I don't think those averages will be representative for students with 2.5 years work experience. A full-time MBA, or the full-time MIF at London Business Schoolm will be better.

See Why you should take the GMAT http://www.find-mba.com/board/38939

Duncan,

Thanks for your response.

I do agree the LBS MBA/MiF will be better, but their average gmat is 700! I have already spoken to LBS and they like my profile but they want a GMAT around 700. Don't you think the LSE programme offers good return on investment given it's significantly cheaper and also offers a similar salary post-graduation?

Keep in mind the average age on the LSE programme is significantly lower than LBS MiF/MBA, so the average salary of $125,000USD is not bad.

I also feel LBS doesn't have good name recognition in London (I know this sounds odd). My colleagues and a few family members who all work in Investment Banking have not heard of LBS at all!

I don't think that the post-graduation outcomes will be similar for most candidates with your work experience, so the RoI will be different. However, you should not be looking at the RoI but at the NPV.

Indeed, it does sound odd that your colleagues have not heard of LBS. Take a look at this [How to use LinkedIn to find the best school www.find-mba.com/board/33571 ] and compare LBS and the LSE using the phrase "Masters in finance": there are 508 from LBS and 32 from the LSE.

Your work experience will be closer to the average for the LSE's full-time students than to the average for the part-time students, many of whom will be older than the MBA cohort. Like for like comparisons might be hard, since I don't know if LBS publishes salary data for the much more experienced part-time students (I guess it might be double that of the full-time students)

Hi Duncan

The Full Time MSF at LSE is a pre-experience programme, and the part-time programme recommends 2-5 years work experience, and also trawling through linked in profiles and attending an information evening, most of the students have 0-5 years of work experience (only admission requirement is to be working in finance). I think the $125,000 number makes sense as most students will be Associate level and the number must include bonuses.

If we ignore LBS for a second as I admit it is a better programme (though I don't agree the average salary will be twice that of the FT programme as most students on the part-time LBS programme are Associates), would it make any sense to embark on an MBA in 2015 at Cranfield/Manchester/Imperial/Cass given none of these schools are particularly strong in finance, provided I get a decent GMAT?

Duncan,

I also had a look at the statistics provided by Linkedin College Alumni, and it appears that LBS places better in MBB, but there are no differences in Investment Banking placements.

LBS results: 36,000 people found
LSE results: 99,000 people found

LSE: 454 people at Citi / 400 at HSBC / 388 at Goldmans etc
LBS: 180 people at Citi / 150 at HSBC / 112 at Goldmans etc

People found: Investment Bank is about the same.

So what are the actual advantages of studying at LBS over LSE if you want to work in Investment Banking?

Well, I think the difference here is really about graduate degrees; most LSE alumni took undergraduate courses, and those will be in there as well. Either way, I think it makes the point that LBS is highly present in those organisations. If we were to filter and look at people with masters degrees, we'd see that the LBS alumni are more senior. If you have an BSc from the LSE or any other school, you'll find that the placement is better, and progression is better, for LBS masters graduates than LSE graduates. That's the primary advantage. The LSE attracts great talent, but the teaching experience is rather uneven there: the National Student Survey shows that the LSE gets rather average satisfaction.

I think you're right that the bigger difference is the difference between and MiF and an MBA.