The FT only ranks cohort programmes.

What's a cohort program?

A defined group meeting over a period of time: where one group of students joins the EMBA at the start, and then they study together through to the end of the core courses.

Hi Duncan.

Thanks. Is it (considered) an important aspect of an MBA programme? Since FT does not look at non cohort programmes? Also to me this raises the question if it would be possible that the HEC MBA for instance is considered (by employers) to be much better then the HEC EMBA?

Cohort means shared experience, shared networking, future contacts and a shared-journey overthe couse duration which leads to relationships lasting for years. These are the personal benefits to your future growth and career.

The perception of a cohort by employers that do not know others from your university may be far less compelling in my view.

BigD

<blockquote>Hi Duncan.

Thanks. Is it (considered) an important aspect of an MBA programme? Since FT does not look at non cohort programmes? Also to me this raises the question if it would be possible that the HEC MBA for instance is considered (by employers) to be much better then the HEC EMBA?</blockquote>

A cohort programme is better, for the reasons given above. My guess is that eventually HEC will offer a cohort option to get into the rankings.

Thanks. Another thing to take into account when selecting an MBA. ;)

To be honest it is one of the fundamental things. The cost of MBAs trade heavily on the values of the alumni, reputation and cohort. The core business curriculum is almost a commodity by contrast.

Try to be objective about the value of the premium you are paying: assuming a competently taught set of core modules, does the result justify the 500% premium for an MBA between Wharton and Joe's Community College? Many people will argue that it is, but understand where your money is going and what you are really buying.

BigD

<blockquote>Thanks. Another thing to take into account when selecting an MBA. ;)</blockquote>

The difference is also in the quality of the classmates. The more selective programmes are more highly ranked, and that reinforces itself.

Thanks. Never thought about it this way, but makes perfect sense.

I've put my admission in for the MScBA at RSM because I felt I was not ready to apply for a top EMBA (apart from the fact I would be admitted) as I was not sure if this was worth the investment, but now I (think) have some idea what I could (and should) expect of it and if it would fit my profile and goals. So basically what you are telling me is that one should apply (for instance at INSEAD EMBA) if you felt the network could help me reach my goals and not so much the curriculum?

Personally, I would not look at it that way. I started my MBA at one school and finished at another. They were both good schools, but one was excellent: and at the excellent school the students, education and alumni network were all better. Remember that the class you study with is the most powerful part of your network.

You should get into the best programme you can, because that will give the best RoI.

But the curriculum has to work. I talk a lot about the difference between schools which focus on the core (Manchester's a good example), versus those that focus on electives (like Warwick). They suit different people.

<blockquote>
You should get into the best programme you can, because that will give the best RoI..</blockquote>

Would you say this is always the case? Regardless of my profile? I looked at some of the current participant at the TRIUM EMBA for instance and they all seem to be experienced 'c-level' executives where as I'm just a simple IT-contractor :) I would probably just not get accepted...?!
How would I find the best programme for me?

Yes, I think the best RoI always comes from the best setting. You're right that you would not be a typical candidate at Trium, IMD or Insead. But, it's imaginable that you could get into an EMBA like LBS or Chicago Booth in London, and I think it would be very easy to get into (for example) a Dutch school.

In a Dutch school you would be on a par with the other candidates, and you would not be stretched so much; in a top programme you would have more of a challenge: a better learning experience, a stronger alumni network, better roots in consulting firms, better careers services... and so on. The RoI is much better.

In that case I will aim a high a possible. Since I probably will start the Msc. first I have some time to work on my profile and save extra cash :)
I also wasn't aware that Booth had a London based campus. This looks like a real option too.

Thanks allot for your help!