bump

none, you need to go to a decent school in london instead

The only better school for investment banking in Europe is LBS, then it comes the others.

thanks for the input. now back to my question, if you only had the option of these two schools, would it matter which one ?

Why did you apply to those 2 schools?
Which is your profile?
Why IB?

these cuestions may help for us to give an opinion.

i have some 3 years experience in finance/asset management in NYC for big industry leaders, I also have CFA I level cleared and should clear the second level in June 2010.

these are the schools that I had a shot at considering all (my low GPA, the scholarships/loans and all).

IB because thats what I want to do

thanks again

Hi monkey,

Sounds good your work experience and CFA. CFA, as you probably know, is very well considered in the banking sector. Your experience should give you good contacts for after-MBA job. Which kind of role in the asset / finance,.. research, sales, fund management or back office?

In your case, and considering that both schools have (more or less) similar prestige, I would choose the school that fits you better (for the experience in Barcelona or Rotterdam) and the willingness to learn Spanish for instance.

For many people, Schoolarships and loans are also factors to consider for the final decision.

I can talk more about ESADE, but considering your dilemma, RSM would be also a great school for your MBA.

Hi Spain,

thanks for the reply. I feel that ESADE is an inch better in terms of placement, that is my impression from the recruiting companies that are public for both schools. Also the program seems very flexible, although the breadth of the finance classes does not seem to be as broad as that of RSM's but please do speak about ESADE if you dont mind, i will be very happy to hear more about it.

The RSM advantage for me is in the cost which is less than ESADE and the scholarship that I got , which makes my ROI greater, but again I do not want to be stuck with an MBA for little money and little prospects.

All in all i am leaning towards ESADE, however I am not sure whether they will be successful brand in London. (same is valid for RSM), as i think that they are very big in Latin America, not in London. Please let me know your thoughts on ESADE.

Thanks

Personally , i dont know about neither very well. The impression i have after the years working and meeting business people mostly from Asia and Anglo-Saxon countries is RSM is more well-known.

Holland is a nice country to live in but not actually the Rotterdam. But the university is very respected.

Am I right to say ESADE is a stand-alone business school.

Later if it goes bankrupt what will happen to your MBA.

Netherlands will never let one of its most respected uni to go down hill

donho,

how would you rank RSM vs Manchester MBA, Lancaster MBA, Cranfield? All in the same context of IB ?

I would say that Manchester and Lancaster are on the same level with RSM overall, but I do see them placing more students in the field for some reason.In terms of International Recognition its obviously the RSM (or thats at least my view) but that is not as important, as I do not plan on doing a logistics career in Asia for example.

For Cranfield I have a big respect, the admission officers told me that I would not have a chance due to the limited experience (3 years) that i have.. i found this very disturbing, especially after they have only seen my Resume and not an application, and I dare to say that my Resume is not mediocre at no point.

tx

First, the Schools in the UK place a lot of emphasis on GPA. A couple of years back, honestly mate, nobody cares about GRE/GMAT. I think only last year and this year, LSE looked at GMAT as an indicator of your performance. Partly due to the fact that GPA is not very reliable. GMAT/GRE after all is of similar standard across the world.

So bottom line, do you have GPA over 3.0 which is minimum? Or better yet 3.5?

In compare between all those schools, I have to say i dont know much about RSM so it would be unfair to judge them. But as a rule of thumbs, studyin the UK/US gives you the better brand.

Manchester,Lancaster and Cranfield I say the quality is pretty much similar. Thus if you choose between Lancaster and Manchester go for Lancaster which is far cheaper. Most IB jobs of Europe are in London so may be why Manchester and Lancaster secured more jobs.

I know one person who went to Cranfield, he was very bright, studied at Purdue, about 6 7 years of experience, GMAT of 670/680. He get about 10 grand scholarship of Cranfield MBA. This year due to the number of people out of jobs, the admissions getting really tough.

For you IB inspiration, if I were you I would not get into banking at this moment. First, very hard to find jobs, a batch of Said Oxford Msc ( i dont know any MBA students going for IB this year) still looking for fulltime jobs, many only have internship when i last met them in May. And if you know IB, most jobs gone during Christmas-New Year time, so basically, you are after odd vacancies from second tier comapnies now.

I would personally recommend you to complete your CFA 2 first. If you have the cash, spend on Judge or Said or LBS, you spend more but over the years, you will see it is the money well spent. Else, go for LSE which is cheaper, their Msc ranges tailor more towards IB. But they dont do MBA.
Also another one is Warwick? have you considered?

yeah i have considered Warwick but for some reason it has not turned me on too much, i know that it is very well respected in the city though..

my plan is to finish the level II first, then go to a decent program, so when I graduate, it will be at least two years from now. US economy already picking up now, so I see the two year horizon as very good opportunity to enter IB again, will see though.

Thanks for the input

Hi monkey84,

I am not a really expert on the issue but Ive some friends there.

Just my 2 cents:

Having a very good financial knowledge is a must, which it means to master excel and all of that and be able to apply during long weeks. Some people think that IB is what they want for the cool and the money but they have to proof working more than 80 hours a week.

But the second and the most important for MBAS is about networking. It means that you need to have very good contacts and knowing people in the industry (before, during and after) because these guys will open you the doors for interviews. So try to leverage this during your MBA.

People usually show all the mentioned before during the internship (between first and second year), so that will be your entry in the industry.

My personally opinion is that it´s cool to make more money thant your peers, but it sucks these 80 working hours a week. So for this reason most of the people stay there 2 to 5 years and then quid.

If you are still interested, you would do better by applying to LBS or even IESE, and there you will find most of the obsessed guys aimg to entry in the IB industry. I am saying this because this is the reality (well, what I know from my "Spanglish" perspective).

Good luck.

Saem

<blockquote>Hi Spain,

thanks for the reply. I feel that ESADE is an inch better in terms of placement, that is my impression from the recruiting companies that are public for both schools. Also the program seems very flexible, although the breadth of the finance classes does not seem to be as broad as that of RSM's but please do speak about ESADE if you dont mind, i will be very happy to hear more about it.

The RSM advantage for me is in the cost which is less than ESADE and the scholarship that I got , which makes my ROI greater, but again I do not want to be stuck with an MBA for little money and little prospects.

All in all i am leaning towards ESADE, however I am not sure whether they will be successful brand in London. (same is valid for RSM), as i think that they are very big in Latin America, not in London. Please let me know your thoughts on ESADE.

Thanks

</blockquote>