I am conviced by data - the school data. The FT data is way to high to be realistic. No company would grant the average MBA alumni 16%-raises every single year - not to ESMT-alumni and not to any other school's alumni. That's why the data is in line with other schools as you said: It's systematically biased.
When I set up my MBA ROI model and interpolated both data points (school data and FT data) I asked myself: Why would the employer close that gap for me? Would my employer promote me just one or two years after I got hired? Or will he give me 16% extra every year without a promotion? Both seems very unrealistic.
Edit: And to provide another example, because it really is not ESMT-specific: Take INSEAD:
1y salary: 105,000 USD
3y salary: 166,000 USD
That would mean that the first employer after graduation adds a whopping 61,000 USD in two years or grants raises of 26% each year. You don't find that questionable?
[Edited by Dan85 on Jun 22, 2016]