Hello Duncan and everyone.

I would like to ask for your advice.

What is best citeria to choose between business school ranking and overall university ranking (well known of university)?

I have just read the book from consulting education company. It said that we should choose university from its reputation rather than business school ranking because ranking is rapidly changing every year and the reputation of university will be with you forever.

At first I choose Cranfield because its ranking from FT , QS,bloomberg and forbes ranking. However, the book which pulished around 5 years ago said that we should select from its well known. (At that time Cranfield ranking was a bit higher than Imperial , the book suggest that we should select Imperial.( however my case is different because I did not apply from imperial but my choice is between Cranfield and Reading,Durham andExerter.) Inaddition, some of my friend dont know about Cranfield.

On the other hand some of my freind said that people in the industry (banking) will know about its reputation. They said that they known that Cranfield is well known for MBA and Finance.

Regarding to my case , I have already paid deposit for Cranfield but I am very confuse that is right decision. In my case I got offer from Reading, Exerter, Durham. Course structure cranfield is the best and many business school ranking (QS,FT,Bloomberg,The economist and Forbes) Cranfield is impressed me.( highest from my offer from every ranking.)

I am from Thailand which the other three universities might be more well known and have more alumni, so I really worry and confuse.

Ps my course is MSC finance based on my mind I would choose cranfield but I am very confuse.

Thank you for your advice in advance.

[Edited by Baskad on May 13, 2018]

Well, I get their point but that's ridiculous. Durham, Loughborough and Bath are great examples. By any measure, these are among our top dozen universities (https://www.thecompleteuniversityguide.co.uk/league-tables/rankings?). Compare them to City, which is one of our not so great universities. City's business school has been consistently better than Durham, Bath or Loughborough's for more than a generation, and it will be for decades more. Cass MIFs earn 35% more upon graduating than Durham's and probably double Bath's and Loughborough's. It would be bizzare to turn down Cranfield or Cass in order to attend an inferior MIF at a generally-better university. The same logic would have you turn down EDHEC or ESCP in order to attend Glasgow or Bath.

PS Just tweaked the examples to make them more MIF specific

[Edited by Duncan on May 16, 2018]

Ok I see thank you so much again. Just confused between my choice.

Cranfield and Durham have the best-ranked MiM programs, according to the FT. What are your goals?

Cranfield and Durham have the best-ranked MiM programs, according to the FT. What are your goals?

I think the choice is even easier for the MiF. Use the salary and % increase to calculate what the students were earning before: the Cranfield cohort is more highly skilled on the way in, and gets much better results (and 100% employment).

I think the choice is even easier for the MiF. Use the salary and % increase to calculate what the students were earning before: the Cranfield cohort is more highly skilled on the way in, and gets much better results (and 100% employment).

I think large, highly-ranked schools like these are very good at most things, and even things are not well known for. Cranfield has quant finance gurus like Sunil Poshakwale and risk management experts like Yacine Belghitar. You can search the alumni base to see if the alumni base is especially thick in some areas, but as schools I really think they are all good enough.

I think large, highly-ranked schools like these are very good at most things, and even things are not well known for. Cranfield has quant finance gurus like Sunil Poshakwale and risk management experts like Yacine Belghitar. You can search the alumni base to see if the alumni base is especially thick in some areas, but as schools I really think they are all good enough.

[Edited by Baskad on May 17, 2018]

I interviewed there when considering PhD options and took an exec ed course these a long time ago, but you can see that they are looking at a wide range of criteria and not only the degree.

I interviewed there when considering PhD options and took an exec ed course these a long time ago, but you can see that they are looking at a wide range of criteria and not only the degree.

Speaking personally, I got a below average mark in my BA, but that did not stop me from entering the MSc at City, the MBA at LBS or the PhD at Edinburgh. Employers in Europe need people with soft skills, the right attitude and not just good grades.

Speaking personally, I got a below average mark in my BA, but that did not stop me from entering the MSc at City, the MBA at LBS or the PhD at Edinburgh. Employers in Europe need people with soft skills, the right attitude and not just good grades.

[Edited by Baskad on May 17, 2018]

One more observation: Cranfield obviously has a smaller alumni base than many other schools because it is the UK's graduate-only university. and its MSc in Finance and Management is newer than some of the other MiF degrees. It also has a strength that is also a weakness: it is a MSc in Finance **and Management**. Because of Cranfield's more extensive four-term structure, the students have a more extensive curriculum. Like the well-ranked ranked schools (Cambridge, ESCP, Imperial, LBS, Oxford, Warwick) where students often have some prior work experience in finance, Cranfield has better international mobility, employment and salary, than Lancaster and Cass (even though those two schools are higher ranked). Henley and Durham are weaker on all three.

PS Having lived in Reading, I would certainly consider Henley as an alternative to Cranfield if there was some crucial elective that was only offered there.Unlike Cass or Lancaster, Henley's employment level is okay.

[Edited by Duncan on May 18, 2018]

One more observation: Cranfield obviously has a smaller alumni base than many other schools because it is the UK's graduate-only university. and its MSc in Finance and Management is newer than some of the other MiF degrees. It also has a strength that is also a weakness: it is a MSc in Finance **and Management**. Because of Cranfield's more extensive four-term structure, the students have a more extensive curriculum. Like the well-ranked ranked schools (Cambridge, ESCP, Imperial, LBS, Oxford, Warwick) where students often have some prior work experience in finance, Cranfield has better international mobility, employment and salary, than Lancaster and Cass (even though those two schools are higher ranked). Henley and Durham are weaker on all three.

PS Having lived in Reading, I would certainly consider Henley as an alternative to Cranfield if there was some crucial elective that was only offered there.Unlike Cass or Lancaster, Henley's employment level is okay.

I often say that, for almost anything and anyone, the strength is also the weakness. So, some MiF degrees are more managerial and others are more technical. If you look at the curriculum of the MiF at LBS, for example, you will see it is more managerial and that equips students well for progression. The same is true at Cranfield, and that is perhaps why they call it an MSc in finance and management rather than only a MiF.

If you hover your mouse over the columns headings on the FT rankings you can see a summary of the definition. There is also a longer article on the FT site about the methods and criteria. International mobility is people changing country, so that is both international students and domestic students who change their country as a result of the degree.

A high salary but a low increase is often a sign of a higher-quality cohort. A move from $20k to $60k is a higher percentage than a move from $60k to $120k, but the latter is obviously better.

The careers services ranking is not really comparative: no-one will have used both services. The score reflects participants' evaluation of the careers services teams they work with, and career progress is obviously not a part of that. Glasgow has 100% employment. Looking at the salaries, their alumni have the lowest in the world for a ranked MiF. I imagine that very many of these students are hired on the minimum wage needed for a UK work permit. So, this is the course that takes in the least well paid (probably the least experienced and least valued by the market) candidates and, even so, they all get jobs. I can understand why they would be delighted: that is a much better outcome than they can expect, even if it is comparatively the very worst of the top 100 MiFs.

Cranfield's career service is ranked 52nd out of 100, so that score is totally average. There's probably very little difference between the average score for that criterion of a school that is 30th and a school that is 70th. Cranfield alumni earn more than double those of Glasgow, so they have higher expectations and need better support. Evidently the school is meeting but not exceeding expectations.

So, you can trust these data in the sense that the numbers are real and KPMG's auditing does a great job of improving data quality.

However, you need to be able to see the numbers in context, to understand that the numbers are measures rather than explanations, and to appreciate that the different schools recruit very different people with different expectations. Graduates of Leeds, say, earn less than incoming students at Cass, and graduates of Cass might earn less than incoming students at Oxford. So, these are not fully-comparible programmes.

There is, just to give an example, very little change in the top schools. If you compare the changes in average salaries you will also see that the gap is widening between the top half and the bottom half, with five-figure increases in many of the salaries in the top half.

PS More on this at https://find-mba.com/board/general-forum/weakest-candidates-appreciate-careers-services-the-most-53759

[Edited by Duncan on May 26, 2018]

I often say that, for almost anything and anyone, the strength is also the weakness. So, some MiF degrees are more managerial and others are more technical. If you look at the curriculum of the MiF at LBS, for example, you will see it is more managerial and that equips students well for progression. The same is true at Cranfield, and that is perhaps why they call it an MSc in finance and management rather than only a MiF.

If you hover your mouse over the columns headings on the FT rankings you can see a summary of the definition. There is also a longer article on the FT site about the methods and criteria. International mobility is people changing country, so that is both international students and domestic students who change their country as a result of the degree.

A high salary but a low increase is often a sign of a higher-quality cohort. A move from $20k to $60k is a higher percentage than a move from $60k to $120k, but the latter is obviously better.

The careers services ranking is not really comparative: no-one will have used both services. The score reflects participants' evaluation of the careers services teams they work with, and career progress is obviously not a part of that. Glasgow has 100% employment. Looking at the salaries, their alumni have the lowest in the world for a ranked MiF. I imagine that very many of these students are hired on the minimum wage needed for a UK work permit. So, this is the course that takes in the least well paid (probably the least experienced and least valued by the market) candidates and, even so, they all get jobs. I can understand why they would be delighted: that is a much better outcome than they can expect, even if it is comparatively the very worst of the top 100 MiFs.

Cranfield's career service is ranked 52nd out of 100, so that score is totally average. There's probably very little difference between the average score for that criterion of a school that is 30th and a school that is 70th. Cranfield alumni earn more than double those of Glasgow, so they have higher expectations and need better support. Evidently the school is meeting but not exceeding expectations.

So, you can trust these data in the sense that the numbers are real and KPMG's auditing does a great job of improving data quality.

However, you need to be able to see the numbers in context, to understand that the numbers are measures rather than explanations, and to appreciate that the different schools recruit very different people with different expectations. Graduates of Leeds, say, earn less than incoming students at Cass, and graduates of Cass might earn less than incoming students at Oxford. So, these are not fully-comparible programmes.

There is, just to give an example, very little change in the top schools. If you compare the changes in average salaries you will also see that the gap is widening between the top half and the bottom half, with five-figure increases in many of the salaries in the top half.

PS More on this at https://find-mba.com/board/general-forum/weakest-candidates-appreciate-careers-services-the-most-53759

I suggest you click through to the details pages on those three schools, put the windows side by side, and scroll down. You can't expect any one school to be best on everything. As you say, Lancaster did well this year because of the variable like the higher percentage increase in salary that comes with more junior students and the greater value for money that comes from lower fees. It also does well for having fewer men and fewer UK students. Cass, obviously, benefits from its location in the heart of London's banking district: it is certainly a peer of Cranfield in many ways and, for finance areas concentrated in the City like investment banking, probably better in many ways.

I think you're asking me questions you must surely know the answer to. Cranfield's reputation is reflected in many ways, and there is nothing original I can say about it. It's one of the world's top business schools: https://www.cranfield.ac.uk/som/about-us/rankings. Cranfield is Europe's most prestigious graduate university. It's such a well-established school that recruiters probably don't rely on the rankings as much as applicants do.

I'm an innovation and entrepreneurship researcher, but finance is part of everything. I have had to teach some finance in all the courses I have worked on here, both in the MA and in the MSc.

I suggest you click through to the details pages on those three schools, put the windows side by side, and scroll down. You can't expect any one school to be best on everything. As you say, Lancaster did well this year because of the variable like the higher percentage increase in salary that comes with more junior students and the greater value for money that comes from lower fees. It also does well for having fewer men and fewer UK students. Cass, obviously, benefits from its location in the heart of London's banking district: it is certainly a peer of Cranfield in many ways and, for finance areas concentrated in the City like investment banking, probably better in many ways.

I think you're asking me questions you must surely know the answer to. Cranfield's reputation is reflected in many ways, and there is nothing original I can say about it. It's one of the world's top business schools: https://www.cranfield.ac.uk/som/about-us/rankings. Cranfield is Europe's most prestigious graduate university. It's such a well-established school that recruiters probably don't rely on the rankings as much as applicants do.

I'm an innovation and entrepreneurship researcher, but finance is part of everything. I have had to teach some finance in all the courses I have worked on here, both in the MA and in the MSc.