It’s official for me. I am not applying to Rotman, Ivey and National University of Singapore. I am laying out the criteria for my decision. It’s my personal opinion. Shoot me, but you could not kill me!!
1. Ranking – Don’t get me wrong. Ranking doesn’t fairly and unequivocally characterize the marked individuality of the college. A college is a conflation of academic excellence, powered knowledge, resourcefulness, interactive human minds, research-based learning, etc. However, for an average prospective student, it is nearly impossible to gather all the focal points to make an informed decision in a short “college-research” period. So a ranking could be used as a guideline to start with the college -research. I must admit that some rankings are deficient because of their brazen attitude to ignore the obvious and widely-known facts. One such fact is that there are few colleges that are unparalleled in their approach, that are a force in influencing the global thinking, that are leaders in diversified research, and that challenge a status quo in their endeavors. For instance, Wharton MBA is globally known for its prowess in an academic community. Still it is considered one of the top colleges, not “The College”. The other fact is that the past of the college should not be treated as the ghost of the present. For example, Cornell University is one of the Ivy League college. Oxford and Cambridge gave global thinkers, who changed the world as we know it. But when it comes to MBA program, it seems that the self-proclaimed ranking institute treats Cornell, Oxford or Cambridge as one of the 101 Dalmatian dogs. Those colleges should be, and must be, in the top of the ranking regardless. Unfortunately, these factors are treated equally for every college in the name of “leveling the academic playground for MBA”. Nonetheless, here are my thoughts on some colleges that slipped my list.
ROTMAN – I have looked last 7 years of FT ranking. My criterion is simple. Consistency. A consistent behavior shows that the academic institutions are not afraid about the market’s opinion, recruiter’s prejudice, student’s selectivity, and teaching faculty’s eccentricity. Rotman dared to challenge the status quo but failed to lift its standard in its attempt. There are many factors against its stature. And the great recession definitely tested its strength. Due to its inconsistency and wobbly ranking in 7 years, I am not sure if I would want to be associated with this academia. I am sure future holds great things for this college as the defined path has promising results. But I will wait at the shore for awhile.
IVEY – Ivey is a recognized college. But it has not been able to establish its dominance in the ranking. Ivey is widely-known for its fast-paced curriculum ( since it changed its format to one year MBA) and its connection to some distinct industry. However, I could not see Ivey racking up the ranking in near future. The reason being – there are many such good colleges and not just in Canada but in Spain, France, India, China, etc. So for now, adios Ivey.
NUS ( National University of Singapore) – Like some other Asian MBA college, NUS is seeing a resounding success in climbing up the ladders of the prestigious ranking. I did my research. And I come to the conclusion that the inherent reason for its climbing the bandwagon is its recently changed policy, which is not suitable for its future growth. NUS focuses more on younger applicants, who join with lower pre-MBA salary. And NUS caters to the consulting industry, which commands high caliber recruits and more salary. Not surprisingly, the average GMAT score of Indians ( with consists of 40% or more of the class) is well beyond 700 to 720. NUS’s commodity approach is one of the deciding factors for me to take the banner down from my list. Of course, NUS will remain the best MBA College in Singapore. And for the same reason, top consulting firms recruit from its BBA class.
2. Location – Whether we are talking about the real estate or job prospect, location is the key ingredient in shaping the future. A vibrant location attracts good companies, great people and diversified culture. So here is my take on it.
ROTMAN – The location is great for the finance enthusiastic. But my ambitions lie on the consulting front. Also, Canada has the dearth of good locations. If I could not get a job in Toronto, God help me with my job search. Also, the neighboring giant sometimes overshadows the great Toronto.
IVEY – Same reason as mentioned above. Also, my targeted companies are not located in the near vicinity of the college campus.
NUS – While the location is stated as one of the best place to live and work, I am not that crazy about Singapore, per se. I need a wide access to Asian market, and Singapore could not provide me that.
3. Diversity – For me, the diversity is as important as the reputation of college. And I defined diversity beyond the sheer numbers provided by the university. I keen to see diversity in faculty and students. So here is my take on it.
ROTMAN & IVEY – Although, you can find ample examples of diversity, it is not enough to entice my attention. I am not impressed with the faculty diversity. And I was wishing to see more geographical and professional diversity.
NUS – The lack of distinct diversity is the prime reason I dropped NUS from my list. NUS’s diversity is more inclined towards the Asian students. When it comes to European and American students, it seriously fails to appeal the majority developed country.
4. Faculty – The selective criteria in this category are Phd Holder, Research Center, Business Experience, Company’s tie-up, and Teaching Methods. Well, HKUST, LBS, and Cambridge top my list; On the other hand, Rotman, Ivey, and NUS could not garner enough credibility.
