Talk:Master of Business Administration/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive of past discussion through October 2006

Since the Master of Business Administration article just underwent a major re-write, much of the past discussion has become obsolete and moved here. Relevant issues remaining with the article have been left on the MBA talk page.

Discussion

The article claims that an MBA is "more prestigious than the equivalent". Is this really the case? Personally, when I hear the words "MBA" my first thought is "ambitious wanker" but that's just me... --Robert Merkel

• Businesses consider an MBA more valuable than a PhD (in business). A PhD is more about academic research than application. I don't know if I'd say the MBA is more prestigious, but it is definitely considered more relevant. This is probably because general managers need different skills than do academics. --Westendgirl 07:05, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Survey, say by Open U in UK indicated that MBA is more practical than chartered accountant. In U.S.A., employers recruit CFOs with either top MBA or CPA. In academics and consulting, top MBAs are preferred than any other qualifications. Chrischu

Sounds reasonable, however 'practical' is not synonymous with 'prestigious'. If the MBA's practicality is one of its most prominent features, perhaps that is worth mentioning. --Paraphelion 17:04, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• This may be stating the obvious, but not all MBA's are alike. A clear distinction can be made between exective MBAs and academic MBAs. See strategic management#Teaching strategic management. And some two year MBAs don't even cover the material typically found in a four year B.Com. The best way of assessing how "prestigious" a programme is, is to look at its entrance requirements. In my opinion, a programme that does not require an undergrad business or economics degree is suspect.mydogategodshat 17:47, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

When Executive MBAs don't require applicants to have an undergrad background in stats or calculus, they typically require incoming students to complete coursework (to a defined standard) before starting the program. The GMAT question is irrelevant, since some of the world's top regular MBA programs (e.g. Harvard) do not require completion of this test. Whether executive or traditional, MBA programs do not usually require an undergrad degree in business or economics. Many masters degrees do not require the applicant to have an undergrad in the same subject. This just means the students have to study harder to cover a larger volume of background material. Some undergrad BCom/BBA material is ignored, because MBA grads will not be working at technical positions, but at management positions, which require different skillsets. (The planning and strategy taught in BCom/BBA is elementary, when compared to that required in an MBA.) Moreover, although the case method promotes real-life examples, the analysis and write-up required is academic in nature. In completing case studies, students must use extensive citation, analysis of the case text, application of models, inclusion of other program content and research, and creative insight. This is not unlike work required in other disciplines. --Westendgirl 19:34, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I do not disagree with anything that you have said. However, when I assess the quality of a programme, the first stat I look at is the percentage of students with a business or economics undergrad degree. To me that is more important than mean GMAT entrance score. mydogategodshat 21:24, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

But why focus on an undergrad in business/econ? I can't even think of any schools that require an undergrad in these disciplines. None of Wharton, INSEAD, Sloan, TRIUM, Sciences-Po or HEC requires this particular degree for a two-year MBA program. There are some schools with accelerated programs for holders of BBAs/BComs, but this just truncates the study time. It's not uncommon for other fields to have one-year masters degrees, if the students have certain competencies already.

Because the quality of a programme of study is fundamentally a function of the quality of the students enrolled in it. Any ciriculum must be adjusted to the competencies of the students enrolled. If I see that a particular school requires no entrance competencies in basic stats, calculus, economics, accounting, finance, marketing, or HR, or if I see that only 5 or 10 percent of enrolled students have relevant undergrad preparation, that tells me that a considerable portion of the programme must be alocated to covering fundamental principles. If, on the other hand, a school has undergrad requirements, or has say 80 or 90 percent of enrolled students with undergrad preparation, less time will be spent on the basics. Undergrad preperation gives credence to the term "advanced degree" (or "intermediate degree"). Having said this, I do not want to leave the impression that I think academic preparation is the only useful preparation. Business experience, and the executive MBA programmes that build on it, can be effective. The problem is the variability of the quality of these programmes. Many eMBA programmes are money machines for the university, cash cows in which quality of education is sometimes sacrificed on the altar of low expectations. mydogategodshat 06:42, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I see your point. But, for schools that use the GMAT as an admission criterion, the student's competency in stats and calculus is obvious. Using econ/BBA/BCom undergrads as a benchmark is an odd way to look at things. Even a rigorous, finance-heavy program like Sloan only sees 1/3 of its students come from econ/business undergrads. Have you looked at how other social sciences degrees and arts degrees admit students? --Westendgirl 08:27, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I agree that a GMAT measures much the same thing as undergrad experience does, and in some ways may even be a better indicator (particularly if you do not have access to actual undergrad performance measures like GPAs). The reason I prefer undergrad qualifications is a GMAT is a single test and as such is subject to more reliability and validity problems than four years of training and testing. Maybe this is just a personal bias on my part. In regards to degrees outside of business and economics, I know very little. mydogategodshat 20:12, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It is stating the obvious, which is why it should be removed. Your statement "but not all MBA's are alike" could be applied to most if not all of academia. --Paraphelion 17:04, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I believe that the best indicator of MBA and related schools is not admission but placement data -- average salaries, number of offers, etc. Different curriculums attract different candidates -- quantitative schools vs. case study, etc. Also to compare you should know something of that school's specialties -- someone with an interest in market research or operations research will choose a quant school, for example. At the middle and bottom market it may not mean much but at the top schools it means a lot. Pmeisel 03:19, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Criticism of MBA education

Is there a place for the late Sumantra Ghoshal's famous article: "Bad Management Theories Are Destroying Good Management Practices"?

I agree, there is a serious lack of criticism about MBA's here. The very fact that it draws criticism is noteworthy let alone the inclusion of such criticisms. Benw 06:52, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

The link above was in the article, but the criticism section was removed. Why is that?

More criticism: Managers Not MBAs by Henry Mintzberg

Not all MBA's are alike

The premier accrediting body for schools of business is the AACSB (Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business). In the US, thousands of otherwise strictly undergraduate institutions offer MBA degrees. These degrees are not AACSB accredited and are, at best, refresher courses in undergraduate business. At worst, the degrees are *less* rigorous than undergraduate business degrees offered at the same institutions. In general, the quality of MBA degrees can be broken down into three categories: non-AACSB accredited (worthless), AACSB accredited but not ranked (definitely a masters level degree), AACSB accredited and ranked (the best MBA degrees). Note that "ranked" means being generally acknowledged as one of the top-20 programs in the country.

Not being AACSB-accredited doesn't necessarily mean the program isn't good, let alone "worthless." The University of Maryland's MBA program was not AACSB-accredited until very recently, and had repeatedly ranked in the top 30 according to Forbes magazine, outpacing a vast majority of then-AACSB accredited MBA programs. In addition, Harvard's business school didn't bother with accreditation until several decades after the AACSB was formed and began accrediting schools. Several employers I've spoken with who hire MBA's from my current business school (The University of Michigan) and others in the region have stated that they seriously consider graduates from both AACSB and ACBSP-accredited programs, and actually prefer dual accreditation. --Fred.

Executive MBA: neutral?

The term "Executive" adds no information. Problem is that there are some EMBA programs that are top-notch. Example: Wharton used to (maybe still does) offer an EMBA that was two weeks of intense training. The program was/is aimed at senior-level executives. Lately, undergraduate institutions have started offering what they call EMBA programs. What they really are are more specialized (read: fewer credit requirements) MBA programs.

With more and more U.S. colleges adopting the name "university," it is harder to distinguish between true MBA programs offered by graduate institutions and "MBA" programs offered by undergraduate institutions. Within the U.S., all colleges/universities are categorized into "Carnegie classifications." The Carnegie classification indicates the type of institution according to the highest degrees offered: I = institution that offers a significant number of doctoral degrees, IIa = institution that offers some doctoral degrees and/or a significant number of masters degrees, IIb = institution that offers some masters degrees and/or a significant number of bachelors degrees, III = institution that offers two-year degrees. Generally speaking, a true "university" is a class I or class IIa institution. Wikiant 19:37, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

---

I really don't know much about MBA programs, but I find this questionable (and possibly not NPOV):

EMBA alumni directories are generally regarded as the sources of top tier business talent in the world.

There are two debatable points here:

• That EMBA students are generally top-tier: This point is supported by the business experience requirement for EMBA grads, but can't any school graduate duds now and then, especially for something as subjective as management?
• That everyone else is not top-tier: Why is someone who gets an MBA fulltime after undergrad and then goes on to a successful business career necessarily less 'top-tier' than someone who waits longer and gets an EMBA after climbing the ladder?

Anyway, the claim is that EMBA are "regarded" as this, so I won't remove it if someone who knows more about business schools can corroborate the claim. --Saforrest 14:40, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Sentence needs re-write

This is in the beginning of the article: "However, completion of a professional MBA does not usually preclude admission to a Ph.D. (program for research-oriented engagements) although it could be helpful." I'm not even sure what this is supposed to mean. Perhaps it means that people with MBAs don't usually go ont to get Ph.D.s (as indeed most people in general don't) but having an MBA can help you gain admittance into a Ph.D. program? Whatever it means, it needs to be rewritten. As it stands, it's both grammatically incorrect and incomprehensible. --68.239.196.248 03:42, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, this sentence is awful. It currently reads "completion of an MBA does not preclude admission to a Ph.D. program (unless it is a Ph.D. in a Business Dicipline)." Many business school faculty "discovered" their Ph.D. programs while getting MBA's. The MBA is a general professional degree that provides background skills. But it does not cover the same coursework as the first two years of a Ph.D. program.

Average starting salary with MBA

USA Today just published an article about the jump in average salaries for recent MBA grads. I think this is pertinent info for anyone interested in getting an MBA. I think it would be even better if the Wiki article had a section on various average salaries across industries and years of experience, with or without an MBA. But for starters, at least, could we add this bit of info from USA Today?

[1]

edit - I've mentioned the article. I need a better reason than "not encyclopedic" to remove it. :)

Rasi2290 00:59, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I just left a post on your user page going into more detail, but it is important to realize this article is not for people interested in getting an MBA. This is an encyclopedia. This is an article for people interested in finding out what an MBA is. -James Howard (talk/web) 03:37, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Maybe an MBA "is" something that boosts your income. Isn't that relevant to what it "is"? If you want to be technical, an "MBA" is some letters printed on a sheet of paper. But there's no need to be like that.Xproudfoot 20:11, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

What many people don't understand is that starting salaries aren't really meaningful, because many MBA students (particularly those enrolled in part-time or executive programs) already have well-paid professional careers, so they'll skew any measurement of average starting salary. In light of this, I don't think it has a place in this article. I see the article no longer mentions it. -Amatulic 05:08, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

ACBSP Accreditation

I've added the ACBSP as an accreditation body for U.S.-based M.B.A. programs and business schools, which has become more popular in recent years as an alternative or complementary accreditation to AACSB. While AACSB accreditation is more research-based in regard to requirements, ACBSP accreditation focuses more exclusively on instructional quality, course material, and vocational connections. Here is a link to their website:

http://www.acbsp.org

--Fred. 12:21, 22 April 2006

Spam Warning

The spam warning currently listed on the page is unecessary. All the current external links are legitemate sites for those who are interested in learning about MBAs in their area as business education in general.Elwood64151 19:45, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I think the problem was not so much the existing links but that people were frequently adding in spam-type links to the list? Paddles ^T_C 21:36, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

That is why I keep reädding it. -James Howard (talk/web) 15:23, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree, I added GettingToGradSchool.com which is an informational site and has everything about MBA's... not spam. I check once in a while to see how "helpful" the links are. Mikewill949 03:53, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I removed that link because it was presented like an advertisement, calling it an "official" site for the GMAT, which is blatantly false (www.gmac.com is the official GMAT site because they actually administer the test). Wikipedia isn't really supposed to be a portal of links. If that site has something in it that can be referenced in the article, fine, but on its own there's no reason to include it over hundreds of other "informational" commercial MBA sites. =Axlq 04:21, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I just removed it again. Between me and others, it's been removed 3 times now, and re-posted each time by what appears to be a different sockpuppet. =Axlq 23:49, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Why does "business administration" redirect here?

Many, many prestigious schools offer a BS in business administration, so linking directly to the MBA seems a wee bit odd. I don't know enough about the programs to write the regular business administration article, but I was hoping someone would make the correction.--Bobak 20:05, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

People Management in MBA

Do they teach how to manipulate and use people in MBA? Unsolicited 10:05, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I suppose, if you specialize in Human Resources or Organizational Behavior. -Amatulic 04:54, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Information about MBA rankings is conspicuously absent in this article. There's a good couple of paragraph's worth of stuff to say about it, like how rankings affect university reputation and enrollment, ranking methods, criticisms of ranking methodology, objectivity, etc. I think this is significant because the annual "MBA rankings" issues of Business Week, US News and World Report, and Forbes are quite popular and often cited. I'll work up something and post it in a few days if nobody else gets to it first. =Axlq 05:38, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Go for it. I recently added some noncommercial links to MBA ranking information resources, but somebody reverted them. See this revision. You might find stuff on those sites to be useful reference material. -Amatulic 18:25, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I needed those. I just finished adding the section on rankings. The historical part doesn't have citations, I got that from an email with a professor, and verified it with another. At least now this article has some references, where it didn't have any before. =Axlq 04:28, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup

I have gone over this article from top to bottom, cleaning it up, fixing citations, expanding where necessary, removing questionable or unverifiable sentences, etc. I think this article has finally reached the state where the "cleanup" tag can be removed, so I have done so. -Amatulic 23:35, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

As a consequence of cleanup, old discussions have been archived. -Amatulic 19:56, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

MBA Rankings article redirected per AfD discussion

A few weeks ago, the text written by Axlq was copied and pasted into another article called MBA Rankings. This article violated WP:COPYVIO and WP:NPOV by including published rankings from Financial Times. In accordance with the consensus from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MBA Rankings, the MBA Rankings article has been redirected back to this MBA article. -Amatulic 16:59, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Hi. As the person responsible for starting the MBA rankings article, I would prefer if this discussion was continued until a consensus is achieved.

I feel this article is important for a variety of reasons, and that it makes sense to keep it under a separate heading from the MBA article.

Firstly it preserves a history of program rankings that the web site links delete over time. This allows readers to see how consistently a university has maintained its position in the top ten.

Secondly it allows people to add other rankings to the article. Currently 3 years of FT history, and one year of Business Week history are up there. I hope with time this will grow. It would be nice to see the piece eventually turn into a one stop shop for available rankings.

Thirdly, as this piece grows, it would be somewhat off the point for the MBA article, and I feel that it is already too large a sidebar, and somewhat off topic from the central piece. That is why I put it up as a separate piece.

I think the reason that this article is somewhat controversial is that because there are numerous different rankings, people whose school, appears in one, and not another get offended. My Alma Mater, Cambridge University is not included, as our business school is quite new, but I hope it will eventually be ranked. To those upset that their University is not included in one of the two lists provided, I encourage you to add the list in which they are included rather than taking the whole piece down.

Sorry for such a long argument, but I feel this is a useful article, and am upset to see it just blanked by another user, rather than allowing the discussion run to completion. Daviegold 11:18, 25 October 2006 (UTC) Moved here from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MBA Rankings

I'm indifferent between keeping the section here and moving it to its own space, but posting multiple-year rankings is pretty clearly outside of fair use. Lots of the arguments about MBA rankings also hold for college rankings in general, and we already have an article on that topic. ~ trialsanderrors 18:57, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't mind having a separate ranking article either. What I strenuously object to is including published rankings in the article, and having duplicate text (or nearly so) to be maintained in two different articles. Once you remove the ranking lists, you're left with essentially the same thing that's already in the MBA article. Rankings are a rather central issue to the Masters of Business Administration degree, which is why I feel it should remain here. -Amatulic 19:32, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

---

Daviegold, let me address your points one by one:

Firstly it preserves a history of program rankings that the web site links delete over time. This allows readers to see how consistently a university has maintained its position in the top ten.

The article makes it clear that "top ten" has little meaning. Also, including rankings published elsewhere are violations of WP:COPYVIO as I said earlier. As trialsanderrors indicates, including published rankings from any other source falls outside of WP:Fair use. There is no reason to preserve a history of rankings on Wikipedia, especially from selected sources (which violates WP:NPOV). Such histories can be obtained from their copyrighted source.

Furthermore, the article text itself contradicts the need to display any published rankings. The best ranking is customized for each individual, and there is already a source for that, as indicated in the External links of this article. Even one of the cited references say that every school can be ranked in the top 20, somehow, depending on the criteria you select.

Secondly it allows people to add other rankings to the article. Currently 3 years of FT history, and one year of Business Week history are up there. I hope with time this will grow. It would be nice to see the piece eventually turn into a one stop shop for available rankings.

Again, articles that violate Wikipedia policy should be deleted. That's what the external links are for. There are currently links to all known MBA rankings in the MBA article. The Marr and Kirkwood link publishes a comparison of major rankings, and they have permission from the publishers to do so. Wikipedia doesn't.

Thirdly, as this piece grows, it would be somewhat off the point for the MBA article, and I feel that it is already too large a sidebar, and somewhat off topic from the central piece. That is why I put it up as a separate piece.

The only "growth" would be from adding yet more copyvio lists, which isn't appropriate and will get reverted. Some additional growth may occur from expanding the text about rankings, but there's no need to do that because the text already references lengthier articles on the subject. The point of this article is to provide a concise yet thorough overview, and provide references so readers may get further information. Note that the college rankings article does not show published rankings. There are reasons for this; the same reasoning applies here.

I think the reason that this article is somewhat controversial is that because there are numerous different rankings, people whose school, appears in one, and not another get offended. My Alma Mater, Cambridge University is not included, as our business school is quite new, but I hope it will eventually be ranked. To those upset that their University is not included in one of the two lists provided, I encourage you to add the list in which they are included rather than taking the whole piece down.

The only controversy we're addressing here is whether to maintain an article with duplicate content and copyrighted content. Whether someone's favorite university appears in a ranking, or not, is irrelevent to the issue at hand. I hope I've made it clear why the AfD reached a consensus that your article (which you copied from MBA and added ranking lists) should be redirected back to MBA.

You know, it seems we have two different issues. Daviegold, you want a separate ranking article. I admit I don't really have a problem with that. I do strenuously object to putting any published rankings into the article. I proposed deletion because (a) you didn't write the original text of the article; (b) you made the article violate Wikipedia's NPOV policy by singling out Financial Times rankings; and (c) the author of that text put it in MBA because he clearly felt it belonged there (and said in the AfD he prefers it there), although he doesn't mind a separate article.

The point is, if the article is separate, it must not include published rankings. Doing so violates two fundamental Wikipedia rules. I won't object to a separate article if you agree to keep the published rankings OUT of it. -Amatulic 01:37, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

---

Settle down guys. Let me make a some points:

• Yes, I wrote the original MBA Rankings article and decided it fit best here in Master of Business Administration.
• I'm OK with moving (not copying) to a different article, but I want what I wrote to remain intact. Daviegold removed some paragraphs of major importance when he copied it over, and that bothered me, because it caused the MBA article to be more comprehensive about rankings than the MBA ranking article! And I don't want the same article in two different places.
• I agree with others in the AfD discussion that any article about rankings should not contain published rankings, but rather link to them. This MBA article does that now; there's even a site that offers comparisons between different ranking publications.
• I also agree that including published rankings violates the most basic policies on Wikipedia. They will get removed anyway, if not by me or other editors of MBA, then by an admin.
• I disagree that there's anything special about Financial Times rankings. In fact, professors I talked to seem to think that a high FT ranking is nice, but it's not the same as being ranked highly in Business Week. The MBA degree originated in America and it's still primarily an American degree, and MBA graduates are still mostly American. I note that Daviegold's user page indicates he's from the UK, which understandably influences his point of view.
• The AfD consensus was not to delete, but to redirect, so it makes sense not to re-open the discussion there. I see that user trialsanderrors suggested on Daviegold's talk page to put a plea on Wikipedia:Third opinion, and this has been done.
• I propose, as a resolution, that my entire MBA program rankings section be moved from this article, complete with citations and External links, to the MBA Rankings article, and that this MBA article have only a short summary in the MBA rankings section (but retain the ranking external links 'cause those are useful and relevant to MBA also). I can write that summary, no problem! Once moved, the prose may be expanded but no published rankings whatsoever should be added, except as mentioning in the prose. How does that sound?

=Axlq 02:55, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

There is afaict no way to move sections of an article to a new article. Page moves are only done to rename a whole article and preserve the edit history. If you want to reclaim authorship on the rankings section, you can start it as MBA rankings or MBA program rankings yourself (note proper capitalization) so that your name appears in the edit history. If you insist we can speedily delete MBA Rankings as housekeeping matter and you can recreate it, but I recommend we just redirect it to the new article. On the AfD closure, it was technically a withdrawn nomination which isn't the same as a consensus, although the majority of opinions opted for redirect. I agree with all your other points. ~ trialsanderrors 05:37, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I introduced myself as the author only to lend weight to my claims of the original intent of the MBA rankings section of the article. It's far more important to me to retain the integrity of what I wrote than to retain a claim of authorship. I feel that providing any ranking list violates that integrity. I also feel that Daviegold's recent deletion of text in his MBA Rankingsarticle to "remove text mirrored in MBA article" also reduced its integrity and made the article less informative than the original. (Yes, MBA Rankings still exists although several redirect pages such as Mba rankings now redirect back to MBA.)

It seems that the real question to be addressed concerns including published rankings in the article. If you read my MBA program rankings section in this article, it's clear that including rankings is unnecessary; the point is to educate the reader and the reader can browse the external links to see rankings. =Axlq 14:26, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I disagree that providing the lists is copyvio, it is fair use. Most of the Business Schools highly ranked display their ranking on their websites, and they are not violating copyright. This page is simply a collection of eventually different rankings, that are informationally useful. I think that the top ten lists are central to the piece, I included the criticisms from the MBA article to provide balance. While including the top ten lists in the main MBA article would have been off the point, they are reasonable within a separate piece on MBA rankings. I am not concerned with having my name listed as the starter of the article, and if other authors feel that I was not respectful to their writing in copying it over and editing it, I am quite happy for them to re edit the text. I feel that the redirect approach of Amatulic is the equivalent of deletion, as people that search for the article do not get to see it, and it is not reasonable to expect that they would go back to the redirect page and dig through the history. Amatulic claims that he allowed the discussion in AfD to run to completion, but instead he withdrew his nomination after a quick discussion. Daviegold 09:23, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Daviegold, I'll thank you to cease misrepresenting my actions. You did so in Wikipedia:Third opinion (which I corrected) and you're doing it here. Nowhere did I say the AfD ran to completion, and the editing history will show that. Rather, when it became clear that a consensus had been reached (everybody who voted was in favor of redirecting), someone suggested withdrawing the AfD early, and I did. It was then closed, but not by me. -Amatulic 14:06, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Fair use is a school using its own ranking. Not an article reproducing an entire list. That's a copyvio. Furthermore, singling out any ranking violates the Neutral Point of View policy. I agree that a redirect isn't necessary, but if there is to be a new article, I will revert any ranking lists that appear. If you want to see lists, that's what the external links are for. =Axlq 14:09, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Axlq, I am impressed by your commitment to suppressing information, but the whole purpose of this issue being put forth for 3rd party arbitration, is to decide if it is reasonable to include these rankings. Your threat to edit them out no matter what is hardly reasonable in this context. Having a list like this that links to wikipedia pages about the individual colleges, is quite different to the external pages that one can link to from the outside. It is not much different to pages that list Ivy League universities, public ivies and other similar pages on this site. While you may feel that rankings have no purpose as is reflected in your piece, the rest of the world does not feel the same. For this reason higher ranked colleges get to charge more for their programs, get to attract higher achieving students, and those students end up in higher paying jobs. I included your critisisms of the rankings in with the list, to include your viewpoint. Daviegold 16:35, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Again, for the sake of continued participation in this discussion, I ask that you cease misrepresenting the words and actions of others; let's all keep the WP:No personal attacks policy in mind. Your accusation of suppressing information is misplaced, as is your claim to speak for "the rest of the world." Any "threat" to revert a violation of Wikipedia's fundamental policies is quite reasonable, and expected. Why do you think the college rankings article has no rankings?? While I believe that inclusion of rankings diminishes the integrity of the article, I agree with you that the inclusion of published rankings is what we need resolved.

So in an attempt to resolve this once and for all, see this quote from Financial Times Terms and Conditions:

You may not copy, reproduce, publish, broadcast, transmit, modify, adapt, create derivative works of, store, archive, publicly display or in any way commercially exploit any of the FT Content.

If that doesn't make it clear that FT rankings must not be present in the article, then I don't know what will. No amount of arguing or negotiating is going to change the fact that including these rankings in the article violates fundamental Wikipedia policies, in particular WP:COPYVIO and WP:NPOV. -Amatulic 20:09, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I did not see that on the page. In that case I apologise and agree that the piece should be taken down. Daviegold 23:23, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Er... do you still want a separate article or leave it in this MBA article? As you know, I prefer it here, but I'm not averse to moving my piece to a separate place. Oh, and if you feel this is resolved you might want to remove that entry on Wikipedia:Third opinion. =Axlq 01:24, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Daviegold, I left my own apology to you on your talk page, and I have removed the Third opinion plea. I also echo the question Axlq poses immediately above. -Amatulic 01:40, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Guys, I kinda feel that the rankings piece as it currently exists makes sense as part of the MBA article. Maybe if it grows more in the future it will need its own page. Best wishes, Daviegold 10:36, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Just to pick up on Daviegold's point above, business schools mentioning their rankings in a promotional publication is never fair use, as the purpose is clearly commercial, but I am guessing that a. the schools have obtained permission, or b. the publisher of the ranking gives tacit permission because it is after all a promotion of the ranking itself. I'm quite certain that the publisher would prohibit the publicaion of the full ranking though. The list of school in the Ivy League is considered "bare fact" (i.e. no creative input went into the compilation of that list), and as such is in the public domain, at least in the U.S. (see WP:PD#Non-creative works). ~ trialsanderrors 01:02, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Schools will typically advertise their ranking like this: "The XXXX MBA program has been ranked in the top ten by Business Week." I doubt copyright law extends to such simple assertions of fact; after all, the publication did rank the school that way, and the publication couldn't object to being cited thus. Reproducing the ranked list, however, is another matter. -Axlq 01:51, 29 October 2006 (UTC)