When Harvard Business School tumbled to sixth place in the U.S. News MBA rankings in 2020, the reaction was swift. Critics questioned the methodology, picking up on earlier critiques of rankings.

Some ranking skeptics continue to point to low response rates — for example, in 2025, U.S. News disclosed that approximately only half of the ranked schools participated in peer assessment surveys, which gauge how top administrators regard other institutions.

Yet behind closed doors, business school deans across North America have nuanced conversations about rankings — ones that reveal an uncomfortable truth about how rankings shape their institutions.

I interviewed four Canadian business school deans about the influence of MBA rankings on strategic planning during 2021-22, using semi-structured questions. These deans represent about a quarter of management schools from research-intensive universities in Canada. I discovered something striking: these leaders simultaneously dismiss rankings as flawed measures, while dedicating significant institutional resources to improving them.

The ranking obsession is real

Despite their public skepticism about rankings, every dean I interviewed could point to concrete ways their schools invest in them.

One noted that “all the data collection happened within the school” and identified a dedicated data analyst whose job centres on ranking submissions. Another described having “a senior staff member who is in charge of gathering the data” and co-ordinates with media relations teams.

Read more: University leaders have to make sense of massive disruption — 4 ways they do it

The contradiction becomes starker when you examine what deans say versus what they do. In interviews, I heard statements like “we can never rank so it’s a waste of our time” and “the ranking itself, if that aligned with your mission, who cares?” Yet these same leaders described conducting internal “education campaigns” to help stakeholders understand rankings and carefully select which ranking systems to participate in based on where their programs might perform well.

A person in front of a screen showing various metrics indicators.
Deans described different ways of investing energy and resources in rankings. (Ruthson Zimmerman/Unsplash)

What rankings miss

The deans’ skepticism is founded. Current MBA ranking methodologies have significant blind spots that leaders recognize but feel powerless to address.

Take the Financial Times Global MBA Ranking, which heavily emphasizes post-graduation salary data and international diversity. Or QS World University Rankings that weighs “thought leadership” through media mentions and research publications. These metrics favour certain types of programs while potentially disadvantaging schools serving different missions or regional economies.

One dean told me bluntly: “The faculty that understand the rankings care less.” This observation cuts to the heart of the problem — those closest to the educational mission see rankings as measuring the wrong things.

Rankings measure what’s easy to count, not what matters. Teaching quality, mentorship, curriculum innovation — none show up in the formulas. Neither does information on whether graduates become ethical leaders or build meaningful careers over decades rather than months.

As the Rockefeller Institute found, when schools chase rankings, they end up “working toward improving their performance as measured by ranking factors rather than toward actual improvement of the academics and educational experience.”

Academic research shows ranking systems distort institutional behaviour, while studies of business schools demonstrate rankings “blindly follow the money,” ignoring social impact and educational quality.

The financial pressure driving the paradox

So why do deans continue playing a game if they know it’s flawed?

Canadian universities increasingly depend on international student tuition as government funding has declined. Between 2000 and 2021, tuition revenue at Canadian universities grew from 14.4 per cent to 25.6 per cent of total revenue.

For MBA programs, while program costs vary, international students pay significantly more than domestic students: for example, at Rotman School of Management at University of Toronto, domestic students pay around $70,000 while international students pay around $109,000.

Read more: International students’ stories are vital in shaping Canada’s future

As one dean explained to me: “By accepting international students, we are helping domestic students from the funding cuts.” Another noted that “rankings are mostly important for international students” who use them as key decision-making tools when evaluating programs from abroad.

This creates a compelling justification: pursue better rankings to attract international students, whose higher tuition subsidizes domestic students and program quality. It’s a rationale that allows academic leaders to reconcile their intellectual skepticism with market reality.

As deans make sense of the landscape where they lead, they interpret the ranking landscape — while also shaping how stakeholders understand it. This reflects a broader paradox: deans must simultaneously embrace contradictory demands — dismissing rankings publicly while investing privately. A dynamic tension persists.

What this means for the future

Rankings have transformed from a strategic choice into an operational necessity. What began as optional marketing has become embedded in how business schools function and communicate.

For prospective MBA students: treat rankings as one data point among many. Review official employment reports, which detail hiring companies and placement rates. Connect with alumni through LinkedIn or school events to hear about actual experiences. Investigate which companies recruit at different schools and which program culture matches your preferences.

For business education more broadly, the ranking paradox reveals a system increasingly shaped by external accountability measures that may not align with core educational missions.

Until ranking methodologies evolve to better capture what makes business education valuable — or until institutions find ways to communicate quality that don’t depend on rankings — deans will continue walking this tightrope, publicly dismissing what they privately work hard to improve.

This article is republished from The Conversation, a nonprofit, independent news organization bringing you facts and trustworthy analysis to help you make sense of our complex world. It was written by: Catherine Heggerud, University of Calgary

Read more:

Catherine Heggerud does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.