does triple accredited schools guarantee better employment prospect? because i see a lot of lower tier business schools have received triple accrediton

Well, it's really only schools serving an international market that go for triple accreditation. I don't know how you do your tiering, but I would say the triple crown schools are all pretty good.

I'd say that *on average* schools with more accreditations do have higher salaries. See Why international accreditation matters http://www.find-mba.com/board/41224

i read on wiki about it...so wanted to ask an expert...thanks

I'd add that historically, each accreditation organization served different regions. So, roughly:

AACSB: USA
AMBA: UK
EQUIS: Europe

Of course, this has been shifting for a number of regions, especially with business schools gaining accreditation in Asia/Canada/South America/etc.

However, this historical breakdown still has artifacts. So, you'll not see many (any??) AMBA-accredited business schools in the US...

Long story short, that means that "triple accreditation" is not the best indicator of school quality, considering that most of the best business schools in the world (Stanford, Harvard, Wharton, Booth...) do not have it.

True, but triple accreditation is [other things being equal] better than dual or single. The average salary of all AACSB schools is lower than the average pf AACSB schools that have more extra accreditation. Geography matters for exactly the reasons you state, and the rankings are more reliable.

but duncan sir, the mba from schools like lums,henely,durham,leeds,edinburgh are not very highly valued like other European schools even though they have received the prestigious accrediation

I don't understand why you say "but".

I am not saying that all triple-accredited schools are better than all single-accredited schools. I am saying that
- on average triple-accredited schools are better than single-accredited schools
- the rankings are more reliable.

There are around 20 triple crown schools in the FT 100, which is two-thirds of the schools outside Asia-Pacific and North America. 7 are in the bottom half, and 13 are in the top half, of the ranking (including Lancaster, which you say is not highly valued). If, for example, their average salaries or rankings were below the median, or even below the median for those schools within the top 100, then it would not be an effective quality sign. That is not the case.