Hi all,

Offered by the three. Which MBA should I be taking up? My preference lies in the first two, but just wanted to hear another voice.

PS. I have been in a IT function and am out of Europe. Job placement opportunity is a criteria as I hope to stay in UK for a while.

Cranfield. Absolutely obvious ;-)

Higher average GMAT; Older students; higher starting salary; higher ratings by the students; much better course structure.

Ya, I figured. But I was abit concerned about it being relatively unheard of where I come from (Asia)

I've been offered a place by Cranfield. I have an interview for Cass coming up shortly but to be honest I have already made up my mind to go to Cranfield. I've been really impressed with everything I have seen and have spoken to quite a few alumni already who have said very positive things about the uni. That and as Duncan mentioned the higher amount of work experience required make it stand out for me

Thanks, Duncan & Deepash for taking time to share.

I'm biased, being at Cranfield, but IMO it's some way ahead of the other two options.

Hi MisterMark,

Thanks. Could you share your profile?

Dear Mr Duncan,
I have got an offer from Warwick and Cranfield for MBA starting Sept. 2013. I am an Indian and I am working in middle-east as a physician with nearly 20 years professional experience and I want to enter management preferably in my own industry or related like Insurance sector, pharmaceuticals but it?s not a must. I would like to concentrate on finance and business strategy. Post MBA, I would like to spend sometime in UK.
The dilemma of Warwick OR Crainfield is unending. I want to concentrate on two things of these schools. 1. Brand recognition of school outside UK particularly in Asia and middle-east. 2. it?s career services.
Please help me resolve this dilemma.From earlier post I feel that you prefer Cranfield. If so, Why?
I also want to ask why schools like IE, Madrid which is 11 in FT ranking has a poor placement record of being at 90th position. London Business school placement rank is 25. Do these figures don?t affect their ranking.

I prefer Cranfield for most students because the higher student quality and better program leads to better outcomes and higher salaries.

Use LinkedIn to compare the networks of the two schools: that really determines the brand recognition.

The lower scores for IE in some segments do affect their ranking. Just run a regression model on the FT data. But with the FT date I think it's better to focus on the salary, employment and careers progress data rather than the placement support score, since the latter is a subjective score by students. Only one of the top 12 schools get into the top 20 for placement support, and that shows the high expectations of students at those schools.

Thanks for explaining that Mr Duncan. But why is the ranking of Cranfield low during last 3 successive years despite all these plus points. What is more important marker between "Salary today" and "Weighted salary"

Dear Mr Duncan,
I looked at the alumni networks of warwick and cranfield on linkedin as suggested by you. Both schools don't have much presence in healthcare sector. However, the number of alumnis of warwick is much more in India and middle-east as compared to cranfield.

Cranfield, and all the schools, have the final ranking they do because of their scores on the attributes included in the ranking. Open up the full pdf and you can see them. No mystery.