How reliable are the B-School Ratings ?

-Prof.Arvind Chaturvedi

It is the ‘marketing –advertising & promotion’ season for b-schools in India. The MBA aspirants
have started gathering information on known ,little known or (even) unknown b-schools ,
depending on their academic performance . They must decide soon as to which b-schools they
should apply to if they have to be in the reckoning for MBA admissions in the 2008 academic
session .
It is also the ‘special –issue’ season for the business publications of different hues. These special
issues are thicker and heavier as more than half of the pages are advertisements from b-schools
,not to mention equal number of pages as ‘advertorials’ ( camouflaged advertisements in the garb
of ‘write-ups’ about the advertiser).
In the midst of this commercial activity an average graduate ,who is seeking a business
/management career path, has to differentiate strong brands from the poor ones. The business
publications ( with or without a research agency collaboration) are ready to offer all he help in
the form of b-schools ratings /rankings or grading, based on as diverse set of methodology as the
number of b-schools in India.

There are about 1400 b-schools in India, most of which are private entrepreneurial ventures. It
includes university departments, government funded ( like the IIMs) or heavily supported by
business houses. About 80 to 100 b-schools are added to this pool every year .With that the
competition also heats up gradually and so does the importance of ‘branding’. No wonder the
( private) education industry has emerged as one of the biggest ad-spender .The campaigns
between June and October every year turnout to be the biggest attractions for media ,and hence
the ‘special issues’. In this brand-building exercise all sorts of exaggerated claims are advanced
,naturally to attract as many applicants as possible. The media-supported b-school ratings serve
as an important platform for branding exercise. For many poorly rated b-schools, the ads work as
a neutralizing agents.

As the number of b-schools goes up ,so does the confusion for the average MBA aspirant .The
students, therefore, are becoming more discerning as the time passes by. They seek ‘more and
better’ information on b-schools in order to short-list their choice of destination. Almost all b-
schools have information on their websites but it is ,at times, not considered reliable. Thus the
rating/ranking of b-schools has gained importance over time. For media this increases the
circulation of the special issues containing ratings but also fetches them huge ad revenues.

Official Accreditation

After AICTE was set up, approvals were granted to a variety of institutions to run post graduate
programmes. Due to the time pressure the process adopted by AICTE was not fool proof . As a
result some of the approved institutions did not even have bare minimum facilities such as
faculty ,library ,building ,computers etc. The need to have a proper accreditation process was
badly felt at that time . AIMA’s attempt to implement an objective accreditation mechanism did
not bear fruit . Many b-Schools with little or no capability had received accreditation from
AICTE’s National Board of Accreditation. Although AICTE had a well defined accreditation
process on paper. But when it came to implementation ,questions were raised. As a result
AICTE drew flak from experts in management education all over the country. The need to have
some objective and impartial B-School rating was felt at this stage.
 This opportunity was seized by Prof Dharani Sinha ,whose consulting firm COSMODE was
pioneer in launching the b-school ratings in 1998 ,with Business Today as the media partner.
After COSMODE did the first ranking with Business Today magazine, other ranking
agencies/ and publications also jumped the bandwagon in course of time.

Global b-school ratings

Cosmode-BT’1998 rating may be the pioneering effort in India to grade/rank b-schools, but
globally such exercises have been undertaken for decades. The first ever b-school ranking was
done by Columbia University in the US in 1972.This was more of an academic standard
evaluation. This pioneering effort used two different types of data. Factual information on
research /publications by the faculty members of the b-school under scanner and Perception-
based evaluation by the Deans about b-Schools. Columbia’s ratings were followed next year by
yet another university -Georgia State University ,albeit with a modified criteria. GSU added two
new factors -the curriculum of the b-school and more importantly the employability of its
graduates.

We have not seen so far any academic institution taking up the cudgels to undertake a rating
exercise as happened in US. Media dominance of evaluation /ranking in India is also based on
international pattern. Even in the US the b-school ratings was taken over by the media.
Prominent among them are : Business Week (BW),Financial Times, U.S. News & World Report,
the Wall Street Journal Since 1986, BW had conducted surveys, every two years, of graduating
MBA students and recruiters to create a customer satisfaction scorecard. US News and World
Report launched its B-school ranking exercise in 1990, Asia Inc in 1995, Financial Times in
1999, Forbes in 2000, and Wall Street Journal in 2001. The methodology used, parameters and
the weights allocated in these surveys are different. The ratings therefore are drastically
different from each other.

Table : 1
International B School Surveys by Media

Media Started Frequency Weightage & Ranking Criteria

Business Week 1986 Every 2 45% students’ survey, with different parameters
years 45% recruiters’ survey with different parameters

10% faculty publications

U.S. News & 1990 Annual 40% Deans’Survey
World Report 35% Graduates Employability / starting salaries, .
25%Studentsacademic quality ( GMAT Scores included)
Asia Inc 1995 Annual 20% Peer-Reputation Ranking (by Deans)
45% School & Faculty Quality
35% Students’ academic quality
Financial 1999 Annual 20% Graduating Students starting salary
Times 20% 3-year growth in salary post MBA
10% faculty research/ publications
10% international faculty & students
5% Ph.D. students placement
5% faculty with doctorate
 5% women faculty and students
25% other criteria related to admission, curriculum etc
Forbes 2001 Every 2 Surveys alumni; Measures “return on investment in dollars
years and cents” by focusing on salary and gains in comparison to
tuition costs
Wall Street 2001 Annual Corporate recruiter perceptions towards b- school talent,
Journal-Harris and the characteristics they consider most important
Interactive when hiring graduates.86 b- schools are rated on 21 key
attributes. (perceived strengths and weakness among
recruiters ).Parameters include: Leadership potential
,Strategic thinking, Entrepreneurial skills, Value for
money invested in recruiting, Students’ communications
skills

The Approach & Methodology

The approach & methodology used by various rating agencies has been different .Each rating
agency has also been modifying the methodology, by making suitable amends , in every
subsequent rounds. Broadly speaking there have been three distinct approaches in b-school
ratings. These are( a) Ratings based on hard facts/objective data obtained from b-schools,(b)
Perception survey among different groups of stakeholders, and (c) a combination of the two . It is
natural that the ultimate output i.e. the ratings will be different if the methodology adopted is not
the same. As a result of the vast difference in rating by various agencies, every different approach
has been under question. Not only in India ,but even in Europe and US, where different
approaches have been used by agencies ,he outcome has been drastically different . But no one is
complaining. And they have all agreed to disagree. Table --- describes the approaches used by
various agencies over a period of time .

Cosmode-BT ratings in 1998 used a combination of objective data and a perception based
survey with a relative ratio of 4:6. However in next round of ratings in 2000, the ratio
was reversed in favour of hard facts/data ,which was 7:3. Out of 1000 points , a total of
700 points were allocated to the factual information, which included new parameters like
governance, evaluation system and placements. The perception survey was conducted
among corporate recruiters, students, teachers and alumni. These perceptions were
supplemented by hard information on facilities, course content, and placement ratios to
arrive at the final rankings. Learning from the experience that the perception survey did
not present ‘unbiased’ information, Cosmode dropped this component in the next round
(2002) and entire rating was now based on hard facts only. In this round new information
such as industry interface and networking were added and relatively higher weight was
assigned to placement and pedagogy. This departure in methodology led to differences
between Cosmode and BT. Subsequently Business today hired AC Nielsen –ORG for b-
school ratings in 2003, while Cosmode decided to join hands with Business World- a
rival business magazine.
Although Cosmode was first agency to launch its b-school ratings, not every one was
happy ,and for obvious reasons. B-Schools which received high ranks went tom-tom
about their achievements while those which were left behind had reasons to question the
methodology. Even after two rounds of ‘improvement’ in methodology adopted by BT-
Cosmode, questions remained. That gave rise to opportunity for other agencies/
publications to come with a ‘different’ and ‘more logical approach’ for ratings. The
major debate which still lives by the day in 2007 is whether ratings should be based on
hard facts or perception of the stakeholders ( or a combination of the two ). And if it is
the ‘ combo’, the right ratio between the two ?

B-school ratings ,based on hard facts attract criticism as the facts submitted by b-schools
are not always verifiable or verified . Wherever such verification is done ( to whatever
extent ) fudging has been unearthed in many cases ( see table 5) raising doubts about the
veracity of the data. Then comes the question of parameters used and the weights allotted
to these parameters. As has been said earlier not only the parameters used by different
rating agencies differ from one another but even the ‘items’ which define the parameter.

Placement, for example, gets 10% weight in BI( 2006) which increases to 15% in 2007,
‘placement performance’ is given 21% weightage by Outlook ( and uses information such
as percentage of students placed -50 marks, ratio of average salary to the fees -70 marks,
median saklary -70 marks, maximum and minimum salary -70 marks each and faculty
perception-70 marks). AIMA also uses placement parameter ,without disclosing its
components or the relative weightage. BT in its brand-equity model includes placements(
multiple placement offers/ 100% placement as benchmark ) but with same limitations as
AIMA, leaving it beyond comparison. Cosmode-BW used a 30% combined weight for
‘placement & industry interface’ . It leaves ample scope for guessing as to what are the
components and again the ‘net’ weight used for placement as an activity of measuring
success.

Similarly industry-interface , as a parameter is given weights ranging from 4.5%( BI) to

19% (Outlook-C fore), while it finds no mention in BT-AC Nielsen. For Outlook rating
this parameter includes seminars ,revenue from consultancy & MDPs, incubation cell
,joint research with industry etc., these important items are missing in many other ratings.
Intellectual Capital is another parameter with varied definition and components, while
BW covers it under the title ‘faculty research etc’, Outlook calls it ‘intellectual capital &
faculty’ and includes under this parameter published books, cases, research papers by the
faculty, participation in seminars etc faculty profile etc – a very comprehensive
definition. BT-AC Nielsen includes research output, trained faculty and extent of industry
people as visiting faculty. It is quite apparent that one practice at a b-school may fetch
high reward points in one rating, while for other it may actually pull the score down .BI
,in this category, has several related items such as Academics, intellectual interface and
MDP. separately

Then there are basic questions regarding the parameters used and their relevance in a b-
school evaluation. How important is physical infrastructure ? Certainly there should be
sufficient number of well equipped classrooms, a good library /computer lab etc, but why
should a b-school in the smaller town with 20 acre campus be necessarily better placed
than a compact 3 acre b-schools in the heart of the metropolitan city, which is otherwise
complete in all other aspects? Similarly one may argue that a faculty member ,with a
doctorate degree from an small-little known university ,can not be rated higher than a
counterpart with industry experience but no doctorate. A faculty may have a very
impressive CV on paper ,but when comes to classroom ,he may not be as successful
motivator as a faculty with lesser qualification & experience. Thus variables like
intellectual capital are difficult to define and measure.

Those who advance arguments such as above , favour a perception-based survey among
the stakeholders . Here the question is which stakeholders and how many ? How to select
them? Which cities /towns and why ? BT-AC Nielsen survey has widely received flak
from many quarters on its methodology. One simple reason is that few b-schools which
have found place in BT top 30 are ranked very low in other surveys. The very
methodology used in BT ratings is to be blamed. The flaw is apparent as one finds many
b-schools which are consistently rated in top 15 by all other surveys year after year do
not find a place in BT top 30.The general feeling among academicians is that a b-school
is not a brand. There is something beyond a ‘brand’ as a b-school does not get ‘repeat-
buyers’ like a brand, a b-school is not used more ,if it is good . two b-schools can not
‘substitute’ each other as similar brands do. Is a b-school price sensitive ,like a brand ?
The argument continues …..

Several independent individuals ( not a concerned party !!) have also raised eyebrows at
the methodology adopted by BT-AC Nielesen survey. JAM a very popular ( print & net
both) magazine among youth says “NO” to the credibility of the survey as hard facts are
completed ignored for one. “ The survey has evoked shock and disbelief in the b-school
community” not without reasons. Top 30 in BT 2006 did not include NITIE, IMI,IIT b-
schools at Delhi, Mumbai & Kharagpur,MICA, IRMA,TAPMI etc. Similarly TOP 30 in
BT 2007 excluded IMT, NITIE,IMI, VGSoM(IIT Kh)SJM( IIT B),MICA. These b-
schools are consistently ranked in top 25 year after year in various b-school surveys.

BT survey uses ‘winning brands models’ developed by AC Nielsen. But the basic
question is whether a brand equity of a b-school be measured much the same way as that
of FMCG or White goods? Winning- Brands model is based on identification of
‘exclusivity’ of a brand .It revolves around ‘advertising effectiveness’ over a period of
time. JAM has following comment on BT Survey :

Nielsen's own website states that Winning Brands addresses the following 'marketing
issues':
-Brand-equity
- Advertising effectiveness-campaign comparisons if undertaken on a continuous basis
-Market-segmentation
-Category-health-analytics

JAM believes a b school is a brand, but its equity is NOT built on advertising. The equity of
an educational institute rests on a combination of factors. The most important ones being:
-Quality of students
-Admission procedure
-Quality-of-faculty
- Achievements of its alumni

What's more, Winning Brands uses a 'behavioural observation' of brand equity. Analyst
Jonathan Knowles explains in layman terms: “Brand equity is measured in terms of a
customer's frequency of purchase and the price premium paid. Once favorable behavior is
observed, the methodology seeks to analyze the attitudinal characteristics of those
customers.”

'Frequency of purchase' in case of MBA is essentially once in a lifetime. There is no

explanation from either the market research agency or the magazine on how Winning
Brands was adapted to fit the b school category

These kinds of questions ,which remain unanswered by the agencies raise further doubts
about the motive. Coming from a highly respected MR company ,at least the should be
clarification on appropriateness of the methodology adopted.

The brand equity model ,when applied to B-schools has identified how the brands stack-
up. For last three years IIM A has emerged as the only ‘monopoly’ brand. Overall, there
is no ‘ winning brand’ for last three years. While IIM B has been identified as a ‘distinct
brand’ for last three years, there are only two brands( surprisingly) which are graded as
‘undifferentiated’ in 2007and 2006. These are IIM C and Symbiosis. While there were 12
brands in the last category in 2005, the remaining ten b –schools have scored below 1.
Does it enable a student to separate grain from the chaff ? Perhaps it leaves the students
more confusing. That’s because of faulty methodology. It benefits only one b-school and
the aspersions have already been cast on that.

How reliable are such ratings ?

Websites and weblogs are full of comments by the students at different b-schools ratings.
A survey reveals :
“I can not believe this type of rankings even in my dreams”

”B-school rankings are always to be taken with a pinch of salt”

“Some magazines are hell-bent upon loosing credibility”

“Totally deluding rankings”

“such rankings given by national magazines leave a question mark on their

credibility”
Some comments even go to link the background of the CEO of a publication, who
graduated from particular b-school ,as that particular b-schools find a surprise mention
in the top 5 b-schools for last two years.

Some time back a survey conducted by MBA students of a prestigious (Top 10) b-
school among the MBA students and aspirants revealed that only 18.6 %
respondents found the b-school ratings “ very -genuine” .In response to another
question-on ranking surveys -46.7% respondents termed them as ‘cursory /poor’.

The major criticism with BT –AC Nielsen survey is the composition of the sample and
the methodology of short-listing 30 b-schools. Of the 592 respondents in 2007 survey,
324 ( 54.7%) were non-students. Whether they were management graduates/ b-schools
pass-out or not is not known. It is very important because of the methodology adopted
for short listing top 30 b-schools. If they are b-school graduates from India ( in the recent
past!!)then they will be ‘aware’ of many(!) ‘good’ b-schools ,otherwise they may know
only about ‘a few’ b-schools. The background of remaining respondents ( 131 MBA
students and 137 MBA aspirants, together about 45%) is known .But nothing much is
known about the 55 % non-students, which is key information . It is given that 61 % of
the non-students i.e. 198, were only from Delhi & Mumbai. That leaves remaining 126
non-students from Kolkata, Chennai, Pune, Ahmedabad, Bangalore & Hyderabad. MBA
students ( who actually should form the major chunk for a survey of this nature ) are
represented by only 131 students and that too spread over 12 towns in India. On an
average 11 students per town .If it is based on PPS ( Population proportionate to Size )
Method, then it suggests that only 5-6 students may have come from Lucknow,Patna
,Indore ,Coimbatore etc . and about 12-15 each from other major towns.
Imagine !! selecting a sample of 15 MBA students from a city like Delhi ? Delhi has
about 100 b-schools spread over 10000 sq Kms ( including NCR ). Could it be called a
representative sample ?

Now the first phase of the survey. In this phase “ we( BT) short listed the 30 b-schools
that were to be ranked by asking MBA students and recruiters to name those they would
consider applying to and hiring from” .What was the composition of this sample ?
Sample size ? Which towns ? How many in which town ? NONE of these questions are
answered.
How was this information collected? The respondents were asked to name one /two /more
/any number of b-schools ? Or was the choice restricted ? Was it “ unaided” question or
a list of b-school was provide to choose from ? Or was it a combination of “unaided” and
“aided” response ? These are the natural questions a researcher would ask because these
are likely to throw –up different list of top 30 b-schools. In a sensitive issue such as this
the agency ( AC Nielsen) or the media( BT) should have provided more explanation.

The questions about the methodology are being raised for last three /four years. But the
silence on the agencies part does not appear to be golden .
Do students consider the ratings before applying for MBA ?

A survey conducted by IMI students in April 2007 attempted to identify the top factors
which students consider before they apply for admission to an MBA / equivalent
programme ? This survey was repeated among parents of MBA aspirant students .
The preferences revealed were as follows:
Preference Students Parents
1 Industry interface Placements
2 Faculty Infrastructure
3 Knowledge repository Curiculam
4 Infrastructure Faculty
5 Stakeholders perception Knowledge repository
6 Admission Procedure Stakeholders perception
7 B-School ratings Fee Structure
8 Faculty –student ratio
9 B-School ratings
The above suggests that the MBA aspirants as well as their parents do not attach serious
attention to the b-school ratings. It is perhaps due to massive difference among the
ratings and also due to the controversy generated by some surprising ratings.

Accrediation Vs. Ratings

Are these ratings just confusing the students who innocently seek information to make
up their minds. The answer is some of them do. What then is the remedy? Should there
be a single authoritative objective rating of b-schools ?

AICTE started National Board of Accreditation about 10 years back. Not many b-schools
have come forward to be subjected to this process. Fear of red tapism? Or simply lack of
confidence in objective assessment by a government agency? UGC’s proposed
accreditation scheme ( NAAC) has also met with the same fate . Some b-schools have
initiated action on seeking global recognition through international accreditation
agencies. Prominent among them is MDI ,which has received accreditation from AMBA (
Association of MBAs). The Indian b-schools are not showing much craze about the
international accreditation as it should only help if they were in a position to attract
students from US and Europe. Given the situation in India ,it is a far cry for majority of
b-schools in India.
 Table 2 : Variation in rankings 2005-2007

BW
BT- BT- BT- BT- OULOOK OULOOK COS
AIMA AIMA BI BI
B School ACN ACN ACN ACN CFORE CFORE
2007 2006
MOD BI 2005
2006
2006 2007 2005 2004 2006 2007 E 2007
2005
IIM A 1 1 1 1 1 1 SL T 10 1 1 1
IIM B 2 2 2 2 2 2 SL SL T 10 2 2 2
IIM C 3 3 4 3 3 3 SL SL T 10 3 3 3
IIML 5 5 6 7 5 4 SL DNP 4 5 5
IIM I 8 6 17 9 11 9 DNP A+ L1 A++ A++
IIM K 12 13 19 15 19 12 DNP A+ L1 A++ A++
MDI 18 18 24 18 4 6 SL SL T 10 5 4 7
XLRI 6 8 5 4 6 5 SL SL T 10 6 7 6
SPJIMR 14 11 11 13 9 7 T 10 8 8 9
FMS 8 12 3 6 DNP 13 11
JBIMS 7 6 9 8 DNP 9 15 15
IMI 27 15 17 SL A+ 14 A+ L2 17 14
IMT 25 - 15 16 13 11 SL SL 11 A+ L1 10 10
IIFT 10 16 7 14 7 13 SL SL T 10 A+ L1 A++ 17
NITIE - - 8 8 SL SL T 10 A+ L1 12 12
ICFAI HYD 13 9 14 10 10 14 12 10 9 8
IIT D - 14 A+ 13 A+ L1 A++
SJM IIT B 12 16 A+ L1 A++ A++
VGS IIT KH A+ L1 A++
SYMBIOSIS 4 4 8 5 A+ L2 A+
SIMSREE - 27 29 26
SIES - 28 31 30 33 A+ L3 A++ A++
TAPMI - 29 20 18 16 A+ L1 A++
NMIMS 17 10 10 17 14 10 SL A+ L1 11 13
WELINGKAR 15 15 26 29 18 A 22 A+ L3 18 19
KJSOMAIAYA 26 17 22 19 27 25 A+ A+ 23 20 A++
ICFAI
13 19 28 41 25
MUMBAI
ABS NOIDA 28 20 18 28 A+ L2 A++
BIMTECH 21 21 12 25 21 21 A A+
LIBA 20 22 23 11 29 A 38 A+ L2 A++ A++
TISS 18 23 13 12 30 A+ A+
XIMB 22 24 20 20 16 15 SL A+ T 10 A+ L1 14 16
CHRIST A+
27 25 32 33 A A A+ L2
COLL
BIMT CHENN - 30
OSMANIA 29 -
ABA 30 - 21 17 20 A+ A+ 28 A+ L2 A++ A++
NIRMA - - 16 21 22 26 20 A+ L1 A++ A++
IFMR CHENN - - 23 19 A A 29 A+ A++
IMM PUNE - - 24 24 45 A+ L1 A++ A++
LBS - - 25 28 A+ A 19 A+ L1 19 20
BHARATIDAS - - 26 22 A A 24 A++ A++
IPE HYD - - 28 23 B+ B+ 36 A
GOA I M - - 29 27 A A 17 A+ A+
FORE - - 24 T 10 A+ L2 A+
ITM NAVI MU 25 A 31 A+ L3 A+ A++
UBS
15 A+ L1
CHANDIG
ISB HYD 7 6 4
IIPM D 11 - 30 30 A+ L2
IIPM B 16 26 27 23
NIM AHMD 24 -
IIFM Bhopal A+ A+
IILM A+ A++
SCMS Cochin A++
 Table 3 : Parameters used for Objective data based B-school ratings by various agencies/ publications

Agency F Libr MDP/ G Acade P Intel Admis curri Pedag Evalua Plac Fina Indu A N O Total
/Publication acul ary TRG over mic hysi lect sions/ cula ogy/Pr tion eme ncia stry lum etw ther
ty /oth ETC nan Infrastr cal ual Stude m ogram syste nt l Inter ni orki s
Curr er ce Infra capi nts me m mg face ng/I
icula facili str tal mt nno
m ties vati
on
Cosmode-BT 1998 180 72 148 400
Cosmode-BT 2000 30 150 100 120 45 45 40 40 30 100 700
Cosmode-BT 2002 100 60 40 100 70 130 300 80 20 100 1000
BW-Cosmode 2003 200 125 50 50 300 100 100 1000
BW-Cosmode 2005* 250 + 100 250 300 100 1000
BT-AC N 2003 yes yes yes yes yes yes
BT-AC N 2005 yes yes yes yes yes yes
BT-AC N 2007 yes yes yes yes yes yes
OutlookC Fore 2003 % 12 16 24 14 9 20 100
OutlookC Fore 2006 % 16 25 21 17 9 12 100
OutlookC Fore 2007% 19 23 21 19 8 10 100
AIMA-IMRB 2006 yes yes yes yes yes
AIMA-IMRB 2007 yes yes yes yes yes
BI 2006 210 50 65 135 70 120 150 100 40 45 15 1000
BI 2007 180 50 150 100 70 130 55 150 50 15 50 1000

* 300 points for Placement includes ind interface,100points for infrastr are for physical & academic infrastructure.
Table 4 : Weightages /Respondents covered in various perception- based B-school ratings

Agency Students Prospective Recruiters Alumni Faculty Young Functi Total

/Publication students /Deans Execs onal
Heads
Cosmode-BT 1998 50 points 300 pts 100 pts 150 pts 600 points
Cosmode-BT 2000 300 points
BT-AC N 2005 108 101 75 88 77 449
BT-AC N 2007 131 137 109 108 107 592
OutlookC Fore 2003 60 200 60 320 points (20% of total)
OutlookC Fore 2006 200( 685 200 points
 recruiters)
OutlookC Fore 2007 200( 713 200 (10% of total)
recruiters)
 Table 5 : Brief methodology / coverage : Different ratings
Year Agency Broad methodology Coverage & Validation
-publication
1998 Cosmode-BT Hard data(400 points),perception data (600 points) 140 b schools, Random basis
2000 Cosmode-BT Hard data(700 points),perception data (300 points) 140 out of 736 , Random basis
2002 Cosmode-BT Hard data(1000 points) 138 b schools , 60%
2003 Cosmode-BW Hard /objective data ( 1000 points) 150 b –schools, 95%
2005 Cosmode-BW Hard /objective data ( 1000 points) 138/ 500 b –schools, 75 points for documents for validation
2003 AC N -BT Perception based :5 groups Total sample : 444. (96 MBA Students & aspirants each,84 young Execs.
(winning Brands model/ Equity Index) 84 functional heads,84 HR Head)
2004 AC N -BT Perception based :5 groups Total sample : 427. (97 MBA Students & 84 aspirants,78 young Execs.
(winning Brands model/ Equity Index) 92 functional heads,76 HR Head)
2005 AC N -BT Perception based :5 groups Total sample : 449. (108 MBA Students & 101 aspirants,88 young Execs.
(winning Brands model/ Equity Index) 77 functional heads,75HR Head)
2006 AC N -BT Perception based :5 groups
(winning Brands model/ Equity Index)
2007 AC N -BT Perception based :5 groups Total sample : 592. (131 MBA Students & 137 aspirants108 young Execs.
(winning Brands model/ Equity Index) 107 functional heads,109 HR Head)
2001-2002 Outlook-MDRA
2003 Outlook-C Fore Objective data ( 80%),Perception (20%) 226 b schools out of 769, Field visits for validation, 65 b-schools dropped
as they had fudged the data,
2006 Outlook-C Fore Objective data ( 88%),Perception (12%) 208 out of 950 invited,Validation through documents
2007 Outlook-C Fore Objective data ( 90%),Perception (10%) 216 OUT OF 700+, Validation by visits, 713 recruiters online interviews
2004 BI Objective data 2700 points
2005 BI Objective data 1000 points 140 b schools covered, Validation process not disclosed,
2006 BI Objective data 1000 points 168 b schools covered, Validation process not disclosed,
2007 BI Objective data 1000 points 175 b-schools, Experimental perception survey (online):random size 221,
2006 AIMA-IMRB Objective data ( points not disclosed) 214 out of 1022 b schools,
2007 AIMA-IMRB Objective data ( points not disclosed) 194 out of 1100 b schools,80 b-schools visited ,for some :multiple visits