Why Wharton Will Always Be #2

I've come to the unfortunate realization that Wharton will always be number two to Harvard Business School's number one. This may be disconcerting to those of you who care deeply about the whole rankings thing, but get used to it. The situation is sure to continue in the very long term.

Why? Because of Alphabetization Bias (my coinage). Alphabetization bias means that all else equal, two equally-ranked entities will tend to be referred to in alphabetical order. Examples of this bias in action are plentiful. Whenever Yale ties Harvard in the undergraduate rankings, Harvard is listed first because one of the two schools must be listed first and because nobody can really argue with alphabetical order. Similarly, whenever Harvard ties Wharton for first place, Harvard is listed first in printed rankings because simple alphabetical order dictates that it must be so.

The result is a subliminal reinforcement of the Harvard name above the names of Yale, Stanford, Wharton and other schools unfortunate enough to have a letter low in the alphabet. In conversations referring to just-released rankings people will tend to repeat the list as it is printed (or displayed on a website). Thus, no matter who ties with Harvard, Harvard's name will tend to be said first. Do not underestimate the stickiness of such repetition! We can't say "Ebert and Siskel," "Clyde and Bonnie" or even "Johnson & Johnson" without sounding stilted. It just doesn't sound right on the ears, and therefore the alphabetical phrases "Harvard/Wharton" and "Harvard/Yale" become common parlance. They become phrases that cannot be rearranged.

There are some people who acknowledge the inherent unfairness of this and are doing something about it. Me for one. The Financial Times for another. IN the FT's latest rankings, Harvard and Wharton Wharton and Harvard are tied for first place. The Financial Times invested time and money so that the online version of the Global MBA rankings 2005 displays either Harvard or Wharton first, randomly. They've also done this for the three schools ranked at #13. This is certainly an admirable attempt to maintain balance in the high-stakes school rankings game, but alas, I doubt that they printed several different versions of their paper in order to maintain that balance throughout.

Let's summarize the reasons Wharton will always be #2: alphabetical orderings of equally-ranked entities tend to calcify upon repetition into phrases and common idiom. When publications go to print, it is cost prohibitive to produce several different versions of the same paper in order to list one school or another. And there are years of printed material now in which the iron hand of alphabetization has further cemented Harvard's mindspace lead over Wharton.

There are of course reasons why the two schools are very different and why Harvard's yield (the ultimate measure of the applicant pool's desire to attend an institution) and subsequent selectivity are higher than Wharton's. Those are topics for another post (or series of posts). I simply wanted to introduce and discuss the concept of Alphabetization Bias.

One final takeaway in the form of a recommendation to officers of the as-yet unnamed Yale School of Management: offer alumni with last names beginning with the first three letters of the alphabet a lower hurdle (say 80 million?) to have the school named in their honor. It will pay off in the long run, because you will be tied with many schools on your way to the top five. If you count a rich "Mr. Aamen" among your alumni, court him hard.