Yes, Manchester has been (often) much better ranked, the salary is higher and the programme design is much better because of projects in every term and a more extensive course load allowing more time for networking. England is very compact so location doesn't make a big difference. Warwick can be a good choice for people who are focussed on progression rather than career change.

Hi Duncan,

Many thanks for your valuable comments regarding the MBA programs of these two schools.

I would like to know whether Warwick MBA would be a better choice for a career in finance specifically an asset management company in a front office role.

To give you a background, I have completed all 3 levels of the CFA exam and presently working for a stock broking firm in the middle office department. My goal is to transition into a front office role and become a fund manager in an asset management firm. My GMAT score is 650 and due to time constraints I did not give another attempt and applied to the schools in the UK.

I hold an offer from Manchester and awaiting results from Warwick. Based on my career goal could please suggest which school I should go for? From my research on LinkedIn, Warwicks alumni and students have a lot better work profile than Manchester students and alumni and also Warwick has a better ranking. Your advice and thoughts would be highly appreciated.

I think this really depends on the scale of transition you want to make. This year, at 43 and 45, there is less of a gap in the ranking than in the salary, where MBS leads. Their longer format is better for a bigger transition with more support and Warwick is better for a shorter transition.

Given the higher salary at MBS I am not sure what you mean about their students having a worse work profile. Do you mean Warwick has more people in asset management?

Thanks for your prompt response Duncan.

I meant that I found Warwicks alumni and students work profiles (aerospace scientists, fintech, aerodynamicist etc) more appealing as compared to those at MBS who are more into consulting. However I may be wrong and my research would be based on a very small sample size. I spoke to the students and alumni at Warwick and they've said that Warwick has a good standing amongst employers in the finance sector. It also has a special finance club called Warwick alumni finance society club

Is Economist ranking not followed that much? It doesn't mention AMBS and gives a better ranking to Warwick. The avg work ex is also higher at Warwick 8 years with more people having a managerial role. Will that help me in networking to find the right job?

Again, appreciate all your insights.

I am not sure how you are going your research. If you want to work in asset management, why do aerospace engineering and consulting matter to you? I think every MBA will say it has alumni in finance and networking will help you find a job.

Yes, the Economist ranks Warwick top in the UK and leaves out many schools. That is weird. Don't rely on it.

It seems you have decided for Warwick for some other reason and are rationalising. What is that other reason?

My research is purely based on searching Alumni's and students on LinkedIn and speaking to a few of them. Honestly, At Warwick I could find more people working in the kind of finance jobs I want than I could at AMBS which could explain my inclination towards Warwick. However, I fail to understand how despite of having a higher avg work exp and ranking Warwick has lower salary and career growth. One of the student with a similar career goal mentioned to me that although AMBS is an amazing place to study at, if given a second chance they'd choose a different school which has more exposure to finance projects and internships. Again, this could only be a matter of preference and varies from student to student.

There are so many factors to consider and since the ranking, experiential learning program are so similar of these 2 schools I'm having difficulty in making the best possible choice which is why I needed your opinion and expert advice.

Manchester has projects in all four terms and the summer can be used for a project. Warwick isn't better in that respect.

One of Warwick's advantages is that it has a bigger alumni base in the UK, partly because MBS started to offer undergraduate programmes more recently.

I don't quite see how Warwick seems similarly experiential to you, given the shorter time frame, less extensive range of courses, fewer projects, fewer electives etc. But certainly both are viable routes for you, with hundreds of alumni holding MBAs and working in asset management.

I think this really depends on the scale of transition you want to make. This year, at 43 and 45, these us less of a gap in the ranking than in the salary, where MBS leads. Their longer format is better for a bigger transition with more support and Warwick is better for a shorter transition.

Given the higher salary at MBS I am not sure what you mean about their students having a worse work profile. Do you mean Warwick has more people in asset management?

the salary difference is another reason I am considering about AMBS MBA. Also, both school doing really a good job of international students placement, however, seems like Warwick has better UK local influence? correct me if I am wrong. But I am 100% agree that ignore the Economist ranking.

another reason I think MBS might be a better choice is that it offers 18 months format...giving the fact that no one knows how economic go in 1 or 2 years, a one year MBA program might be a little bit risky?

Thanks Duncan
It seems AMBS has a more practical program offering compared to Warwick and Warwick has a bigger alumni base which may hold advantage for networking. As ranking wise they're both competitive and a viable option for me, I will make a decision once I hear back from Warwick

I think you need to look more deeply at the design of these programmes, the range of electives on offer, and your needs for development.

another reason I think MBS might be a better choice is that it offers 18 months format...giving the fact that no one knows how economic go in 1 or 2 years, a one year MBA program might be a little bit risky?

I honestly don't think 6 months will change the risk situation.

It's more a question of what each candidate needs out of the experience. With an 18-month program, of course you would have more time for electives and practical experiences, all of which can help candidates who either don't have a lot of previous work experience, or want some focused experience in a certain career field. For those who want to make big career jumps (industry, function, location, etc.) and 18-month program is probably preferable.

Hi All,

Are there any updates on this?

I have recently got offers from both the colleges, albeit in MSc Business(Consulting) at WBS and MSc Business Analysis and Strategic Management at AMBS.

Since I am looking towards core consultancy, your above conversation seems to favour AMBS. Among the courses itself, they are both aligned well for Management/ Strategy consulting roles in mid tier firms. 

Would appreciate your views on my programs and also an update on your current decision of the MBA as I believe that going 5-6 years ahead of this degree, I would go for a full time MBA as well and would get support from either college being a MSc alumni.

I don't think this discussion about MBAs is applicable to two very different MSc degrees. 

In the MiM rankings, Warwick is in the top quarter while AMBS is in the lowest quarter. http://mba-rankings.ft.com/rankings/2847

Although I'd agree with the pro-Warwick advice here, I'd caution that the post just above mine is extremely general and seems to be grudge-driven. The cohorts between the two schools don't look THAT different, in all honesty.

The big difference is that the Warwick degree is better for people accelerating in their current field, while the Manchester MBA is designed for people building broader experience to support a career transition.