can anybody say something?

These are not comparable. UC Berkeley is an undergraduate level programme, and Westminster is an accredited, internationally understood, masters degree. The MBA is the obvious choice.

PS At Berkeley Extension, of course, you will not get access to the Berkeley alumni network or to careers services in the business school.

Duncan, thank you so much for your answer!
And what do you think about london met mba?

That is a crisis-ridden institution which probably won't survive for London. In the UK, the only serious MBAs are those accredited by the AMBA: ambaguide.com/find-an-accredited-programme/schools/united-kingdom/

[quote]These are not comparable. UC Berkeley is an undergraduate level programme, and Westminster is an accredited, internationally understood, masters degree. The MBA is the obvious choice.

PS At Berkeley Extension, of course, you will not get access to the Berkeley alumni network or to careers services in the business school. [/quote]

Dear Duncan,
this isn't true at all! UCBX isn't an undergraduate level program, and your Westminster MBA, which you strongly suggest, doesn't seem to be that good! Moreover, with the UCBX you do access at the Berkeley alumni network, and all the BA courses are still approved by Haas School of Business. About the costs, UCBX IDP is 13500$ (4 months), while Westminster is 23000£ (12 months). Now, we can start arguing for days about which one is better, but what I wanna say is that I hate disinformations! Therefore, it's better to list facts than theorical opinions, unless you attended both universities!

What specifically is the misinformation?

The MBA is a graduate program: it requires a bachelor's degree to enter. The UCBX programmes do not. They are aimed at people who want to take 2 or 4 months in the US, mormally in the summer before the fourth year of their undergraduate studies: http://extension.berkeley.edu/static/international/apply/idp/

Participants don't become graduates. They don't become Haas alumni, since they don't study in the business school. To become a UC Berkeley alum you need to have done a credit-bearing course for the equivalent of a semester full-time. I don't see any reference to these IDP courses being credit-bearing.

What BA courses are you preferring to?

Of course if you want a short course, then the shorter course it better. If you want cheap, then the cheaper course is better. But if you want to deepen your understanding of, and credibility in, business then a graduate degree from an internationally-accredited business school will be more widely recognised than a certificate from an extension school.

What a bizarre comparison. I doubt that anybody who is in the market for a full-time MBA program would even look at these diploma courses as an alternative.

[quote](...) In the UK, the only serious MBAs are those accredited by the AMBA: ambaguide.com/find-an-accredited-programme/schools/united-kingdom/ [/quote]

I need to raise a skeptical voice here, since this seems highly biased. The best reference is the one you get from real life, in my opinion. That said, AMBA accreditation is obviously a plus, but the statement above is stretching it more than a bit.
Take, for example, 2015 QS Global 200 MBA rankings (link  below), for which the main factor is the "employer views" i.e. related to real life. Then just to give a quick example, Westminster, which is AMBA accredited, is not listed there, whereas Middlesex, which does not hold AMBA, AACSB or EQUIS, seems to have made it to the list. The list includes only 65 business schools from Europe, of which 26 are from the UK.

http://board.find-mba.com/general-forum/qs-global-200-business-schools-38091

Probably one can find some other examples like this, though I did not care to take much time for a full inspection at this stage.

Regards,

Okay, well perhaps it's worth defining 'serious' business school. By serious, I mean a school that will lead to the sort of outcomes that result from the sort of MBAs that people are mostly discussing on this site: Schools in the FT 100. Is Middlesex, a school which the QS 200 ranked in the bottom 5%, one of those schools? I rather doubt it. I appreciate that if you rank 200 schools then were will be a 199th, but I don't think that's a wise choice for good outcomes. The SSRN ranks Middlesex as the 207th business school in the world.

However, Middlesex has had AMBA accreditation and it's clearly not a failing institution. hat is not comparable with London Met. London Met is the school the other person mentioned.

But if uyou seriously want the sort of outcomes we are talking about: Salaries over $100k, and doubling your salary, then an FT ranked programme is the way to go.

Thank you, Duncan. Your latest explanation has put it better, I think. I will not further the discussion from this point so that the thread does not drift away from the topic of the starting post.

However, I will just add my view on the SSRN rankings you have mentioned--and other credible rankings in general: Given there are thousands of legitimate business schools worldwide (well over 10.000, as far as I know), and even thousands only in the US, top 200 and even top 500 are also credible achievements for the schools, in my opinion, at least justifying them to be taken into consideration, depending on the expectations and circumstances of the candidates. (I see your points regarding the highest ranked ones and they are ok).

Regards,

Westminster offers you a fair and good internship opportunity as far as I hear. I know a friend who studies there, and she said that the programme is well managed by the director, and you are guaranteed to receive a fair treatment.