Research MBA Programs

This is my second post.

I am a silent reader of this forum for last 6 months and had learned a lot.

Recently I have been selected for both Cranfield and Warwick and I am a bit confused. I am from the manufacturing sector with 9 years of experience in factory environment. After my course, I want to work in UK in similar industry. I am open for SCM, General Management or Consulting types of opening. I did a bit research and following are what I gathered, in fact it confused me further.

Cranfield has 10 core modules Vs Warwick's 8 modules. The key differences are:
CF has 2 Economics modules, one project management and Venture capital module. On the other hand, WBS has Org Behaviour and double strategic modules.

Electives wise, WBS has a wider choice compared to CF. Surprisingly, WBS has a SCM module but CF does not have. Some electives are similar but WBS has some focus on emerging trends such as online marketing, social media, etc.

In conclusion, module wise, there is not any major difference.

Both are old and matured schools with great brand recognition in UK.

I heard that WBS has a better brand value in India.

Both the schools are known for SCM/Operation management and General Management.

WBS is a full fledged university, whereas CF is graduate only university.

Location wise, WBS a bit far from London but WBS campus is closer to habitated place, rather than CF's at the middle of nowhere.

Both schools focus on personal development and career service is proactive. Placement stats a bit better in WBS but ave salary is a bit higher at CF. Although these finer details are subjective and i would say, they are very close in terms of placement.

Current student and alumni engagement seems a bit better in CF.

Fees are almost same and cost of living is also comparable. Although, accommodation at WBS seems a tad higher than CF.

Scholarships are similar in both the schools although WBS flaunts their 2M scholarship kitty.

Student mix is similar, both the schools are full of Indians. Average WE is 6-8 years. CF probably a bit more.

Ave GMAT score is almost similar at 650

So, if you are selected for both then which one will you pick and why?

Please help with your views. Thank you very much in advance

Congratulations on receiving offers from two wonderful MBA programs in the UK. I understand its a very difficult decision to make when two schools have a very similar offering, but i would suggest that you use the same factors to differentiate between these two schools which you used while selecting these two schools to apply to from amongst other similar schools in the UK. Just keep in mind three things.

* Proximity to London will surely help if you are looking for a career in Consulting & General Management. Cranfield certainly fares better in this regard.
* I am sure you would have had interacted with a number of alumni and recruiters in the region to understand the real worth of the school's career services. Cranfield's career services definitely have an upper hand here.
* MBA is a general management degree and opens doors to careers in a variety of industries and functions, so you should be able to choose the right subjects which you are interested in and will be able to network with professors who could also, in the future, help you find a job in the industry.

If i were you, i would go to Cranfield and make use of their better career services to find a good job in this tough economic time.

I second MBAGuy with some small comment.

Location is something overly marketed. I had stayed in Luton and had regular meeting in my HQ in London. Unless you are driving, any small meeting also takes half a day. Most of the times were taken by connections, not by Luton to London train ride. That means, Milton Keynes or Birmingham is just a 30 minute difference.
The second issue is, if you are based at London then it will be a local travel, but the moment you are outside (does not matter MK or B), it looks like a long journey. You will face some mental resistance and you will try to evaluate each and every opportunity. Where as local, you can afford to go for every damn opportunity.

If you have a car, then the difference between MK and Birmingham is just 20 minute.

My view is, Cranfield and Warwick are equally good and very very similar. There are only subtle differences. These subtle differences are key. You need to identify those subtle differences and find out what is important to you.

The bottomline is, whichever school you choose is excellent. You will not have any regret in any of the school.

Best of luck my friend.

Here is something I got from another forum . . Views expressed is not mine, I just copied!!
****************************

Got offers from Cranfield and Warwick, conditional from Henley and still waiting from Bath and Lancaster. Can say I decided to go to Cranfield, but still want to double check what other forum members think about Cranfield and other schools.

The reasons for Cranfield so far are the following. Cranfield for almost 10 years keeps very good reputation among almost all MBA ranking organisations. It has the highest employment rate among the schools I mentioned and the salary growth is very good. I was told during interview that Cranfield MBA had more career development officers than in Careers Service of Cranfield University. Cranfield MBA Careers Service is one of the best in the UK, at least it has the best recruitment results in the world among business schools of similar quality. GMat score among applicants is high, work experience is also high, so the environment to learn from fellow students is very good. Cranfield recruits a lot of full-time MBA students, therefore it can maintain good facilities, I did not hear any complaints from current students on limited facilities there. Reputation among recruitment agencies and MBA graduates from other schools is very high about Cranfield school. Cranfield likes to mention that Harvard Business School does almost all its European activities through Cranfield. Cranfield consistently improved its ranking for the last 12 years. It is relatively well known abroad. Living facilities are really good and reasonably priced. Tuition fees are high.
The reason why I still consider other business schools is the following:
Warwick - when I started thinking about doing MBA 12 years ago, Warwick was almost as well ranked as London Business School. Well, Oxford and Cambridge did not have MBA courses then, and Cranfield was behind Warwick. Fees are reasonable. Facilities are excellent, lecturers are great, but I have a feeling Cranfield has similarly good lecturers. GMat score, number and age of full-time MBA students in Warwick is lower than in Cranfield. When I asked MBA graduate recruitment agencies, I was told Cranfield and Warwick were the best business schools from this list. Even in time of economic depression, Warwick managed to improve the employability of their graduates. This is because they paid a lot of attention to career development part of the course. However, I was told a few times by MBA graduates from other business schools that Warwick now is not what it used to be. Accommodation facilities are great, but expensive.

MBAGUY and WBC

Your views are much appreciated. My pleasure to have knowledgeable people like you among us.

Cheers!!
GB