This is an interesting debate. Thank you
Personally I am not fond of HULT at all. Just personal feeling.
I am rational most of the time, but this time I let my heart rules my rationality

Hi...

I have been following this discussion....Duncan....Hat's off to you....great point made and totally agree.

As an prospective student, i had a good amount of research on HULT and have come to realise that....it is not worth the effort.

One thing though....HULT has deep pockets and an overaggressive marketing team...so I do see them on all these ratings for the years to come.

so the fight between....value...quality....ratings...perceptions....is not favoring HULT from my point of view.

Happy new year to all

OK. So Duncan?s snide comment and donho199?s encouragement (even if he doesn?t like Hult ☺) brought be back into the debate.

Firstly, lets not lose sight of the fact that I went to Hult. I really enjoyed my experience there. I thought the education was excellent and that most of the professors were simply first-rate. It was a very intense experience. But I got a lot out of it. I am aware that not all of my classmates were happy. But from what I understand from friends and collegaues who went to other schools the mixture of happy/unhappy sounds very similar. As do the complaints (pretty much everyone singles out careers services).

Secondly, let me acknowledge that the Hult model is very different from traditional schools. This has been commented on elsewhere: http://johncbeck.tumblr.com.
Personally, there are elements of the model that I like and some that I don?t (I agree their marketing is overly aggressive). But whether or not you like the Hult concept, I think the commercialization of business education is already well underway and is a force that wont be stopped. This will severely impact the 2nd tier institutions (see an article in the Economist today: http://www.economist.com/node/21532269)

Since Duncan has accused me of being obtuse, let me try and be as clear as possible on my position on all of these various points being made.

1. A FOR-PROFIT SCHOOL HAS TO PRODUCE CHEAPER EDUCATION

Yes a for-profit school needs to pay a profit to shareholders and tax (assuming it is bad at avoiding tax - which one would assume a business school is not) and therefore it needs to pay less for the education. But if you assume that shareholders want a 10% profit margin and than a 30% corporation tax is incurred then all they need to do is to find a 14% efficiency savings relative to a non-profit. I don?t think that is very tough. I don?t think anyone in business would say that universities are super efficiently run. Layers of brain-dead administrators everywhere. And professors that have very low teaching obligations. An average US business school professor is required to teach 6 classes of 30 hours each per annum, so 180 contact hours in total. Even if you allow double for preparation and marking then 360 hours work is only equivalent of 2 months work. The remaining 10 months is spent on administration and research, which I really question the value of (also see http://www.economist.com/whichmba/mba-diary-no-research-required). I cant think of any other industry (yes education is now an industry like any other) where non-profits are more efficient than for-profits. Can you?

2. FULL-TIME MBA PROGRAMS ARE UNPROFITABLE

I agree that schools with big endowments can subsidize the education. But as I proved in an earlier post these are not that great in number even in the US. It is also true that in the rest of the world education is largely subsidized by the State, but with the Euro crisis, in Europe at least, that funding is being cut rapidly and schools there are being forced to react. But I don?t agree that MBA programs with reasonable scale lose money. If you take an average MBA cohort of 65 students paying $80,000 each for 60 credit hours (60 x 30 = 1800 contact hours) of education then they are collectively paying $2888 per contact hour (65 x $80000 / 1800). An average professor earns $200,000 pa and teaches 180 hours, so only accounts for $1111 of this (which I already think is scandalously high because that is already meaning the tuition fee is being used to substitute his/her 10 months of research time). So where does the rest go? Most schools don?t incur significant marketing costs. And most have their real estate pretty much free either because it was given to them or they acquired it so long ago. Of course through accounting a school can choose to cross-charge whatever it likes to the full-time MBA to make it appear unprofitable. But I don?t think that really stacks up when you look at the income versus costs. It would also seem strange that so many for-profits schools are attracted to the market if it inherently loss making (sort of flies in the face of economic theory no?).

3. BUSINESS SCHOOLS ARENT THE PROFIT ENGINE OF UNIVERSITIES

It must be self evident that there are many activities of a university that are loss making. So given most schools don?t have access to largely endowments, how ARE these activities funded? I believe it is the business schools since they have the highest tuition fees and some of the lowest teaching costs (no equipment, even students supply their own laptop). I don?t see any other reason why traditional European universities have all opened up business schools in the last 2 decades when traditionally they felt business was too low-brow for them. Is it really in their mission to have a business school? Some have even done this in conjunction with for-profits (University of Liverpool & Laureate) which would seem to me openly commercial. And others are opening campuses overseas to teach business, which again I question is in their mission, but merely a commercial activity. The economics of universities is explained in the book ?Higher Ed Inc? http://www.amazon.co.uk/Higher-Ed-Inc--Profit-University/dp/0801874475/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1325583643&sr=8-3

4. NON-PROFITS ARE ON THE SIDE OF STUDENTS

This hasn?t been expressed explicitly but is implicit in the anti-commerce tone. My experience of universities is that they are run by professors, for professors. Academics career paths are based on research track-record not teaching ability. And therefore they often do as much as possible to pass teaching onto PhD students or research assistants (which I don?t take into account in my calculations above). Researchers often don?t make great teachers. And there is no separate career path that rewards great teachers. Further, since universities are so badly run many of the poor professors are not ever fired even though they should be. A for-profit on the other hand has every incentive to let professors go if they are not up to scratch, just like any business would. The notion that for-profits don?t care about their customers seems totally at odds with everything we were taught on our MBA.

5. HULT?S EMPLOYMENT STATS ARE 3rd TIER

I have now had a chance to look at the FT rankings data. Average salary after 3 years:

Hult = $107k
Babson = $113k
BC = $111k
BU = $104k

So Duncan, doesn?t seem much of a difference on those measures does there? Certainly a bit unfair to say that Hult is far lower than the average of these schools. Also Hult scores much higher on career progress:

Hult = 16
Babson = 26
BC = 76
BU = 67

So why Duncan is Hult 3rd rate and the other schools not? Particularly when you have to take into account that the vast majority of Hult students are from outside the US.

I am also confused by the inconsistency with your other posts:

On Dec 29th 2011: I'd also bet on Rising: ? Hult ? [in the 2012 FT rankings]. http://www.find-mba.com/board/23417
On April 18th 2011: However, Hult is ranked by the FT and clearly they are getting good outcomes for students. http://www.find-mba.com/board/20580

6. HULT NEEDS TO IMPROVE ITS CAREERS SERVICES

I totally agree with this. As would all Hult graduates. But I take it that you now agree with me that for most of its history ADLSOM graduated 30-40 students per annum (1500 alumni / 40 years = 37.5). It would be strange if you didn?t since you say in your blog post on April 18th 2011: ?Hult has a tiny alumni base.? http://www.find-mba.com/board/20580. And this is a big reason why the name of the school is not known by employers.

Hi ibanker.

This is a useful contribution. I'm at work today, but I just want to point out that it's not my subjective opinion that Hult is Third Tier: that's the comment of the Financial Times. If you look at the bottom of its ranking, you'll see a note describing the tiers of schools in its rankings.

Your 'business model' for MBAs (fees-professors salaries) might work for Hult, but other schools fund scholarships, libraries, careers services, alumni programmes, PhD programmes, and the capital and overhead costs of the whole school. Plus, why are you annualising the salaries but not the income?

Hi guys,

As a prospective student (International) unknowingly and not guided I look for rankings to understand where a college stand for the first time. Once we know a basic detail about the college we tend to talk to the seniors and come and visit the web sites such as this to find the reviews.

What I have noticed so far is a guy with 770 applying to a college with no name outside United states. Even at the website's they have given the pictures of campus where there are only two relevent pictures of the campus and the rest more related to area surrounding to the university ( Sorry I meant to say college or school or building I lost words to represent HULT )
"http://www.hult.edu/en/campuses/boston/campus-facilities/"

How on earth does a college gets into rankings such as FT when there are no adequate facilities such as a building for itself or library ? I do not understand how employers do recruit from such a place ?


Next point :
How did HULT get into FT.com rankings when in the site of FT("http://rankings.ft.com/businessschoolrankings/") its clearly mentioned " To be eligible to participate, a school should be accredited by AACSB or Equis" which HULT doesnt clearly!!

Next point
When an international student decide on a college he/she looks for accredition first and the very next would be the career oportunities available. I have never seen a web site of college so abstract !!.

"http://www.hult.edu/en/programs/mba/career/employment-statistics/"

just 2 sentences

*
Average starting salary USD 97,400
*
82% of graduates were employed within three months of graduation. Based on reported figures from Class of 2010, adjusted for cost of living. Average starting salary non-adjusted for cost of living is USD 79,431.

Which company recruits for which fields and how many ? average salary divisions for each !!

hi.......this put the entire FT rankings in question...clearly HULT does not meet the below parameters.

1. Can any business schools participate in the FT rankings?
To be eligible to participate, a school should be accredited by AACSB or Equis; it must have a programme that has been running for at least four years; and it must have graduated its first class at least three years before the ranking publication date.

I think that's a little churlish. Hult's MBA is AMBA accredited. The key problems with Hult are not the lack of a library (Look at the modest business library at Ivy league Tuck, or at Cass for comparison); it's the agressive over-selling, lack of careers services and the low selectivity.

I honestly think that Hult has plateaued in the rankings. We've seen this plateau in the past few years with schools like Lancester and Cranfield - and what the data show is that there is a tipping point where these schools recruit a large percentage of international students in their cohorts - and the resulting drop in subsequent graduate salaries drags the school's reputation down. I'm no statistician, but I'd guess the tipping point is when the international students make up around 85-90% of the total cohort.

The current MBA cohort at Hult is around 94% international students - this does not bode well.

I think that's a little churlish. Hult's MBA is AMBA accredited. The key problems with Hult are not the lack of a library (Look at the modest business library at Ivy league Tuck, or at Cass for comparison); it's the agressive over-selling, lack of careers services and the low selectivity.

My friend got into HULT with a low ball GMAT, like low 500's...

With 5 yrs experience + 3.6 GPA, why dont you jsut grind the GMAT a bit and aim a bit higher on hte FT Rankings? :)

Not syaing that HULT is bad, just not as great as other schools I'd imagine.


Good luck.

Ezra, Hult us a smart business. They must have been gaming the FT rankings, and if they can work the PPP thing perhaps they can stay in. Their issue like Thunderbird is low selectivity, which really drags down outcomes for students. They would be better off raising the MBA intake quality and then pushing the 500 GMAT people into the EMBA and MSc.

They would be better off raising the MBA intake quality and then pushing the 500 GMAT people into the EMBA and MSc.

The maximum strength of the class for HULT would be International students as they are the only one's who will be refering to the rankings and joining a college.

Yes Hult is doing an extremly good job marketing the name in every single web sites available in the world. So a lot of people who arent aware of the real situation joins Hult. Anyways the main reason for this whole argument would be comparing this puny to big ones such as Boston :P

I was just looking at Hult's website and noticed that a minority of the faculty listed at teaching on their MBA have PhDs (many don't even have masters degrees). Most of their deans don't seems to have PhDs. That surprised me because the FT ranking says that 2/3rds of their faculty have PhDs. Is this a new thing? Or does the FT just count in a different way?

Ezra, Hult us a smart business. They must have been gaming the FT rankings, and if they can work the PPP thing perhaps they can stay in. Their issue like Thunderbird is low selectivity, which really drags down outcomes for students. They would be better off raising the MBA intake quality and then pushing the 500 GMAT people into the EMBA and MSc.

I think Hult is very well discussed on this thread and there is not much which can be added, especially because they deal with critical commentary quite aggressively.

IE and Hult have some similarities: they are projects of for-profit organisations; they have a lot of capacity; they have very professional marketing, and a lot of marketing staff; there is a seat for everyone on one of their courses.

If your only choices are IE and Hult, then something has gone wrong for you. Either your goals are not clear, or you are not able to act on them.

If your only choices are IE and Hult, then something has gone wrong for you. Either your goals are not clear, or you are not able to act on them.

IE could be a good choice or a bad choice depending on your goals. Hult and IE do not produce the same benefits so that's why I think that your goals cannot be clear oif those are the two schools you are focussed on. The only thing they have in common is for-profit style marketing.

The reason I was considering IE and Hult is because I couldn't get accepted at INSEAD and I was looking for:

- Short MBA program (less than 15 months)
- Large International MBA program (+500 students) for optimal networking experience
- As I am not from the US or Europe, I already wrote off working abroad after my MBA as it is close to impossible for Canadians to work in the US or Europe after an MBA program
- Extensive international "presence" (IE network & Hult Boston-London-Dubai-Shanghai campus)

I couldn't find any other options. Maybe I didn't search hard enough?

It's not impossible for Canadians to work in Europe. Where did you get that idea from? We have work permit schemes, and MBAs from top schools are often able to place a majority of their non-EU students into EU jobs. Even EDHEC, which is not a top 50 school worldwide, can do that.

The IE network is extensive in the Spanish-speaking world. The Hult network is weak: the school is young, so there are few senior alumni, and none of the traditional MBA employers hire notable numbers from Hult. It is a unique school, and I don't think it maintains especially strong links with its former customers since the up-sell options are limited for that business.

The networking experience is worse, not better, in a large school. I did my MBA at London Business School (1200 students) and Tuck (250 students). I developed much stronger relationships with the students at Tuck, especially since they were all in one location. You can meet every Tuckie, but you won't be able to meet every Hult MBA.

If you want a one-year MBA and your focus is the Spanish-speaking world then IE is a great choice. Go for it.

Otherwise, Oxford, Cambridge, Cornell's new NYC MBA, or Insead are obvious options. I'm also a big fan of the Warwick, RSM and Cranfield MBAs, which are programmes with global reputations

Hello All,

I have got a call from HULT Business School. I just wanted to know that with my below profile should I go for it or if I am eligible for it:-

GMAT Score:- 540(5.0/6 in essay)
Work Exp:- 3 Years 3 months in multinational IT industry
Graduation Percentage:- 74.4%
High School Percentage:- 86%
Present Designation:- Senior Software Engineer.
Table Tennis Player and also member of few communities.

Please help me in knowing whether I am eligible for the college.

Regards,
Rahul Tripathi