I think this guidance is good for many, perhaps most, applicants but not all. Here's why.

- The number of courses is normally unimportant. All accredited MBAs cover the same core curriculum. Almost all British universities will teach 120 credits in a year (90 ECTS points). Is 10 courses of 12 credits really better than 20 courses of six credits? Does a finance course become better if it's divided in two? Obviously the number of courses in itself means nothing if the total volume of study is the same.

- There are some programmes which spend more time on the core courses, and others have more time for electives. That's a real difference but it depends on the students. For example, at Imperial the core courses are around one-third of the programme. At Aston, the core is five-sixth of the courses. That is a really substantial difference. Both schools have the core functional vocabulary needed, but Imperial students might not have that extra level of depth. I can give an example of this: I led a project at a former company which was given to a group of Imperial MBAs. It concerned statistics volatility (in particular, betas). They all knew what it was, but none had the deep knowledge needed to be able to confidently vocalise how to calculate one, or to understand the relationship between the beta and the country risk profile. What they had instead was great depth in their elective areas.

Personally, I think its right for a school to spend most of its effort on the core courses. As an MBA graduate, I want to know that other graduate of my school carry with them the same solid depth that, for example, one would find with a respected US or Indian MBA.

PS There's an important 'exception to the rule' here. Many Indian students have already completed degrees in management, and don't need to revise the core courses slowly. Schools like Imperial are perfect for them. However, as a rule of thumb, I recommend to clients without business degrees that, given the choice between two schools of equal standing, they chose the one with the strongest, and most integrated, core curriculum *unless* they are specifically changing career into an area with a lot of 'hard' domain experitise required.

I agree on what you say but it all depends on individual requirements and future goals. it is obvious that 20 modules of 6 credits will not help.
For example: In case of Aston 10 core modules with choice of only 2 electives of 10 credits each and 60 credit project, may not meet every individual's requirements. On the other hand if you see Bradford they offer 14 modules of 10 credits each and project of 40 credits with 5 choices of electives. In this they have taken 20 credits off from the project and offering 2 extra modules. and if you compare the project work at Aston and Bradford its almost the same in terms of efforts and time duration.

I just picked these 2 universities as an example, but it does not conclude that Bradford is better than Aston or vice versa.

Must be atleast double accredited (3rd accreditation is mainly for US universities, therefore some of UK universities does not seek for 3rd accreditation)

I think just having one accreditation from AMBA, EQUIS, or AACSB would generally be fine - Oxford Said is only accredited by one and it does fairly well in the FT rankings.

In reply to Mamit, I have an offer from Henley Business School full time starting 2012. It doesn't rank in FT hundred but is considered a good school. Would you discourage me under present circumstances to join it.

It depends on your choices. Of course it's not in the FT 100 for full-time programmes: this is the first year of the full-time MBA there. Take look at http://www.find-mba.com/board/13574

I have an offer from Lancaster with 5000GBP scholarship. I also have an offer from Henley with 50% scholarship(12500GBP). How should I select between two. I am a physician working in midleeast and would like to continue in Healthcare sector.

That's a hard choice. You need to look at your pedagogical needs and your career goals, rather than the finance.

Henley has three times more alumni working in hospital and health-care as Lancaster, with both having 2/3rds of their healthcare alumni in the UK. Adding in pharma, and Henley's lead expands even further. Henley has a much broader base of health and pharma alumni outside the UK.

Using Mamit's guidance, however, Lancaster is better because it's more flexible. Rather than having one elective (as at Henley) it has a three, and they are taught with the EMBA to give more networking.

Imagining that those two balance each other off, I think the Lancaster programme has much more project work and flexibility - including the possibility to take up an internship rather than the final consulting project. It also has the advantage of being a very stable and well-understaood programme, I imagine with more experienced students than Henley.

Personally, I would choose Lancaster because of the great soft skills development and consultancy element, and because of the more experienced cohort.