Methodology

GLOBAL SCHOOLS

Business schools in the first 25 places in the best known international MBA rankings were invited to participate this year. Applications for admission by other schools were accepted only when they obtained the minimum score required for participation.

The ranking is composed of five categories that combine criteria of quality and relevance to Latin America, defining a performance model that can be followed annually. These dimensions are:

Academic Strength (25%)

    • Percentage of full time PhD staff (80%)
    • Number of ISI papers published or approved during the previous academic year (20%)

Selectivity (25%)

    • Average GMAT score of the most recent generation of admitted students (80%)
    • Rate of enrollments to number of applicants (20%)

Networking Power for Latin Americans (20%)

    • Number of alumni associations in Latin America (45%)
    • Matrix of notable Latin American graduates (20%, and see detail below)
    • Number of Latin American academics on staff, including those with visiting professor status (15%)
    • Percentage of Latin American students in relation to total number of foreign students (20%)

Cost-benefit ratio (20%)

      • Total program cost (20%)
      • Benefits (80%)

– Earning power of the program (0.70)
– Extracurricular tools (0.30)

Prestige (10%)

    • Score obtained in the survey of AméricaEconomía readers (25%)
    • Average score obtained in three international rankings: Financial Times, The Economist and CNN Expansion (75%).

The results of each variable and category are normalized around a base 100.

In relation to previous years, the number of variables was reduced to a significant extent in 2014. In addition, we simplified the definition of these variables to ensure a uniform response from participating schools, thus offering consistent data. In fact, the delivery of sufficient quality data has become a methodological requirement to participation in the ranking. By relying on information provided by the business schools themselves, the survey also depends on their ability to generate and track such information.

Once the information was given to AméricaEcononomía Intelligence, the research team reviewed the consistency of the figures given, comparing the data received with information gathered for the ranking in previous years and from other secondary sources and third parties. In some cases, the collected data was double-checked with the business schools themselves so as to clear up every reasonable doubt.

In relation to missing data, in the category of ISI papers, a total of seven schools did not provide information, so their results have been estimated from third party public sources. In “GMAT score”, only one school considered in the final ranking gave no information, and its results too are obtained from third party public sources. With regard to the indicator of the Rate of Admissions, five schools did not provide information, so the results were estimated from their GMAT score. In the category of Latin American Networking Power, the only indicator where it was not achieved a 100% rate of response, was the Matrix of notable graduates, where seven schools did not report the monitoring of their graduates. In such cases, a score of 0 was assigned. In the Cost-Benefit category, a total of nine schools did not provide any information of salary before or after the program. In such cases, resort was made to information in the Financial Times ranking. In addition, three schools provided information of salaries immediately after graduation (instead of 3 years after graduation), but these information was used, after no significant differences to the other cases were found..

Most of the questions answered by the schools were processed directly, while the following case involves a more complex processing carried out by AméricaEconomía staff:

 

Matrix of notable Latin American graduates

Each school was asked to report the curriculum vitaes of those 10 graduates over the past five years who they considered to have the best trajectories in the worlds of business, politics and academia. Their trajectories were measured as a whole through the following marking scheme:

    • Zero points: No list of graduates offered.
    • 1 point: When graduates are consultants and academics.
    • 2 points: When three or more graduates are second-line managers of multinational companies or companies based in more than one Latin American country, partners, owners or general managers of small and medium enterprises, or heads of academic departments.
    • 3 points: When three or more graduates occupy C-level positions (directors of enterprises, partners, general managers, chief financial officers, and other relevant heads) in the national headquarters of multinationals or companies based in more than one Latin American country, large national enterprises, or as deans of academic institutions.
    • 4 points: When three or more graduates occupy C-level positions (in the headquarters of companies based in more than one Latin American country or the regional headquarters of multinationals, or as second-ranking public officials, current or past, in public or multilateral institutions, such as under-secretaries or vice ministers?, heads of services, ambassadors and mayors) or university rectors.
    • 5 points: When three or more graduates occupy C-Levels positions in multinational headquarters or are top–ranking officials, current or past, in public or multilateral institutions, such as ministers, parliamentarians, heads of state or of government, or directors general of multilateral institutions such as the IDB, ECLAC and UNDP.

In the cases where schools reported information for an earlier period than the one requested, a point was subtracted from the score.