I' am From India and have received offers from above programs. My deadlines are soon approaching so any information regarding which business school should I join of the above would be really helpful.
Some background:

I' am currently in my final year of Electronics engineering. My main aim is stream conversion from technical to a more people centric stream such as management. My interest lies in consultancy, investment banking and marketing.
Can anyone help me in selecting any one from the above programs? From what I have heard so far, I have received two types of advises :

1) Being from India and that too without any work experience, it would be extremely difficult for me to find a job after completing my masters in the UK hence a program which offers internship would be highly valuable. I've been getting advises to join Cranfield because it has a dedicated 3 months internship in the course and also their international mobility stats are higher.

2) The second advise I get the most is to join Warwick because of it's immense reputation. The fact that it is so well known around the world would open lots of opportunities. Also, if in case I don't land a job in UK and would have to return back to India, Warwick brand would be a safe bet to get me a decent job to pay off my loans.

3) I haven't got any satisfactory reviews to join Cass.

I know that getting a job is a very subjective and depends on the person more than the University but still want to know your perspective.

The FT ranking shows that Warwick is the worst of these schools (71st/100), and Cranfield the best (17th), for international mobility. Cass is the best for investment banking, which is why it has the highest salary of the three. http://rankings.ft.com/businessschoolrankings/masters-in-management-2017

Thank you for your reply Duncan. However, the rankings are a bit confusing. At this point of time I' am most probably inclined on Warwick and Cranfield and have disregarded Cass. So my decision is between Warwick vs Cranfield. While Warwick's Mim overall ranking is far better than Cranfield's(21 vs 49), there are some aspects of the ranking i.e international mobility where Cranfield ranks far higher. But then Warwick ranks 2nd in career progress. These are some features of the FT rankings which are giving me selection headache. I'm a little bit more inclined towards Cranfield as it provides 3 months internship. Also, it's course structure seems comprehensive. On the other hand, Warwick's website has very less course information, and i'm struggling to get information from their alumni and faculty.
Can you help me decide between Cranfield and Warwick on the basis of the information I have provided about myself and my research?

I would just suggest that you narrow your career focus, and go for the school that fits you best. Given your mention of banking, I just cannot understand dropping Cass.

[Edited by Duncan on Jan 02, 2018]

Yes, Cass would be the best for banking. LBS would be better, though. :)

Thanks for all the replies. I haven't yet selected any of the 3 yet. However, I would need to make a decision quickly as the deposit deadline is within a week. Banking is just one of the interest I have, however my reason to reject Cass was also influenced by the cost of the study. Being in London, it's total cost is just too expensive. Hence I'm left with the choice of Warwick vs Cranfield. Cost wise Cranfield is cheaper. Its course content is better than Warwick's. It also has 3 months paid internship, which would help with reducing the cost, as well as giving me the much-required work experience. The thing is, I'm not too sure about its ranking. Can you please provide any details about how Cranfield is perceived amongst the general public, in the UK and internationally, as well as among the recruiters. I have been told that a direct comparison between Warwick and Cranfield won't be possible because Cranfield is just for postgraduates. My biggest concern is employability after completing the course. Can you tell me, keeping other factors aside, if we just compare the universities and it's course, would I be in a better position as a Cranfield Mim graduate, or a Warwick Mim graduate? Duncan, can you explain to me what exactly does the international mobility stats mean in the rankings and what it implies?

If you hover your mouse over the column headers on the FT ranking then you see the definition. It's an ordinal ranking, where 1st is best and 95th is worse, for mobility.

I think the rankings reflect the standing of these schools fairly among business school recruiters. Of course, in terms of brands to brag about to your mother-in-law a posh university name like Durham or St Andrews will alway mean more than a better business school name. Life is all about choices. Among the general public.... well, I don't think most people have heard of any business school, even LBS. Only the universities are known. I did my MBA at London Business School and Dartmouth College, an Ivy League School. Most British people think I mean I studied at the LSE and a naval college in Devon. But, luckily, it's only business people who I need to worry about.

Cranfield is quite highly ranked in the new Economist rankings but ranks not too well in the FT rankings. That might be because it was inducted in the FT rankings this year. But even for a first time ranking, its rank is quite high. Duncan can you provide some information about Cranfield school of management? The reputation it holds among the recruiters. Also I might have to return back to India after the course. So what would be my prospects among recruiters as a Cranfield Mim graduate?

I can't speak to Cranfield's reputation in India, but in the UK it has been one of a handful of excellent business schools over the last 50 years, long before Oxbridge and Imperial launched business schools. Rankings are complex but the high salaries and high placement are good reflections of employers views.

Duncan, between Cranfield and Warwick, for their respective MSc in Management program, as an international student, if you were in my place, which one would you choose?

Probably Cranfield but I would take a close look at which alumni network was better for your goals.

both are really great! the vast majority of people that attend those schools are very happy about it. I think in any of the two choices, your investment will worth it

Warwick grads have better salaries (marginally).