Afternoon,

I am heavily considering attending Warwick to study my MBA. Realistically it's the best MBA program I will get into given an average GMAT and good-but-not-great undergrad/MSc results. I also want to stay in the UK and it seems to be the best choice outside of Oxbridge and LBS.

One thing I was wondering though is where Warwick MBA end up. I spoke with the team at WBS and they said a lot go into finance and consulting. They said they have industry links with Goldman Sachs, Deloitte, Credit Suisse, McKinsey, Deloitte and Accenture.

I've looked through the Linkedin alumni page and this just doesn't seem to add up. Hardly any alumni work in the above companies and I can't find any former Warwick MBA that works in McKinsey. This isn't too much of an issue - my background is in innovation funding and I am looking to continue this into a general Corporate Finance or IB role. However, I can't seem to trace many alumni from the Warwick MBA into finance associate positions or similar roles.

Was just wondering if anyone knows what Warwick's strengths are? They seem to put a lot of MBAs into IBM. Do they have much success in placing into banking/IB/corp finance that I'm missing on Linkedin?

Thanks for all your help in advance,

Andy

I think you have your answer...

Yeah perhaps. Just seems strange as their MSc Finance is so successful and they obviously have great links with these companies just it doesn't trickle over into the MBA.

Do you know of any reason why this is? There are a vast amount of finance electives I thought that would've given good overlap with the Finance courses and would have opened up those types of opportunities?

Well, I think they do pretty well but the finance core is very light there and in such a compressed time frame just one term of electives doesn't do anything to bring the students up to where the LBS, Cass, Cranfield and MBS students are. To be honest, Warwick is where you go to avoid quant stuff.

Good-but-not-great undergrad results are less of an issue than your length and quality of work experience. Depending on that, and if you can re-take the GMAT, you might be able to aim higher.

And if you want to get into Goldman Sachs, Deloitte, etc., then you'll probably want to aim higher.

Aim higher on the GMAT or a better program?

Both.

Well, I think they do pretty well but the finance core is very light there and in such a compressed time frame just one term of electives doesn't do anything to bring the students up to where the LBS, Cass, Cranfield and MBS students are. To be honest, Warwick is where you go to avoid quant stuff.

I think that really comes down to a micro-level analysis of alumni networks and hiring managers. Cass give you much better networking.

Afternoon,

I am heavily considering attending Warwick to study my MBA. Realistically it's the best MBA program I will get into given an average GMAT and good-but-not-great undergrad/MSc results. I also want to stay in the UK and it seems to be the best choice outside of Oxbridge and LBS.

One thing I was wondering though is where Warwick MBA end up. I spoke with the team at WBS and they said a lot go into finance and consulting. They said they have industry links with Goldman Sachs, Deloitte, Credit Suisse, McKinsey, Deloitte and Accenture.

I've looked through the Linkedin alumni page and this just doesn't seem to add up. Hardly any alumni work in the above companies and I can't find any former Warwick MBA that works in McKinsey. This isn't too much of an issue - my background is in innovation funding and I am looking to continue this into a general Corporate Finance or IB role. However, I can't seem to trace many alumni from the Warwick MBA into finance associate positions or similar roles.

Was just wondering if anyone knows what Warwick's strengths are? They seem to put a lot of MBAs into IBM. Do they have much success in placing into banking/IB/corp finance that I'm missing on Linkedin?

Thanks for all your help in advance,

Andy

I think that really comes down to a micro-level analysis of alumni networks and hiring managers. Cass give you much better networking.

Warwick is #43 and Cass is #50 (not a meaningful difference). Cass students get much higher salaries, stronger career growth and faster salary growth. Warwick has better careers services, and might be better for career changers and switchers looking to move into consultancy: http://rankings.ft.com/businessschoolrankings/global-mba-ranking-2020 Warwick has a much bigger alumni network, but I see that 32/46 UK alumni in Accenture/Deloitte have strategy in their LinkedIn profiles, compared to 16/19 at Cass. So, Cass MBAs seem much more focused on strategy. Most of the UK Cass MBA alumni at those firms are in London, and most of those from Warwick are outside London: so, it also comes down to the kind of career path you want. The London factor perhaps explains the faster salary growth for the Cass students, since they could be on higher-value career paths serving the financial services and fintech industries.

Obviously, the Warwick alumni network is also a bit more diffuse and low energy because most students are in the DL MBA.

[Edited by Duncan on Mar 05, 2020]

Both schools' alumni rate them very highly for strategy. The design of the Cass programme is clearly much better for people moving into consultancy, because of the way that consulting projects are built into the programme. https://www.cass.city.ac.uk/study/mba/full-time/programme-structure The Cass free elective annually for life is massively valuable.

Cass also gives you a very deep network in finance. If consulting to finance was an interest, it would be a no-brainer.

[Edited by Duncan on Mar 05, 2020]

Also, Coventry doesn't seem too far away from London and some classes are run out of The Shard too; this makes me believe that I may not be totally cut off from potential networking opportunities if I were to pick WBS over Cass.

Warwick is #43 and Cass is #50 (not a meaningful difference). Cass students get much higher salaries, stronger career growth and faster salary growth. Warwick has better careers services, and might be better for career changers and switchers looking to move into consultancy: http://rankings.ft.com/businessschoolrankings/global-mba-ranking-2020 Warwick has a much bigger alumni network, but I see that 32/46 UK alumni in Accenture/Deloitte have strategy in their LinkedIn profiles, compared to 16/19 at Cass. So, Cass MBAs seem much more focused on strategy. Most of the UK Cass MBA alumni at those firms are in London, and most of those from Warwick are outside London: so, it also comes down to the kind of career path you want. The London factor perhaps explains the faster salary growth for the Cass students, since they could be on higher-value career paths serving the financial services and fintech industries.

Obviously, the Warwick alumni network is also a bit more diffuse and low energy because most students are in the DL MBA.

Also, Coventry doesn't seem too far away from London and some classes are run out of The Shard too; this makes me believe that I may not be totally cut off from potential networking opportunities if I were to pick WBS over Cass.

Although I agree with Duncan's take on Cass vs Warwick, I would say that you are right here. Not only that, but the school does also run regular recruiting fairs in London, which I believe they transport students to.

[Edited by priya08 on Mar 16, 2020]

Brand equity is the price premium someone pays to access that brand. The Cass MBA costs more than the Warwick MBA. Cass MBA alumni earn much higher salaries than Warwick's. They also have much faster career progression. I think brand equity is clear for the two full time MBAs.

In terms of awareness, however, certainly Warwick is a better known uni than City University.

[Edited by Duncan on Mar 16, 2020]

Brand equity is the price premium someone pays to access that brand. The Cass MBA costs more than the Warwick MBA. Cass MBA alumni earn much higher salaries than Warwick's. They also have much faster career progression. I think brand equity is clear for the two full time MBAs.

In terms of awareness, however, certainly Warwick is a better known uni than City University.

I think it's very close between these schools. Naturally, I think the higher salary of Cass matters, and the City setting matters if your focus is on London. And I prefer the four-term design of the project-centred Cass full-time MBA, while Warwick (like Strathclyde) have three-term MBAs that are locked into the structure of those schools' much larger online MBAs.

However, if your gut is telling you Warwick then you should listen to your gut. These schools have different cultures, very different settings. If you will be happier in a US-style campus than in a city centre then that makes all the difference.

I think it's very close between these schools. Naturally, I think the higher salary of Cass matters, and the City setting matters if your focus is on London. And I prefer the four-term design of the project-centred Cass full-time MBA, while Warwick (like Strathclyde) have three-term MBAs that are locked into the structure of those schools' much larger online MBAs.

However, if your gut is telling you Warwick then you should listen to your gut. These schools have different cultures, very different settings. If you will be happier in a US-style campus than in a city centre then that makes all the difference.