Ranking is out, see below.

http://rankings.ft.com/businessschoolrankings/global-mba-ranking-2016

Insead is #1 this year.

[Edited by jimshui on Jan 25, 2016]

So many of the UK schools appeared on the list! Leeds and Edinburgh are finally back again. Big jump for Lancaster, Durham and Strathclyde! Great to see Birmingham to go up by a few places. :)

Biggest surprise is that Purdue drops out of the top 50: I guess the response rate was too low for inclusion, and the same might explain SMU, ASU and Alberta dropping out.

Vlerick and Tias are out, both schools that have experienced falls in the last few years (Tias has been much less selective, I feel, but Vlerick is a strong school that's really not getting careers services right). In the USA, the Rady and Moore schools are out, perhaps relfecting low salaries?

In terms of new entries, some have higher salaries and are in a strong position: Brigham Young, EDHEC (an impressively highly salary, higher than Lancaster, Birmingham and Strathclyde), Ipade, Connecticut and the University of Edinburgh).

I am surprised to see Leeds back in, given the low salary.

[Edited by Duncan on Jan 25, 2016]

Why is Durham that succesful? Any opinions?

And what about Lancaster? What did they do?

[Edited by Sep14 on Jan 25, 2016]

You can compare this year's data to last year's and see what factors changed positively.

Ok.
But before the ranking was published there were predictions that Durham could've risen.
I thought especially you guys from uk have more information behind the pure data.
I'm from Germany and none of these schools are known.

Another point to discuss: why are so many non GMAT schools are so successful in the past two rankings?

The bottom 60 schools have scores which are really very close. I think the major variable for that is the purchasing-power parity calculation, and my guess is that the calculations were done before the most recent dips in currency values which have strengthened the dollar. Durham's rise from 79 to 66 isn't really that large, and really reflects a $1,700 rise in average salaries. In a small class, that can be explained by one or two more people going to family firms in the developing world.

In that context, I don't think non-GMAT schools are that successful. The schools that waive the GMAT often do so selectively. Lancaster does that, for example, with above average applicants. Smaller schools with fewer applicants can take the time to review applications to pick out those stronger candidates, but there is a downside. Candidates who fear the GMAT often under-perform and that can keep high quality employers away.

Even so, if you look at the FT 100 schools, I don't think any of the schools in the top 75% for salary will waive the GMAT or GRE. It's a strong quality sign for the traditional MBA employers.

I took the GMAT and managed a reasonable score. However, I would not able to afford the extremely high fee demanded by the top 8 business schools in the UK, especially when I still have to take a year off to do an MBA which is another opportunity cost.

For instance, I chose Birmingham since it is in the 2nd largest city in the UK, thus more work opportunities around the area and the university and business school are considerably reputable globally at a cheaper fee. I won't say the programme is top notch but I believe the employers and contacts that the school can attract will be of pretty high quality, eg FTSE 250. I believe my targeted employers will not ignore me if I graduate only from the Birmingham MBA since my background is also considered quite interesting to them as well.

Anyway, from what I understand, those MBA ranked outside of the top 50 (51-100) consistently are pretty much the same.

[Edited by yipkc on Jan 26, 2016]

I also like some websites which summarise the FT MBA ranking table.

http://uk.businessinsider.com/financial-times-ranking-of-the-best-european-business-schools-to-do-an-mba-2016-1

http://www.cityam.com/233042/global-mba-rankings-2016-these-are-the-best-places-for-an-mba-in-the-uk

I think the choice to not pay high fees is really about preferences rather than budgets. If you can get into the top schools then the added income that results is much greater than the higher fees. It's an excellent investment. Imagine: Birmingham graduates get $103,344: Cambridge graduates get $156,323, and the gap widens over time. Even in the bottom 50, you have schools like Cranfield on $116k or Marshall on $129.

The Business Insider article is not very useful, for example it locates the EDHEC MBA in Lille rather than Nice.

I would say both preference and budget have been taken into consideration. Birmingham used to be the top MBA in the UK as well so there is a stretch goal for Birmingham to achieve and I believe one day it will return to its heyday.

Birmingham was never the top MBA in the country. I don't think it's even been the top MBA in a 50 mile radius.

Birmingham was never the top MBA in the country. I don't think it's even been the top MBA in a 50 mile radius.

That is ridiculous, but it's EIU that is to blame, not you or Birmingham. In those days The Economist ranking relied very heavily on the percentage increase in salaries which means that schools that recruited junior people, and thus got big rises, could get good rankings. I was admitted to the Birmingham MBA in the early 2000s (My partner worked there) and in terms of salary, student quality or employer outcome there's no way the Birmingham MBA was even top 20 in the UK back then. The school is incomparably better than it was. It has certainly not fallen in quality, but risen dramaticaslly.