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.

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?

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.