Hi all,

I am considering doing an MBA program. Been reading many posts in this forum, and it's been really informative. I'd like to open a discussion about the accuracy employment data provided by business schools.

I see that these statistics are very important for people when they are choosing their MBA programs, because they provide an indicator for a specific program's ROI, and it's great to be able to compare these often diverse programs based on this single, quantified indicator. But as I'm looking at all of this data - I'm wondering:

Can we trust the business schools to provide accurate data?

It's in their best interest to publish the highest average salaries they can - and from what I can tell, there's no external oversight on any employment reports that I've looked at. For example, UC Berkeley's employment report doesn't even say if it surveys all of its graduates or not! And how can I be sure that 92 percent of London Business School's most recent MBA class actually did secure a job within three months of graduating?

I guess it's not actually these top, established brands that I am worried about - but the ones that are not as well known - and who have incentives to move quickly up the rankings. Mind you, I don't have any proof of false statistics being published - it might not actually happen - it's just that I really want to be sure I can trust them, you know?

Anybody have any thoughts on this?

You are assuming that the salary data are provided by the schools. In fact, the rankings conduct their own surveys of alumni. These and the other date from schools considered for the FT ranking are audited by a major accounting firm.

If a school was to falsify data it would be an impossible secret to keep, and it would produce a major reputational crisis fr the school.

More likely is gaming the rankings. If you sort the FT ranking by salary you'll see some schools which are much higher or lower in the ranking than you'd expect on the basis of the salary. Those are schools which are, or are not, attentive to the other variables. That is the main way in which bottom-tier schools massage their admissions chances.

Thanks for the response. I've read through the FT's methodology, and from what I can tell the majority of those rankings and that data are relatively beyond reproach (although, the margins are another matter, as you rightly point out.)

What I am questioning is the employment reports and salary data provided by the business schools themselves, on their websites. Am I right to think that without a published methodology or external oversight, we should be a least a little bit skeptical of these?

And by proxy - the websites that allow users to compare MBA programs by this kind of data (FindtheBest is one that I've seen referred to here quite often) - how reliable are they? I can't seem to find any kind of methodology for how they determine post-MBA salary.

I think you have to consider the organisational setting. No individual involved in the reporting will directly benefit, therefore it would require either an individual or a conspiracy. When data are misreported, it's hard to cover up and has a big impact. Consider Tulane: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/02/tulane-us-news-ranking_n_2395723.html

I think the skepticism one should have is the assumption that average outcomes happen for all students. The data themselves are unlikely to be doctored.

I tend to agree that the salary statistics are generally going to be trustworthy. For the ranked schools, it's easily cross-checked with that of the rankings - and like Duncan points out, misreporting is usually caught, in one way or another.

And as far as I know, not a lot of unranked schools publish such data.

I'm not sure where FindtheBest gets their information, so I can't comment on that. It seems like they scalp a lot of their data from other ranking sources, but I'm not sure.

Yes, I agree. But what about the recent Forbes ranking?

http://www.find-mba.com/article/803/forbes-updates-its-business-school-rankings-for-2013

It's based on alumni surveys, and "The magazine only received responses from 27 percent of those surveyed."

Can we expect that 27 percent is enough of a cross-section? Or maybe people self-select, so only those that are really happy with where they are in terms of salary respond...

27% is more than enough if the invitees are randomly selected.

Yes, I agree. But what about the recent Forbes ranking?

http://www.find-mba.com/article/803/forbes-updates-its-business-school-rankings-for-2013

It's based on alumni surveys, and "The magazine only received responses from 27 percent of those surveyed."

Can we expect that 27 percent is enough of a cross-section? Or maybe people self-select, so only those that are really happy with where they are in terms of salary respond...