I have tweeted an interesting chart at https://twitter.com/DuncanChapple/status/697215300891250689 which compares the FT's data on the rankings of European business schools MBA programmes and their alumni salaries. There is a larger version on dropbox at http://bit.ly/1nWyyDp
Of course it would be wrong to reduce school selection to just these two factors, but the data suggest a few things. If we assume that lower-ranked schools are easier to get into, and that higher salaries are preferable, then a possible school selection strategy arises. Other things being equal, it makes no sense to apply to a higher-ranked school with a lower salary. No-one should apply to HEC if IMD is available. No-one should go to Imperial or Manchester if Cranfield is easier to enter and better paid. Similarly, it makes little sense to apply to Lancaster or ESMT if UCD or Birmingham are options. While EADA exists, there's little reason to apply to Bradford or Grenoble.
Of course, these schools are in different settings, but it certainly does pose question about the outlier schools. How can Lancaster really stay in the top 20 European schools if the #30 school (EDHEC) gets the same salary. How long can Bradford, Lancaster, Rotterdam and Imperial be 'overvalued' in this way?
[Edited by Duncan on Feb 10, 2016]