This research investigates the reliability and validity of three major publications' rankings of MBA programs. Each set of rankings showed reasonable consistency over time, both at the level of the overall rankings and for most of the facets from which the rankings are derived. Each set of rankings also showed some levels of convergent and discriminant validity, but each has room for improvement, particularly "Businessweek," which relies heavily on subjective surveys of students and recruiters, and "Financial Times," whose methodology may be simplified and streamlined, ceasing to measure facets that are empirically superfluous. Together the three publications blanket the student process--"U.S. News & World Report" captures incoming student quality clearly with GMAT scores, "Businessweek" captures whether the students are happy while at their respective business schools, and "U.S. News" captures salaries and "Financial Times" captures return on investment, as short-term and longer term indicators of graduates' early career successes.