The FT has a good ranking of Executive MBAs. Why do you think you are too techy for Cambridge?

Hi Duncan - I do not want to make any horrible statements about any school considering that I may be a candidate ;) - but the style of teaching I was exposed to was 'oh we are so cool and amazing' (rubbing me the very wrong way). The examples of companies were always based on non-technology (wagging tail pillows, food delivery boxes or selling experiences). I hope this does not sound in any way condescending. I just worry that this would be 80k spent on skills and ideas that I cannot transfer well into my business. I also think that maybe the fact I have been around it for some time means it is lost the 'wow' factor. Thank you for pointing me to FT. Had a look before and have few observations: the ranking place of, let's say, CJBS does not look significantly different from some cheaper schools on paper (I think this is what WBS is trying to cling to). I would like to know if it is realistic to think that, let's say, LBS or HEC (or Judge) can give me (a tech entrepreneur) some more special sauce than let's say Cranfield or Imperial or WBS.  And what that special sauce would be? What are your thoughts? Sorry if I sound negative - I think I may be on a stingy side when it comes to the extra 40k between the schools. I read a lot of your thoughts on MBA and cohort choice depending on field and aspirations, and you definitely know how to give some great advice - but I cannot find anybody with a similar problem to mine (poor, fussy, unsure).

Technology leaders have a lot to learn from non-technology people and from firms in other industries. If you cannot be convinced about that, don't take an MBA. 

The best programmes have the best classmates and faculty.

Hi Stuart - I was not trying to suggest that there is not much I can learn from a diverse cohort, sorry for misunderstanding. I was instead trying to think if there are more and less suitable programmes for entrepreneurs with tech interest. Fir example, I heard Imperial may be quite tech-friendly - but it seems much lower in rankings? What criteria should someone like me use beyond ranking - curriculum - location?

I don't really understand your assumptions. Are you thinking that there is a way to teach the core MBA curriculum in a way that is more or less friendly for tech people? For example, if I am trying to teach students about the internationalisation strategy for a B2B brand it doesn't really matter if I use the example of a company selling high-end handbags or network testing equipment. Or are you thinking that a school with lots of students in tech or alumni in tech will want to hear your voice more? A school where you are more unusual will want to hear your voice more than a school where you are not bringing anything new into the classroom. 

You ned to focus on your goals: what knowledge and skills do you need, and what network is more useful for you? For example, Warwick seems to have a bigger network in your industry, but Imperial is a famous school for engineering and healthcare. Perhaps those are key markets for you? 

I see what you are saying. You are looking for a school that caters more to entrepreneurs. You'll probably want to look for, primarily, a school that has an ecosystem for entrepreneurs, including usually some kind of incubator or business accelerator, where students can work on their ideas. 

Most ranked b-schools do have these kinds of resources, to varying degrees, but these are usually only available to those in full-time MBA programs, and not necessarily aimed at EMBA students. 

However, you can also look at each program's curriculum to get a sense of the availability of the kinds of electives you are looking for - I'd imagine these would be entrepreneurship or tech-oriented. 

Cambridge by the way is listed here as one of the better schools for entrepreneurs:

https://find-mba.com/lists/top-business-school-by-speciality/top-business-schools-for-entrepreneurs