An MBA which does not require the GMAT will have less able students, and that will attracted fewer employers. Why bother to do the MBA if you don't have the motivation to take the GMAT?

I agree with Duncan - in order to get the best academic experience possible, you should take the GMAT. The test will also give you more and better options in school choices. You'll never get into LBS, for instance, without taking the GMAT.

However, if you're still against taking the GMAT, I'm aware of a couple UK schools that you can look into:

Durham (if you have an undergrad degree, you don't have to take the GMAT.)
Exeter (their One Planet MBA looks really interesting)
Edinburgh

At the very least, look for schools that are accredited by one of the internationally-reputed accreditation bodies (AMBA, EQUIS, AACSB.)

But keep in mind that the best programs are going to require you to take the GMAT. Even Lancaster (which is ranked 71 in the FT global rankings) will require it.

There are few more:
Aston
Durham
Bradford
Birmingham
Strathclyde

Not requiring GMAT (but preferred) and are in FT ranking.

Strathclyde isn't in the FT MBA ranking anymore (http://rankings.ft.com/businessschoolrankings/global-mba-rankings-2012) and the other four are the four lowest ranked UK MBAs in that ranking. They all fell substantially in the European Business School ranking last year (http://rankings.ft.com/businessschoolrankings/european-business-school-rankings-2011) The GMAT seems to be a clear quality signal.

Thank you for all the replies. The matter isn't so much of not wanting to do the GMAT but the time constraints coupled with applications. The decision to go for an MBA is critical for myself at this point due to personal reason and still working full-time, writing applications and then studying for GMAT in full capacity is where the issue lies.

In regards to the Universities mentioned are they really that lowly ranked as 3rd tier schools? Aren't some of them carrying full accreditation's?

Any assistance would be appreciated.

In regards to accreditation's and some of the feedback on these posts it feels like many Universities are being considered as sub-par or 3rd tier schools??!!

How are the schools such as Aston, Nottingham, Birmingham, Lancaster classified?!?! I have looked at the FT rankings but it still isn't clear to me as for the current feedback on the posts.

Any feedback will be greatly appreciated. Thank You!

Nottingham doesn't show up in the FT rankings anymore. It fell off in 2010.

As for the other schools you listed, they're also dropping in the rankings - sometimes drastically. Lancaster, for instance, was ranked 24 in 2010 and now it's at 71. Even compared to a solid second-tier program like Imperial, these don't look very good.

I think the rankings are a more reliable guide than posts on this site: one swallow does not make a summer, as they say.

The UK schools are great but real macroeconomic trends are pushing down all the schools in recession-endangered Europe. Personally, I would rather go to Lancaster than Imperial but the London location gives it a huge advantage.

So in the case of such drastic drops and changes in the FT rankings with schools such as Nottingham and Strathclyde disappearing do they now hold no value? Strathclyde is triple accredited and I thought that would hold some value.

As for the FT rankings its confusing to me still nonetheless (I do agree to go with these rankings for making a final decision) but how would one rank Hult? I have gotten mixed reviews about them but they rank well.

Is Aston a good choice for a school with potential. Also; what is the decision one makes when a school like Strathclyde was rated highly and now carries no weight. What do potential employers view that as over time?

Duncan what do you specially mean by "The UK schools are great but real macroeconomic trends are pushing down all the schools in recession-endangered Europe." is it better to pursue an MBA in USA/Canada instead?!?!

I don't think anyone is saying that they are of no value: they are still among the top hundred or so schools. However they are of declining value as MBA programme providers. They are clearly more valuable than less highly raned providers.

Hult is well discussed on this website. There's not much to add to that discussion.

Different countries have different macroeconomic trends. Those are, along with currency values, the main drivers of changes in MBA rankings. The Canadian and US economies are better performing than the Euro zone, but that and its repurcussions are pretty obvious to everyone on this board, and there's no point having that discussions here.

To add a bit to Duncan's thoughts on this:

The precipitous drop in rankings of some of the UK schools does not mean that they're worthless. It's just that they're not as valuable as they were even last year.

In addition to the macroeconomic trends, there's also the aspect of selectivity: while at top programs like LBS, the average GMAT has been going up (680-700 since 2008,) but at Lancaster, for instance, has stayed the same during the same period.

Hult is the same way - that program hasn't gotten more selective, and its cohorts will have more trouble when they get out in the workplace.

As to your question about whether it's better to seek an MBA in the US/Canada instead, that's really up to you. If you want to work in the UK, you're going to want to go to school there. Just pick a good school with a good alumni network and decent career services.

<blockquote>So in the case of such drastic drops and changes in the FT rankings with schools such as Nottingham and Strathclyde disappearing do they now hold no value? Strathclyde is triple accredited and I thought that would hold some value.

As for the FT rankings its confusing to me still nonetheless (I do agree to go with these rankings for making a final decision) but how would one rank Hult? I have gotten mixed reviews about them but they rank well.

Is Aston a good choice for a school with potential. Also; what is the decision one makes when a school like Strathclyde was rated highly and now carries no weight. What do potential employers view that as over time?

Duncan what do you specially mean by "The UK schools are great but real macroeconomic trends are pushing down all the schools in recession-endangered Europe." is it better to pursue an MBA in USA/Canada instead?!?!

</blockquote>