Hi Everyone

I am split in my mind whether to pick Manchester or Warwick for an online MBA.

Warwick ranks higher in the FT and QS rankings but when it comes to the salary numbers for Warwick they seem fairly inflated when compared to all other schools on that list. Not a huge amount of info is available regarding Warwick so i am trying to determine why it is so high.

Looking at the full-time rankings of each (perhaps not fully relevant to this discussion but thought it may be a factor to consider). They seem quite close in terms of most aspects with Manchester rising in the last year and Warwick dropping.

Of course if Warwick's numbers and ranking are accurate when looking at real life experience it's a no-brainer but any advice on which of the two to pick would be greatly appreciated. Looking in terms of international and local reputation, quality of network and faculty.

I have managed to get fragmented bits of info through the threads i've trawled but if anyone has a head to head comparison it would be great :)

Thank You

What are your goals?

Hi Duncan
I currently work in consulting in North America (Uk citizenship). The first goal is career advancement.An MBA would accelerate my career path at my current company but would also allow for a lateral or upward level move.So my goal is not to necessarily change careers( I am not against that though if the opportunity arises).As for pursuing the online route; It fits perfectly with my current circumstances in terms of workload and family life so that's why i'm not opting for a full time MBA.Also it's a personal thing that i've wanted to achieve, but that's not so relevant to the final choice

Why take a UK MBA rather than Illinois. UMass or Boston U?

A mix of personal choice and potential future move to a UK office of my company. Are either of those more highly regarded for that? Or also recognised in North America?

Did you consider the Kelley - Manchester EMBA? 
I think the US schools are better understood in the UK than the UK schools are in the US. Plus, the US MBAs are normally moe credit hours and more learning as a result.

I did take a look at it but ultimately  came down to the Warwick and Manchester options. So pretty much looking at a comparison of those two.  

Reading other forums it seems Warwick has an edge in terms of career advancement/opportunities due to it being a target school for a larger range of companies with high reputations. Do you think that is so?

If that was the case, Manchester MBAs would not have a much higher salary. 
PS Don't confuse the general public's awareness of undergraduate awareness with the performance of MBAs. 

[Edited by Duncan on May 23, 2020]

Thank you. And what’s your view on the public awareness of both and performance?

I don't think the public has any awareness of business schools, and if it did it would be a poor basis on which to pick business schools.

That's fair. So based on your previous answer you imply Manchester's performance is better than Warwick?

Yes, I think that's fair. In particular, Manchester is more often the choice of people.making larger career transitions so in that context it's a strong performance. On the other hand, there is also a lot of path dependency in institutional success. MBS is far older, bigger and better known. Warwick became a serious player in the top tier of full time MBA market fairly recently, after they introduce their 650 GMAT minimum several years ago. Since then, it's made a lot of progress and opened the London campus. So, I could see Warwick overtaking possibly. 
Most importantly, they serve different clients. Their EMBA offers, their full-time MBA offer and their part-time MBAs are all aimed at very different segments. 

Do you see a difference in the clients Warwick and Manchester serve for their online programs?

Certainly. The MBS Global MBA is really extensive, with a large core and a big emphasis on group work. The Warwick MBA, in every format, has a compact core and more electives. So, these suits different people. MBS is a general management MBA and you cannot avoid the quant stuff, much like Strathclyde. Warwick makes it easier to avoid what you dont like.
Classic development choice between addressing weaknesses or building deeper strengths. Warwick is better for growing T-shaped specialists while MBS is about moving out of functions and into general management. So, for example, IBM loves Warwick. 

Very insightful. And I terms of strategy and finance would either have a leg up on the other?

That depends on the candidate. If you were moving into a field, MBS is normally the better choice. If you are already there and need to accelerate, then Warwick can offer a faster RoI. Strategy and finance are generally different functions, roles and industries I less you are in general management. 

Based on this I’m leaning towards Manchester. I see value in both. I enjoy my current role so Warwick would accelerate that but the opportunity Manchester gives to switching is important too. Manchester would give that opportunity as well as some acceleration of my current role(even though lesser than Warwick) 

To be honest I’m still really torn between the two. I still feel Warwick as a business school is a better option Uber Manchester’s business school (universities as a whole aside). Would you agree with this? Trawling LinkedIn it seems more Warwick alumni are in more “prestigious” positions over Manchester alumni. I had my search limited to consulting companies and a few high level tech companies so I may not have a full set of data but that’s the impression I got. Would you agree?

This depends on you idea of prestige. MBS MBAs are paid more on graduation and make faster career progression, according to the ranking data. I worked for Deloitte before my MBA and afterwards worked in a firm that is less less know, but I was in the senior team, had equity etc. Focus on your goals.