May 11, 2014 7:03 pm

Executive education rankings 2014: Key

Key: open enrolment programmes

The first 10 criteria are supplied by programme participants; the next six from each business school. These criteria are presented in rank form, with the leading school ranked number one (apart from women participants, which are shown as a percentage). Revenue data are provided for information only and do not inform the ranking.

Figures in brackets show the weight each criterion contributes to the overall ranking, as determined by participants on the programmes. The weighting accorded to the first 10 criteria, from preparation to facilities, accounts for 80 per cent of the total ranking’s weight. It is determined by the level of importance participants attach to each.

Preparation (7.7): provision of advance information on programme content, and the participant selection process.

Course design (8.6): flexibility of the course and appropriateness of class size, structure and design.

Teaching methods and materials (8.3): extent to which teaching methods and materials were contemporary and appropriate, and included a suitable mix of academic rigour and practical relevance.

Faculty (8.8): quality of the teaching and the extent to which teaching staff worked together to present a coherent programme.

Quality of participants (7.9): extent to which other participants were of the appropriate managerial and academic standard, the international diversity of participants, and the quality of interaction among peers.

New skills and learning (8.8): relevance of skills gained to the workplace, the ease with which they were implemented, and the extent to which the course encouraged new ways of thinking.

Follow-up (7.3): level of follow-up offered by the school after participants returned to their workplaces, and networking opportunities with fellow participants.

Aims achieved (8.6): extent to which personal and professional expectations were met, and the likelihood that participants would recommend the programme.

Food and accommodation (6.6): rating of their quality.

Facilities (7.5): rating of the learning environment’s quality and convenience, and of supporting resources and facilities.

Female participants (2.0): percentage of female course participants.

International participants (3.0): amalgamation of the percentage of participants from outside the business school’s base country and region.

Repeat business and growth (5.0): amalgamation of growth in revenues and percentage of repeat business.

International location (3.0): extent to which programmes are run outside the school’s base country and region.

Partner schools (3.0): quantity and quality of programmes taught in conjunction with other business schools.

Faculty diversity (4.0): diversity of school faculty according to nationality and gender.

Open-enrolment revenues: income from open programmes in 2013 in $m, provided optionally by schools. Revenues are converted into US$ using the average dollar currency exchange rates for 2013.

. . .

Key: customised programmes

The first 10 criteria are supplied by companies that commissioned courses; the last five by business schools. These criteria are presented in rank form, with the leading school ranked number one. The final two criteria are for information only, and do not inform the ranking.

Figures in brackets show the weight each criterion contributes to the overall ranking. The weighting accorded to the first nine criteria, from preparation to value for money, accounts for 72 per cent of the total ranking’s weight. It is determined by the level of importance that clients attach to each.

Preparation (8.3): level of interaction between client and school, the extent to which clients’ ideas were integrated into programmes, and effectiveness of the school in integrating its latest research.

Programme design (8.4): flexibility of the course and the willingness of schools to complement their faculty with specialists and practitioners.

Teaching methods and materials (7.9): extent to which teaching methods and materials were contemporary and appropriate, and included a mix of academic rigour and practical relevance.

Faculty (8.4): quality of teaching and the extent to which faculty worked together to present a coherent programme.

New skills and learning (8.3): relevance to the workplace of skills gained, the ease with which they were implemented, and the extent to which the course encouraged new thinking.

Follow-up (7.2): extent and effectiveness of follow-up offered after the course participants returned to their workplaces.

Aims achieved (8.4): extent to which academic and business expectations were met, and the quality of feedback from individual participants to course commissioners.

Facilities (7.2): rating of the learning environment’s quality and convenience, and of supporting resources and facilities.

Value for money (7.8): clients’ rating of the programme’s design, teaching and materials in terms of value for money.

Future use (8.0): likelihood that clients would use the same school again for other customised programmes and whether they would commission again the same programme from the school.

International clients (5.0): percentage of clients with headquarters outside the business school’s base country and region.

International participants (3.0): extent to which customised programmes have participants from more than one country.

Overseas programmes (4.0): international reach of the school’s customised programme teaching.

Partner schools (3.0): quantity and quality of programmes developed or taught with other business schools.

Faculty diversity (5.0): according to nationality and gender.

Total responses: number of individual surveys completed by the school’s clients. Figures in brackets indicate the number of years of survey data counted towards the ranking.

Custom revenues: income from customised programmes in 2013 in $m, provided optionally by schools. Revenues are converted into US$ using the average dollar currency exchange rates for 2013.

This article has been amended since initial publication.

Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2014. You may share using our article tools.
Please don't cut articles from FT.com and redistribute by email or post to the web.

SHARE THIS QUOTE