Any comments?

Many thanks in advance

Whic programs have you been accepted to? I have offers from Warwich MBA and Vlerick EMBA.

Many thanks for your prompt response!
I haven't applied yet. I will wait another year.
Vlerick has a good reputation and there is no doubt about it. Nevertheless something is fishy with Vlerick: a huge deviation between the rankings --> Especially the FT and Which MBA (economist)

Vlerick has a common point with Cranfield: General Management Program. in Cranfield you can only choose 5 among 6 electives. In Vlerick you can select French as an elect.

Can you please share your profile if you don't mind.

Thanks

I've just read some of your posts.

If I were you I would never go for RSM. Never Ever! This people will never get my money and my time!

Warwick is probably the best choice.
If you are interested in Marketing or Strategy than Warwick.

Ok, thanx for the warn. Why do you have such an opinion about RSM?
I'm an MD Anesthesiologist, 10 yrs work experience, and I'm from Spain. I have offers from Vlerick EMBA modular, Warwick Part Time MBA, Lancaster EMBA and RSM EMBA. I think Vlerick is a good school but I'm afraid about employment afterwards and global reputation. I also have recently known that they don't offer carreer services to part-timers. Warwick i very well recognized globally, they do offer Career service to Part time students. It has better connections with other schools as ESADE and Mannheim, the inly thing is that the cost of life at the UK is higher than in Belgium.
Lancaster is cheaper and is going up in the ranks. They have a partnership with the NHS which is a Plus for me and, if you analize the latest FT rankings (2010 Global) it outscores both Warwick and Vlerick in ranking position, 3 years ranking, value for money and placement success. Of the three is the only one that has an upwards progression of all the criteria.
Why do you have Vlerick in such a good regard? How have you know about it?

I share your opinion!

Warwick has a very good connections to others schools and to the industry! Furthermore the international reputation speaks for itself.

As you mentioned they have a connection the ESADE! You should take this in your account.

Vlerick:

Upside:

? Triple Accreditation
? General Management
? 2 weeks in China (included in the fees)
? Very international,
? Awesome faculty
? Good value for money
? Very good ROI
? In the heart of the EU
? Living expense affordable
? High start salary: As per the economist.
? High Employment?s rate within three months after the graduation.

Downside:

? Electives: No opportunity to specialize.
? Reputation outside Belgium: almost unknown
? FT Ranking: not convincing in contrast to the economist


This is an unbiased opinion.

My opinion about RSM is also unbiased because I don?t have the slightest interest in spreading rumours.

I've just received an offer from Manchester Global MBA. What do you think about it? I have heard that the career service and alumni are better than Warwick's. Any opinion?

Vlerick vs Cranfield vs Warwick

go for warwick.

I've just been noticed that the hospital that I work for in Spain thinks that the MBA does not has anything to do with the medical profession so they have denied me the time to do my MBA. So it leaves me with only two options: Vlerick and RSM, as these programs are both during weekends then I don't have to ask for any favors.
Whcich one shoul I opt for?

Cranfield is by far the best. Warwick operates off very low student numbers. Cranfield is purely post grad and gets a better starting salary. Also has links with US Universities for exchange programs. Vlerick is not even in the picture. For UK if you can afford LBS (and get in) go for it. Otherwise Cranfield

See my post below that I left a couple of months back. I have since started the Global PT MBA at Manchester and have been very happy with the quality and level of support, teaching and resources provided.

"I've been accepted onto executive/part time courses at all three. After researching, visiting and speaking to alumni and faculty at each of the business schools, I've chosen Manchester. This was a very close call between Manchester and Warwick, which could mean that Warwick would be a better fit for some students. Lancaster was a noticeable step down.

Warwick has impressive facilities and a well structured course, but doesn't have the recognition locally or internationally to that of Manchester. The alumni was a bit less experienced, a bit too academic/theoretical for my liking. A very well respected course, but not truly international. This is is the same for the university as whole too. If you're looking for a strong grounding in theory and you haven't studied business before, this would be a very good course.

Lancaster again had great facilities and a refined course, but the alumni network (by this I mean how senior they were and what organisations they worked for (few were FTSE 250/S&P 500 or major consultancy) was a clear step below both Manchester and Warwick. The business school has big plans for expansion and improvement, but isn't quite there yet.

Manchester had great facilities (MBA only for some), a well-rounded course and good focus on personal development. It is a well-rspected course both in business school and wider university circles due to Manchester being a strong international research university. The location is also far more preferable for a commuter (from London).

Rankings wise Warwick and Manchester are on a par. Top 50 in the world, top 25 in europe, top 10 in the UK and solid Tier 2 schools (A step below the big three LBS, Judge & Said, on a par with Cranfield & Imperial, and above all others including CASS (very specialised), Lancaster, Durham, Edinburgh etc). Yes this does vary from ranking to ranking and year to year, but over the last 5-10 years they are always there. The high FT ranking for Lancaster is driven by its extremely good value for money, this is due to lower fees and that the students are starting from a lower salary in the beginning. Lancaster ranks nowhere near as high for all other criteria, and certainly below Manchester and Warwick. This is why Lancaster does worse in other rankings.

Manchester does have a far better recognition than Warwick/Lancaster internationally (e.g. partnership with more higher ranked international business schools and rankings in US publications like business week).

Lancaster isn't well recognised as a brand, partly because of the age and size of the school. It apppeared to be a strong research-based option, but not on par with the other two. Definitely a respected MBA, but won't open as many doors.

From my personal situation, Manchester was a bit cheaper (£7k fees) and shorter (I got some exemptions from modules due to being a qualified accountant). These were of little issue though in deciding the course.

Hope this helps someone in a similar position."