You are on page 1of 15

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 bschools 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 Perceptionbased 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 Business Week Started 1986 Frequency Weightage & Ranking Criteria Every 2 45% students’ survey, with different parameters years 45% recruiters’ survey with different parameters Annual Annual Annual 10% faculty publications 40% Deans’Survey 35% Graduates Employability / starting salaries, . 25%Studentsacademic quality ( GMAT Scores included) 20% Peer-Reputation Ranking (by Deans) 45% School & Faculty Quality 35% Students’ academic quality 20% Graduating Students starting salary 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

U.S. News & 1990 World Report Asia Inc Financial Times 1995 1999



Every years Annual

Wall Street 2001 Journal-Harris Interactive

5% women faculty and students 25% other criteria related to admission, curriculum etc 2 Surveys alumni; Measures “return on investment in dollars and cents” by focusing on salary and gains in comparison to tuition costs Corporate recruiter perceptions towards b- school talent, and the characteristics they consider most important 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 bschool 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 BTCosmode, 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 bschool 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 ‘repeatbuyers’ 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 bschools 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 bschools 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 -Admission -Quality-of-faculty - Achievements of its alumni


students procedure

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 stackup. 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) bschool 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

B School

AIMA 2007

AIMA 2006

BI 2005

BI 2006

BI 2007


1 2 3 5 8 12 18 6 14 8 7 25 10 13 -

1 2 3 5 6 13 18 8 11 12 6 16 9 14

1 2 4 6 17 19 24 5 11 3 9 15 7 14

1 2 3 7 9 15 18 4 13 6 8 27 16 14 10

1 2 3 5 11 19 4 6 9

1 2 3 4 9 12 6 5 7





15 13 7 8 10 12

17 11 13 8 14 16



T 10 T 10 T 10 DNP DNP DNP T 10 T 10 T 10 DNP DNP 14 11 T 10 T 10 12 13

1 2 3 4 A+ L1 A+ L1 5 6 8 9 A+ L2 A+ L1 A+ L1 A+ L1 10 A+ L1 A+ L1 A+ L1 A+ L2 A+ L3 A+ L1 A+ L1 A+ L3

4 17 15 26 13

4 27 28 29 10 15 17 19

8 29

5 26 31 20 14 18 27 41 30 18 10 25 33 16 SL A+ A A+ 22 23 25

1 2 3 5 A++ A++ 4 7 8 13 15 17 10 A++ 12 9 A++ A++ A++ A+ A++ A++ 11 18 20

1 2 3 5 A++ A++ 7 6 9 11 15 14 10 17 12 8 A++

A++ 13 19 A++

10 26 22 28

17 29 19


28 21 20 18 22 27 29 30 -

20 21 22 23 24 25 30 -

18 12 23 13 20

28 25 11 12 20

A+ L2 21 30 16 32 21 29 15 33 A+ SL A A A A+ A 38 T 10 A+ L2 A+ L1 A+ L2

A++ A+ A++ A+ 14

A++ 16 A+

21 16


17 22 23 24 25 26 28 29

20 26 19 24 28 22 23 27

A+ A A+ A B+ A

A+ A A A B+ A A

24 25

28 20 29 45 19 24 36 17 T 10 31 15

A+ L2 A+ L1 A+ L1 A+ L1

A+ L2 A+ L3 A+ L1 7 A+ L2

A++ A++ A+ A++ 19 A++ A A+ A+ A+

A++ A++ A++ A++ 20 A++ A+ A++



11 16 24

26 -

30 27

30 23 A+ A+

A+ A++ A++

Table 3 : Parameters used for Objective data based B-school ratings by various agencies/ publications

Agency /Publication

F acul ty Curr icula m

Libr ary /oth er facili ties


G over nan ce

Acade mic Infrastr

P hysi cal Infra str

Intel lect ual capi tal

Admis sions/ Stude nts

curri cula m

Pedag ogy/Pr ogram me

Evalua tion syste m

Plac eme nt

Fina ncia l mg mt

Indu stry Inter face

A lum ni

N etw orki ng/I nno vati on

O ther s


Cosmode-BT 1998 Cosmode-BT 2000 Cosmode-BT 2002 BW-Cosmode 2003 BW-Cosmode 2005* BT-AC N 2003 BT-AC N 2005 BT-AC N 2007 OutlookC Fore 2003 % OutlookC Fore 2006 % OutlookC Fore 2007% AIMA-IMRB 2006 AIMA-IMRB 2007 BI 2006 BI 2007

180 100 200 250 yes yes yes

72 30 150 60 125 100 40 100 yes yes yes 12 16 19 yes yes 70 100 120 100

+ yes yes yes

148 45 70 50 250 yes yes yes


40 130 50 yes yes yes


210 180

50 50

yes yes 65

16 25 23 yes yes 70 120 130 150 55

135 150

30 300 300 300 yes yes yes 24 21 21 yes yes 100 150

100 80 100 20 100 100 100

400 700 1000 1000 1000

40 50

14 17 19 yes yes 45

9 9 8

20 12 10

100 100 100

15 15


1000 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 /Publication Cosmode-BT 1998 Cosmode-BT 2000 BT-AC N 2005 BT-AC N 2007 OutlookC Fore 2003 OutlookC Fore 2006 Students 50 points 108 131 60 101 137 Prospective students Recruiters 300 pts 75 109 200 200( 685 Alumni 100 pts Faculty /Deans 150 pts 88 108 60 77 107 Young Execs Functi onal Heads Total 600 points 300 points 449 592 320 points (20% of total) 200 points

OutlookC Fore 2007

recruiters) 200( 713 recruiters)

200 (10% of total)

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