Hello All,

I an new to the forum. I just completed my bachelors in June 2012 and now looking to pursue MSc in Management/International Business. Two options that I've narrowed down are HWR Berlin (Msc in International Business-- 2 years, approx 12k euros) and UC3m - Charles III University of Madrid (MSc in Management -- 1 year, approx 6k euros) I am not eligible for MBA since I have 9 months of working experience after my graduation.

I read a post earlier which was similar but for MBA but since I am going for a difference course thought of asking here.

Also I am open to suggestions for other MSc programs in Germany which are better than both.

Can you guys please suggest which of the two are better with respect to prospective job opportunities after completion of the program and reputation the of the university.

Thanks so much!!

Employment opportunities are weak from both of these schools because they are in cities with very high levels of unemployment for graduates. Why not focus on the FT's ranking of masters in management degrees?

Employment opportunities are weak from both of these schools because they are in cities with very high levels of unemployment for graduates. Why not focus on the FT's ranking of masters in management degrees?

I'm not sure that I could accept the choice. UC3M has a huge advantage: it's a traditional university. It also has the advantage of having a strong reputation for research. But, to be honest, there are strong public research universities everywhere. I'd take the GMAT.

I'm not sure that I could accept the choice. UC3M has a huge advantage: it's a traditional university. It also has the advantage of having a strong reputation for research. But, to be honest, there are strong public research universities everywhere. I'd take the GMAT.

Were you accepted for the Grenoble campus (their associate campuses don't have the same network or experience in London or Singapore)? If so, that's a better option than either of those other schools, since the economy is better there, and the school is much better.

Put a huge effort now and during the course into intensively improving your French.

Thanks Duncan, appreciate your advice. seems you're the wise one in this forum :)

Thanks again, I got accepted at Grenoble campus and will keep your advice in mind and start learning french once I get my finances sorted.

Thank you so very much!!!
T

Any idea on Job prospects?

I guess the FT rankings is a good guide. I would ask the school about the outcomes for people who arrive with your level of French.

Hi to everyone,
I followed your conversation with interest, as it refers to the program that I lead. As an interested party, I will therefore not try to convince you about which is the best option. Instead, I will just give you some pieces of information that may help you in this important decision.
As suggested, Grenoble is certainly a very good school. No doubt about that. Its MSc program has a lot of positives, as it can be seen from the FT Business Schools ranking (http://rankings.ft.com/businessschoolrankings/grenoble-graduate-school-of-business/masters-in-management-2012#masters-in-management-2012).
In our case, the MiM does not have enough track to be included in international rankings, though individual indicators of success are comparable to high-ranked programs in terms of school diversity, international experience & research, and alumni career progress. Just to give you some figures related to these three dimensions: we have a 75% of international students (basically, from Germany, France, and Holland), 100% of our faculty holds a PhD (from universities such as Harvard, Bocconi, Cornell, Texas A&M, London School of Economics, and Stamford), and, more importantly, 90% of the students of the last edition are currently employed (in companies such as Ferrero Germany, Capgemini Germany, KPMG France, or Kraft Foods). Thus, although it is true what Duncan has pointed out regarding the Spanish business environment, the international orientation of our program has allowed our former students to sort these problems successfully.
It is also important to highlight other dimensions of our institution. As it has been suggested, Carlos III University and the Business Department have a strong reputation for teaching and research. In terms of teaching, for example, our bachelor in business is ranked 1st in Spain (http://hosting01.uc3m.es/semanal3/documents/rankingelmundo_2012.pdf) and our Master in Management, despite its short history, is included among the first 50 programs in General Management in Western Europe (http://www.best-masters.com/html2pdf/pdf/diplome_ecole/918/13738_Top_200_Universidad_Carlos_III_de_Madrid_c.pdf). In terms of research, according to the UT Dallas Business School Research Rankings 2007-13 (http://jindal.utdallas.edu/the-utd-top-100-business-school-research-rankings/), our department is ranked 15th among European business schools [1) Insead, 2) London Business School, 3) Erasmus University, 4) HEC France, 5) Tilburg University, 6) Bocconi University, 7) Copenhagen Business School, 8) Cambridge University, 9) Imperial College, 10) City University London, 11) Norwegian School of Economics, 12) Universitat Pompeu Fabra, 13) Aston University, 14) VU University Amsterdam, 15) Universidad Carlos III].
I hope this information will of your interest. Good luck with your decision!

Hi Jordi,

Thanks for joining the conversation. Carlos III has a very strong reputation for economist researchers, like yourself. It's important to note that the measures you focus on really relate to research: the number of staff with PhDs; Eduniversal's Best Masters ranking, which reflects reputation among academics; and the UTD research ranking.

These things are quite autonomous from student outcomes. Graduates of the Tuck and Ashridge business schools can be successful without PhD programmes; UPF and the VU in Amsterdam are able to generate good research without becoming strong conveyor belts to move international students into the labour market.

In the Spanish context, it's great that 90% of your graduates are unemployed, and that is only slightly below the median for the top 70 MIM programmes (http://rankings.ft.com/businessschoolrankings/masters-in-management-2012). Howevere, the key questions here are really:
1. *what* roles do graduates have, on what salary, and
2. how do *international* students (and in particular non-Europeans) fare, since this site is aimed at students looking at English-language international masters, many of whom come from outside Europe.

The median salary for those top 70 programmes is around 53,000 euro per year, and the three Spanish schools in the FT ranking out-perform that. I'm not sure that non-EU students on the Carlos III will have similar outcomes.

PS. I guess you mean Stanford (in California) not Stamford (in Thailand).

Hi Duncan,

You?re right, it is not only important to facilitate student access to the labor market, but to help them to find a good job. At this moment, we are collecting this information. I gathered some data points and, in average, the salary in placed above this value. However, I realize that it is needed more data before reaching more definitive conclusions.

I also agree with you there are colleges focused on the formation of students in which research is not a priority. But, in my opinion, these institutions are the exception, not the rule. Just to illustrate my point, I have performed a simple exercise (I have done it in Excel to allow you to replicate it) that consists in computing the correlation between FT rank (data source: Masters in Management 2012) and Faculty with PhD (FT does not provide other measures of research capability or performance), Salary and Faculty with PhD, and % Employed at 3 months and Faculty with PhD. It is not surprising to me that the first correlation is negative (meaning that lower values in the rank [so better positions] are related to more PhDs), and the second and third are positive (salary and % employed are positively related to PhDs). This exercise (unscientific, I admit it) reinforces the impression that many institutions share: a good education is related to research of quality. That said, there are notable exceptions, as you know.

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to share with you my impressions (and sorry for the joke/exercise).

Best,
jordi

Hi Jordi,

That's quite amusing. Thanks. Of course the causality and correlation are the important things. The rankings are the output of the inputs, so all the inputs should be correlated with the outputs. Rankings produce a pressure to comply with the variables: Manchester, just to pick a school I know well, has developed a preposterously large distance-learning doctoral programme, which is number one in the FT rankings. That drives the school up in the rankings but, really, what process can be at work to really mean that the MBA is better because of that PhD?

Hi Duncan,

It's true that the final ranking is the result of several individual indicators, including research. However, this does not apply to the other indicators (e.g., graduates' salaries) that are correlated with research.

In any case, I agree that there is some kind of virtuous circle between teaching and research, though I believe that it is stronger the causality from research to teaching -- not in the opposite direction. At least two forces explain this prediction. The first refers to the quality of the programs. Just to give you an example that I believe I know reasonably well (as it is one of my main research topics). For years, the industry has considered corporate social responsibility (CSR) as a cost for companies. Although it has been difficult to reach an agreement among scholars, current research (you can revise some of the recent metastudies on the topic) has concluded that "it pays to be responsible". This (and other factors, of course) has led business schools to include ethics and social responsibility in their programs. And nowadays, there are few companies worldwide that do not have a CSR unit or that, when hire a manager, do not take into account if candidates have received a formation in ethics (the recent corporate scandals reinforced this need). So, doing better research may help to define educational programs that are valued by the industry, which therefore pays for it.

The second force refers to the quality of teaching. I do not want to offend anyone, but in general (there are notable exceptions) the best researchers are the best teachers. I have had the opportunity to assist to the MBA classes of some of the best scholars in my areas of research, and it was amazing to see their classes. If this was not true: why business schools pay higher salaries to the best researchers?

It's great to have such an interesting conversation with you!

Best,
jordi

Hmmm. I've not convinced either with the idea that the best researchers are the best teachers (at many business schools you see quite a division of labour between those two activities) or that business values research: most PhD research is not read. Research in refereed journals has very little impact on practice.