Hi all/Duncan,

I've been applying to schools in the UK for the past 2 months for an MBA programme (FT). After receiving many offers and much deliberation I've zeroed down to the following. Please suggest from the perspective of working in the UK post MBA, which program is the better option. My view is Edinburgh, becuase of its 16-month course, as well as location. However, Strathclyde is ranked 80 in FT 2015 rankings, while Edinburgh doesn't make the cut at all. Is Birmingham better than both in terms of jobs? Please advise, I need to take a final decision in the next couple of days.
1. Edinburgh - 16month program - £27,000
2. Strathclyde - 12month program - £28,000
3. Birmingham - 12month program - £21,500

Really appreciate your opinion and suggestion. Thanks!

[Edited by ak3839 on Jun 06, 2015]

Why are you looking at these schools? I don't understand why you think the extra term at Edinburgh is an advantage for job searching: I don't think employers will care, but certainly can't hurt.

Take a look at the placement data in the FT and Economist Rankings (go back to earlier rankings for Edinburgh data). Isn't it obvious which school is best? You might be focussed on right salary, or on getting into work very quickly, but the data have the answers.

I'm looking at these schools because they are among the top in the UK for an MBA. Their program's have a good history and decent rank. I'm not looking at schools like LBS, Cambridge, etc as I can't afford the high fees.
The extra term in Edinburgh seems to be a good thing because it gives more time to search for a job, no? (as post study work is now a difficult issue in UK).
I did look at the placement data, and it looks like at least historically Strathclyde is the obvious winner here.
But, just want your opinion whether the rank and data is the best criteria to make a choice. I've heard Birmingham is a better place in terms of job prospects.
Taking into consideration all of the above, which program would you ideally go for? The best fit?
In the end, taking the decision rests on my shoulders, but your opinion will be helpful here!

Question2: what if I added Durham to the mix? Does that win over all of these in your opinion? I hear their career services is pretty good?

[Edited by ak3839 on Jun 07, 2015]

Since loans are available for many top schools, it doesn't make sense to focus on fees. The difference is fees is small (between with better schools, like 34k at Warwick) but the difference in data about outcomes is huge over the lifetime of a career.

The key criterion is: which school meets your needs with the higher NPV. If you use my LinkedIn method (linked on my profile page) you can compare the schools, but the key has to be your career goals.

Again, you can see the Durham data yourself. I think you should be considering better schools rather than worse ones.

Points noted and you're right. A better ranked school is always a better choice.
Let me just briefly give u my background and goals; I'm a BSc and MSc biotech degree holder (from Upenn, USA), I've been working for ~6.5 years in life scoences and healthcare domain. My goal post MBA is to land a junior/middle management job in one of the Top consulting firms like BCG, etc. I aim to get into a role such as business development manager.
An MBA is now or never for me. And among the offers I have, I wanted to decide between the best ones - Strath and Edin. I'm waiting on Manchester; yet to hear back.
I'll have a look at your Linkedin method; but in the meantime knowing my background, goals and your experience; which one is the ideal option in this regard?

I've declined several scholarships at lower tier schools, since I feel the better ranked ones will give me a better NPV with their curriculum. One must not get greedy with scholarships and join an insignificant, lowly valued program.

Your reponses are much appreciated!

I think you need to review your career goals and perhaps do more research. Are you a world-class business developer of custom consulting projects in your current domain? If not, a top consulting firm like BCG would not hire you into that role, even if you went to an MBA from which they recruit. Strathclyde and Edinburgh are clearly not such MBAs: use LinkedIn to see the schools you should be targetting.

As you say, the better schools have accelerating better NPV, not just because of the curriculum but also the higher quality cohort, alumni, employer access and faculty.

Between the schools you mention, Strathclyde has better outcomes and certainly has alumni in biz-dev roles (https://www.linkedin.com/vsearch/p?keywords=MBA%20%22business%20development%22&school=Strathclyde&openAdvancedForm=true&locationType=Y&rsid=2007051433682164850&orig=MDYS), but you're more likely to get into tech/telecoms provider, or an energy business, than a top-tier consulting firm. If you are not already doing business development, I am really not sure whether a British school will teach you. The French schools are way better at teaching business development, and will often have specialised masters in international biz dev. CCI Paris's third graduate school of business, alongside ESSEC and ESCP, is Novancia: its masters in business development is perhaps the best in English outside the USA.

Indeed, the Linkedin method is very helpful! Got a lot of insight from that. Thanks for sharing. I'll spend some more time doing research and see if I need to consider some other schools in tandem.

One last question, I promise. MBS's MBA program seems really well structured with a focus on entrepreneurship and consulting, etc. It is also spread over 18 months. If Manchester comes back to me with an offer, is it worth the GBP 40,000 & essentially is it better than Strathclyde or Edinburgh in terms of NPV and overall career progression parameters?

Thanks a bunch for all your help so far!

You have the data you need to make that calculation.

You have the data you need to make that calculation.

You have the data you need to make that calculation.