please i will like to know which of these three business schools has the best reputation with regards to employment and recognition by employers both within and outside the UK. I hope to start my MBA program by 2010.

If I were you I would focus on Warwick and Strathclyde.

Manchester is too expensive for what they offer (33.000 BP) and too long (18 months). With 33000 BP in my wallet, I would apply to Cass, Imperial, Cranfield, Oxbdidge, and even to LBS (in combination with a scholarship). I think You can't compair Cass, Cranfield,Imperial, Oxbridge with Manchester. There is a big difference. To be fair I have to admit: Manchester has the triple accreditation, strong in risk management and corporate finance, very good structure of the programm, good reputation abroad, strong in research. The Problem is: the costs are not reasonable.

Lancaster is good ranked and affordable, has also the triple accreditation, is very strong in research, but the stucture of the program istn't very convincing compared to Cass (for example)

Strathclyde is a highly respected and well recognized school. Very strong in Strategic Management, good ranked and affordable, has also the triple accreditation. If you have a short look at the program's structure, you will see what I'm talking about.

Warwick is my favorite:
triple accreditation, strong in consulting, strong in marketing, good in corporate finance, affordable, very good reputation (will encrease in the future), the stucture of the program is very solid and offers a good balance between the theory and the practice.

To sum up: Warwick > Strathclyde > manchaster > Lancaster.

Good luck.

Manchester advantage is a brand name, well know school globally,but fee is a bomb

if i was you
i would go with the following order

Warwick
Strathclyde
Manchester
Lancaster

have you made a decision? In which specialisation are you intereseted?

Thank you so much for your replies.I have streamlined my choices to Warwick and Strathclyde based on my research and people's opinions. One thing that i need to know is that,why did FT rate Lancaster 27th in the world (above Warwick, Manchster and Strathclyde) if its MBA is not that fantastic? I also noticed that in Lancaster, MBA students do about 3 consulting projects unlike Strathclyde which is just one.Talking about area of speciliation, i think i will like risk management and/or consulting as risk management appears to be the order of the day now. I think it is also pertinent to mention that i am an ACCA member(chartered accountant)and so i am looking for a school with broad curriculum that will address every area of business well.Will I be right to say that MBA schools with consulting trainings are better than MBA schools with only classroom teachings?

Lancaster is much better than strath, anyday anytime.

Give me a reason why strath is better than Lancaster?

Lancaster has a very good reputation for its business school. At least within its circle. of course it does not carry the weight of Manchester or Edinburgh but the business school is premier.

In the list you compile, putting aside Manchester, Warwick will be the best choice and then lancaster. Strath is less known. Strath only make it to FT ranking this year and as high as it ranked is as inflated as it is.

You can find Lancaster and Warwick in many rankings and in several years but not strath.

If you only applied to strath and warwick go to warwick for god sake.

The rankings aren't everything!! For example, if you blindly trust the FT-Ranking of 2009, you will think Lancaster is better than the following schools:
HEC Paris
Manchester
Cranfield
Warwick
Cass
Imperial
University of California at Berkeley: Haas

And this is not true! You should also take Imperial and Cass in your account.
For example: Cass Program is very interesting and challenging:

Core:
1. ? Accounting & Financial Reporting
2. ? Quantitative Methods
3. ? Information Management
4. ? Marketing
5. ? Principles of Finance
6. ? Business Economics
7. ? Operations Management
8. ? Human Resource Management
9. ? Organisational Behaviour
10. ? Business Strategy
11. ? Governance
12. ? Corporate Finance

Electives: you can choose up to 10 Electives
? Accounting and Financial Analysis
? Advanced Corporate Finance
? Applied Knowledge Management
? Behavioural Finance
? Branding and Advertising
? Business Intelligence
? Business Mystery
? Consultancy
? Consumer Relationship Marketing
? Derivatives
? Entrepreneurship
? Fast Track Venturing
? Forecasting
? Innovation & New Product Development
? Innovation Business Project
? International Cass Symposium
? International Financial Management
? Managing B2B Marketing Relationships
? Managing Strategic Change
? Managing Cultural Diversity
? Mergers and Acquisitions
? Risk: Practical Management Issues
? Securities and Investments

Lancaster doesn?t offer such a Program and will not be able the to that in the next few years!! The FT ranked Lancaster higher than Cass in 2009!!

Good luck

1. Manchester: Global Brand
2. Warwick: Catching up very fast
3. Lancaster: Only disadvantage is its location
4. Strathclyde

Mr. Sultan,

Good day

Sorry But I have to reply to your message!!!

What you are saying is not accurate or even professional. You can't rank the course by the amount of electives it offers. Check the website of Lancaster and follow the MBA course they offer. It is well integrated with three consultancy challenges. You can chose electives from a wide variety available on other master courses. So basically you are not restricted. Thus, more flexibility!!! If you think it is too hard to believe that Lancaster is better than Wariwck, City or Cranfield, please take it easy on yourself. Lancaster has been ranked higher for the past 3 years, so it is not a matter of luck or coincidence. Lancaster offers unique programmes and has some of the best professors in the country. Due to their location, Lancaster makes it a point to attract top thinkers; to name some, Prof Peter Checkland (the inventor of the SSM) Prof Carry Cooper, Prof Blackler, Prof Bloomfield, Prof Introna, Prof Brown and many others.

For your Info, Lancaster Management School was selected out of many other business schools to deliver a huge strategic governmental programme after a fierce competition. Please check http://www.lums.lancs.ac.uk/news/18060/it-academy/

Lancaster is a Big name as a university and in the field of management. It runs various international programmes along top schools such as INSEAD, McGill and is also currently offering its MBA programme in India, Singapore, Malaysia and Jordan. Please check Forbes, which is a US based magazine, and see how high they rank Lancaster MBA for the third consecutive year!!! Why would they rank Lancaster MBA 16th worldwide? I don't think Lancaster bribes anyone to have its name ranked that high. Get over it pal! It is high time that you open your eyes and realize that in the business arena there are big names competing!

One last comment: I had a personal talk with the Imperial MBA director and he clearly said, Lancaster is a great business school and for business it is indeed a high flyer.

All recruiters and academics know that Lancaster is better than Imperial when it comes to Business so relax and check the school further before spreading your judgements and mislead students on here.

great i like it when ppl come forward and say hey here are the arguments, take it.

Still i believe that for all the reasons you say, it prove the quality of lancaster but it fail to say why it is a better one than city warwick cranfield and imperial all of whom i believe to offer a better overall package.

Tell me who are those big names? What have they done? I know Checkland,i am not sure if he is a good teacher but he is a good professor. But his Soft System Methodology is rather mediorce, no matter how much he claim it is used in design methods and modelling around the world, it is not complicated or that useful.

Forbes is not a highly reliable ranking and is based on return on investment so it is ranked by affordability rather than being a real posh degree.

for 3 years lancaster may come out better than others but you have to bear in mind that more often than not data is used for 2 or 3 years that means lancaster only need to win 1 year to stay on top for 2 or 3 years.

For mba observation period should be around 5 years to give a good impression.

i believe it is still a good name but there are certain weaknesses

Great to read your reply!

Well I have never said City, Cranfield or Warwick are not good. Indeed they are all excellent business schools. My argument is premised on the fact that it is not accurate to say Lancaster is a lower brand! on the contrary, it is an excellent brand and at par with these schools. You can't claim that the SSM is a mediocre methodology as it has helped a lot of companies solve their problems efficiently.

Lancaster is one of the old business schools in the UK and it is not a new one. They have great exposure to the industry as you can check that most of its programmes be it undergraduate or postgraduate are linked with companies such as SAP, Accenture, Deliotte, IBM and so forth. The ranking of the University in general is always in the top 20 and most dominantly in the top 15. For research it is in the top 10 in most years.

Remember Lancaster was named a 6* business school by the government along London business school. This was not shared by Warwick, City or Cranfield. I think that more than one element falls in Lancaster's basket. it has triple accreditation which also grants it a certain prestige. My claim is that when you mention Warwick, Imperial or City, you mention Lancaster, as it is not less prestigious in anyway. You can ask many academics or even employers who are very fortunate to have a Lancaster student working with them.

Check the PHD ranking, it is in the world's top 10, don't you think this indicates a certain quality the school encompasses? Stop telling me FT or Forbes are not indicative. if they are not, then they are not indicative of the quality of City which was ranked 15th worldwide by Forbes or Warwick at 32nd place by FT. The criteria is equal for all schools.

You can wait and see how Lancaster will fair this year by FT 2010.

Please check the economist and look at the competition for places in Lancaster, it is 12:1 compared to 4:1 at Warwick and City, This indicates that the Lancaster MBA and the school in general is on high demand. The criteria for entry is high and equal to warwick when it comes to business, trust me on this, I have been there and I know what I'm talking about!!!

Finally, I reiterate that each school has its strengths and weaknesses, but the whole package is very close and if you study in any of those big names in business, then you will be in a good position for future recruitment!

Cheers

By the way, please also check the FT 2009 ranking and you can see that the audit year for Cranfield and Imperial was done in 2008 similar to that of Lancaster! Does this ring a bell in anyway? I think we are comparing apple to apple here and Lancaster has no advantage over them when it comes to the audit year.

Hope this makes sense to you as well!

Cheers

nice post, still it does not chagnge anything. Probably because students from other schools doesnt show up and give us a good show how fantastic their shools are.

SSM is repeat is pretty mediorce and not near scientific enough. Remember even Drucker does not come close enough to real science/research.

I know where SSM is applied and i appreciate it but no more than it deserves.

By all the ranking criteria you say of course lancaster is pretty decent but never as close as Oxbridge or LSE.
It could however compete with the likes of Warwick or Imperial in MBA only.

THe number of applicants are quite good but why dont they require GMAT? What is the average GMAT ? I am sure about 550 600 which is very average for an American MBA.

Triple accreditation means that you offer an MBA above average and nothing else.

Any ranking that put Lancaster in the world top 30 is not good indication because simply there is no match between the likes of Checkland to Chicago economics professors.

Seriously FT is too UK inflated and ppl know more but keeps things secret.

Give the names of some CEO of top 500 or billionaires or cabinet members who went to lancaster.

Many went to Oxbridge. Manchester, Glasgow, Edinburgh Imperial.

Great post (I'm enjoying this by the way)

Check this link and you will see that lancaster requires GMAT of not less than 600 and this is never waived for anyone. http://www.lums.lancs.ac.uk/masters/mba/admissions/

and you can also see that the average GMAT is quite high not only in one ranking but in all of them and it is higher than what you can see in Warwick, Manchester or Cranfield.

1) GMAT AVG 650 and number of applicants is 899 of which 9% accepted only!!! please check the link http://www.forbes.com/2009/08/03/best-business-schools-09-leadership-careers-nonus1yr_slide_8.html

2) GMAT AVG is also confirmed by the economist to be 650 you can check it as well.

Being in the top 30 worlwide isn't good enough for you? That is really funny by the way!!!

I can also see that you have changed your stance regarding Lancaster fairing to wariwck and cranfield and you have jumped to comparing it with Oxford. Please note that if you introduce a course tomorrow at Oxford it will be regarded as prestigious and this is of course sensible due to its brand name and history isn't it?

Of course Lancaster is much better than Glasgow and Edinburgh when it comes to business and even in general you can view all tables run by well known parties such as the good guide, sunday times, guardian and you will see that Lancaster is placed higher than Manchester, Glasgow and in some cases Edinburgh. Here are some links for your info :)

http://www.how2uk.com/university.ratings.4/the-guardian-2009-british-university-rankings.html (in this table it beats Glasgow and Manchester)

http://www.thecompleteuniversityguide.co.uk/single.htm?ipg=6524 (Lancaster in the top 10) Better than Manchester, Glasgow and Edinburgh.


as for the prominent professors, please note that in every top school there are a number of top professors. Each has his/her own field and if you check Lancatser you can see that Carry Cooper is one of the top HR thinkers in the world. Please take some time to check and dont just reply without basing your answers on some proofs as will end up no where.

Check David Otley http://www.lums.lancs.ac.uk/accounting/profiles/david-otley/

He is a prominent professors known all over the world. You can check this link and see that he was elected to top US accounting association role. http://www.lums.lancs.ac.uk/news/14040/management-accounting-section/

Some more profs but please look at their profile

Stephen Taylor - Professor of Finance. World leader in Financial Econometrics.

Paul Farley, Lecturer in Creative Writing - winner of the Whitbread Prize for poetry (2002) and other awards.

Now as for the top 500 company graduates, please check the following:

Antony Burgmans (Bowland), Chairman Unilever

Mohd. Haflah Piei, Malaysian economist

Alan Milburn (Pendle), Labour MP, former cabinet minister

Joan Humble, Labour MP (Member of Parliament)
Alan Campbell (Furness), Labour MP (Member of Parliament)

Hilton Dawson, former Labour MP (Member of Parliament)

Tom Levitt, Labour MP (Member of Parliament)

Gillian Merron, Labour MP (Member of Parliament)


Nahed Taher, CEO Gulf One Investment Bank (this lady is in the 100 most poweful women)

Ricky Wong, CEO Asia Media (Malaysia) top 500

Of course there are a lot more and many are in leading positions in the parliament but i want to keep it short.

You are trying to prove that Lancaster is not a prestigious university, whereas it is indeed. For your info, apart from business, Lancaster a world leader in physics and you can ask anyone about this. (actually please do) It is number one in the UK above cambridge and oxford and you can contact them to check on this if you do not believe me.

Finally, get over this because we wont be getting anywhere if you keep on finding gaps, because from my point of view, each university is unique on its own and you are unable to say this is better than that, because what is better for you might not be the same for me or anyone else.

Hope this finds you well

Dear All,

We are only exchanging our opinions! I?m neither against Lancaster nor for Warwick!

Let me say something to avoid any kind of misunderstanding: all schools mentioned here are pretty good, but not equal.

I think three electives are not enough and would never be enough to deeply focus in a special area (Marketing , Finance...etc). In Warwick you can choose 6 electives, in Cass up to 10, in Srathclyde only two but this program has strong focus to strategic management through its core courses.

Everyday and every night, Come rain or come shine, Warwick is better than Lancaster!
Cass is also better than Lancaster.

Dear Friends

Greeting!!

I reallly enjoyed alot...first time i seen such a passionate discussion forum.... we all are here just for a quality education then salary...then promotions but but..... for it .what we are doing. simply that's why we are looking for a BEST MBA or B School...

But as i seen in last 2 years I did MBA from Glasgow .... no matter from where you came ..... Experience & Technical know hows matters only..... matters in JOB.... you cant imagine before joining MBA i read about Glasgow MBA basic selllary is about 50-60 K ....Lancaster Average salary 90K per Annam but reality... Its Very TOUGH to have 40+ K Most an avergae students get a job about 25+K ,recently in my office one MBA Lancaster joined he is having 50K its a highest one in office......

We are taking it easy Mr. Sultan!! Yet, do not base your judgement on electives because an MBA programme is not based on electives, it is based on consultancy challenges, dissertation and netowrking. at Lancaster you got 3 consultancy challenges rather than 1 at wariwck and Cass. Check all what I have said and the links provided and you will come to realize that you are quite not accurate. You can't say "Everyday and every night, Come rain or come shine, Warwick is better than Lancaster! Cass is also better than Lancaster" this is not premised on any facts. By the way, when you have 10 electives you are to chose one or two so it is not as if you are taking the whole 10 together to say that this is a programme with more courses. You might say that you have more options when it comes to electives and this is acceptable. Look at London business school, their programme is fixed and well structured with not so much electives because they have integrated the programme in a way which has proved to be very successful.

So relax my friend and have a broader perspective when you assess a school and never generalize. if what you are saying is true, then Lancaster wont be chosen by the government, and it wont rank higher than all mentioned schools in most tables and it wont win many research grants and many many to say.

Cheers

Dear Naved,

Thank you for the nice reply. Indeed you are 100% right in this. I am trying to say to every student I advise to join a business school is that an MBA or any Master course you apply to is all about what you make out of it.

Most MBA programmes are similar in shape, but the ground argument is based on the fact that your personality, skills, and networking skills can shape your status.

Anyway, cheers man for such a nice conclusion!

Regards,

Friends!!

I don't know about your qualification and experience....so don't bother on my reply I said what happens with 90% of population of MBA,

I didn't mean nay thing like "conclusion" but its fact .....

One More Fact "Emerging One"' If you are doing MBA from any AMBA (I am not talking about TRIPAL Accredited schools) In my opinion its much better to go for Msc Management from Milestones like LSE,LBS,WARWICK, SAID,Judge,Manchester but This Msc programmes admission have much higher requirements thn Glasgow ,Sheffield,Southampton BENEFITS : Low cost ,almost double probability of Jobs and almost equal salary .

So you have to think on very wide background before concluding your future.

Regard's
Naved Farooqui
[email protected]

Good statistics, indeed i have to say i am not in full grasp of all numbers you say.

But all of that does not change the status of lancaster.

Well GMAT is still not required by ALL in the case of Lancaster
" In addition, if your degree is not from a recognised UK university and your first language is not English, you will need to:"

Warwick and Cranfield both need GMAT regardless where you come from

At the end of the day, the quality of education is decided by the quality of its students. And the long list of Lancaster alumnin even though can impress i have a feeling not as impressive as many other universities ranked below it

I am not aware of all professors that lancaster have and i wouldnt pass my judgement on their work. But having won a nobel prize for example worth more than thousands of research papers and books and things.

So yes, i agree that lancaster is good enough but the gap is still there.

On the research rating of thing, i praise its efforts to join multiple faculty in order to achieve better ratings. In other universities for example, Oxford economics department will rightly or wrongly laugh off people from management and marketing but the whole thing is changing now.