How we ranked the business schools

The three categories of data are drawn from publicly available information, in a methodology we have curated.

The reputation ranking uses average scores in major rankings of whole institutions and their business-related offerings. Opinions differ widely about the value of rankings (as they will of this one). Few doubt that they have influence, however. We synthesise the scores in these other rankings, not necessarily because we would adopt their methodology, but to reflect the fact that they do guide the choices of many.

In all, 19 separate rankings of institutions and business subjects have been brought together, from the Academic Rankings of World Universities (ARWU), The Times Higher Education (THE) and Quacquarelli Symonds (QS), to reflect our composite view of how others see them.

The quality ranking is a mix of accreditation and performance factors. We provide recognition to schools that have chosen to go through the rigorous process for accreditation by either the Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB) or Equis, a leading European equivalent. Twenty-two of the 37 business schools in our ranking are accredited.

We also take into account performance in the national evaluation, Excellence in Research for Australia, which effectively scores research against world-class benchmarks. We argue that world-leading thinking and discovery will find its way out in the curriculum as well, to the benefit of students.

Career impact

Three course-related data sets are also included, all of them derived from the Government’s Quality Indicators for Learning and Teaching (QILT) as aggregated in a version available as ComparEd, which combines data for all postgraduate business and management offerings. These scales are for positive experiences, teaching practices and skills development.

Finally, our career impact ranking draws on publicly available data for full-time employment after graduation, salaries five years out, and annual salary gain.

The overall outcomes in this year’s release may or may not surprise readers, depending on their prior perceptions.

Five members of the Group of Eight (the most research-intensive of Australia’s universities) are in the top 10 overall, but they are accompanied by younger universities, including some which were Colleges of Advanced Education less than 35 years ago.

The Group of Eight dominate the top 10 of the reputation ranking component, with four of them in the top 10 for quality. But one of the youngest Australian universities, the University of Canberra, comes top for career impact.

Student experience feedback is emerging as an important variable. Changes in the QILT data since 2022 account for many of the relative movements in the quality component, which in turn influences the overall rankings.

No ranking is perfect. Every ranking is contentious. Each represents choices – even value judgements – about what matters and what weight should be given to different factors. All data has its limitations, and permissible statistical uses of that data are varied. Those at the top are always happier than those at the bottom.

A typical student will have balanced preferences for reputation, quality and career impact. It is a sign of the maturity of our university system that diverse institutions can now shine at different things.

However, by publishing the three constituent categories separately, for reputation, quality and career impact, prospective students for the first time can focus on what matters most to them.

Stephen Parker is emeritus professor at University of Canberra and honorary professorial fellow at The University of Melbourne.
Tim Brown is adjunct professor (research) at Monash University.