success, such as social skills, teamwork orientation, ethics, and analytic and problem-solving abilities. The ranking of MBA programs has been discussed in articles and on academic websites. Critics of ranking methodologies maintain that any published rankings should be viewed with caution for the following reasons: Rankings exhibit intentional selection bias as they limit the surveyed population to a small number of MBA programs and ignore the majority of schools, many with excellent offerings. Ranking methods may be subject to personal biases and statistically flawed methodologies (especially methods relying on subjective interviews of hiring managers, students, or faculty). Rankings use no objective measures of program quality. The same list of schools appears in each ranking with some variation in ranks, so a school ranked as number 1 in one list may be number 17 in another list. Rankings tend to concentrate on representing MBA schools themselves, but some schools offer MBA programs of different qualities and yet the ranking will only rely upon information from the full-time program (e.g., a school may use highly reputable faculty to teach a daytime program, but use adjunct faculty in its evening program or have drastically lower admissions criteria for its evening program than for its daytime program). A high rank in a national publication tends to become a self-fulfilling prophecy. Some leading business schools including Harvard, INSEAD, Wharton and Sloan provide limited cooperation with certain ranking publications due to their perception that rankings are misused. One study found that ranking MBA programs by a combination of graduates' starting salaries and average student GMAT score can approximately duplicate the top 20 list of the national publications, and concluded that a truly objective ranking would use objective measures of program quality and be individualized to the needs of each prospective student. National publications have recognized the value of rankings against different criteria and now offer lists ranked different ways: by salary, GMAT score of students, selectivity, and so forth. While useful, these rankings have yet to meet the critique that rankings are not tailored to individual needs, that they use an incomplete population of schools, may fail to distinguish between the different MBA program types offered by each school, or rely on subjective interviews. Criticism Articles have been written about public perceptions of the crisis, ranging from schools' acknowledgment of issues with the training students receive to criticisms of the MBA's role in society. After the