Hi all, I am looking for advice on whether to do a post- experience masters in finance program (such as the one offered by LBS) or to do a full-time MBA instead.

About me:

BA in finance 2:1
3 years work experience in QA analysis and financial analysis
Looking to transition into more meaningful leadership positions

The program masters program @ LBS costs less than the school's MBA program. Not sure how much of a difference this will make in the long run though. I suppose the cost doesn't bother me as much as ROI considerations. Also considering the MBAs at Imperial and Cranfield. Or something else?

LBS' MBA shows better salary stats - both in terms of overall post-degree salary as well as salary increase - than its MiF. That's probably the best ROI of all the programs you mentioned.

Plus, if you're aiming to develop your leadership skills, the MiF is probably not the way to go. The curriculum is certainly not heavy on the soft skills. :)

Those were my presumptions as well. I think I'm leaning towards a full time MBA at this point. What do you think of the Cranfield/Imperial programs: do you have an idea about their qualities in terms of finance placements, as well as connections to financial services firms. Cambridge and Oxford as well.

The LBS MiF has much, much better placement than the MBAs at Cranfield or Imperial. I don't recognise the ;-) comment about MIF's soft skills. The flexibility of the elective portfolio, the fact that MIFs study alongside MBAs in the electives and the similarity of the job outcomes suggests otherwise, especially whne you take into account the slightly different profile of the MIF intake.

Great, thanks for the info. But I think I'm going to go for the full time MBA at LBS.

That is a better choice.