1. London Business School !
2. Cambridge: Judge
3. Oxford: Said
4. Cranfield and Cass (Almost the same level)
5. Warwick.

Don't invest / waste your money and your time in: MBS, Lancaster, Strathclyde, Aston, Durham .. etc

Disagree with choices for Cass, and Warwick. Cass is very 'city' focussed, not ideal for someone wanting a non-financial MBA. It suffers from not being affiliated to a world-class university, which whilst business schools are often seprate, still provide various links into other university schools, especially the social sciences.

Warwick is very theory focussed, which may not be for someone wanting a practical MBA that teaches you management skills. This is after all the reason for many from an engineering/specialist background choosing to do an MBA.

1. LBS - Elite, world class
2. Cambridge, Oxford - World renown
3. Cranfield, Warwick, Manchester - Good world wide reputation & ranking
4. Cass, Lancaster, Imperial - Good european reputation & ranking
5. Durham, Edinburgh - Good UK academic reputation, but not the greatest MBA brand
6. The rest.....

If you want to go to McKinsey, Bain, Goldman Sachs etc, the top 2 tiers are the best route. If you want a well respected MBA by other potential employers, the top 4 tiers. If you want a good MBA experience, any MBA listed above.

I'm a current MBA student at Manchester (MBS). I was accepted by all the business schools in tiers 3 and 4. I didn't apply to tiers 1 and 2 due to cost.

1.LBS worlds best no doubt.
2.CAMBRIGDE.
3.OXFORD.
4.LANCASTER good on rankings like-ft,forbes.
WARWICK.
CASS worldwide reputation.

5.CRANFEILD.
MANCHESTER a brand name for sure but fee is bit high.
IMPERIAL.

6.STRATHCLYDE.
ASTON.

I think the OP was trying to get at which UK business schools are the best, as rated by their students and alumni, which may be a different question than which are most highly rated in the many league tables.

The problem with statistically-based surveys is that they produce results that reflect their competing methodologies, which may not reflect the priorities of an individual prospective student.

For instance, LBS tops many of the ratings in the UK, but it could be argued that this result is skewed by three factors: relatively young students, who therefore register big post-qualification salaries; a high percentage of overseas students, many from developing nations where salaries are low and who settle in the UK on graduation (again, good for salary uplift; plus some rankings give points for diversity); a central London location and financial focus, leading to high levels of City and banking recruitment, resulting in high absolute and percentage increase salary figures.

Looking at the course content alongside, say, Cranfield, I'd have to say the latter looks to me to be a more comprehensive course; and I believe its students rate it more highly in terms of satisfaction. But because it's in the back-end of nowhere and is strong in some sectors that do not pay as well as finance it does less well in some of the league tables. Although, saying that, Cranfield has just topped the Economist ranking for 2010, largely because the post-qualification salaries of LBS alumni have tanked due to the reduction in banking sector recruitment.

Likewise I suspect that Oxford and Cambridge do well because they're Oxbridge rather than through any inherent strengths in their course content and delivery.

I agree, which is why Lancaster does not score well in my ranking. They rank very well for ROI, but not for the other major benchmarks.

I don't see how price matters here either. We are ranking the BEST school, not the most value for money or ROI. You wouldn't say Ferrari or Bugatti didn't make the best sports cars because they were expensive. You get what you pay for.

The most respected rankings are FT, Business Week and Forbes. EIU is very unorthodox in their weightings and rely alot on peer reputation instead of hard facts. The UK sunday newspaper university guides are focussed on undergrad not postgrad education.