I am mostly interested in the comparison between Cranfield and Warwick, but insights into Edinburgh and Manchester would also be cherished.

I think the FT MiM ranking is really useful and is an excellent guide.

Dear Mr Duncan thank you for the reply

I know this ranking very well and have extensively studied it, but I cannot rely solely on it.

First of all, the Msc Management in Cranfield is new and is not listed, as it will start this fall. Apart from that, if I solely relied on this, I would consider Warwick, Aston and Strathclyde to be three Mscs with the same job prospects. But, again, Cranfield is not listed yet.

I would like the view of someone with relevant knowledge, who additionally lives in the UK, since I come from abroad, and maybe a comparison of the business schools.

Thank you in advance

Cranfield is, of course, an excellent school. It's MSc in management and finance is ranked by the FT, in the MiF ranking at http://rankings.ft.com/businessschoolrankings/masters-in-finance-pre-experience-2013 and broadly speaking it seems reasonable to think that Cranfield will develop an MSc that broadly reflects its overall standing, and the MSc will share core cores with other MSc programmes in the school. Generally the first year of a programme is a bit rough.

In terms of general comparisons... well there's so much you could say and most of it would be obvious. Do you have any specific questions?

PS I think you have to look closely at Strathclyde as well as Warwick. Of the schools you are considering, they have the highest salaries and the highest employment rates. Strathclyde clearly leads for career progression and international mobility, which might matter to you. Warwick's figures are perhaps pushed up by having the most British students. Personally I would be tempted by Warwick's stronger overall brand, but the design and content of the MBM is clearly better and the MBA conversion pathway is valuable. The Cranfield program is very light academically -- only two of the four terms have teaching - and might better suit a student with a prior BSc in business.

Thank you Mr Duncan for your reply and useful insights

To speak the truth, I just noticed that the Cranfield only has 5,5 months of teaching and don't really like this. However, I have faith in the institution and believe that the course will be more intense to compensate for this. Moreover, I think that the internship experience will be important.

In general, I trust institutions as opposed to courses, because, in my opinion, the better the institution, the more demanding it is, and thus the experience is more challenging and rewarding. Additionally, in my view, we go to an institution not only for knowledge, but also to brand ourselves, and then market ourselves to recruiters and employers.

Therefore, what I would like to ask is, which university has the stronger overall brand and will make me more attractive to recruiters and employers in London, Cranfield or Warwick? ( or maybe Edinburgh, Manchester, Aston, Nottingham?) I would like to note that I didn't know any of these universities up to a few months ago, except for Edinburgh.

In addition, do you think I could opt for an internship after the completion of the course at Warwick, or would it be hard to get one?

Thank you very much in advance

Ps: I intend to pursue an MBA or EMBA later on in my life

Warwick is the stronger brand probably; ask them about internships. Good luck!