Rankings and league tables are as synonymous with business schools as the Eiffel Tower is with Paris or the Elbphilharmonie with Hamburg. It is hard to imagine management education without rankings like those from the Financial Times, Businessweek, or US News.

Schools proudly promote high-ranking positions and often dismiss low ones by criticising their methodology. While the pros and cons of rankings are well known, some top institutions like Harvard and Yale have opted out, arguing that rankings discourage public-interest careers, need-based aid, and broader access for working-class students.

In this blog post, let’s imagine a world without prestige rankings. What would business education look like without a numerical pecking order? Would it lead to more genuine choices or descend into a chaotic Wild West?

Candidates Were to Choose Compatibility, Not Celebrity

Prospective students often turn to rankings to assess a business school’s quality. However, similarly ranked schools can differ significantly. For instance, both HEC Paris and the University of St. Gallen rank highly in the FT Master’s ranking. Yet, HEC charges around €60,000 and enrols 600 students, while St. Gallen costs €15,000 and admits just 50, showing how rankings can mask substantial differences.

Without rankings, applicants would likely prioritise personal fit over fame, asking questions such as: Which program aligns with my goals? What does the curriculum actually offer? These aspects are often overlooked or difficult to quantify in rankings. For example, ESCP might be ideal for those interested in intercultural management. KLU could be the best choice for students wanting to develop analytical thinking, resilience, and hands-on leadership. IE Business School may be perfect for those drawn to innovation and entrepreneurship, whether in startups or large corporations.

In the absence of rankings, students might place greater emphasis on alternative quality signals: international accreditations, exchange programs, faculty credentials, or alumni career paths, often visible through platforms like LinkedIn. While many already consider these factors, they would likely take on greater importance, especially without the social pressure to justify choosing a lower-ranked school over a higher-ranked one.

©University of St.Gallen

Schools Were to Seek Strategy, Not Showmanship

In many cases, business schools deliberately shape their strategies to climb the rankings ladder. This is unsurprising given the strong influence of rankings on student recruitment. Some prioritise admitting students targeting careers in finance, anticipating higher salaries that significantly boost their rankings.

Rankings exert such pressure that schools often even focus on areas with little weight just to appear competitive across all dimensions. Consider research: the FT Master in Management ranking doesn’t factor it in at all, and it accounts for just 10% in the MBA rankings. Yet many schools heavily incentivise faculty to publish FT50 articles, often prioritising quantity over substance or impact.

Without rankings, schools could enjoy greater freedom to innovate. They would be free from rigid metrics and the perceived need to game the system, seeking showmanship over genuine strategy. They could design distinctive curricula, serve niche markets, and focus on meaningful transformation: shaping ethical leaders, deep thinkers, and contributors to society, rather than chasing high research output, inflated salary stats, or often superficial international diversity.

A world without rankings might also prevent the common conflation of rankings with accreditation bodies. Though both are often (quietly) blamed for fostering a homogenised, one-size-fits-all model, this criticism applies far more to rankings. Accreditations, in contrast, allow for highly differentiated approaches. Still, peer review teams—typically led by deans shaped by the ranking culture—often perpetuate the same pressures, informally valuing FT50 publications even when they’re not part of official accreditation criteria.

©Kühne Logistics University

Employers Were to Evaluate Expertise, Not Enrollment

Employers, too, would likely adjust their hiring practices in a world without business school rankings. Top firms like McKinsey, Goldman Sachs, or Google often recruit from a narrow set of schools, typically selected more for their ranking than for the actual qualities of their graduates. This potentially causes them to miss strong profiles from schools further down the league tables.

This reliance is understandable given time constraints and the need to source talent quickly. The challenge is compounded by the fact that different programs within the same school can produce very different types of graduates. There are significant differences in selectivity and potential performance between ranked and non-ranked offerings. In a ranking-free world, schools might be more compelled to clearly communicate their graduates’ competencies. Additionally, they might reflect more intentionally on which skills truly matter in the respective employment markets.

Shifting focus from rankings to skills and outcomes may be wise, regardless, especially as AI begins to reshape hiring. Large firms could use AI to assess employee performance by school, program, courses taken, and extracurricular involvement. This might reveal that top academic performers aren’t always the strongest employees. Smaller companies, lacking such data, might increasingly rely on platforms like LinkedIn, which already tracks users’ education, careers, and advancement. Over time, such platforms could offer a far more nuanced and data-driven picture of educational impact than rankings ever have.

Rankings Remain, Reason Returns

The idea that business school rankings might disappear is more wishful thinking than reality. As humans, we instinctively seek ways to organise and simplify complexity. Thus, rankings are here to stay. But it’s time to restore balance. Rankings have come to shape not only applicants’ choices but also schools’ strategies and employers’ recruitment policies. We should return to reason and adopt a more holistic approach to decision-making, treating rankings as just one factor among many, not the defining one.

So what can we, as presidents, rectors, deans, and director generals, do? First, our strategies should focus on meaningful improvement, not simply the pursuit of better rankings. While aligning with ranking criteria may offer short-term visibility, it can undermine long-term purpose. After all, higher education is a marathon, not a sprint. Second, we should resist the urge to over-communicate ranking results. Of course, success deserves recognition. But our marketing and messaging should go beyond rankings to reflect the full value and distinctiveness of our schools. Even when you’re at the top, encourage applicants to look beyond the leaderboard.

—
About Andreas Kaplan

Andreas M. Kaplan is an academic leader with nearly 20 years in higher education. He currently serves as President and Managing Director of Kühne Logistics University (KLU) in Hamburg and Ho Chi Minh City. Previously, he held multiple Dean and Director positions at ESCP Business School across Europe. Consistently ranked among the most cited and influential scholars in his field, Professor Kaplan offers insights into the influence and intricacies of rankings and league tables. An award-winning author of acclaimed books and seminal articles on higher education, he earned his Habilitation from Sorbonne University and completed his PhD studies at the University of Cologne, HEC Paris, and INSEAD. Kaplan brings global teaching and research experience from renowned institutions, including Tsinghua, Sciences Po, and Harvard.

Prof. Dr. Andreas Kaplan – President Kühne Logistics University (KLU)

For additional insights, announcements and perspectives about other aspects of Rankings and Business Education, visit the conversation here.