[Mearticbaibre]

So they're imagining that the more CEOs a school produces, the better the school is?

And thus the University of Miami is a better school than Princeton?

They've discovered something, all right, but only by accident -- and it has way more to do with methodology than with schools.

[PrareeLor]

It's a ridiculous methodology. It doesn't appear to control for number of students at the school, nor does it appear to control for the professions students opt for.

The University of Miami is about three times the size of Princeton; moreover, if my experience of Ivy League and State school student bodies is any measure, I'd bet many, many more Miami students want to go into business than do Princeton students. So it shouldn't be surprising that Miami has produced more CEOs than Princeton, but that fact alone tells you nothing about the relative merits of the two schools.

[seervezex]

I have no stake in the Shanghai rankings; in fact, I'd never heard of them before. If their rankings are just as ridiculous, so be it. Lots of silliness all around.

[Imagimifouxum]

Hah. A France study has 5 of the "top 22" universities as being in France?

Which French universities are half-decent?

[Speareerfug]

whether US corporations are being led well by these types of folks versus the others available I think that question will always remain no matter who was in charge.

how we groom people for these leadership roles IMO, the grooming occurs in business consulting firms. How this is done, I have no idea. Still, it seems that a lot of CEOs come from consulting industries.

In addition, I also believe that another reason more CEOs don't come from Ivy League schools is that many ivy leagers have an issue with entitlement. Most/Many? Ivy League grads think that since they have an ivy league education that they deserve Ivy League pay, thus their motive will always been fueled by money. Most/Many? CEOs aren't fueled by money, but by business successes, control, power, and most importantly vision. When you are to focused on the dough you won't end up in the executive office.

[ErubTiereedig]

Originally posted by DAVOUT


All those ranking are ridiculous, this one no more and likely no less than the ShangaÏ ranking. By the way, the Shangaï ranking does not take into account the size.
Answering to your statement I can say : many more Princeton students want to go into research than do Miami students. So it shouldn't be surprising that Princeton has produced more Nobel Prizes than Miami, but that fact alone tells you nothing about the relative merits of the two schools. University rankings are themselves ridiculous. They serve no credible purpose. The only sensible university rankings come from the quality of admissions. In other words, if you get into Princeton, you are, on the face of it, more likely to be a more able student than if you get into the University of Wyoming. But that doesn't tell you anything about the quality of education at either institution.

Choice of school in general fields doesn't really matter for undergraduates either. For the most part, the undergraduate education you will get at any decent university in a general field is comparable, mainly due to the fact that undergraduate education is just teaching people the basics of the subject matter. In some fields choice of school may matter, but then it isn't a case of ranking schools, but ranking particular programs.

When you get to graduate school, the ranking of schools is irrelevant, since the ranking of particular grad programs is what matters. Harvard has a higher overall rank than my alma mater (both generally and in philosophy), but only an idiot would choose Harvard over my old school for grad school in my particular area (because Harvard is notoriously weak in that area).

General rankings of universities serve no useful purpose.

[Beatris]

Originally posted by Japher

Most/Many? CEOs aren't fueled by money, but by business successes, control, power, and most importantly vision. When you are to focused on the dough you won't end up in the executive office. Then what's your take on the big CEO compensation packages, especially the golden parachutes, where they can totally screw up and leave with megabucks?

[boXGWf04]

Originally posted by DAVOUT

The better school depends of what you want to do.
Shangaï answers to the question : I want to become a top researcher; what is my best choice? No it doesn't. The best way to become a top researcher is to do top research, and then you will get poached by one of these places that has a lot of money to throw at it.

Whereas this ranking answers to the question : I want to become a top manager; what is my best choice? No it doesn't. The sample is not large enough.

[Ephejvll]

Originally posted by Agathon


No it doesn't. The best way to become a top researcher is to do top research, and then you will get poached by one of these places that has a lot of money to throw at it.



No it doesn't. The sample is not large enough. I was trying to find a purpose to those two rankings (Shangaï and Ecole des Mines); I am prepared to listen to the other questions they could answer.

[Vcwdldva]

Originally posted by DAVOUT
Do you mean that the Shangaï ranking has no biases?

Did I say anything about the Shangai ranking? I've never heard of it before the OP. What does it have to do with my post? What does it have to do with whether the ranking you posted is absolutely retarded?

We know that, thank you; the exercise is only to look at the difference between universities regarding their result in this area. But you can believe that the CEOs of the top ten would also be CEOs whatever would have been their university, and the concentration on the top ten would be a random result.

Maybe if you're illiterate, you'd read that into my post.

[Ladbarbastirm]

U Wyoming at 15

Does anything else really need to be said about this list?

[JennaJJxoxoxo]

This is all very stupid. You don't learn how to be a CEO in college. At least not in undergrad. The only class you might take to prepare you for that is strategic management and that's only the very basics. I think the evidence of this is the fact that many CEOs have no higher education.

[sandracuk]

Originally posted by Kontiki
Seriously, though - what's this Shanghai ranking? Is it well known in Europe or something? http://ed.sjtu.edu.cn/rank/2007/ranking2007.htm

[maysubers]

That's the most bizarre ranking that I've ever seen. Gettysburg College ranked above Princeton? The methodology also heavily favors campuses that have hosted Civil War battles.

[Sydneyfonzi]

Originally posted by Kontiki


No kididng. But they're only looking at a single position in each of the 500 largest companies, and basing the quality of universities on a global scale on a pool of 500 freakin' people. Most universities on that list are there far more by fluke than anything even remotely related to their ability to inculcate top management skills. And there are no doubt many rather good universities not on the list by the same fluke. I mean, if there's a CEO that's the only representative from his school there and he retires next year to be replaced by a guy who is again the only representative from a different university - well, that previous CEO's school just dropped a few hundred positions and the new CEO's just rose equally dramatically. Did the relative qualities of the schools really change to reflect this massive shift? It is said in the report that this ranking is meaninful only for the 80 first universities just for the reason you indicate.