The FT ranking is unambiguous: Strathclyde.

Strathclyde is excellent at getting international MBA students into work, and not only in Glasgow! The UK is a tiny country with a national labour market. Search the board for discussion. School rankings are useful, but what matters is not just the overall quality but for you in particular the ability to place international students. Edinburgh, for example, is better for the MA and PhD but not for rapid MBA placement.

Sorry for intervening. Five1point has mentioned Loughborough as one of his/her choices. Duncan, what's your opinion about the Loughborough MBA?
I've read different spreads with your comments and everywhere you avoid commenting about it, recommending other business schools.

Although the Loughborough MBA is out of FT ranking, it's a triple accredited business school. Also Loughborough itself is a modern progressing university with good reputation and strong positions (not only in sports), its engineering and business and economics faculties are among top 7 in the UK.

If your goal is placement then the Loughborough MBA doesn't make sense. Is it progressing?

The idea that it is in the top seven for business is a joke. Maybe for undergrad? But where do you get that from?!??

Duncan, thank you for your prompt reply. Yes, I said that the faculty of business and economics of Loughborough University (as well the University overall) is top 7 in all major UK rankings- you can easily check it.
However, these rankings do not concern MBA studies. Regarding their MBA, I said that their business school is triple accredited, that signals about quality of education, I suppose.

Do you mean the rankings for undergraduate courses? In FT ranking of European Business Schools, in the Eduniversal ranking, in the Research Assessment exercise, in the UTD ranking of business schools' research... Basically in ranking of graduate schools then I can't see them performing well.

Here is a helpful guide for you. The top business schools in the UK are Cambridge, London Business School and Oxford. Any ranking that excludes them or Cranfield is broken for MBA purposes. If you find a ranking that includes those schools and has Loughborough in the top seven then come back with a link.

Sorry, I am just expressing my humble opinion, that Loughborough can provide quality education, maybe not for senior executives, but for someone it can be a good option. I agree when you said in another discussion that MSc from good university may be better than MBA from bad one.
I do not compare Lboro with LBS. Nevertheless, I have seen some disappointed graduates after top UK MBAs, business schools which are in the world top 100 or even top 40 of the FT ranking. These graduates cannot get placement in the UK.

No school outside India can guarantee 100% placement, and that is exactly who students who primarily want placement into MBA roles should go to the best possible school for their goals. Excellent schools have better placement than schools which are merely good.

Sorry, I am not from India, though I agree with your last comment :)
Thank you very much for the discussion and have a nice Easter!

Dear Duncan,
I am from India, hold 10 years of experience in finance domain. I am CIMA qualified and looking for an MBA from a reasonably charged as well as a quality university (triple accredited). Do you think those which are not FT/economist ranked are not worth for doing MBA. As I am considering Loughborough, Newcastle, Surrey and Sheffield (preference in same order). I selected this order based on the maximum scholarship that i have been offered. I have been reading positive comments in regard to Loughborough in every students' blogs. Also, I came across the below points, do you think the below points are not specific to MBA course -
Top-15 UK university in all major UK league tables
UK University of the Year (WhatUni Student Choice awards 2015)
Ranked top in the 2016 Times Higher Education Student Experience Survey
University of the Year for Sport (The Times, 2014)
Rated 5-stars for Excellence (QS stars)
Looking forward to your thoughts on this.

I have nothing new to say.

I'm curious to as why you're not considering FT-ranked schools. I'm not sure why triple accreditation is such a selling point - certainly there are MBAs out there (Cambridge) that are much more desirable than those that do have all three accreditations. I don't necessarily see additional accreditations on top of the first as a value add.

[quote]I'm curious to as why you're not considering FT-ranked schools. I'm not sure why triple accreditation is such a selling point - certainly there are MBAs out there (Cambridge) that are much more desirable than those that do have all three accreditations. I don't necessarily see additional accreditations on top of the first as a value add.[/quote]
Well, I did apply in FT ranked b schools as well, but I see a direct correlation between the rank and fees. I am not able to avail any scholarship from these FT ranked expensive schools. It sounds like you get what you pay for. It appears like the excess fee is charged for rank, and in my opinion the quality of education would more or less remain the same across these schools. What I am interested in are learning practical management and business skills (quality of which is endorsed by these accredit ions, that's what they are for?). I think different individuals have different level of goals - not everybody can afford schools such as Cambridge both in terms of affordability and intellectual eligibility. If I am not worried about long term salary growth, brand, ranks and so on, but just a reasonable qualitative management education, is it still a bad decision to opt non FT ranked, yet accredited university? Please advice.

You are mistaken to assume that the quality is the same. If that was the case, the outcomes would be the same. The premium is not an excess: It reflects the higher cost of producing better outcomes.

[quote]You are mistaken to assume that the quality is the same. If that was the case, the outcomes would be the same. The premium is not an excess: It reflects the higher cost of producing better outcomes.[/quote]
Yeah I agree with you, They may have certain sophisticated machines and technologies.

The difference is not just that they have nice projectors. The better schools have better professors, better students, better educational experience and better alumni