The Financial Times published its Global MBA (full-time) rankings this week. Warwick dropped a few places from #29 to #37. This drop was consistent with other top UK schools; notably Judge (7 places), Cranfield (5 places), Manchester (10 places) and Lancaster (5 places). London Business School was the only top 40 UK school to maintain its position.
The rankings are based on many factors that are weighted differently. A significant piece comes from participants' relative salaries pre and post MBA. A school that accepts many students with low pre-MBA salaries and propels them into high paying post-MBA jobs will do well in the rankings. To my mind, this makes no sense as there will surely be a positive correlation between pre-MBA salary and years of experience. These years of experience translate to a better MBA experience for all involved, and surely a better school.
In addition, Warwick and other UK schools won't have been helped by the current weakness of the Pound against the US Dollar when calculating salary based ranking factors.
When compared to their UK peer group, Warwick accepts students with an average higher number of years of experience. This is good for all concerned, but could negatively impact rankings. Warwick rightly makes no apology for this.
Of course salaries aren't the only factor. Others include doctoral rank, aims achieved, placement success rank, and percentage employed 3 months after graduation. Warwick works hard in all these areas. I've been nothing but impressed with the focus and commitment of Warwick's Personal and Career Development team. Whereas current participants get the benefit of this team now, there is a 3 year lag before the fruits of this team's labour will show up in the rankings.