This discussion is now closed.

Check out other Related discussions

Would you choose Oxford Brookes or Open University to do MBA degree?

Hello everyone,

I have been with the open university for the last year doing my preparation course to start the MBA degree they offer, after some time studying I have been having few opinions about moving to another university that offers the same distance/part time learning schedule, one of them was Oxford Brookes university although I don't know much about it and is slightly more expensive I was thinking it might be a better place to do the MBA they offer.

I was hoping that some of you might know more about it in terms of how well recognised/suitable for this sort of studies and will be glad to hear your thoughts.

Thanks.

Sam

Reply 1

ChemistBoy

16

To be honest what you want to know with an MBA is whether employers will respect it or not because that is why you are doing it. To that end I suggest asking for advice in the careers section.

Reply 2

Eubacterium

13

Don't go to Oxford Brooks (it's a polytechnic).

Reply 3

hobnob

14

Eubacterium

Don't go to Oxford Brooks (it's a polytechnic).

Now, don't be silly. "Polytechnics" don't even exist anymore. :rolleyes:

Brookes is a perfectly respectable university now (as is the OU, obviously). No need to look down on it just because it's a new university and offers a number of vocational courses...

I agree with CB, though: people over at the Careers forum are more likely to know about MBA's. They're probably a bit different from "academic" postgraduate degrees.

Reply 4

Eubacterium

13

Polytechnics were simply renamed universities over night. Just because an institute is called a university doesn't make it reputable. Employers do prefer degree from more well established universities as they are known to have higher and more reliable standards (it's common sense). There's no point in pretending it doesn't make a difference. I was told when I did my A levels what uni I go to doesn't matter. I ended up at a crappy one and was constantly told by professionals in my field at the time I couldn't do anywhere with my degree. I realised they were right because it was taught so badly and dropped out. The OU on the other hand used to be 4th in the league tables. I don't know where it stands now but from what I understand it is taken seriously by employers (well definitely more than polytechnics).

Reply 5

Wise One

11

Eubacterium

Polytechnics were simply renamed universities over night. Just because an institute is called a university doesn't make it reputable. Employers do prefer degree from more well established universities as they are known to have higher and more reliable standards (it's common sense). There's no point in pretending it doesn't make a difference. I was told when I did my A levels what uni I go to doesn't matter. I ended up at a crappy one and was constantly told by professionals in my field at the time I couldn't do anywhere with my degree. I realised they were right because it was taught so badly and dropped out. The OU on the other hand used to be 4th in the league tables. I don't know where it stands now but from what I understand it is taken seriously by employers (well definitely more than polytechnics).

But an MBA is a hell of a lot more specialized vocationally-oriented than a relatively academic undergraduate degree such as History. If, say, Oxford Brookes has an amazing Business School, then discounting it on the basis of it being a former polytechnic would be utterly irrational.

But even with that, it's not particularly useful to compare Business Schools in a direct way. The OP would probably be better off looking at the course structures and content, comparing the individual modules, and picking the one which looks more attractive to them.

Reply 6

sweet_fluffy_nuke

Brookes would probably be better than OU.
Even though Brookes is a poly, it is the best of the polys.
And with a MBA, group interaction and discussions are important.

However, instead of these two options, why not try a decent university instead ?
Many of the decent redbricks have business schools that are not too hard to get into.

Reply 7

Angelil

19

Son_of_the_sun

Brookes would probably be better than OU.
Even though Brookes is a poly, it is the best of the polys.
And with a MBA, group interaction and discussions are important.

However, instead of these two options, why not try a decent university instead ?
Many of the decent redbricks have business schools that are not too hard to get into.

Yeah, that. I'd think it would be quite hard to achieve success in an MBA without interaction with companies and with other students. With a distance-learning based uni such as the OU, I'm not sure how much of this you would get, even though the OU is good enough for other things.

Reply 8

ChemistBoy

16

Eubacterium

Polytechnics were simply renamed universities over night. Just because an institute is called a university doesn't make it reputable. Employers do prefer degree from more well established universities as they are known to have higher and more reliable standards (it's common sense). There's no point in pretending it doesn't make a difference. I was told when I did my A levels what uni I go to doesn't matter. I ended up at a crappy one and was constantly told by professionals in my field at the time I couldn't do anywhere with my degree. I realised they were right because it was taught so badly and dropped out. The OU on the other hand used to be 4th in the league tables. I don't know where it stands now but from what I understand it is taken seriously by employers (well definitely more than polytechnics).

The OU doesn't appear in any league tables I am aware of (and never has done).

Btw, which university did you study at before changing?

Reply 9

the_alba

12

Eubacterium

Polytechnics were simply renamed universities over night. Just because an institute is called a university doesn't make it reputable. Employers do prefer degree from more well established universities as they are known to have higher and more reliable standards (it's common sense). There's no point in pretending it doesn't make a difference. I was told when I did my A levels what uni I go to doesn't matter. I ended up at a crappy one and was constantly told by professionals in my field at the time I couldn't do anywhere with my degree. I realised they were right because it was taught so badly and dropped out. The OU on the other hand used to be 4th in the league tables. I don't know where it stands now but from what I understand it is taken seriously by employers (well definitely more than polytechnics).

A 1st from Oxford Brookes, or even a 2:1, would be worth a lot more to those precious employers than a 2:2 from wherever you went, so I think you should come off your high horse.

Reply 10

The Boosh

17

the_alba

A 1st from Oxford Brookes, or even a 2:1, would be worth a lot more to those precious employers than a 2:2 from wherever you went, so I think you should come off your high horse.

i couldn't agree with you more.

edit: infact, you'll find several expoly postgrads on this postgrad forum who have phd scholarships and are currently conducing phds at a range of traditional universities, including oxbridge, so don't believe the hype.

Reply 11

Eubacterium

13

the_alba

A 1st from Oxford Brookes, or even a 2:1, would be worth a lot more to those precious employers than a 2:2 from wherever you went, so I think you should come off your high horse.

Well if you want to get personal why don't you go to a polytechnic then? It's nothing to do with being on a high horse, I'm giving advice to the OP which I deem to be correct. I was fed this potically correct rubbish in college and ended up at a seriously crappy uni (which lead to me dropping out). I graduated at the UEA, which is apparantly ranted #20 in the league tables. I don't believe it's that good, but Oxford Brookes is rated #53 (which is a massive difference).

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/07/30/ncambs430.xml

As for a 1st or 2:1 from a polytechnic being taken more seriously than my 2:2 I was thinking more on the lines that in a polytechnic it's more likely to be harder to achieve those grades as there's more likely to be less support and tutition (I'm going by other people's experience, like one told me no one knew who was supposed to teach a unit which I never heard of before). Also it's based on my own experience of going to a uni not in the league table and realising I was going no where. Standards are not the same everywhere and some of my friends were able to achieve high marks doing less work expected than at an university which wasn't a polytechnic.

Reply 12

The Boosh

17

i went to brookes, then to exeter and didnt see a dramatic difference. good and bad at both unis. ive been on international conferences and listen to papers from academics around the world and the difference in quality is diverse and not dependent on league tables or some tsr sense of "prestige". another guy on here went to plymouth and is now at oxford and hasnt found a difference. new universities are not a problem. the alba went to hull and then to oxford - the same league table difference between oxford and hull is the same as uea and brookes, and she has a better time at hull by the sounds of things.

you need to get your head out the clouds and realise that you clearly don't have a clue about other universities.

Reply 13

apotoftea

19

Have only heard good things about Brookes from various people - academics and employers.

Reply 14

The Boosh

17

hey eubacterium- since you love league tables so much and boast about the difference between new and old universities re: employment, have you noticed that brookes is ranked 26th for graduate employment? uea is ranked 88th, below most new universities. nottingham trent is even higher, one place behind oxford.

http://extras.timesonline.co.uk/gug/gooduniversityguide.php?sort=PROSPECTS

is this the point where you declare that league tables are rubbish? or is it the point where you take back your comments about how employable new university students are compared to universities like uea? the op would like to know which parts of your advice s/he should take seriously because you clearly contradict yourself.

*goes to find a branding iron for a word that begins with the letter "c"*

Reply 15

Eubacterium

13

The Boosh

i went to brookes, then to exeter and didnt see a dramatic difference. good and bad at both unis. ive been on international conferences and listen to papers from academics around the world and the difference in quality is diverse and not dependent on league tables or some tsr sense of "prestige". another guy on here went to plymouth and is now at oxford and hasnt found a difference. new universities are not a problem. the alba went to hull and then to oxford - the same league table difference between oxford and hull is the same as uea and brookes, and she has a better time at hull by the sounds of things.

you need to get your head out the clouds and realise that you clearly don't have a clue about other universities.

ROFL! It's ridiculous to assume there are no differences between universities in terms of standards. I've been to 4 (Trinity college Carmarthen, Open uni, UEA and Manchester and they were all very different. It just so unrealistic to actually say everywhere is just as academic, with the same facilities, attitudes, support etc etc. The league table isn’t accurate and common sense says certain things about it are true to some extent.

Reply 16

ChemistBoy

16

Eubacterium

ROFL! It's ridiculous to assume there are no differences between universities in terms of standards. I've been to 4 (Trinity college Carmarthen, Open uni, UEA and Manchester and they were all very different. It just so unrealistic to actually say everywhere is just as academic, with the same facilities, attitudes, support etc etc. The league table isn’t accurate and common sense says certain things about it are true to some extent.

It's called significant difference and that is what's important. Perhaps oxford chemists do a bit more quantum mechanics than other chemists, but does that make their degree harder? Very difficult to judge. So how do we judge it? Suitability for postgraduate education seems to be a most sensible way to judge it and in that case we see that students from ex-polies with good classifications are well prepared to take on postgraduate study at traditional universities. I also draw your attention to the strong correlation between entry standards (UCAS points) and final degree classification, if there wasn't some significant standardisation and what you claimed was universally true, we wouldn't see this strong correlation. Anecdote away as much as you wish but the stats (limited as they are) don't tally with your story.

Reply 17

The Boosh

17

Eubacterium

ROFL! It's ridiculous to assume there are no differences between universities in terms of standards. I've been to 4 (Trinity college Carmarthen, Open uni, UEA and Manchester and they were all very different. It just so unrealistic to actually say everywhere is just as academic, with the same facilities, attitudes, support etc etc. The league table isn’t accurate and common sense says certain things about it are true to some extent.

so what is your answer to my question? in case you are struggling to cope, i'll quote my post so you can read it again:

"hey eubacterium- since you love league tables so much and boast about the difference between new and old universities re: employment, have you noticed that brookes is ranked 26th for graduate employment? uea is ranked 88th, below most new universities. nottingham trent is even higher, one place behind oxford.

http://extras.timesonline.co.uk/gug/...sort=PROSPECTS

is this the point where you declare that league tables are rubbish? or is it the point where you take back your comments about how employable new university students are compared to universities like uea? the op would like to know which parts of your advice s/he should take seriously because you clearly contradict yourself.

*goes to find a branding iron for a word that begins with the letter "c"*

as a uea graduate with a 2.2, you may be able to shed light on why your university has dire a graduate employment score.

Reply 18

the_alba

12

Umm, well, is the number of students going on to postgrad study taken into account on these graduate employment tables, or are all we PhD students classed as 'the unemployed'? Because might that explain why some otherwise poor universities do surprisingly well on that particular table?

This is not to detract from anything that's been said here in favour of Oxford Brookes, which is a good university with good teaching (and Eubacterium, what you say about poor teaching standards in lower-ranking universities is a ridiculous and misguided generalisation. I know more than one tutor at Oxford who has also taught at Brookes, and vice versa). The bottom line is, if you go to Brookes and want to do well, nothing will stop you. I knew quite a few students there while I was at Oxford (a friend on my course was living with them), and all were bright, interesting and had no complaints about the place. My mother went there too, funnily enough.

Reply 19

sweet_fluffy_nuke

Eubacterium

ROFL! It's ridiculous to assume there are no differences between universities in terms of standards. I've been to 4 (Trinity college Carmarthen, Open uni, UEA and Manchester

And graduated triumpantly with a 2.2 ? :rolleyes:

A 2.1 from Brookes or any ex-poly is worth a lot more than your 2.2 from UEA.

Would you choose Oxford Brookes or Open University to do MBA degree?

Related discussions

Articles for you

How The Student Room is moderated