I have posted this question/viewpoint elsewhere as well...

Having just gone through the EMBA application process, and enrolled in the Cornell-Queen's Executive MBA Program (with a deferral), I am continuing to learn a great deal about the MBA/EMBA universe and my question relates to how much value one should place on EMBA specific rankings versus Full Time Rankings?
With EMBA rankings so varied and inconsistent and since graduates receive the same MBA degree/diploma (obviously via a different course program tailored towards folks at very different points in life), is it reasonable to look at the Full Time Rankings as an additional measure/benchmark?

The Full Time Rankings appear far more consistent on balance...

My research has shown that EMBA rankings are very inconsistent among the major ranking groups. Some rankings exclude partnership programs altogether. For example BusinessWeek, excludes all partnership programs, including among others, the Columbia-UCal Berkeley program, as well as my selected program, the Cornell-Queen's EMBA. Seems strange to me since program graduates will receive full MBA degrees/diplomas from both Columbia GSB and UCal Berkeley Haas, and in my case full MBA degrees/diplomas from both the Cornell Johnson School and the Queen's School of Business in Canada...

I do not believe rankings are the end all and be all but they are nevertheless a useful tool for benchmarking...
Thoughts