MBA關(guān)注：冷靜看待MBA排名

      人們喜歡排行榜。這就是為什么英國(guó)《金融時(shí)報(bào)》的商學(xué)院排名會(huì)被仔細(xì)研究、討論和剖析的原因所在。我們對(duì)此心知肚明，因?yàn)槊看挝覀儼l(fā)布一組排名之后，網(wǎng)站的訪問(wèn)量就會(huì)大幅增加。People love lists. That’s why the Financial Times’s business education rankings are pored over, debated and dissected. We know this because every time we publish a set of rankings, our website traffic jumps.

對(duì)于任何關(guān)心商學(xué)院教育的人來(lái)說(shuō)，追蹤從一所學(xué)校獲得的文憑與從另一所學(xué)校獲得的文憑之間在價(jià)值上有何差異很有吸引力和娛樂(lè)性，更不用說(shuō)是明智之舉了。英國(guó)《金融時(shí)報(bào)》的研究顯示，一個(gè)MBA畢業(yè)生的平均成本——包括收入損失——超過(guò)20萬(wàn)美元。For anyone who cares about business education, tracking how valuable a qualification from one school might be relative to another is absorbing and entertaining, not to mention sensible. The average cost — including lost earnings — of an MBA is more than $200,000, according to FT research.

我在英國(guó)《金融時(shí)報(bào)》的團(tuán)隊(duì)負(fù)責(zé)這些龐大的數(shù)據(jù)項(xiàng)目。但是，最近對(duì)這類排名所產(chǎn)生的心理影響進(jìn)行的研究，讓我對(duì)即使計(jì)算能力超群的人解讀我們排名的方法感到擔(dān)憂。當(dāng)我們看到一個(gè)排行榜時(shí)，似乎忘記了我們知道的所有數(shù)學(xué)基礎(chǔ)知識(shí)。My team at the FT is responsible for these massive data projects. But recent studies into the psychological effects of such lists has caused me to worry about how even highly numerate people interpret our rankings. The minute we see a list, it seems, we forget everything we know about basic maths.

根據(jù)《市場(chǎng)研究雜志》(Journal of Marketing Research) 2014年發(fā)表的一份美國(guó)研究報(bào)告，當(dāng)我們拿到一個(gè)排行榜時(shí)，我們會(huì)將其劃分為幾個(gè)等級(jí)。因此，以英國(guó)《金融時(shí)報(bào)》MBA課程前100排名為例，為了更好地解讀這份榜單，我們可能會(huì)簡(jiǎn)單地將它們劃分為前10、前20、前50等等級(jí)來(lái)進(jìn)行考慮，并以此類推做出判斷。The FT will publish its Executive Education programme rankings early next month, so this seems like a good time to think about it.According to a 2014 US study published in the Journal of Consumer Research, when we are presented with a list, we look for boundaries. So in order to make sense of, say, the FT’s ranked list of the top 100 MBA programmes, we probably simplify by thinking in terms of — and passing judgment on — the first 10 programmes, the first 20, the first 50 and so on.

通過(guò)對(duì)照實(shí)驗(yàn)，研究人員發(fā)現(xiàn)，人們會(huì)認(rèn)為第9名和第10名之間沒(méi)什么差別。但是，當(dāng)我們將第11名——處于心理邊界的不利一邊——與第10名進(jìn)行比較時(shí)，盡管名次也僅差一名，我們卻認(rèn)為兩者的差別很大。換句話說(shuō)，我們的判斷非常不公平：我們認(rèn)為，處于我們劃分的第一個(gè)等級(jí)內(nèi)的排名價(jià)值非常高，且我們喜歡以0結(jié)尾的數(shù)字。大多數(shù)商學(xué)院不愿意排到第11位。Using controlled experiments, researchers found people perceive little difference between ninth and 10th place in a ranking. But when we weigh 11th — the wrong side of that mental boundary — against 10th, we perceive the difference as much greater, though the increment is the same. In other words, our judgment is highly unfair: we regard a placement within our first boundary as very valuable, and we like numbers ending in 0. Most business schools would prefer not to be number 11.

研究人員證實(shí)，這些觀念對(duì)商學(xué)院的申請(qǐng)產(chǎn)生了連鎖反應(yīng)。他們對(duì)3年里為申請(qǐng)商學(xué)院而參加管理專業(yè)研究生入學(xué)考試 (GMAT)的近50萬(wàn)考生的偏好進(jìn)行了調(diào)查，并將考生傾向申請(qǐng)的學(xué)校數(shù)據(jù)與相關(guān)學(xué)校在一個(gè)流行的排行榜中的排名變化進(jìn)行了比較。果然，預(yù)測(cè)學(xué)校收到申請(qǐng)的數(shù)量的一個(gè)最好指標(biāo)是排名是否跨越了一個(gè)等級(jí)——例如，從第12名上升至第10名，或者從第18名下降到第20名。The researchers established that these perceptions have a knock-on effect on business school applications. They looked at the preferences of almost 500,000 candidates taking the Graduate Management Admission Test (GMAT) exam for business schools over three years, mapping data for preferred schools against movements in a popular school’s ranking. Sure enough, the best predictor of numbers of applications a school received was if it passed a round-number boundary — from 12th to 10th, say, or from 18th to 20th.

這表明我們假定每個(gè)名次之間存在相同的質(zhì)量差距。但這毫無(wú)道理：英國(guó)《金融時(shí)報(bào)》根據(jù)20多個(gè)不同的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)對(duì)MBA課程進(jìn)行排名。有些名次之間的差距可能要比其他名次之間的差距大得多。This suggests we assume an even gap in quality between each numerical placement. But that makes no sense: the FT ranks MBA programmes on more than 20 separate criteria. Some increments are likely to be much bigger than others.

參加第一項(xiàng)研究的兩名研究人員將工作深入了一步，他們發(fā)現(xiàn)當(dāng)大學(xué)登廣告宣傳其排名時(shí)（許多大學(xué)都會(huì)這么做），似乎出現(xiàn)了同樣的不理性行為。《市場(chǎng)營(yíng)銷雜志》(Journal of Marketing)一篇處于高級(jí)審閱階段的最新研究報(bào)告想要弄清楚，一個(gè)學(xué)校在宣傳材料中使用百分?jǐn)?shù)排名，是否比使用數(shù)字排名更有利呢？該研究發(fā)現(xiàn)，如果一所學(xué)校在前50排行榜上位列前20，那么最好將自己描述為“前20”，而不是“前40％”。報(bào)告作者預(yù)計(jì)將在今年晚些時(shí)候發(fā)表報(bào)告。Two of the researchers from that first study have taken the work further, and it seems that the same irrationality occurs when universities advertise their positions in rankings (as many do). A new study under advanced review in the Journal of Marketing sets out to establish whether a school would be better off using a percentage versus a numerical rank in its promotional material. It turns out that if a school is ranked in the top 20 in a list of 50, it would be well advised to describe itself as being ‘in the top 20’, rather than ‘in the top 40 per cent’. The authors are expecting the study to be published later this year.

這同樣是因?yàn)?，即使是商學(xué)院未來(lái)的學(xué)生也會(huì)忘記數(shù)學(xué)知識(shí)。研究人員認(rèn)為，這些人認(rèn)為“前20”比“前40％”靠前——即使排名（前50中排名前20）其實(shí)是一樣的。排名略次于前100的課程最好用百分?jǐn)?shù)排名。That is because, once again, even prospective business school students forget about maths. The researchers believe they perceive 20 to be higher than 40 — even though the position (20 out of 50) is the same. Programmes ranked just outside a top 100 would be well advised to tout a percentage.

“即便計(jì)算能力很強(qiáng)的人也會(huì)有這樣的偏見(jiàn)，”研究報(bào)告的合著者、西雅圖大學(xué)(Seattle University)阿爾伯斯經(jīng)濟(jì)與工商管理學(xué)院(Albers School of Business and Economics)的教授馬修•艾薩克(Mathew Isaac)說(shuō)。“Even highly numerate people are guilty of these biases,” says Professor Mathew Isaac of Seattle University — Albers School of Business and Economics, who co-authored the studies.

商學(xué)院很清楚，聲譽(yù)是情感化的東西，未來(lái)的學(xué)生會(huì)對(duì)此做出相應(yīng)的反應(yīng)，這可能解釋了他們?yōu)槭裁磿?huì)完全失去理性思維：“事實(shí)證明，可能出現(xiàn)確認(rèn)偏誤——你可能不會(huì)以同樣的方式來(lái)評(píng)判同樣的排名或排名提升，”艾薩克教授說(shuō)。As business schools know, reputation is an emotional subject and prospective students respond accordingly, which could explain why logic flies out of the window: “Confirmation bias is proven to be likely — you may not judge the same rankings or jumps in the same way,” says Prof Isaac.

大多數(shù)人沒(méi)有MBA或其他商學(xué)院文憑，但他們認(rèn)識(shí)的某個(gè)人、面試的某個(gè)人、聘用的某個(gè)人、與之競(jìng)爭(zhēng)的某個(gè)人，或他們的子女（他們?yōu)槠渲Ц秾W(xué)費(fèi)）有商學(xué)院文憑。許多人都會(huì)參加某種形式的管理人員教育培訓(xùn)。這幾乎涵蓋了所有人，這意味著上述判斷錯(cuò)誤會(huì)產(chǎn)生很大的影響。Most people do not hold an MBA or any other business school qualification, but they are likely to know someone, interview someone, employ someone, compete with someone or be the parent of (and paying for) someone who does. Many will study some form of executive education. That covers pretty much everyone, which means these errors of judgment matter.

排名有助于幫助申請(qǐng)者選擇課程，但是（正如批評(píng)者經(jīng)常提醒我的那樣），排名并未告訴我們很多關(guān)于策劃、教授、營(yíng)運(yùn)和管理一個(gè)高品質(zhì)課程背后所投入的人力、技能和專業(yè)知識(shí)方面的信息。如果我們忘記了這一點(diǎn)，那么我們就真的忘記了最基礎(chǔ)的東西。Rankings are useful to help applicants choose a course, but (as their critics often remind me) they do not tell us much about the human effort, skill and expertise that goes into planning, teaching, running and administering high-quality courses. If we forget about that, then we really have forgotten the basics.