When it comes to rankings, LinkedIn has everything going for it. Think an enviable brand name and a wealth of data. You can’t say LinkedIn went stingy with its business school ranking, either. Among the ranking’s advantages, it is international in scope, covering every country except China. It also taps into its parent’s platform, compiling data from graduate profiles that other outlets can match in scale and specificity. Better still, LinkedIn tracks career advancement and network strength to reflect wider benefits beyond readily-available pay and placement data.
There’s just one problem: LinkedIn doesn’t really understand what a ranking really is. For most, it is an instrument to compare schools side-by-side across individual metrics and categories (or “pillars” to borrow LinkedIn’s terminology). In the process, readers can identify where schools stand out, visualize how much they’re improving, and quantify gaps between programs. In LinkedIn’s case, readers receive a numerical ranking along with a capsule covering common job titles, notable skills, and top alumni locations.
In other words, the LinkedIn ranking is akin to a researcher who has little idea how to commercialize – let alone pitch – their breakthrough. In the end, LinkedIn provides a simple, sequential ranking, with little to back it up.
Author: Jeff Schmitt
Source: Poets & Quants
Subjects: MBA Program Rankings, Prospective
Click to Add the First »