Just read through the new Economist ranking. Not a lot of movement in the top end (the top-10 schools are virtually the same as last year, in a marginally different order.) But there are some interesting movements towards the bottom of the list:

ASU Carey wasn't listed last year, but it's ranked 59 now.
Case Western - Weatherhead edged in at #100 after falling off the list a few years ago.
Texas Christian University - never heard of it before - debuted at number 71.
South Carolina Moore fell off the list after a few years of hanging on towards the bottom.
Brandeis fell off as well. Their MBA in nonprofit management is pretty interesting, but I'd imagine that it doesn't generate the same salary growth as more traditional programs.

Yeah, I see quite a few schools should be there isnt there.
Edinburgh university is not there. University of Florida is not there. No Boston college.No Texas A&M. No Michigan State (Broad). No Georgia State and Georgia Tech. No SUNY. No Miami. No John Hopkins. TCU is way way down the list.

Hult ahead of Cambridge, Oxford, Cambridge...

The Economist's ranking isn't taken seriously. It places a great weight on career growth in a way that penalises schools which recruit students who have already made progress.It also looks very easy to game, in particular schools with low employment rates do well in The Economist.

It does seem sort of strange to me - looking at the stats, in terms of raw salary and salary increase, at least - it seems like schools like IESE and Stanford should be higher. Booth, ranked number one, is only there because of the more subjective indicators (how do you even compare metrics like "student quality?")

Also noted: University of Queensland is on its way up: debuted in 2010 at number 81, and rose fast to number 27 this year.

It's interesting, because that school's not featured in any other rankings, and is listed ahead of other Australian schools like Melbourne and Curtin (AGSM isn't even on the list.)

Economist ranking remains the worst ranking, If a program is ranked in the top 100 it means this is a very good program and we cant get anything more out of it

I read an interesting interview with the guy who designed the Economist rankings - he basically said that they use metrics based on what students think are important: so, quality of networking opportunities, career advancement, etc. Unfortunately, he doesn't say how they quantify such subjective - and relative - data.

Interestingly, he also said that they were looking for ways to build in a sustainability metric as well - but can't figure out how to gauge that aspect of business schools.