Business School rankings are “big business”, influencing donors and potential students alike, holding much sway over decanal and faculty priorities, particularly with respect to the curriculum as well as the focus and destination of research publications (i.e., in so called “top” journals). Over the past several years, the perverse effects of these priorities have begun to be acknowledged and new ratings and ranking systems have emerged. One promising new comer is the Positive Impact Rating (PIR), which uniquely and exclusively focuses on student perceptions of their business school’s priorities and the learning experience. In addition, it organizes schools by tier, in an effort to foster collaboration and continuous improvement, as opposed to ranked competition. If this new approach is to achieve its stated objective and help shift the focus of business schools to developing future business leaders and research output in alignment with a more sustainable world (and the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals), it is essential that the metrics used be – and perceived as - both valid and reliable. The current research aims to make a contribution in this regard, analyzing the results at one business school in detail and making recommendations for strengthening these aims. Results show that the parametric properties of the survey are highly interrelated suggesting that the predictive utility of the separate elements within scale could be improved. Additionally, biases in scores may exist dependent on where the responses are collected and who solicited them, as well as the students’ perception of their overall academic experience and on socio-cultural factors.