It has been widely discussed on campus and even reported in the press that Baruch College is in the midst of a long-range plan to improve the position of its Zicklin School of Business in the major national rankings of business schools. Right now, Zicklin has a Top 20 part-time MBA program and an undergraduate business program ranked in the middle of the pack by U.S. News & World Report. As our focus turns to what will be required to achieve a significantly higher ranking in the general category of “Top Business Schools,” some have asked whether this is the same thing as planning to improve as a school. Will our effort to meet the criteria for improved rankings actually address the needs of our full student body? Most of the major business school rankings are based on full-time MBA programs, and the Zicklin Full-Time Honors MBA is only one program amid many serving our diverse population of undergraduates and full-time and part-time graduate students. These are complicated and worthwhile questions. First, our planning and our objectives do not have a narrow focus on a relatively small part of the institution. Rather, they form an articulated goal that supports an overall quest for excellence and a continuous improvement in the whole organization. Rankings have a valuable role to play, although even this is a point subject to much debate. In a recent New York Times op-ed article, Richard Beeman, arts and sciences dean at the University of Pennsylvania, makes the strong and valid point that “good education doesn’t depend on a good ranking.” However, let us recall the world before such rankings existed. Applicants had limited information about schools, and the cost of information gathering was high. One had to read every school’s materials and sort out the facts. Most potential students learned about schools from a trusted teacher or counselor with sketchy knowledge based on limited evidence. Enter the ratings. They provide pages of data. Some are measurable facts, such as entering test scores (GMAT or SAT) or exit placement/salary statistics. These offer valuable perspectives to applicants about their potential fellow students and future employment opportunities. Some rankings are based on opinions of deans and faculty of other schools, graduates of the rated school, or recruiters—all of which offer valuable perspectives. While rankings are imperfect measures of educational quality, they do provide data and then challenge the consumers of the data to make an assessment and decide what is relevant for them. Published data also challenge schools to evaluate themselves and decide whether and how to alter the characteristics that rankings employ. The BusinessWeek rankings, which began in 1988, initially relied on two measures: What do the students think? What do the recruiters think? Their initial rankings shocked the system because some institutions conventionally believed to be Top 10 schools did not appear in the BusinessWeek Top 10. This visible disruption spurred improvements. Most changes enhanced attention to student learning and satisfaction. I believe that education was improved as a result. No doubt, there also is a dark side to “rankings mania.” External “independent” parties producing the rankings want to sell their periodicals and derivative publications and online services. And their audience, including future applicants, has a “winner-take-all” perspective that emphasizes maximum distinctions among the rated schools. An applicant admitted to a 10th-ranked program and a 20th-ranked program often chooses the former even though the lower-ranked school provides a better learning and career fit given the applicant’s personal goals and characteristics. The rankings represent a classic half-full glass. The race for ranking occasionally leads schools to do inappropriate things: for example, admitting applicants with high test scores despite poor English skills or inadequate work experience in order to raise the published GMAT statistic. On the other hand, rankings have forced some schools to pay attention to legitimate learning and to support long-ignored student needs. As Baruch and the Zicklin School move forward, the rankings will capture the improvement and communicate it to current and future students as well as alumni, faculty, and staff. Future undergraduates will appropriately associate improving graduate programs with improving undergraduate programs. At the same time, we choose to seek out external validation and verification for the education we provide, so that we are held accountable by a third party affirming our goals and accomplishments. Improving by those standards will instigate a circular process of improvements for all of Baruch College. Here’s how that “quality circle” works: In a two-year hiring program, we’re adding approximately 40 new faculty members at the Zicklin School (teaching undergraduates and graduates, both part-time and full-time students). Great faculty members attract great students. When you have great faculty and great students, recruiters hire your graduates, and soon alumni want to support the success. And when you have recruiters and alumni supporting your success, you attract great faculty, who attract great students. And on it goes, enabling a great future.