I think the fact is that people choose their schools for many reasons. I had a friend who rejected Chicago GSB and Wharton for INSEAD. It doesn't mean that INSEAD is better than the others; it just means it fit his needs better. I have also talked to many INSEAD students, and many of them really impressed me. So I guess it really depends on your individual experiences.
I don't 100% agree with you only because I 200% agree with you. If you read my other post, I explicitly say this, or, to be more precise, "try to say this", on this forum - nobody really listens to me. INSEAD and HKUST do not compete, they operate in different segment, target different applicants and different jobs, sometimes the same level jobs and the same employers, but different jobs. They are not comparable - they are like cat and rabbit - two completely different things. I respect INSEAD, and I was thinking about going to INSEAD myself, but I rejected it because it is not that good fit for me as it may be for someone else. The person who preferred Melbourne GSB over INSEAD also did it because of reasons different than ranking. MBA is Studies + Living Experience + Networking, and rankings measure only a small part of each component of these three. In my opinion, those who do not take the whole picture into account simply do not understand what is MBA and would benefit from additional work/life experience before applying to any MBA school at all.
To give another example (anecodotal, but I suspect it may be how many asians think about these schools) today I learnt that in the new world-wide rankings of educational institutions (not just MBA), HKUST is ranked higher than Stanford. When my Hong Kong native friends discovered this, they heaped scorn on HKUST and said that the rankings were just stupid.
Which ranking was it? HKUST should probably be surprised with this either since nobody here position HKUST as an educational institution above Stanford. Are you sure there is no confusion? So far as I know, by one (in my opinion, doubtful) ranking Stanford was N20 (or something like this) in the world, while HKUST was N15 (or something like this) in Asia. But the medias here quoted only numbers - N20 and N15, skipping "in the world" and "in Asia" respectively. A cheap joke, I should say - but not HKUST fault. If you tell this story to a reasonable HKUST student, you most probably will meet a disbelief. So far as I was able to observe the thigs and people in the campus, schools like Stanford (more precise, HKUST students are more fond of MIT - shich is probably not a bad choice either) are used here as a role model. Yes, HKUST targets to be a competitor of Stanford in the long run, but I would be really surprised if somebody from the school management would say publicly that HKUST beats Stanford as an educational institution.
To be honest, I've heard the same from many Singaporeans about NTU/NUS and many Chinese students about the MBA programmes at CEIBS/Tsinghua/PKU.
Well, NTU/NUS/SMU are clearly the best Singaporean business schools (INSEAD is not a Singaporean school, it just has a campus in Singapore), CEIBS/Tsinghua/PKU are definetely the best business school in PRC, HKUST is definetely the best business school in HK... When I was back in my homecountry (Latvia), definetely the best business school there also had a big crowd of people saying "it is not good, these guys are __, __, and ___". I think the rumors have very little to do with the real things, but by the presence of rumors we can say how good is the school - the more rumors are there about a reputable school, the higher is the probability that the school is really good - at least, the best in the country/region/whatever.
For a foreigner looking to come to Asia, though, it might be a different matter. If you want to work in the HK financial markets, HKUST may indeed be your best bet, just like Columbia or NYU may be a better bet if you want to work in NY's financial market than even maybe Stanford or Harvard.
Well, I would say more generally - if you want a programme with concentration on Asian business, China business, or things like that, HKUST is better than INSEAD (well, INSEAD is not supposed to prepare people for Asian Business career, and it is not her fault), and better than any other school in Asia (cumulative of ranking + name recognition in and outside Asia + real, not ppp-based salaries of graduates). I was ideally looking for a good MBA with Asian Business concentration to supplement my MPhil Asian Studies degree and four years of work experience in Asia. For me, HKUST was the best choice. If I were looking for a general management school and were indifferent to Asia, I would better go to EDHEC in France rather than to HKUST in HK - costs the same money, but name recognition of EDHEC in Europe, and of France in Asia is better than of HKUST in the world. INSEAD definetely beats HKUST in general management. But not in Asian Business. I stress this again, HKUST is the best Asian school - i.e. an MBA school for people who want to go through MBA with Asian Business concentration. INSEAD does not target this segment, and, understandably, it is not her strength. I don't know why people compare these schools - the idea of "really the best MBA" is just stupid, "the best MBA" is the one which fits YOU in cultural, career, academic, lifestyle etc etc senses. It may be even the University of Vanuatu in Melanesia - for someone who dreams about working with Vanuatu businesses :)
However, if you're looking for name recognition across Asia and maybe beyond, practically everyone in China and increasingly across Asia too knows Tsinghua/PKU. These two schools may not have very strong MBA programmes, but they're beneficiaries of the extremely strong names of their parent schools.
What these school miss at the moment, is the international ranking. If I have to go back to Europe, I can at some extend rely on FT and EIU rankings - although French EDHEC, which is ranked much lower than HKUST will be known in Europe much better. In case of Tsinghua or PKU, if I come back to Europe, I will have a hard time to explain what these schools are - and the rate of success explaining this matter will be much lower. As for CEIBS, I consider it a much worse school than HKUST in reality, and I simply don't want to spend money there.
As for INSEAD, as another Canadian poster has noted, world-wide, many many more people know INSEAD than any other Asian school.
For general management and other general areas - yes, for sure, no discussion. But for a European/American origin person working with Asian Markets in Europe/US/Asia, HKUST may prove to be more beneficial than INSEAD. But this is the only area where these schools really compete. For an Asian person who wants to work in Europe/USA with Asian markets, or who wants to stay in Asia, INSEAD will be more beneficial.
Having said that, I really appreciate your lucid, rational post. You've redeemed the name of HKUST, in my book.
Thanks, mate :)
<blockquote>I think the fact is that people choose their schools for many reasons. I had a friend who rejected Chicago GSB and Wharton for INSEAD. It doesn't mean that INSEAD is better than the others; it just means it fit his needs better. I have also talked to many INSEAD students, and many of them really impressed me. So I guess it really depends on your individual experiences.</blockquote>
I don't 100% agree with you only because I 200% agree with you. If you read my other post, I explicitly say this, or, to be more precise, "try to say this", on this forum - nobody really listens to me. INSEAD and HKUST do not compete, they operate in different segment, target different applicants and different jobs, sometimes the same level jobs and the same employers, but different jobs. They are not comparable - they are like cat and rabbit - two completely different things. I respect INSEAD, and I was thinking about going to INSEAD myself, but I rejected it because it is not that good fit for me as it may be for someone else. The person who preferred Melbourne GSB over INSEAD also did it because of reasons different than ranking. MBA is Studies + Living Experience + Networking, and rankings measure only a small part of each component of these three. In my opinion, those who do not take the whole picture into account simply do not understand what is MBA and would benefit from additional work/life experience before applying to any MBA school at all.
<blockquote>To give another example (anecodotal, but I suspect it may be how many asians think about these schools) today I learnt that in the new world-wide rankings of educational institutions (not just MBA), HKUST is ranked higher than Stanford. When my Hong Kong native friends discovered this, they heaped scorn on HKUST and said that the rankings were just stupid.</blockquote>
Which ranking was it? HKUST should probably be surprised with this either since nobody here position HKUST as an educational institution above Stanford. Are you sure there is no confusion? So far as I know, by one (in my opinion, doubtful) ranking Stanford was N20 (or something like this) in the world, while HKUST was N15 (or something like this) in Asia. But the medias here quoted only numbers - N20 and N15, skipping "in the world" and "in Asia" respectively. A cheap joke, I should say - but not HKUST fault. If you tell this story to a reasonable HKUST student, you most probably will meet a disbelief. So far as I was able to observe the thigs and people in the campus, schools like Stanford (more precise, HKUST students are more fond of MIT - shich is probably not a bad choice either) are used here as a role model. Yes, HKUST targets to be a competitor of Stanford in the long run, but I would be really surprised if somebody from the school management would say publicly that HKUST beats Stanford as an educational institution.
<blockquote>To be honest, I've heard the same from many Singaporeans about NTU/NUS and many Chinese students about the MBA programmes at CEIBS/Tsinghua/PKU. </blockquote>
Well, NTU/NUS/SMU are clearly the best Singaporean business schools (INSEAD is not a Singaporean school, it just has a campus in Singapore), CEIBS/Tsinghua/PKU are definetely the best business school in PRC, HKUST is definetely the best business school in HK... When I was back in my homecountry (Latvia), definetely the best business school there also had a big crowd of people saying "it is not good, these guys are __, __, and ___". I think the rumors have very little to do with the real things, but by the presence of rumors we can say how good is the school - the more rumors are there about a reputable school, the higher is the probability that the school is really good - at least, the best in the country/region/whatever.
<blockquote>For a foreigner looking to come to Asia, though, it might be a different matter. If you want to work in the HK financial markets, HKUST may indeed be your best bet, just like Columbia or NYU may be a better bet if you want to work in NY's financial market than even maybe Stanford or Harvard. </blockquote>
Well, I would say more generally - if you want a programme with concentration on Asian business, China business, or things like that, HKUST is better than INSEAD (well, INSEAD is not supposed to prepare people for Asian Business career, and it is not her fault), and better than any other school in Asia (cumulative of ranking + name recognition in and outside Asia + real, not ppp-based salaries of graduates). I was ideally looking for a good MBA with Asian Business concentration to supplement my MPhil Asian Studies degree and four years of work experience in Asia. For me, HKUST was the best choice. If I were looking for a general management school and were indifferent to Asia, I would better go to EDHEC in France rather than to HKUST in HK - costs the same money, but name recognition of EDHEC in Europe, and of France in Asia is better than of HKUST in the world. INSEAD definetely beats HKUST in general management. But not in Asian Business. I stress this again, HKUST is the best Asian school - i.e. an MBA school for people who want to go through MBA with Asian Business concentration. INSEAD does not target this segment, and, understandably, it is not her strength. I don't know why people compare these schools - the idea of "really the best MBA" is just stupid, "the best MBA" is the one which fits YOU in cultural, career, academic, lifestyle etc etc senses. It may be even the University of Vanuatu in Melanesia - for someone who dreams about working with Vanuatu businesses :)
<blockquote>However, if you're looking for name recognition across Asia and maybe beyond, practically everyone in China and increasingly across Asia too knows Tsinghua/PKU. These two schools may not have very strong MBA programmes, but they're beneficiaries of the extremely strong names of their parent schools. </blockquote>
What these school miss at the moment, is the international ranking. If I have to go back to Europe, I can at some extend rely on FT and EIU rankings - although French EDHEC, which is ranked much lower than HKUST will be known in Europe much better. In case of Tsinghua or PKU, if I come back to Europe, I will have a hard time to explain what these schools are - and the rate of success explaining this matter will be much lower. As for CEIBS, I consider it a much worse school than HKUST in reality, and I simply don't want to spend money there.
<blockquote>As for INSEAD, as another Canadian poster has noted, world-wide, many many more people know INSEAD than any other Asian school.</blockquote>
For general management and other general areas - yes, for sure, no discussion. But for a European/American origin person working with Asian Markets in Europe/US/Asia, HKUST may prove to be more beneficial than INSEAD. But this is the only area where these schools really compete. For an Asian person who wants to work in Europe/USA with Asian markets, or who wants to stay in Asia, INSEAD will be more beneficial.
<blockquote>Having said that, I really appreciate your lucid, rational post. You've redeemed the name of HKUST, in my book.</blockquote>
Thanks, mate :)
