:) Hi Ziad,

Education in Lancaster might (just might) be (!) better than or equal to Warwick, but in rest of the important aspects Warwick is clear winner. Warwick?s approach is practical and courses are designed to meet industry needs. What Lancaster Professor agreed to was ? the stronger career service & industry tie-ups of Warwick.

Warwick is a University, which is self-sustained and does not depend only on government funding for running its operations. It?s part of various prestigious Universities research groups. There is no harm in running the University as an enterprise. It makes Warwick much more competitive and adaptive to industry needs.

You have mentioned about Lancaster?s tie-ups with - Accenture, Deloitte, SAP, IBM etc. However these are just academic tie-ups. Accenture people conduct one of the modules in MSc-ITMOC Course. Accenture work-shop is by invitation only and very few are selected for it. Warwick has tie-ups with Deloitte too. SAP has academic tie-ups with a lot of Universities, so there in nothing great in it. In fact, Warwick?s MS-ISM has better designed module on SAP compared to Lancaster, in which they implement various business processes. IBM faculties conduct few lectures on IT Architecture module (For MSc-EBIN). That?s it. What is important is placement-links. And Warwick is much much better in that respect. They have amazing placement records and employer recognition.

Also, Lancaster itself is not opening any Campus in India. They are just validating the degrees from the local institute. And having campus in other countries does not make Lancaster great. Even University of Wales offers many programs in a number of countries.

Rankings and reputation do not always go hand in hand. Even if Lancaster is ranked higher in FT rankings, people know that Warwick and Manchester are much more reputed. Reputation is almost permanent, rankings are not. They change.

Also, I was surprised to read that LSE does not charge Application Fees. I had applied to LSE and paid the application fees. No. of MBA applications for Lancaster are definitely going to be higher than Warwick, because Warwick charges application fees of GBP 80. Most of the (unwanted) applications are filtered at the root itself. Only those candidates, who feel they are strong enough to get admitted at WBS, apply. Hence, what is important is the quality of applications and not the quantity. And it?s open secret that Warwick has much higher entry standards compared to Lancaster. And please do not compare Lancaster with LSE.

I am not saying that Lancaster is not a good business school. It is a very good B-School. No doubt about that. And the way its run is amazing. It has a great future. But it still has a long way to go to be in the Premier League of ? LBS, Judge, Said, LSE, Warwick, Cranfield & Cass.

:) But I respect your opinion. And it?s choice of every individual to choose the suitable course & University. That?s the most important thing.

For me, at present, Warwick is much better than Lancaster.

<blockquote>:) Hi Ziad,

Education in Lancaster might (just might) be (!) better than or equal to Warwick, but in rest of the important aspects Warwick is clear winner. Warwick?s approach is practical and courses are designed to meet industry needs. What Lancaster Professor agreed to was ? the stronger career service & industry tie-ups of Warwick.</blockquote>

I smiled when you said "Warwick is a clear winner" becasuse universities are not fighting in the UK on the contrary they are working together and joining up to conduct joint research groups. Anyway, what i meant by good tie ups was not merely pertaining to academics, but also with the industry in general. It is ok that you donno about this because you might not be interested to know about Lancaster which is the same age even a bit older than Warwick. Many companies used to visit Lancaster not only to deliver courses as said before but also to cooperate in research and this is very clear in the operations and research going on at the info Lab 21 which is meant to be the link between lancaster and the industry, Please check this page it is important for ur info http://www.infolab21.lancs.ac.uk/, Things change for universities and weaknesses are addressed.

<blockquote>Warwick is a University, which is self-sustained and does not depend only on government funding for running its operations. It?s part of various prestigious Universities research groups. There is no harm in running the University as an enterprise. It makes Warwick much more competitive and adaptive to industry needs.</blockquote>

I did not say that Lancaster university is dependant on the government to run its system. on the contrary, Lancaster had a growth in students by 30% in the past 3 years and an increase in research income by 68% during last year which means that they are earning their own money and not depending on charities. Lancaster is also part of a prestigious group of research. Please check that lancaster is part of the N8 group which includes, York, Manchester, Durham, Leeds, Liverpool, Shefield. It is also part of he 1994 group which also includes some of the top universities in the country. So nothing less than Warwick. In fact its research power is known to be higher so I truly feel that this point is not something to discuss about. PLease check the physics department at Lancaster, it is number one in the country. Check my previous posts about their inventions.

<blockquote>You have mentioned about Lancaster?s tie-ups with - Accenture, Deloitte, SAP, IBM etc. However these are just academic tie-ups. Accenture people conduct one of the modules in MSc-ITMOC Course. Accenture work-shop is by invitation only and very few are selected for it. Warwick has tie-ups with Deloitte too. SAP has academic tie-ups with a lot of Universities, so there in nothing great in it. In fact, Warwick?s MS-ISM has better designed module on SAP compared to Lancaster, in which they implement various business processes. IBM faculties conduct few lectures on IT Architecture module (For MSc-EBIN). That?s it. What is important is placement-links. And Warwick is much much better in that respect. They have amazing placement records and employer recognition.</blockquote>

I didnt meantion that those academic tie ups are amazing, in fact they are very useful since all people who did their dissertation with Accenture, ended up working there :) so I think this is a great opportunity for students to network and get jobs. Accenture, SAP, Deloitte, BT,HSBC, IBM, BAE, NHS and many other companies who deliver courses or offer internships for Lancaster students love to hire them after graduation for their quality. Similar could be going on in Warwick, my argument is that even if this might sound not appealing to u, yet, it is also happening in Lancaster and other universities per se.

<blockquote>Also, Lancaster itself is not opening any Campus in India. They are just validating the degrees from the local institute. And having campus in other countries does not make Lancaster great. Even University of Wales offers many programs in a number of countries.</blockquote>

You are totally not accurate here, Lancaster has ventured with a well known university in India and the campus now has both logos and many Lancaster programmes are offered there including the MBA programme. THey are not only validating the degrees. This is 100% confirmed as I was there and had a long talk with the director of their business school. The same is in Singapore, they have their own facilities.

<blockquote>Rankings and reputation do not always go hand in hand. Even if Lancaster is ranked higher in FT rankings, people know that Warwick and Manchester are much more reputed. Reputation is almost permanent, rankings are not. They change.</blockquote>

Reputation is not only a word my friend. The definition I had with many professors and from my experience can define reputation as a a combination of the following:

Rankings
Teaching quality
Research Quality and the amount of international research
Student satiscation
International cooperation
Internationalism of the programme

Many universities had their years of fame and then they dropped a bit due to some reasons. Cranfield as a university is very low in all rankings but its business school is great so graduating from there can grant you good prospects. Lancaster got all what it takes to place it in the top 10-15 universities in the UK and it is very well known and respected. If the sound warwick appeals to u more it does not mean that Lancaster is less reputed. If you ignore rankings then u are ignoring the criteria which represents what you are arguing about in terms of research, teaching, internationalism and so forth.


<blockquote>Also, I was surprised to read that LSE does not charge Application Fees. I had applied to LSE and paid the application fees. No. of MBA applications for Lancaster are definitely going to be higher than Warwick, because Warwick charges application fees of GBP 80. Most of the (unwanted) applications are filtered at the root itself. Only those candidates, who feel they are strong enough to get admitted at WBS, apply. Hence, what is important is the quality of applications and not the quantity. And it?s open secret that Warwick has much higher entry standards compared to Lancaster. And please do not compare Lancaster with LSE.
</blockquote>

Not all LSE courses require fees and I was accepted there for the MIS course and I didnt pay a penny. Kindly check the people who apply to Lancaster MBA. 900 people applied and 77 people were accepted in 2009. Lancaster MBA requires GMAT and its avg is 650 where as the AVG in warwick is 640 please check the economist :) I guess lancaster is selective. Paying a fee does not make a school better. indeed it is just a way to collect more money :) A person who wants to invest at least 20,000 pounds for an MBA wont be thinking of 50 or 80 pounds for an application. By the way, Lancaster MBA is higher priced than Warwick, so if anything I guess they would opt for Warwick to pay less. Sorry my friend, those on the Lancaster MBA are with top experiences and come from very reputed universities. Pls check one profile I selected for you to look at. Please look at it and tell me if u think this guy is stupid enough to chose lancaster noting that he graduated from the top university in the UK. http://www.lums.lancs.ac.uk/alumni-profiles/postgraduate/mba/15593/ this guy is a graduate of Cambridge and Harvard.


<blockquote>I am not saying that Lancaster is not a good business school. It is a very good B-School. No doubt about that. And the way its run is amazing. It has a great future. But it still has a long way to go to be in the Premier League of ? LBS, Judge, Said, LSE, Warwick, Cranfield & Cass.
</blockquote>

Please trust me, rankings are not everything but they indicate a certain level of quality and respect. Think what if lancaster is located in London? Wow i think it would kill all those u have mentioned. Yet, I am truly discussing the quality of education. Lancaster gives a personalized education with its small classes. It is a truly amazing experience when u are taught by some of the best professors in the country. Henry MIntzberg praised Lancaster management school for its superb and amazing quality.

Lately lancaster is well ventured with chinese universities such as Renmin university (top 10 in China) it is linked with Insead, Mcgill, Indian institute of management delivering all together the IMPM which was is an alternative for an MBA.



<blockquote>:) But I respect your opinion. And it?s choice of every individual to choose the suitable course & University. That?s the most important thing.
</blockquote>

Thank you for respecting my opinion, but I would like you to truly look closer as u will change ur mind. I am not telling u to declare that lancaster is better. No way, I am saying it is just fair to look at lancaster at par with those uni's u have mentioned because in the eyes of academics it is just ther strongly maintaining its position.

The government would not select lancaster as a partner after a fierce competition with other leading schools, if its reputation and quality is not world-class.

All the best my friend :)

For me, at present, Warwick is much better than Lancaster.

Enough boys and girls'

!!! WARWICK !!! rules

<blockquote>Enough boys and girls'

!!! WARWICK !!! rules </blockquote>

Hahaha you are funny !!! you can have your own world of perceptions :D Enjoy!

i dont knw if any of you guys hav applied or got into one of the school , or hav offer from all 3 schools , that you are so confused..! huh

<blockquote>i dont knw if any of you guys hav applied or got into one of the school , or hav offer from all 3 schools , that you are so confused..! huh</blockquote>

Graduated from Lancaster with an MSc, and applied for the Lancaster MBA, Warwick MBA and Manchester MBA and got admitted to all of them, so had the experience of applying to all.

Cheers

@sahibzada
Everyone involved in discussion is experienced enough in application processes etc. We are having a very strong argument here and each one is contributing/sharing his experiences/research in this (relatively volatile ;)) forum.

There is no harm in having a controversial, but interesting and helpful argument which will be also beneficial to others. However doubting others' capabilities is totally unnecessary and uncalled for. May i request you to contribute to the forum & take ahead d discussion?

hi aragoan

thing r clearer now..
zaid has got into all 3 schools....

now let us vote...which school he should go...

my vote - Warwick !

<blockquote>hi aragoan

thing r clearer now..
zaid has got into all 3 schools....

now let us vote...which school he should go...

my vote - Warwick !</blockquote>

Hi :)

I chose Lancaster although the programme is more expensive than Warwick, but I like the structure of their MBA and I want to focus on management which is the strength of Lancaster.

This does not mean that manchester or warwick are not good, on the contrary they are excellent programmes and are both in the top tier.

Cheers

Good Day to everyone,

Today the FT 2010 table is published.

UK business schools were audited and the rank is as per the following:

London business school (Audit year: 2010) Ranked 1st
Oxford Said (Audit year: 2008) Ranked 16th
Cambridge (Audit year 2007) Ranked 21st
Lancaster Management School (Audit Year 2008) Ranked 24th
Cranfield School of Management (Audit year: 2008) Ranked 26th
Imperial College (Audit year: 2008) Ranked 32nd
Manchester (Audit year: 2010) Ranked 40th
Cass business school (Audit year: 2007) Ranked 41st
Warwick business school (Audit year: 2010) Ranked 42nd

Please visit this link http://rankings.ft.com/businessschoolrankings/global-mba-rankings

Cheers to all

Thanks Ziad for sharing the FT rankings :)

I hv always found FT rankings very entertaining!

-Kellogg's at 22....ranked below - Ceibs, Indian school of business, HK-UST etc.
-Warwick,City, Manchester, ranked below - Nanyang, Aus B-School etc.

Most of the UK B-Schools seem to be hit hard in recent rankings! I guess Leeds has (deservedly) lost its place too! (But then, wht's Bradford still doing in the rankings?)

However, it has to be noted that not many employers refer to FT rankings.
If in US, US News rankings are much more comprehensive and popular.

Each school has its downturn and this is not harmful. FT is a very good table and it is comprehensive as it covers many aspects. let me correct you, in the US most schools regard FT as very important. My professor who was an Ex Harvard business school professor informed me that when looking for a business school make sure it is in the top 50 in FT, Forbes and business week.

No harm in manchester, warwick or others being lower int he ranking. some australian and asian schools are truly booming these days. You can't expect warwick, city or whatever do always keep on the rise. By the way, Bradford is an excellent business school, I donno why you are under-estimating their performance.

FT is a major table and has its resonance as many employers refer to it.

Cheers

I beg to differ with you on this aspect. In US - US News rankings are much more popular. FT rankings system & auditing process are outdated.
FT was popular in UK because of the earlier weightage for Post-Study Work Permit for Top-100 UK B-School MBA grads. Now all PG students, altogether, are eligible for 2-Yr Post Study Work Visa.

I think one of the reasons for Manchester MBA to decline in rankings is that they have included their part-time MBA programme too in global rankings. That is, there would not be any separate ranking for Manchester's part-time programme as it's all part of 'Global MBA'.

cant believe you are still lurking in here with all your superior proud of the lancaster MBA top 22 or something in the world.

Seriously there must be something very wrong with the MBA class, can they teach their students to get real

<blockquote>cant believe you are still lurking in here with all your superior proud of the lancaster MBA top 22 or something in the world.

Seriously there must be something very wrong with the MBA class, can they teach their students to get real
</blockquote>

Sharing FT results isn't concerned about Lancaster Mr. It's merely for those looking for the right MBA. Haven't mentioned anything about Lancaster's performance but presented the rating for this year that's all. Anyway, you seem to be exploding from the fact that Lancaster is growing higher in the table haha :P

Chill Mate

Well this is my review:

Lancaster MBA is only for those who have a substantial (Min 4+ MANAGER level experience, meaning you should have been SOLELY responsible for some budget/revenue in your past company AND should have managed a team as manager) experience in their fields and have a direction of what to do in professional life (if that is your ), and who do not depend on the school to get a job etc.

If you do not fit into this category and still come here, you may get selected but you are in for the surprise. It is fast paced and do not expect any spoon-feeding of any degree.

If you can spend 7/8 K more (whatever the extra money) to get into Oxford/cambridge/manchester/edinburgh /LBS/Imperial then GO there!

The education may not be as good, i seriously doubt that, but you will be any day better off then at Lancaster.

All other points about networking, consultancy projects etc. do not even balance what I have said above. And networking is MUCH better anywhere than Lancaster for that matter (yes it is an individual effort) but honeslty if you are expecting to make quality contacts, if you are good at it, then you should be wise enough to go to locations such as London or Manchester or Edinburgh or Cambridge or Oxford instead of sitting in Lancaster thinking that "umm.... strange not many and not high quality contacts are coming to meet me here..."

So please make your decision wisely, specially if you HAVE something to loose (money, time whatever).

Can somebody throw some light on Manchester's part-time (global) MBA programs offered through Dubai Centre. I have been offered a place on part-time MBA from Manchester (Dubai Campus) for July 2010 intake. I have 10+ years of experience in banking/financial services with B. Com. Is it treated at par with full-time Manchester MBAs in the industry ?

I suggest not to be trapped off FT ranking. Lancaster MBA is no way close to Warwick or Manchester in terms of reputation, quality of education, internationalism and all other aspects. Lancester's career service is pathetic and students feel isolated after they finish MBA. I have friend who did MBA last year from Lancaster and remained jobless for over six months as compared to three months average of Warwick and Manchester. Further the curriculum of Lancester is not attractive for consultancy and marketing jobs and is very general in nature.

Dear Ziad,

I hope you will not take my comments personal as what i am telling is based on facts and personal experience of my close friends. Even now if you can back out, do it and join any other b-school but lancaster.

lancaster curriculum is not very practical and faculty lacks professional or industry experience. On research side they are much behind bradford.