Triple accreditation only matters for schools outside the US because in the US the MBA will admit some pre-experience candidates, and that rules out European accreditation.

But if you compare the average alumni salaries for non-US schools, you see that each additional accreditation is correlated with higher salaries. So, it reflects better outcomes for non-US schools.

See, schools will use anything and everything to market themselves. Big brand names don't go out saying "join us because we are recognized by xx yy zzz".....If any school does solely that then stay away.

Also, US schools don't apply for triple acc. because people in US doesn't care. Brand name (Brand value) trumps accreditation. it's not an apple to apple comparison say something like a NYU - Stern MBA vs Toulouse Business School. You won't go with Toulouse because it's triple or quadrupled accredited over NYU - unless geography or language or admissibility or $$$ is a constraint.

Get into the best school you can get into. Simple.

See, schools will use anything and everything to market themselves. Big brand names don't go out saying "join us because we are recognized by xx yy zzz".....If any school does solely that then stay away.

Also, US schools don't apply for triple acc. because people in US doesn't care. Brand name (Brand value) trumps accreditation. it's not an apple to apple comparison say something like a NYU - Stern MBA vs Toulouse Business School. You won't go with Toulouse because it's triple or quadrupled accredited over NYU - unless geography or language or admissibility or $$$ is a constraint.

Get into the best school you can get into. Simple.

I totally agree with you.
Thanks

What about this research study?

papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2144954

"A Comparison of AACSB, ACBSP, and IACBE Accredited U.S. Business Programs: An Institutional Resource Perspective"

It seems to make the case that one of the main issues for not having AACSB accreditation is the investment it takes. So many public schools may not have it because of the cost.

That is the opposite of the paper's findings.

What about this research study?

papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2144954

"A Comparison of AACSB, ACBSP, and IACBE Accredited U.S. Business Programs: An Institutional Resource Perspective"

It seems to make the case that one of the main issues for not having AACSB accreditation is the investment it takes. So many public schools may not have it because of the cost.

I think.. if a University has a good ranking in QS or THE... doesn’t matter those accreditations... However, if the Uni has a low ranking, we must consider the accreditations...

I can't agree. For example, QS places UIBS around 60th in Europe, and that is a terrible school which the Belgian government just closed down.

In the US, they focus more on the U.S. News MBA rankings.
In Europe, we focus more on the FT rankings.
Gustavo, I suggest you stick to those.

You will notice that all schools in those rankings have AACSB accreditation. European ones will have extra european accreditations. Getting extra official bodies to check the quality of the programs and staff, is never a bad thing.

Accreditation is VERY important. Many people in their quest to find cheap degrees will be tempted to look outside the accredited universities. That is very bad, it is almost always a waste of time and money.

An MBA is an investment, you spend money and it will wield growth in salary, career, connections, knowledge etc.
Getting an MBA that is not accredited is usually different story. You spend money... and that's it.

With an un-accredited MBA, at best, *maybe* you can negotiate a promotion in a small business in no-where-land where your boss does not bother with MBA and sees a piece of paper and it is enough. There are indeed some people and business for whom just having the piece of paper is enough. That is not something anyone here would recommend. It may be OK for people without much ambition or standards. But you will really miss out if you follow that route.

TL;DR: The data suggests your chances of success and achievement are much (much much) higher with an accredited well ranked university, and that the extra cost is very well worth it.

Using the right rankings is key to this.

What about this research study?

papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2144954

"A Comparison of AACSB, ACBSP, and IACBE Accredited U.S. Business Programs: An Institutional Resource Perspective"

It seems to make the case that one of the main issues for not having AACSB accreditation is the investment it takes. So many public schools may not have it because of the cost.

I think.. if a University has a good ranking in QS or THE... doesn’t matter those accreditations... However, if the Uni has a low ranking, we must consider the accreditations...

I've never found the QS rankings to be reliable. The methodology is rather vague and doesn't focus on the aspects that business school applicants are interested in (salary).

I think the labor market if we're speaking generally doesn't really care about *degrees* so to speak. I mean in the US you can have a degree from Harvard and if you're applying blind to jobs, maybe this will mean something and maybe it won't. More likely, employers will look at your demonstrable skills. Most often hirers will look at a degree, even an advanced degree, as the first stage of the process.

What accredited MBAs excel at is linking up hirers with a verifiable, reputable group of potential hires. Accredited business schools are much, much more likely to have these links with good employers.

papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2144954

That is the opposite of the paper's findings.

I misread that! Still an interesting paper.

It comes down to the same thing, though: an accreditation like AACSB is much more rigorous than these alternatives.

It's costly, but in terms of creating confidence in MBA applicants (especially for those applying from overseas) it's going to be worth it.

So for a non US MBA. A triple accredited school is preferable to one that only has one or two accreditations?

Is there a certain amount of prestige that goes along with having the 'triple crown' or is it just something that schools use as part of their advertising?

It's a real benefit. I ran the numbers. Triple crown alumni earn more.

Unless you're talking about a school like Oxford - Said, which lacks AACSB accreditation, versus a school on the level of Ashridge or Aston, both of which are triple-accredited.