I just read that Curtin Graduate School of Business is under investigation - they may have falsified some data they sent for the Economist MBA ranking (where they were ranked 46 last year.)
It seems like it's a big year for this kind of stuff - The Economist already kicked Tulane off the list for falsifying GMAT scores.
Curtin's rank might be too good to be true - it's not ranked in any of the other main rankings. And with the introduction of the Global MBA program (which doesn't require work experience) the school's offerings are just confusing.
Curtin MBA Under Investigation
Posted Jun 27, 2013 12:28
It seems like it's a big year for this kind of stuff - The Economist already kicked Tulane off the list for falsifying GMAT scores.
Curtin's rank might be too good to be true - it's not ranked in any of the other main rankings. And with the introduction of the Global MBA program (which doesn't require work experience) the school's offerings are just confusing.
Posted Jul 03, 2013 11:58
It's strange that we've only heard about these discrepancies in regards to the Economist MBA rankings.
Are the FT's, BW's, etc. just that much more air-tight? Or are they just less transparent about these things?
Are the FT's, BW's, etc. just that much more air-tight? Or are they just less transparent about these things?
Posted Jul 03, 2013 12:37
FT data is audited, and that makes a difference. Of course schools can still game the FTs system (for example, schools that report data from 80% or less of the graduating class might have the better-performing graduates more likely to be reporting, making Hult, Incea, Strathclyde, and Vlerick riskier).
But there's a real issue with The Econonist's ranking: it's focussed on higher percentage growth in earnings, making it the go-to ranking for students on low salaries who are more price sensitive. Schools aiming at that niche are more likely to take risks because they are the ones suffering the most in the recession. Schools that do much better in The Economist than in the FT (Queensland, Curtin, Bath, EDHEC, Strathclyde, Grenoble, Durham Audencia...) have the greatest temptation there.
But there's a real issue with The Econonist's ranking: it's focussed on higher percentage growth in earnings, making it the go-to ranking for students on low salaries who are more price sensitive. Schools aiming at that niche are more likely to take risks because they are the ones suffering the most in the recession. Schools that do much better in The Economist than in the FT (Queensland, Curtin, Bath, EDHEC, Strathclyde, Grenoble, Durham Audencia...) have the greatest temptation there.
Related Business Schools
Other Related Content
Rankings: What They Can and Can't Tell You About a Business School
Article Aug 15, 2010
MBA rankings aren't everything, but they can be a useful tool if you know what they measure and what their limitations are
Hot Discussions
-
Dilemma over IE business school EMBA
Apr 05, 2024 288 12 -
Oxford executive diplomas
Apr 01, 2024 268 9 -
Cambridge Judge vs RSM
Apr 09, 2024 270 7 -
How to evaluate IIFT's Executive PGDM
Apr 03, 2024 147 5 -
Any guesses as to why several schools are reporting big increases in applications?
Mar 30, 2024 234 3 -
Take GMAT again?
Apr 23 02:15 AM 91 3 -
City or Manchester for MiF?
Apr 09, 2024 143 1 -
General MBA for experienced technologist
Apr 17, 2024 118 1