Duncan,

This is a case in point. This information is not just about HW, it is generally for all similar standing universities in the world. HW in the US is considered as RA equivalent from what I've seen in student evaluations done by recognized Credential Evaluators.

Any experienced professional in the education field would understand what accreditation means. The fact is that we are addressing the uninformed student public. So one needs to be clear. In making the distinction that MBAs with AACSB or AMBA etc., I believe LKF is suggesting that this is stated clearly, i.e. "this MBA does not have the relevant business programmatic accreditation. This is a reasonable statement. Why is it that you are so hung up about this? No one is asking you to do a disservice to students. Just state it as it shoud be. As I have already pointed out, Accreditation in the US takes on several formats, including Regional Accreditation. Which includes quality assurance of programs conducted by the university concerned. So programs of RA universities are considered accredited including business faculties. However, as a added measure business schools also seek additional AACSB or other similar programmatic accreditation for added recognition in the market place. Why is that so difficult to understand?

Anyway, I think this has gone on long enough.........

Hi Matt,

This matters for reasons of practice and accuracy.
- In this forum, it's quite impractical to expect that people should use a long-winded for of words like "does not have the relevant business programmatic accreditation", rather than "is not accredited" and then link to the article on accreditation.
- The situation is HW is not only that its MBA lacks accreditation, but also that the university as a whole explicitly declined to participate in accreditation. It's not accredited by anyone. That's it. It would be inaccurate to say that HW lacks specific MBA accreditation when, indeed, the entire university lacks it.

Hi Duncan,

I beg to differ. Your view of accreditation is not consistent with the general understanding of what it is taken to mean in the broader sense of quality assurance in education.

Let's leave it at that.

P.S. For practice, accuracy and clarity, it doesn't take a whole lot to say "does not have programmatic accreditation"..........

It is to be noted that....Heriot Watt, as are all other well established British universities, are governed by the UK Quality Code for Higher Education. This external review is conducted by the Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education (QAA) which safeguard standards and improve the quality of UK higher education. Heriot Watt is subjected to a quality audit and has received approval (confidence judgement) in the QAA institutional review audit report.

However, it is a fact that the Heriot Watt MBA does not have the value added accreditation from either AACSB, AMBA, or EQUIS.

Matt. It would be pointless if we moved away from the generally used definition, exemplified by wikipedia, of accreditation as an independent quality assessment which is separate from the legal right to award degrees.

The point about accreditation is that it give an *additional*, higher level of quality than state agencies. By definition, every HE institution in the UK has assurance by the government through QAA. The QAA assures the *minimum* level of quality needed in Britain's cash-strapped HE sector. That's quite unlike regional or national accreditation, which a university may fail. It is impossible to imagine that a state university in the UK could fail. Even in Britain's seething morass of private schools, I think only one has failed to pass, in 2006.

The QAA's process is especially inadequate because the vast majority of HW students are abroad. No-one can expect the QAA to fly to the HW campus in Malaysia. It's not comparable to US regional accreditation, which is independent from the state and assures a high level of quality.

Hi Duncan,

I have to disagree that the QAA's process is especially inadequate. There are provisions within QAA that provide for audit of overseas collaborative arrangements and this is carried out.

As for regional accreditation equivalence - whether you like it for not, the reality is that all commonwealth countries accept UK degree with Royal Charter and QAA audit approval. This goes for the US as well, where such universities are evaluated by recognized evaluators (just as the UK NARIC does with foreign awards) as being equivalent to regionally accredited US universities.

Having said that, I concur that specialized accreditation gives an "additional", higher level of quality than state agencies. This is precisely the point that I am making - i.e. it is a value added accreditation. Something students should consider, having clearly understood what it means.

Matt, I think we agree that QAA is a compulsory process for the minimum quality needed by a UK university. If we compare the worst British HE provider, in an office over McDonalds, with a US university with national - but not regional accreditation - it's clear that tiny UK for-profit schools with no real resources can meet QAA standards as long as they have ISO 900 type paperwork. Similar schools in the US are not regionally accredited. QAA is not, in itself, the right to issue degrees.

We agree that accreditation is different. It's not about minimum standards. It's about a higher standard than the minimum assured by the state.

That's especially important for HW, where two-thirds of the students are abroad. The QAA assures its paperwork processes, and its relations with its partner in Singapore. But what about the campus in Malaysia, which is the focus of this person's inquiry? They are not assured of the same sort of quality they would get with one of the AACSB schools in that country.

Matt, I think we agree that QAA is a compulsory process for the minimum quality needed by a UK university. If we compare the worst British HE provider, in an office over McDonalds, with a US university with national - but not regional accreditation - it's clear that tiny UK for-profit schools with no real resources can meet QAA standards as long as they have ISO 900 type paperwork. Similar schools in the US are not regionally accredited. QAA is not, in itself, the right to issue degrees.

We agree that accreditation is different. It's not about minimum standards. It's about a higher standard than the minimum assured by the state.

That's especially important for HW, where two-thirds of the students are abroad. The QAA assures its paperwork processes, and its relations with its partner in Singapore. But what about the campus in Malaysia, which is the focus of this person's inquiry? They are not assured of the same sort of quality they would get with one of the AACSB schools in that country.

Matt, there's no point cutting and pasting from wikipedia when the question that started this discussion is: should someone attend the HW campus in Malaysia, and my response is that they'd better taking one of the internationally accredited MBAs in Malaysia instead.

The difference matters.

HW wasn't founded as a university in 1821. It's an school for mechanics which became a university in 1966 and, rather curiously, has what I think is a unique business model for a UK university of having two-thirds of its students abroad.

Cutting and pasting the term "research university" is meaningless and misleading. It sounds very prestigious. In the US, a research university is a status given by the Carnegie foundation to very top universities in which research funding is concentrated. This formal status doesn't exist in the UK, although the 25 Russell Group universities are its obvious analogy: most PhDs are issued by, and two-thirds of significant academic research happens there.

HW certainly doesn't get into that, or the top 20 UK universities in which research funding is concentrated. It has consistently ranked outside the top 40 in the UK. It produces 0.6% of the UK's 5 and 4 star rated research - rather less than a university with 21,000 students might be expected to produce. In terms of the amount of quality research produced by each research-active person entered in the last RAE, HW doesn't get into the top 50, ranking some way below London South Bank University and the University of East London.

The status of the university *as a university* is something totally different from accreditation. HW is a legal university, as we've all stated many times.

But how can we choose between universities? They're not all the same. Clearly we need to pay attention to the universities and to the programmes.

The HW MBA is one of the biggest in the world, and it carries with it the high standing of British universities. However, it's the only UK MBA I know of which is neither accredited, nor requires a degree, nor requires work experience for entry. Those things are quality signals.

I think the Find-MBA page on accreditation which I linked to explains that weel, and that it's a totally disservice to students to be critical when we point out that schools are unaccredited, or to reply at cross purposes and say that an unaccredited schools is a real university. Not all legal universities are that great. Lots are terrible. Accreditation is valuable because it's an independent measure of high quality, above the minimum standard. HW doesn't have that, that is important and needs to be said.

Duncan,

Getting personal are we? Making ludicrous allegations is not going to help matters. Your view does not represent the whole picture. It is wholly biased. It provides a slanted view. Just because you don't like a certain university doesn't make it bad. You seem more intent in disparaging legitimately sound universities than providing accurate information. Heriot Watt has been named the best Scottish University by the Sunday Times for two years running in 2012. It has also been voted the top UK university for student experience. You provide some excellent advice in this forum, I don't deny that. But your understanding of accreditation leaves much to desired.The facts have been placed and students can decide for themselves. By the way, the responses to this thread are meant to be for ""Affordable DL MBA in UK". So, I don't know what you are ranting about.....

Thanks Duncan for the clarification.
I do agree when I look at the program structure and the entry requirements, I smell 'commercialised' in their program.It also allow people who couldn't finish the program exit from it and get a postgrad diploma/ certificate.

Just wonder: Even if the program is accredited, does it matters much also the ranking of the school? For example, Aberystwyth University or Leicester University, I am not at all impressed by the school program, if I compared it with unaccredited school.

Matt, I sorry if you find this personal. Are you referring to the cutting and pasting of the form of words 'public research university'? That is a rather distinct form of words which I see used in relationship to HW only on its wikipedia page (I've just edited that page to remove it).

If you didn't take that from there, then I am surprised and apologise for my assumption.

I'm not saying that HW is a bad university. It's a totally average university. I think it has a really weak MBA programme, partly because it's not selective or accredited and someone who has the choice between HW and an accredited MBA will get much better outcomes and a much better experience.

I don't understand what about my understanding of accreditation leaves something to be desired. Here's my view:
- Accreditation is independent certification of a higher than minimum level of quality.
- Royal charters are not accreditation, because every university has it.
- Assurance by the QAA is not accreditation, because it's not independent and is focussed on ensuring basic levels of good administration.

What am I misunderstanding about accreditation?

Duncan, I note your comments. Let's put it this way - I agree it makes a difference and that the HW MBA is not a great program as compared to one that has additional accreditation from one of the business schools' accreditors. I have never disputed this. My concern is that no well established legitimate institution should be portrayed in a bad light. If at this stage, you can agree that Heriot Watt is not a bad university, then I am fine with that. That is the important point I wish to make.

Let's leave it to the buyer to makeup his/her mind ...

Here is the fee structure of few UK DL MBAs.
I believe the fee is proportionate to the quality of the programme, cohort and the whole MBA experience you get.
You get what you pay for, as simple as that.

HW MBA fee : £9225

AMBA accreditation:
------------------------
Aberdeen : £10600
Leicester : £10915
London : £12490

Triple accreditation:
-------------------------
Strath : £13500
Bradford : £13500
Open : £13935 - £15995
Aston : £18,000
Henley : £18500
Durham : £19000
Warwick : £19500
Manchester : £26,000 (UK/EU students), £28,500 (international students)
Here is some evidence to support this view..
http://www.topmba.com/mba-rankings/online-mba/2012

Based on this ranking, Aberdeen looks value for money and Manchester is too expensive ..

It's a pity that it's so hard to compare the outcomes. But the outcomes from the ful-time programmes at these schools are so different, and it's reasonable to think the DL students outcomes will differ accordingly. The difference in fees between Manchester and Aberdeen is very small compared to the huge additional income that Manchester MBAs generate. I think people need to look at the return on the investment, not just the price.

Hi everyone.. I'm hunting for an MBA and I am really not sure which to go for. I'm Black South African located in Dubai and work full-time, I want to get good value for money UK MBA that can help me change career path these are the options I have considered and my concerns about the institution and its programs..

Bradford EMBA in Dubai - Fee 18,000 GBP
My concerns - It seems like a thinly veiled distance learning program, they say they fly in the instructors every 6 weeks but at least they have 4 electives which are done by distance learning ( no instructors flown in for that!) also there seems to be not much by the way of local support here in Dubai for the program doesn't seem to have a strong alumni netwrok here either.

Strathclyde MBA - Good program, with pretty good rankings rankings but they said the fees are 15,000 GBP on their site while their office in Dubai says its 110,000 Dirhams over 18,000 GBP. They say they fly in their instructors once in 4-5 weeks but they also have weekly classes with local tutors. I also haven't been able to locate their current students or Alumni and the biggest concern is they only offer 2 electives with no options to specialize.. So its purely a generalist program.

Manchester Global MBA - 28,000 GBP- Very expensive but more importantly the support system for Distance learning is not as good, i've learnt and when you have to pay so much shouldn't they be able to provide more support than a 3-day workshop every 2 months? The program is great though, specialization options excellent esp. for the gulf region...

SP Jain EMBA - 11,000 GBP. Great price, great program, great options for specialization but 3 main concerns here; 1) Australian curriculum i'm not sure what kind of response it will get from recruiters 2) The school rankings have dropped in recent years, it didn't even appear in 2013 rankings and is it sensible to go for a school whose rankings are failing at the moment..

Or should I just give up on these schools and go for purely distance learning with schools that are further up in the rankings, like Warwick, Durham, Henley..
I think DL is difficult I would really prefer a school with local presence for the support but if it won't be as good should I not rather just grit my teeth and do it, get better value (in name at least) for the price.. What do u think
Kindly advise, and please if u have any info on the above metioned schools please pass it on!

Regards,
Joy

It sounds to me like you are approaching this in the right way. You should find the programme with the most face-time and talk-time in the classroom, because your learning and networking will be more powerful that way.

Visit the courses. The admissions teams will also be happy to connect you with alumni. I am surprised at what you say about Manchester's distance-learning support: almost all schools use the same system, Blackboard, and I would suggest you especially ask to visit there and see the different systems since no-one will have compared them well.

Don't focus too much on the price; focus on the benefits. Look at the sorts of people in the class, the value of the network in your markets, and so on.

Lastly, SP Jain will struggle to stay in the rankings because it doesn't have a campus in Europe, and thus the salaries of students are lower on average. But their alumni *in the Gulf* might not have lower salaries than the others schools. Plus SP Jain is the only school with a full-time programme there, so that might mean better careers support and a stronger alumni network after five or ten years.

Hello Duncan, thanks for your reply.
You've made some really great points here. In terms of face time and talk time in the classroom, SP Jain and Strathclyde seem to be the best options..
Will try to visit their classes if the admin will permit.
I really like what you said about the price though because I really want a strong, well recognised MBA (as much as I can afford though since its all relative) as I may not always be in the Gulf I hope to relocate to Canada soon maybe in another 4-6 years and I think Manchester and Warwick might have better recognition there and open more doors hopefully.. I'm seriously looking at the Warwick DL ..

If Canada is on the cards then really invest in the best you can. Is LBS out of your range?

Yeah, LBS is out, Cass too..
I've got to make do with the 2nd tier.