Hi

I briefly looked at the Manchester DLMBA but did not go into in any great detail. Instead it came down to between Imperial and Warwick.

I opted for Warwick because I felt they focused more on the content of the course whereas Imperial seemed to heavily rely on the Imperial name/brand - which is more to do with the scientific and medical history of the university rather than the school.

Im only just starting the DLMBA in 2011 and have already been impressed by the quality of the content. I also undertook an undergraduate business orientated degree but what Ive seen on the Warwick DLMBA is wildly superior. Its less social science attached to something called a business degree. Its actually about business for business - if that makes sense.

Finally, unlike Imperial, at Warwick the level of face-to-face contact for the DLMBA is much greater. There are numerous opportunities to have contact with staff and fellow students, indeed, Warwick insists on a minimum level and there after it is optional.... whereas with some schools it felt like you enrolled, had limited contact face-to-face, they would send you the materials and let you get on with it.

Best of luck.

Hi,

Thank you for your comment.

I had the impression that Warwick is quite flexible and also it does not require you to attend too many face to face workshops. I have however considered Manchester for its structured schedule, more time spent with face to face interactions and probably better global reputation, whereas Warwick - although an excellent school in all rankings - is less well known globally.
Would you agree with this point?
I am struggling to make a decision -which I need to make soon - as I think they are both good programs, pretty much same fees with differences in structure and reputation.Some friends said Warwick is very strong in UK, but some others suggested Manchester for global reputation.
What do you guys think?
Thank you for your answers.

Hi,

I have done considerable research on both manchester and warwick mba offerings. With respect to face to face element of the program manchester does not give much flexibility and options, you can expect to meet for a week once in each semester. In case of warwick there are two options i.e. DL or Modular format. If you go for DL you get to meet face to face for a week once in a year however if you opt for modular format the face to face part is much significant as compared to manchester and you get to attend classes for a full week once in every six weeks.

As regards to ranking i think warwick is doing much better than manchester but as to awareness manchester is a big name not only in UK but also worldwide.

Please feel free to ask me if you need any further details.

Thank you nanand,

If you choose modular studies at Warwick your fees raise considerably and then it looses its competitive advantage on Manchester.

you are right, Manchester is less flexible but probably it is better to have more discipline in a programme which is more structured? Also they seem to have a very good alumni network with alumni working in bog corporations worlwide. W seem to be a bit smaller in size. What do you think?

I am thinking to join Manchester but I am still considering W.

Any more comments on the two programs? Something we have not considered?

Thank you

In terms of academic reputation Warwick is incalculably stronger than Manchester both in business and generally. Last year for undergraduate studies Warwick came Number 1 in The Guardian newspaper league table (came top 3 overall for all subjects). I dont recall Manchester being in the top 10.

Yes as a city more people have heard of 'Manchester' (the two football clubs help). I am also excited at the impact the new Dean of WBS is having and believe Warwick will climb the Economist and FT league tables for Global Business Schools. By the way Warwick already scores higher than Manchester (I think) in all the main league tables for Global Business Schools (that's one of the reasons I picked WBS). It has however fallen a few places in the last year. Something which the new Dean appears to be determined to reverse.

ps: thats for undergraduate studies in business management it came No 1 beating Imperial, LSE, City, Durham and others

Thank you ash,

I know rankings are very important but should we just look at them?

I am LSE alumnus and I think that rankings do not consider alumni networks, global brand and other important aspects of academic institutions. Besides, Warwick is high up for undergraduates studies in the UK (and I feel it is a very UK based university against global brands like LSE, Imperial, Oxford and Cambridge).

To be honest, though, it is the ranking that gives me troubles in deciding. I would go for Manchester but rankings for W are better.

It would be good to talk to both WBS and MBSstudents and alumni....anyone there?

Thanks

Though i said that Manchester mba is very flexible let me add that in terms of locations it is very interesting program and you can attend some of the modules in locations outside uk say in middle east and far east to name a few.

I again caution that if you want avoid DL thing you need to be very careful as manchester global mba is almost 90 perecnt DL and rest is face to face.

Hi,
for the structure, I find Warwick very well structured and the planning requires you to complete certain things by a certain date. For distance learning modus, there are online sessions which on the one hand reminds you of the schedule and on the other help to reinforce your learning experience. The face to face seminar in september is another milestone to make sure you have done what is expected of you in order to fully benefit from the face-2-face event.
And finally the exams clearly mark the end of a year. so from that perspective, I found Warwick pretty well structured.

I hope that helps.

Thanks,

The module in international location is appealing to me and it is probably why the Manchester MBA is quite more expensive than the Warwick one.

Are you saying that Manchester is more DL-based than Warwick? I thought it was the opposite.

Cheers

After further research i am convinced that Manchester MBA is far better in terms of recognition specially outside UK. Warwick is good only if you want to be based in UK after doing your MBA. Even many employers outside UK do not know much about existence of Warwick. I believe that the quality of education does not differ among reputable universities but it is recognition that really pays off and make real difference. Manchester is undubiously well renowned and old university and ciricullum wise also if offers interesting and well rounded program, If anyone has idea of recognition of Warwick outside UK please do let me know based on my research warwick is not well knowned university outside UK.

Yet another comparison using undergrad rankings. These mean nothing. Mbs, Warwick and Imperial are all very strong courses. I'd make a clear distinction between D/L and P/T as the demands are quite different from a face-to-face contact pov.

Manchester is undoubtedly a better regarded course both in the UK and internationally (see MBA rankings, not undergrad!). Warwick offers more flexibility to move between dl and pt, but this isn't generally top priorities when you'be committed to 3 yrs study.

The last ranking for Distance Learning MBA programmes was in 2008 and Warwick was ranked 1st in the UK, 2nd in Europe and 3rd in the world- I don't know about Manchester I'm afraid. The Economist's report into distance learning programmes in 2010 also rated Warwick 1st in the UK.

Is Warwick's PR agency spamming here? Too many first-time "Warwick is the best" posters recently...

Have to agree on the 'Warwick Spamming' comment.

As a student on the PT Manchester course, I've been very happy with the structure and standard of the course. It challenges me on a learning and academic standpoint, but still means I can work 50 hours a week.

I chose Manchester over admits from Warwick, Lancaster and Imperial due to the reputation, large range of options, alumni feedback and ranking of their overall MBA product. The course material mirrors that of the FT MBA, which is not the case for many courses (except Warwick). I'm based in London btw.

My (very in-depth) research led me to believe that any of the 4 courses I mentioned above would provide a challenging and rewarding MBA experience.

Thank you for your comments. I also agree with the 'Warwick spamming' comment.
Anyhow, I have chosen Manchester over Warwick and it is proving to be a challenging and rewarding experience.
Best of luck.
to lemming176: perhaps I shall see you at the workshops.

http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/showthread.php?t=529222

I had a question on the distance learning programs (both Imperial & Warwick).

Do the degrees state that the form of study was distance learning or is it the exact same as the full-time MBA? I have heard many conflicting answers on this.

Appreciate your help.

All the Warwick MBAs have the same title. Manchester's DL program is titled Global MBA.