There's a new ranking of EMBA programs up at the Financial Times - and with it comes some interesting changes from last year's ranking. Here's my quick hit:

The winners:
Partnerships: the top five is dominated by joint programs (Kellogg/HKUST, Columbia/LBS, Trium, Tsinghua/INSEAD.)

Programs in China - the Tsinghua-INSEAD EMBA made a strong debut at number 4, fueled by high salary numbers. CEIBS rose a few spots; Sun Yat-sen debuted at number 11.

Losers:
Second tier US EMBA programs: While the top US EMBA programs tended to hold their own - second-tier EMBAs didn't fare as well. Arizona - Eller, Loyola - Sellinger, Michigan - Broad, and Pepperdine all fell off this year.

Mixed Bag:
UK EMBA programs: Strathclyde dropped off the list and Cranfield dropped precariously; but Warwick, Cass, and Imperial held their ground.

Some decent values in the second half of thelist, at least for non-US programs:

Koç University: 21k EUR
Smurfit: 30k EUR
National Taiwan University: 20k EUR

I ve just listened to an interesting interview with ESCP director (it was taken some days before the ranking was releases) and he was confident to re-gain some positions after last year debacle. Actually they did... what is more interesting is that he was proud that 70% of people admitted were sponsored by their companies: I think that this explains mostly the success of the school in term of career advancement.
I also got in touch with some students from Essec-Mannheim (introduced by the school) and they were also fully-sponsored by companies (of course they were all very happy with their experience): I really wonder whether embas are a good deal when you have to pay for them.

Some decent values in the second half of thelist, at least for non-US programs:

Koç University: 21k EUR

National Taiwan University: 20k EUR

I'd imagine that these part-time programmes will be taught in the local language.

do they make sense if you are not turkish or taiwanese?

I ve just listened to an interesting interview with ESCP director (it was taken some days before the ranking was releases) and he was confident to re-gain some positions after last year debacle. Actually they did... what is more interesting is that he was proud that 70% of people admitted were sponsored by their companies: I think that this explains mostly the success of the school in term of career advancement.
I also got in touch with some students from Essec-Mannheim (introduced by the school) and they were also fully-sponsored by companies (of course they were all very happy with their experience): I really wonder whether embas are a good deal when you have to pay for them.

I believe the investment required to undertake a top EMBA will be a dominant factor if it is self-funded. These will impact your domestic situation. I have just spent the last hour discussing this with a colleague, whose wife asked the question : "this 60kGBP is 60kGBP you could be spending on the kids."

Do you honestly think that potential EMBA candidates think about their "team" above this? Even the boss does not have to be involved as long as the time away from the office is possible. If it is self-funded then chances are your employer are not particularly interested, or at least should have no claim.

BigD

you need support from your boss, your team and your family. that is very very important. Money seems to be not the most decisive bit of it

I believe the investment required to undertake a top EMBA will be a dominant factor if it is self-funded. These will impact your domestic situation. I have just spent the last hour discussing this with a colleague, whose wife asked the question : "this 60kGBP is 60kGBP you could be spending on the kids."

I really wonder whether embas are a good deal when you have to pay for them.

I really wonder whether embas are a good deal when you have to pay for them.

Today, there are still more organizations that are giving economic support for those employees who would like to pursue an EMBA program (as compared to those who do MBAs.)

But if you're not supported, a main consideration is salary growth, since this is an investment. The top EMBA programs are still good investments, as they continue to provide quantifiable growth in average salaries.

According to the current FT rankings, for example - the average salary increase for students who did the Columbia / London Business School EMBA-Global Americas and Europe was 89%. If you were the typical grad of this program, and had to self-fund, you'd basically make back your investment is less than two years. Same is true for other top programs, IE Business School, CEIBS, KUBS, etc.

===============================================
Rank | fee(£K) | School | Salary |% Growth|
===============================================
2 | 95 | Columbia/LBS | 265,596 | 89 |
3 | 98 | Trium | 307,992 | 52 |
6 | 78 | INSEAD | 212,586 | 57 |
10 | 93 | Chicago | 230,855 | 60 |
15 | 58 | London Business School | 180,070 | 68 |
21 | 48 | ESCP Europe | 153,168 | 77 |
24 | 35 | Warwick Business School | 149,331 | 98 |
31 | 42 | Imperial College Business School | 140,590 | 75 |
32 | 42 | City University: Cass | 153,329 | 71 |
38 | 51 | University of Oxford: Saïd | 182,709 | 56 |
53 | 35 | Henley Business School | 148,557 | 65 |
75 | 33 | Cranfield School of Management | 132,934 | 53 |
94 | 33 | Ashridge | 145,731 | 58 |
===============================================

So, which one is the better ROI and better in the long run?

It's not the RoI that matters. It's the nett present value. 50,000 pounds to increase your lifetime earnings by 500,000 has a higher NPV but a lower RoI than a 1,000 pound exec ed course that boosts your lifetime income by 11,000.

Ezra....does it make sense to think that sponsored students are also the ones likely to have faster promotions and career advancements? (so, they are likely to pump up the average salary average)

About IE... their results look a bit "too good to be true"