This question is posted by some genuine candidate here. Now this itself is a sign enough to alert new genuine candidates.
To prospectives candidate recruiters at Hult are very enthusiastic to share about hult prize, Clinton global initiative and Financial ranking (FT) ranking. Here is a reality check.
Yes it is very good initiative by Hult and IXL foundation. But will it benefit you?
Many a times they are successful in enticing candidates with these phrases. Yes you like such event to be organised by your school as lead partner. But is this what you are paying for? You will be just another participant with 100 others school’s candidates. Historically candidates from other schools have excelled in this event as they come from a better pool of students. Hult have normally 400-600 range of GMAT scoring candidates most in lower belt. and please don’t go by their published GMAT scores. As i said earlier those are fudged data. You will know that actual from either from genuine alumni (which is rare to find) or by join their upcoming batch.
These institutional rankings are managed by weird cohort of businessmen and not to be trusted.
The school with more leverage tries to up their ranking without making reputed genuine schools angry. Here is a truth behind decade of promotion of being top-ranked-mba-school. And based on experiences of hult alumni, following is definitely not a mistake.
here is link for report from Mary Moore
Hult International Business School tops a federal ranking of the most expensive colleges in the country, but the ranking is based on erroneous data that Hult submitted by mistake – yet the federal government plans to leave the ranking as is.
At issue is a list for the 2011-2012 academic year promulgated recently by the U.S. Department of Education, showing schools that receive Title IV financial aid and have the highest net prices. The federal agency calculates net price by taking the sticker price for colleges and universities and subtracting out financial aid and grants, leaving the out-of-pocket expense for students.
Based on the U.S. Department of Education’s calculations, Hult came in highest. And the information is posted on a U.S. Department of Education website called “College Affordability and Transparency Center,” which you can see here.
The problem is that Hult, which is headquartered in Cambridge, submitted the wrong data. The school mistakenly submitted tuition and cost data for all of its programs, which are primarily MBA degrees and one-year master’s degrees, and on all five of its campuses. Three of those campuses are not in the United States, they are in London, Shanghai and Dubai, and the other two are in Cambridge and San Francisco.
Hult has undergraduate students, but none of them are in the United States.They are in London. Hult will not have any U.S.-based undergraduates until September, when its first cohort starts in San Francisco.
The 2011-2012 academic year was the first for which Hult submitted data to the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), the federal center that collects information from colleges and universities – and the information the U.S. Department of Education uses for its annual ranking. Information from each school can be found on the IPEDS website and also on a related website called College Navigator.
“The mix up came because the forms are complex and they didn’t specify clearly that they only want U.S. (undergraduate) students studying in the U.S.,” said Michael Lu, a vice president of Hult, based in London.
He said that Hult officials have tried unsuccessfully to reach the U.S. Department of Education so that the ranking can be changed.
“But it’s so long ago that they submitted this, they’re probably reluctant to make any change. So our expectation of any change are low,” Lu said.
An official with the U.S. Department of Education said the agency is aware of the erroneous information, but it has no plans to change the ranking. Hult’s net price data had been published incorrectly on the College Navigator website for quite some time, and the school did not dispute it, the official said.
The Department of Education official said that Hult certified the data, like all other higher education institutions, under the penalty of law. And when Hult was contacted because its values were extreme, Hult said the data was correct.
“In this case, the institution did justify the increase in tuition prior to certifying,” the official said in an email.
The official said that, every year the U.S. Department of Education publishes this net price ranking, schools complain that the data is incorrect. So the Education Department isn’t budging for Hult – even though the College Navigator, which lists schools’ net prices, has changed Hult‘s information.
“Our protocol is to not change the lists,” the U.S. Department of Education official said.
When asked why it would leave erroneous information posted on a website designed to help families and students make informed higher education decisions, the official said in an emailed statement:
“This is a legally required list and that the Department has complied with the law. The institution’s new information is already released in College Navigator and will be used in the generation of next year’s list,” she said.