Cranfield vs UNC vs USC Ibear vs Rochester

BR_candida...

1 2

Posted Feb 24, 2014 15:40

Dear all, could you please help me on this hard decision?

My profile: Brazilian, 8 years of experience, career highlights = sales manager positions in FMCG and Internet companies

Post-MBA goals: stay in the country where I will take my MBA (either US or UK); position = Marketing or Operations; sector = FMCG or technology

Admissions: Cranfield, UNC, USC Ibear, Rochester Simon, all of them with partial scholarship (from 30% to 50%)

Which one of these programmes would be better for me to achieve my goals?

Which country (US or UK) is more opened to latin-american students and consequently would give me more possibilities to stay after the MBA?

Ideally I was looking for a one-year programme, but if a two-year MBA fits better into my goals I can of course change my opinion.

I really appreciate any thoughts and opinions you may share.
Thank you very much!

quote

Duncan

14.013 15.475

Posted Feb 24, 2014 18:21

If you want to change country then a two year programme with an internship should be your focus. I suggest you look at http://rankings.ft.com/businessschoolrankings/global-mba-ranking-2014 add add in the score for international mobility. It seems that Rochester is better at this than UNC, partly because it has twice as many international students. I suggest you look for a two year programme with a better international mobility score, and use Simon as your 'insurance' offer.

quote

BR_candida...

1 2

Posted Feb 24, 2014 21:14

Thank you Duncan. I understood your point but I have a question.

Although I agree with you that an internship increases the chances of a post-MBA career in the same country, the international mobility ranking at FT puts Cranfield at the #13 spot with 81% of international students.

Simon has 63% of international students but holds the 62nd position in the same ranking.

If Simon is better at this, shouldn't this difference in the ranking position be smaller?

As for the Simon against UNC contest alone (both two-year programmes), shouldn't a Top 20 Businessweek school be a better option?

Thank you again!

quote

Duncan

14.013 15.475

Posted Feb 24, 2014 23:45

Cranfield is certainly a strong school. Many of its international students will be Europeans, who don't have a visa barrier to overcome. If you wanted to move country and intended to stay in the same function and industry then it would be a good choice. However, if you want more choice then a two year programme will work.

A top 20 programme is better generally, in particular salaries are higher. However the key issue for you is not the salary but being able to move into the US labour market; that is a trade-off.

quote