Hi - I've been reading this forum for a while as am considering a UK full time MBA.

Two of the institutions I am considering (Henley and Westminster) don't require GMAT for admission - is this a bad thing and are their MBA's any the lesser for this? How discriminatory are employers about this?

Other universities I've spoken to, that do require GMAT for admission, have implied that their MBAs would be considered more valuable by potential employers. It's confusing trying to get the true picture about this.

Are Henley and Westminster worthwhile MBA's to apply for?

Thanks in advance to anyone who can advise or offer their opinion.

Well, "worthwhile" is about comparisons. Certainly they are better than unaccredited programmes, but not as good as most programmes which require the GMAT. See Why you should take the GMAT http://www.find-mba.com/board/38939

Traditional MBA recruiters want the skills that the GMAT reflects, which is why GMAT schools get a premium.

An employer might not especially care whether or not you took the GMAT, but they will care if they have a good relationship with a business school or not. Many employers will recruit from specific business schools, so it's worth looking at the companies you'd be aiming at post-MBA and seeing what business schools their employers did their MBAs at.

Because the GMAT is essentially a filter, as Duncan suggests, GMAT-requiring schools tend to be more selective about who they recruit, which in turn raises the school's profile. A school's reputation among employers can be especially important for international students who wish to switch into the UK. Not sure if that's what you are doing but it's worth considering if you are.

Thanks to both of you for these responses. I had already read 'Why you should take the GMAT http://www.find-mba.com/board/38939' prior to my first post here, which was useful.

Maybe I can ask the question again with more context:

- I'm 49 years old with >25 years relevant work experience in the same field, and considering either an MBA, or EMBA

- Having looked at the ratings of both of the institutions (Westminster & Henley) they do seem to be reputable, but the first answer from Duncan seems to imply that the end result may not be as sought after as from other institutions. Would that also be the case if I were to do EMBA rather than MBA, as EMBA 'seems' to have less requirement for GMAT than MBA (at least, according to these institutions)?

Thanks again for your thoughts.

[Edited by Unclemonty on Dec 10, 2014]

I think this depends on your goals. If you want the sort of job that an MBA graduate would tend to take, then a full-time programme at a better school is needed: neither Westminster not Henley have great placement. But any full-time programme will give you structured access to recruiters and careers services in a way that few EMBAs would. I don't know your circumstances, but I would consider the Sloan Fellows programme at LBS, which is designed exactly for people like you, or an EMBA at a school which will allow EMBAs access to a fairly wide range of careers services. All schools will now say they give some support, but seriously go through the list of all their services for full-time students and check off the ones they will allow. I know a guy who did the EMBA at LBS with me, while looking full-time for work and I think that was a more effective technique for him than the full-time MBA because he was not looking to be a consulting analyst or banking associate.