels and career progression, is understandable. Prospective students want to see a return on their investment. However, using percentage salary growth as a key metric presents challenges. It can penalize students with already high pre-MBA salaries (common at top US schools) while favoring those with lower pre-MBA salaries who experience larger percentage increases, even if their post-MBA salaries are still lower than their US counterparts. This can create a misleading impression of career progress.
- Ranking Volatility and Methodological Concerns: The volatility of the rankings, with schools “bouncing up and down so much,” casts doubt on the reliability of the methodology. Wild swings for programs like USC Marshall (jumped from 33 to 50), Shanghai University (jumped from 24 to 15), ESADE (17 to 8), Chicago Booth (10 to 17), etc. suggest that the ranking may not be capturing the true quality of these programs consistently.
- Real-World Choices: Last but not least, the ranking doesn’t align with the actual choices of MBA applicants. For instance, the fact that HBS is ranked below CEIBS is an absurdity. Candidates, it’s argued, would overwhelmingly choose HBS over schools ranked above it. Similarly, while SDA Bocconi might perform well in the FT rankings, it’s unlikely that applicants would choose it over INSEAD or LBS.
- Reputation and Trust: The FT ranking, once considered prestigious and relied upon by candidates, especially for non-US schools, now raises serious questions about its validity. The M7 schools are ranked in double digits pointing to flawed metric methodology. There’s a disconnect between top rankings and applicant preferences. Many schools in the top 10 aren’t on applicants’ target lists.
Top 30 schools in FT MBA 2025 ranking are:
| # | School Name | Location | 2024 Rank |
| 1 | University of Pennsylvania: Wharton | US | 1 |
| 2 | Columbia Business School | US | 3 |
| 3 | IESE Business School | Spain | 5 |
| 4 | Insead | France | 2 |
| 4 | SDA Bocconi School of Management | Italy | 3 |
| 6 | MIT: Sloan | US | 6 |
| 7 | London Business School | UK | 8 |
| 8 | Esade Business School | Spain | 17 |
| 9 | HEC Paris | France | 12 |
| 10 | Northwestern University, Kellogg School of Management | US | 6 |
| 11 | Duke University’s Fuqua School of Business | US | 14 |
| 12 | Ceibs | China | 21 |
| 13 | Harvard Business School | US | 11 |
| 13 | Cornell University: Johnson | US | 9 |
| 15 | UC Berkeley: Haas | US | 19 |
| 15 | Shanghai University of Finance and Economics: College of Business | China | 24 |
| 17 | University of Chicago: Booth | US | 10 |
| 18 | IE Business School | Spain | 20 |
| 19 | UCLA Anderson School of Management | US | 18 |
| 20 | Dartmouth College: Tuck | US | 12 |
| 20 | University of Virginia: Darden | US | 16 |
| 22 | IMD — International Institute for Management Development | Switzerland | 36 |
| 22 | Nanyang Business School, NTU Singapore | Singapore | 32 |
| 24 | Yale School of Management | US | 15 |
| 25 | Peking University: Guanghua | China | 37 |
| 26 | University of Oxford: Saïd | UK | 26 |
| 27 | Indian School of Business | India | 31 |
| 28 | ESCP Business School | France | 25 |
| 29 | University of Michigan: Ross | US | – |
| 30 | Fudan University School of Management | China | 27 |
Beyond the Numbers: What Makes an MBA Program Great?
- Rankings as One Input: The FT ranking offers one perspective, but it shouldn’t be the only factor considered.
- Unquantifiable Elements: Program culture, faculty accessibility, alumni network strength, and other less tangible aspects play a crucial role in the overall MBA experience.
- Alternative Metrics: Some argue that metrics like student yield (enrollment rate) and endowment size could provide valuable insights into a program’s strength and reputation.
Prospective MBA students should research beyond rankings. They should attend school webinars, visit campuses, and talk to current students and alumni. Ultimately, the “best” MBA program is the one that aligns with your individual career goals, learning style, and personal preferences. Don’t let rankings be the sole driver of your decision. Get in touch with ARINGO today to discuss your target schools tailored to all your preferences and constraints.
