I don't think there is an increase or decrease in how often it is mentioned.

If you compare the metrics in the FT rankings then you can see why schools have different rankings and you can see which school has greater international mobility.

Do you have a more specific question?

I found the International mobility metric, so thank you for that, although it appears identical for both.

I guess my main question is whether I should be concerned about the brand recognition for school not being listed in the rankings. Is it safer to go with school ranked higher or school that is larger but not ranked?

Thanks a bunch for your input and help.

I do think that Nottingham will have a slight advantage on salary: it has fewer Indians. The gap in the salaries reported to The Economist (20%) surprise me. However, in the 2009 FT ranking the gap was 13% and perhaps the fewer opportunities for Indian in the UK is what's widening the gap?

If you actually compare the cohort, Aston seems to have older, more experienced students. I think the Aston programme has better standing in the community of employers who habitually recruit MBAs. As a university, and especially at the undergraduate level, Nottingham has a better name.

Have you considered Birmingham?

Excellent reply Mr. Duncan! Thank you so much for your invaluable input.

I did consider Birmingham but I found it almost identical to Aston. Being an outsider I just picked the one ranked higher prior to 2012. Aston seems to have a slight edge on career services (at least on paper), but they appear identical on all the metrics otherwise... (it's actually incredible how close many of the schools are.)

The reason why Nottingham made it to my list is their MBA in Entrepreneurship, which could be interesting, but now it's not even featured on FT so I worry about the overseas brand recognition (also the lack of triple Acc.).

Last question, when you said "I think the Aston programme has better standing in the community of employers who habitually recruit MBAs." Do you think this is on national scale only, or international too? (excluding Asia whee Nott has campuses)

Thank you kindly again for your time, especially that it's Saturday! You are a great resource and help. Thank you.

Birmingham's MBA is on the way up, and Aston's is really on a plateau. If you look at the FT rankings, you'll see Birmingham is better for salary: http://rankings.ft.com/businessschoolrankings/global-mba-rankings-2012 It's also a much older university, with a beautiful campus.

You'll need to be more specific about where you want to find work. Birmingham's business school went through a huge expansion recently, when the school moved into University House. In ten years time it might be quite different since the school has great momentum. The Aston MBA certainly has more scale. Personally, I would choose Birmingham over Aston.

Thank you Duncan.

<blockquote>The gap in the salaries reported to The Economist (20%) surprise me. However, in the 2009 FT ranking the gap was 13% and perhaps the fewer opportunities for Indian in the UK is what's widening the gap? </blockquote>
Good guess. In real terms, it's strange to me that in the 2009 FT rankings, Nottingham's graduates' salaries were higher than even Hult and Birmingham, both of which were ranked higher overall. This might be because Nottingham students tended to come in to the program with higher salaries to start.
<blockquote>The reason why Nottingham made it to my list is their MBA in Entrepreneurship, which could be interesting, but now it's not even featured on FT so I worry about the overseas brand recognition (also the lack of triple Acc.)</blockquote>
Nottingham's focus in entrepreneurship is indeed one of its strong points. If this is your interest, have you considered Cass and Oxford, each of which have dedicated centers for entrepreneurship and innovation?

Also, I wouldn't base my decision on whether a particular school has triple accreditation - one or two is usually enough to ensure quality; a third does not necessarily make it better.

I did look into these schools, but without the GMAT (common concern here) and steep program fees, these programs are outside of my reach. I have applied to few more programs through EMBA and once accepted I'll try to convert my admission into a full-time, hopefully getting some scholarship too. Warwick seems to be very flexible for switching modes of study between full, part-time and even distance learning, so this might be an option, even though their fees are high, but amortized over 3 years. I shall know in 2 weeks :) Thanks again for you support and help.

Warwick is the only school were you can do this. EMBA and full-time programmes have different admissions teams and goals, and you might really annoy the schools and look like you don't have clear career goals.

Certainly Birmingham would be a better choice over Aston, however both Aston and Birmingham cohort is full of Indians, so in terms of International exposure, I don't think it will be much in either of these two. Nottingham has less Indians and is more strong globally in terms of reputation, but within UK it is placed below Birmingham and Aston.
In my opinion you need to weigh your choices based on your career goals.

It's interesting to see the speed with which Birmingham has overtaken Aston. Do you think this is mainly because of Aston slipping, or Birmingham rising?

I think it depends a lot on the entry criteria and the quality of students these schools recruit. If you see Birmingham, they are really selective in recruiting students, mainly they seek for min 5 years of quality work experience etc, whereas Aston is happy to take candidates with just 3 years of work exp, and not very stringent with the kind or type of work experience.
In short, the basic rule is quality in and quality out. which helps in building a long term reputation of a School, therefore you could see a line between schools with GMAT requirement and without GMAT requirement.