Hey clearly apply to LSE the best after LBS. ESCP is a french school even if it has a london campus. 80-85% of alumni are in France. I would apply right away to LSE. Imperial is not really a business school that is the problem but if you want a job in london already better than ESCP. Hope it helps :)

Does Imperial business school not have a good reputation in the uk? also does imperial come after LSE, or is there any other school which I should consider like Warwick above Imperial?<br><br>The imperial MiM is also better ranked in QS MiM ranking when compared to LSE. What are your views about that?<br><br>I also observed that FT ranking of Imperial MiM was around 10-14 for past few years but this year it suddenly dropped to around 23-25. Why is that? do you have any idea?

Imperial has an excellent business school: it deserves its ranking. The LSE is a strong business school but placement is not as good as Imperial unless you are in the CEMS programme or MiF. Warwick is not a better choice if you want to work in the UK. Imperial has better placement.&nbsp;<br>ESCP is a very strong school but not well known in the UK. I don't know if its students have the same post study visa options as Imperial. If you wanted to return to your own country, ESCP is probably a better experience than Imperial. Imperial wins for UK placement.&nbsp;<br><br>PS almost all the UK schools fell last year. That is because of macroeconomic and political issues you must be aware of, flowing from Brexit.&nbsp;

Thank you for your input Duncan. I don't have any plans to go back to my home country. I wish to stay in the uk/Europe region. I feel that the LSE CEMS program will not be that much value for money, also I feel I won't be able to pay that high tuition fees, since it's almost double than every other program.&nbsp;<br><br>What are your views on ESCP? Will that be a good option if I want an English speaking job? I feel that the program is very good and I like it a lot also, but I fear whether I will have enough English speaking job opportunities after escp or not.<br><br>And if I have to choose bw Imperial MSc Intl. Mgmt. and LSE 1 year MiM, then which will be the better option?

I really don't know about ESCP's placement in the UK, and you need to find out about the post study work visa.&nbsp; At Imperial, you would get the two year graduate visa. I am fairly sure that you would not get it at ESCP because this visa requires 12 months' study in the UK. The visa smooths your UK hiring greatly.&nbsp;&nbsp;<br><br>PS Imperial is much better for UK placement than the one year LSE MiM.&nbsp;

It is completely wrong to say that Imperial has a better placement than LSE MiM. Agreed for STEM for Imperial but no way for business (simply check their MiM ranking on the FT ranking). LSE and LBS are the two absloute targets in London. Here I must completely disagree with what Duncan is saying.<br>

Help me out here. You say: "simply check their MiM ranking on the FT ranking." Imperial is ranked 2nd in the UK with 95% employment. The LSE doesn't even make the ranking. https://rankings.ft.com/rankings/2875/masters-of-management-2022&nbsp;<br>Can you come back with some data to better illustrate the point you are trying to make?&nbsp;

LSE is not ranked as it is not a business school for say. However, they are ranked second in the world for social sciences (and management is one). Reputation wise i believe it would be a huge mistake to favour Imperial BS over LSE.<br>Furthermore, Imperial MiM dropped 14 spots this year...&nbsp;<br>After, of course it does not make it a bad program but I don't agree with your conclusions...

Lots of schools in that ranking are parts of universities.&nbsp; The LSE has been in the MiM (as CEMS) and MiF rankings in past years. Its not ranked now because the data don't support its inclusion. You are 100% right that the LSE is the world's pre-eminent school of social science. However, the other person might be concerned about placement from the MiM, rather than reputation.&nbsp; For that, why can't they use the data?&nbsp;<br>Indeed, in every ranking that uses salary data UK schools have generally fallen since Brexit. That equally impacts the LSE, and is perhaps why the LSE is no longer ranked.&nbsp;

I would add: the LSE would be the best choice in London at the undergraduate level,&nbsp; even if it is less selective for management than King's and UCL. Even at the PhD level, it's the clear second choice after LBS.&nbsp;

If I am not wrong schools apply to be part of the FT ranking. Then, FT ranks them based on their methodolgy...&nbsp;

When the LSE has appeared in the FT MiM ranking, Imperial has been ranked above it. Are there any data placing the LSE'S MiM ahead of Imperial?&nbsp;

Problem is LSE does not show much data on their placement. Here is what is put on their website "LSE is ranked&nbsp;#5 in the world for our reputation with employers, and you will graduate from the Master's in Management with a well-rounded portfolio of managerial and leadership skills. You will also gain a unique in-depth understanding of real business challenges in today's rapidly-changing international environment, which is not a feature in the curriculum of many traditional graduate business degrees. We believe this unique approach to the discipline of management, grounded in a real-world business context, will set you apart in the job market upon graduation as a strategic, innovative and adaptable manager."<br>I still see/think that LSE's reputation should give you an edge compared to Imperial B-school.

The LSE claim refers to a QS employer ranking from several years ago. QS now ranks Imperial above the LSE for employer reputation https://www.topuniversities.com/university-rankings/employability-rankings/2022

Honestly, it's a bit ridiculous to claim "You will also gain a unique in-depth understanding of real business challenges in today's rapidly-changing international environment, which is not a feature in the curriculum of many traditional graduate business degrees".&nbsp;

Again, I repeat myself but I think 90% of Imperial's reputation is for STEM (which are world class). Not certain it is about the B-school and especially prices of their programs... (but that is a different story).<br>Agreed it is ridiculous.

No-one disagrees that Imperial is famous for STEM. Cambridge is also famous for STEM. Even so, it is a better choice for a business masters than the LSE. It's not the case, actually, that social scientists make better managers than people in the applied or natural sciences. There's no inherent disadvantage in business is having a STEM background.&nbsp;<br><br>However, if you are targeting UK companies that recruit systematically from top business schools, then they focus on the programmes individually as well as assessing the institution. LBS, for example, is less famous than the LSE but is clearly a better choice at the masters level. City University is less famous that Warwick or Manchester, but its MBAs have a much higher salary. So, reputation helps but data help more. In particular,&nbsp; there is an arbitrage opportunity when there are rival valuation approaches. Warwick is more selective than Bayes, for example. It's more famous even though it has lower salary. However,&nbsp; someone might be better advised to attend Bayes.<br><br>&nbsp;Fame is useful.&nbsp; It helps with your mother in law if she has heard of your school. But if this person is focused on traditional employers from UK business schools, then Imperial has always been ranked above the LSE, since Imperial established its business school.&nbsp;

But over the course of your career, is salary data points on your first 2-3 jobs more important than fame... not sure.&nbsp;<br>Not trying to say i am right. Everyone is free to make their own decision and have their opinion :)<br>

If you were right, then why wouldn't the data support it? Certainly, no one can doubt that the London School of Economics on average, gets great results: Economics is the highest-paid undergraduate degree, and the LSE gets a great lift there.&nbsp;<br><br>Unlike the LSE, Imperial has a separate business school with excellent resources including a dynamic alumni association and a large, long-established careers team. The LSE's department of management is far behind: it has a handful of people who manage alumni, careers skills and relationships with recruiters. Most of them were hired last year. It's coming very late. And, while terminology differs from college to college, it's just one department at the LSE rather than a whole faculty. The Bayes business school is one of six faculties at City. King's Business School is one of nine faculties; Imperial's business school is one of four faculties. They all have stunning, dedicated buildings. It's a core part of those colleges. However, at the LSE, Queen Mary and UCL the study of management is devoted to just one department: it has a lower level of resources. The department of management shares the Marshall building with LSE sports centre, cafe, philanthropy institute, music rooms and some other departments. It feels like the place at Waterloo that King's Business School was at 20 years ago, and City's business school was at 40 years ago in the Barbican. It has much less good facilities than ESCP London's beautiful campus in Hampstead.<br><br>For comparison, Imperial's Business School has 29 people working on careers and employer relations: https://www.imperial.ac.uk/business-school/programmes/careers/our-team/ and seven people in its alumni team: https://www.imperial.ac.uk/business-school/alumni/contact-us/ that's more than seven times more people than the LSE school of management, and that's before you compare the levels of skill of those people, which is also generally much lower at the LSE.&nbsp;<br><br>Momentum matters. Progression in the years right after your MSc are vital. I increased my salary 40% during my MSc, which I completed part-time at City, by getting an analyst role. In my first job change after graduating, I roughly doubled it, winning a role managing a small team of marketing specialists. Two or three years after that, I was working at Deloitte with a basic salary increase of around 40% and an on-target-earning package of more than four times my salary as an analyst. At that point in my career, which school I did my MSc at didn't matter as much. The LSE's fame doesn't matter much in the UK relative to how quickly you accelerate.<br><br>As you say, everyone is free to have an opinion. The LSE isn't a blot on your CV. Honestly, I would say that the LSE's management MSc students do very well relative to the modest support they get and the heavy research orientation of the department's scholars. However, you just don't have the same support in its department of management that you have at Imperial. Imperial's MiM has performed better well in the FT and QS rankings relative to the LSE, Warwick and Manchester. It will take a huge investment for the LSE to overcome that. The LSE doesn't intend that, looking at its 2030 strategic plan: https://www.lse.ac.uk/2030/assets/pdf/LSE-2030full-text-as-approved-by-Council-5-Feb.pdf&nbsp;