I'm an American who wants to go to broad to do my business education. I know that London Business School has a good reputation, but the cost of its MBA program is so high! So I was looking at the Masters in Finance program, and it seemed like a good value.

But I'm also considering lower cost MBA programs in Europe. I was thinking the MBA at Mannheim Business School in Germany, or maybe SDA Bocconi in Italy.

I plan on returning to the U.S. after I graduate.

These are very different programmes (what are your career goals?), but the MiF at LBS is an amazing programme. I guess its alumni get higher salaries than most MBA alumni.

Hi Duncan
I have 3 years of IT industry. Have offers from Tier2 mba schools like nott, aston and strath. Would you recommend a msters in finan or managemnt from a btter school? As in mba from tier 2 or msc from tier 1?? Wich has a betr npv and roi? Could you recommend some universities known fo theirsc programmes.

I think this really depends on your career goals. If you want to work in the US you are better off taking a tier three programme in the US than a tier two programmes in Europe. Outside the big, multinationals which hire lots of MBAs, LBS is less well known than Oxbridge or the LSE.

LBS MiF reports a salary of $127k (http://rankings.ft.com/businessschoolrankings/masters-in-finance-post-experience-2013), which will be higher than most of the schools in the FT top 100 MBAs (http://rankings.ft.com/businessschoolrankings/global-mba-ranking-2013). If you work in finance already and want to move forward, it's a great choice. The alternative isn't low-status schools like Nottingham, but one year MBAs like IMD, Oxford, Cranfield, IE, Warwick and Cass

Hi Duncan,
I am also thinking about doing either a) MIF (LBS) or b) top MBA (LBS, HBS). And honestly, its a tough decision.

I have 6 years experience in a tier II consulting firm in France, and I am looking for a programme which helps me accelerate my career progression. Following this programme, I would like to go back to consulting, but would like to target a Tier I consulting firm.

6 years ago I did a sort of Jr. MBA in London and Paris (ESCP) as I wanted to shift careers (previously law). So, doing an MBA in a top Tier School, would certainly look nice in my resume. On one side, doing a top MBA would imply taking similar courses but would look good in my cv. On the other hand, a MIF (LBS) means good name in cv + great education in finance (which seems great).

So questions are: Any idea if doing a MIF would restraint my chances to target a consulting firm (Bain, McKinsey...)?
Is the MIF well known in the US?

Please let me know if you have any thoughts on the above.
Appreciate your time and help in advance!

If you want to work for Bain or McKinsey in the US then you should take a top MBA in the US. The MiF will not do it, because it's a degree in finance not in strategy consulting. Read http://www.find-mba.com/board/33571

A US MBA is not like a grande ecole programme: even if the curriculum is similar the cohort, pedagogy and values differ enough to make it a very different experience.

Thanks for your quick response Duncan.
If I wanted to target a top consulting firm in Europe....still MIF would not be the best option?
Thanks

A MiF is obviously a great option for a job in finance or finance consulting. But if you're looking at management consulting broadly a general MBA, ideally with an internship, will be the best choice.

I can't emphasise enough that hiring by the top strategy firms is very focussed: aim for their core partners schools.

Hi Duncan. I too am weighing up the option of a MiF at LBS or an MBA at an top school in the U.S.

I am currently working for a hedge fund and am looking to advance my career within the finance world. You mention MiF alumni usually have a higher salary than the MBA's, but the LBS website stats tell a different story. LBS MiF grads take an average of £55k base, but the MBA average is £75k base according to the website.

As I want to remain in finance the MiF seems to make more sense to me as it is more finance orientated than the MBA, but it seems with both courses being quite a large financial investment, if MBA salaries are that much higher surely it would make more sense to take an MBA and return to a bank/hedge fund following graduation?

Any help or advice would be very much appreciated!

Thanks,
Adam

I wrote that: "LBS MiF reports a salary of $127k, which will be higher than most of the schools in the FT top 100 MBAs." Of course "most" does not mean that the MiF has a higher salary than any MBA, let alone the LBS MBA, which is one of the top in the world.

Neither the MBA nor the MIF are large investments relative to the benefit.

If you have the choice between an MBA and a MIF then, if the schools are equal, take the MBA. But don't take an MBA with less potential than the LBS MIF: the LBS MIF might be better than, say, an MBA from somewhere like Goizueta, University of Texas at Dallas or University of Notre Dame.

if MBA salaries are that much higher surely it would make more sense to take an MBA and return to a bank/hedge fund following graduation?

The LBS MiF is not a classic quant course. That's why its graduates get (relatively) high salaries: as well as quant courses the MiF students have access to the MBA and PhD elective portfolio. Many MiF students are studying strategy and organisational behaviour, alongside finance.

These are very different programmes (what are your career goals?), but the MiF at LBS is an amazing programme. I guess its alumni get higher salaries than most MBA alumni.

I think it's most effective for you to study in the US rather than Europe because you want to work in the US. A top US school will have a lot of international students, and all of them will be interested in US people people.

That said, the LBS MiF is a much more effective route to the US than a European MBA from a much lesser schools like Mannheim with almost no recognition in North America. I'd also consider the MiF at the London School of Economics, which is a sister school of LBS also inside the University of London. The LSE doesn't have such strong placement services, but it has strong recognition in the US.

Long term, my main goal is to work in a corporate finance role, preferably in the renewable energy industry (but I'm open to other industries as well).

Hi Duncan

I too would appreciate some guidance here.

Background:
27, British born; studied Business and Business Economics at, what US would deem, a "non-target" University; interned in Spain, Barcelona, for a boutique economic research company for 6 months; worked in change management within Operations for just under two years at a tier 2/3 bank; currently working at a tier 1 bank, again in Operations - client services, been here for 1.5 years and currently doing an STA in Singapore for 6 months.

Goal:
If I'm honest it's quite broad; however, some roles of interest: Business development; Portfolio management (asset management); Private Equity analyst; Management consultant (Bain/McKinsey). In essence I would be seeking a more strategic role (currently I'm operational/tactical personnel). Would love to run my own Business Unit at some point, but that could also mean management at an MC or simply PM (or at least, as close to in the value chain).
The fee difference does somewhat make me hesitant to pursue both but I do want to gain the alumni network, I do want the highly regarded school/university to add to my resume.
Some questions I?m grappling with:
MiF vs. MBA
LBS vs. LSE
Part-time vs. Full-time
Now vs. later

Just to add on the P-t vs. F-t, I?m in a great company right now and love the culture, I will try to secure a preferred role early 2015 and therefore, would most likely not want to leave a few months in to pursue a F-t course. However? apologies here! I would like to opportunity to become a student again, one last time, and fully immerse into the course and networking.

Would appreciate some thoughts on this.

Thank you

These are complex issues which are discussed very well in other threads on the board. The short answer is that you should take the full-time MBA at LBS or Insead because making the transition will be harder from a part-time course.

PS If you need a more extensive reply, read my profile.

These are complex issues which are discussed very well in other threads on the board. The short answer is that you should take the full-time MBA at LBS or Insead because making the transition will be harder from a part-time course.

PS If you need a more extensive reply, read my profile.