This discussion is now closed.

Check out other Related discussions

Top Business Schools in the UK

Scroll to see replies

Reply 60

Jazzza

No - Oxford Brookes can't be in the first 10. But Lancaster should be there.

Reply 61

dianarey

I dont know about the source you are mentioning... the website doesnt reflect confidence. But I will quote the Financial Times ranking for Executive MBA for 2006, 2005 and 2004:
ranks respectively for each year
Cass -City: 15 - 10 - 13
Cranfield: 40 - 54 - 60

http://rankings.ft.com/rankings/emba/rankings.html

I would rather trust the Financial Times more to be honest... Also a good business school does not only depend on MBA and EMBA but on postgraduate education as well (masters).

Cheers

Reply 62

anandbatra

dianarey

Even I'm trusting the FT more.

http://rankings.ft.com/rankings/mba/rankings.html

LBS- 5
Judge- 15
Said- 19
MBS-22
Lancaster-28(Very doubtful)
Warwick-36
Cranfield- 37

Also, Career Launcher is an organization that provides coaching for CAT, the entrance exam for India's IIMs. They got their data from the schools itself. They didn't rank any school, I must add. They had just provided the data they got from the schools.

Also, do visit http://www.pagalguy.com/forum/b-school-discussions-mba-abroad/

You'd find hundreds of admits there. Most of them are US top tier school admits, but you'd find some UK admits too. Check out which B-school they choose(after having offers from multiple schools).

I had got an offer from Cass and Cranfield for MSc Finance(Fin & Mgmt. in the case of Cranfield). Whilst Cass' program is established and reputed, Cranfield's MSc programs are new and not that reputed, yet.

But, when you see the profiles of admits for the MSc program at Cranfield, you'd find that most people have quality work experience and quite a lot of them are from Oxbridge, Durham, UCL, Imperial etc.

Besides, Cranfield was the only university that interviewed with me before giving me an offer. I was confused between Cass and Cranfield, but then the LSE decided to make my choice a lot easier. :smile:

Reply 63

ILIGAN

Yes, I fully agree that Cranfield is > than City-Cass. I think the top students would know that easily. Cranfield's peer schools, more or less, are Manchester and Warwick. I just elevated Manchester and Warwick because of they're more reputable, as a university. But as a business school, Warwick, Manchester and Cranfield head-to-head in reputation and I'm sure that most HRDs of top corps would agree with me. Imperial-Tanaka is also above City-Cass. But again, for a very slight margin, though I would put them in the same tier.

Which UK b-schools are very promising?

Oxford-Said
Cambridge-Judge
Warwick
Imperial-Tanaka

I would like Cranfield to climb extra more places in the ranking in the near future. I think Crnafield has to excite all its alumni to achieve that.

Reply 64

maxhk

anandbatra

As per the June 2006 issue of Management Compass, a magazine published by Career Launcher, the average post-MBA salaries(in US dollars) over 3 years at various b-schools in the UK are as follows:

1) LBS- $1,26,590

2)Said- $1,16,610

3)Tanaka- $1,02,529

4) Cass- $98,748

5) Judge- $1,02,309

6) Warwick- $99,352

7) Cranfield- $1,12,330

8) Manchester- $1,00,787

So, I don't understand how Cranfield is a tier III school and how Cass is a teir I school.

Do you have the figure for LSE MBA graduates?

Reply 65

anandbatra

Wai``Hou!

Do you have the figure for LSE MBA graduates?

Career Launcher didn't mention LSE in their list, as LSE has an exec. MBA(Trium) program as opposed to other schools which run normal MBA programs.

FT has some info on the Trium program run by LSE, HEC and Stern. But, do bear in mind that the FT survey was done three years after the completion of the program and people who attend exec. MBA programs have had years and years of work experience in different industries.

Reply 66

hermaphrodite

ILIGAN

My two cents worth:
It's Manchester before. Now, Warwick has caught up with Manchester, though very slightly and insignificantly. In Asia, there's a wow factor for Warwcik grads.

What's so "wow" about Warwick

Reply 67

anandbatra

ILIGAN

I just elevated Manchester and Warwick because of they're more reputable, as a university. But as a business school, Warwick, Manchester and Cranfield head-to-head in reputation and I'm sure that most HRDs of top corps would agree with me.

True. During my interview with Cranfield's MSc Finance and Mgmt. course director, I asked him why Cranfield was not as well known as say Manchester or Warwick.

He told me that the main reason why people in the UK do not know about Cranfield is that it doesn't offer undergrad degrees and that it's mainly a research-oriented university, which specializes in Applied Sciences, Defence and Engineering

Also, the average age of a Cranfield graduate is around 30(around 26-27 for the MSc F&M program).

Reply 68

Anonymous samosa

LSE is not a business school.

zeramzi

Well if I had to rank them I would say:

1- London Business School (of course)
2- LSE
3- Said Business School
4- Cass Business School
5- Judge Business School
6- Manchester Business School
7- Warwick Business School
8- Tanaka Business School
9- Lancaster University Management School/Cranfield

The rest are ok... but not worldwide quality I must say

Reply 69

Anonymous samosa

these are the top 5 business schools in uk:
London business school
Tanaka business school
Cass business school
Warick business school
Manchester business school

Reply 70

Anmol Ghatak

If i had to rank em..

1. London Business School
2. Said Business School
3. Judge Business School
4. Warwick Business School
5.Manchester/Tanaka/Cass
5. Lancaster Business School/ Cranfield

Reply 71

the_beast

Anmol Ghatak

If i had to rank em..

1. London Business School
2. Said Business School
3. Judge Business School
4. Warwick Business School
5.Manchester/Tanaka/Cass
5. Lancaster Business School/ Cranfield

on what criteria is your list based on? how do you distinguish between the business schools in positions 4 and 5 - why would you place warwick better than manchester, tanaka and cass.....

Reply 72

Tinypic

I don't understand why many posters on this board place Manchester so high. According to the newspaper rankings, that university is rather mediocre. Same applies for its business school. Or am I wrong?

Reply 73

jo131278

Tinypic

I personally think that you are wrong (only my opinion!!!)
mbs is ranked 2nd in the world for its doctoral programme, 22nd in world (7th in europe and 4th in uk) for MBA ....(all stats from FT MBA league table).

The teaching is fantastic i have just finished a MSc in HRM & IR at MBS.
MBS is very well respected by employers- i have been told this frequently by employers.
Jo.xxxx

Reply 74

the_beast

Tinypic

i did my u/g degree at manchester. it probabyl has the best careers service and the fact that its merged with UMIST has increased its reputation.

if the domestic rankings are true then it is mediocre(i dont think its not even in the top 15), but its in top 5 for world rankings(if uk universities taken into account). but in general i think it is rather over-rated by some people esp by the people who studied at manchester.

Reply 75

Rakesh1987

I'm really surprised that Cranfield features so low in many of the opinions/rankings on this thread. I applied for the MSc Finance & Management course in Cranfield so I only know much about that course.

First of all FT ranks Cranfield as the 2nd best UK business school in the 2006 European business school rankings. Many schools have great MBA programs but aren't as good when you look at the school as a whole.

The salaries of graduates of Cranfield are among the highest in the UK and Europe. For MBA students there is a very prestigious competition organized by AT Kearny. Schools like Stanford, Wharton, Harvard participate in this. Only 3 school from the UK, if I remember correctly, are invited to this competition - these ones being LBS, Cranfield and Manchester.

For the MSc program I applied for, the school took in 43 students from over 500 applications (this by the way is more competitive that Economics at Cambridge). So i disagree that the MSc programs are definitely well known. I suppose only people who apply for PG studies and corporate personnel know well about this university as it doesn't offer undergraduate degrees.

It is not located in the middle of nowhere. In fact it is only an hour's ride away from London. It is only one of very few schools in the world to be triple-accredited.

Furthermore the MSc Finance and Management program is absolutely packed so you get great value for money. From the information provided, it looks like they teach more finance than other schools with exclusive finance degrees such as Manchester and Cass (MSc Finance - both to which I applied). On top of this they also teach a bit of management so it does indeed help your career.

It is one of the best universities for research in the UK ranking alongside Oxford, Cambridge and Imperial. The best part is that it doesn't even depend on government revenue that much for their research funding. They actually work with companies in the role of consultants and earn revenue that way. Here you can see how involved Cranfield is in the industry. This is also reflected in the fantastic employment rates of the Cranfield graduates.

Yes, if you look at MBA alone or PhD alone, it may not be as good as (rankings wise - graduate salaries speak otherwise), say, Manchester, Warwick or Imperial. FT did a combined poll of different ranking journals such as BusinessWeek, EIU and Wall Street Journal and that resulted in Cranfield being 3rd in UK and 10th in the world AS A BUSINESS SCHOOL. Go to http://www.som.cranfield.ac.uk/som/about/rank.asp for more info.

So, Cranfield is definitely in the 1st tier, so to speak, of UK business school. Of course, different schools will be better for different people depending upon the circumstances, needs and the specific level and type of program they apply for.

Reply 76

Tinypic

Jo and The Beast - thanks for the insight.

Rakesh - I am also evaluating my Master's offers in management. I didn't apply at Cranfield, but only because, subjectively, I have a bad perception of the school due to one of my former teachers who had graduated from there. I am looking at the website now and am positively surprised by the fees which are not too high compared to the UK's top business schools. However, I find the entry requirements to be rather low (2:2 and 6.5 in IELTS).

Did you accept the offer or are you still looking at other courses?

Reply 77

Rakesh1987

I'm still deciding between Cranfield, Cass (City) and Manchester. All are for MSc Finance except for Cranfield which also has management. I'll probably choose Cranfield although at the beginning I was going to go for Cass. However, after having done a bit more research about the depth of the course and all, it looks like Cranfield is the better choice (although Cass is fantastic for Finance and I'm a bit reluctant to let go of it).

The entry requirements are low. For example, if my memory serves me right, for the MBA course the GMAT requirement is only 600 but the average score of the students admitted are well above that (however, I cannot vouch for the exact validity of this statement). Moreover, it is one of the few schools that actually highly recommends (in other words requires) GMAT for an MSc. They may also look for things other than pure academic qualification (they take in quite a significant number of international students). But as I said before 43 students accepted from 500+ applications shows the competitiveness of the university.

It claims to have the most contact hours and the careers service is supposedly fantastic. I don't think anyone can say which university is best for what unless they've been in all. The only thing I'm saying is that the various aspects people, or at least I, look into when deciding on a university are strong at Cranfield - the depth of the course, reputation, accreditation, post-graduation career prospects/salaries, student body diversity, lecturers' support, location (only 1 hour away from London remember).

I do think that Manchester is slightly overrated as a business school. Its MBA program is top notch (probably better than Cranfield if you look at certain rankings) and PhD is 2nd in the world, if I'm not wrong. But you also have to look at the specialist Masters, lecturing quality and student body satisfaction. I'd love to choose Cass but my preference is to study at a peaceful location and Cranfield offers that and yet it isn't far from London.

I think in the end everything depends on what criteria people look at. So there is no real universal ranking.

Reply 78

The Orientalist

Rakesh1987

It is only one of very few schools in the world to be triple-accredited.

Wasn't Warwick Business School the very first business school in the UK to be triple-accredited?

EDIT: Ah, found it http://www.wbs.ac.uk/about/accreditation/

Reply 79

Rakesh1987

The Orientalist

Wasn't Warwick Business School the very first business school in the UK to be triple-accredited?

EDIT: Ah, found it http://www.wbs.ac.uk/about/accreditation/

Sure, but I didn't say that Cranfield was the first one or only one for that matter.