Since 2001, the Financial Times has employed auditors from KPMG to develop a system for auditing the data supplied by the business schools to help ensure accuracy.
The 2007 rankings mark the sixth year that KPMG has vetted data and the group has completed more than 140 audits at 120 schools for the FT.
It has become accepted that audited data are the way forward – they enable applicants and recruiters to make valid comparisons. In parallel with the FT auditing process, the Graduate Management Admissions Council is also pursuing auditing as a way of ensuring the accuracy of the information it publishes on its Pathfinder database for prospective students.
GMAC began auditing data on admissions – such as GMAT scores and class statistics – in 2003 and began auditing careers data – such as percentage of employed graduates – last year, following a mock audit procedure in 2005. This year, GMAC audited 35 schools, which had submitted either admissions data or employment data, or both, to the Pathfinder database.
The proliferation of audits has caused some concern among schools, says Glenda Lucas, client services specialist at GMAC. She believes schools want the GMAC audit and the FT audit – both conducted by regional offices of KPMG – to be carried out on the same day.
An e-mail survey of participants in the FT Global MBA rankings showed that most schools were indifferent. This was often because schools outside the US are not members of GMAC. For the rankings the FT works with 185 business schools, only 102 of which supply data to GMAC. In addition, the type of data the FT requires is very different from the data GMAC holds.
Part of the policy at the FT has always been to ask a question only if the answer is used in the rankings. For the MBA rankings, for example, 33 questions are asked but only 14 of these 33 questions form part of the 140 questions on the Pathfinder database, and not all 14 of those will be audited for GMAC – some are provided for course description only.
The biggest stumbling-block to collaboration has been the timing of the two audits. The FT asks schools to submit data by November in the year preceding publication. KPMG visits selected schools in November and December. Submitted data are updated before publication in January.
GMAC, on the other hand, has until now audited data over the summer, following the submission of employment data in the spring and admissions data the previous autumn. This looks set to change, however. The schedule, says Ms Lucas, “is really not working out. We would like to move the auditing to the fall.” This could mean closer collaboration between GMAC and the FT.
As a test, auditors from both the FT and GMAC visited the University of Florida in November. Florida had submitted only admissions data to Pathfinder (not recruitment data), but completed the full FT audit. Daniela Muñiz, associate director for graduate business programmes at Florida, was impressed. “It was fast and easy and painless,” she says.
Obstacles to closer collaboration still exist, notably concerning procedures. In addition, the penalties for reporting inaccurate data are different. The FT uses the audit to ensure the data it publishes are accurate. At GMAC, schools are allowed up to 3 per cent inaccuracy. Any more and they are evicted from Pathfinder.
