Thank you for using the timer!
We noticed you are actually not timing your practice. Click the START button first next time you use the timer.
There are many benefits to timing your practice, including:
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
I had gone through similar experience a couple of weeks back.
Cran and Warwick are equally good and quite similar in many ways. I could not find any significant difference between these two programmes. As I said Cranfield, Manchester and Warwick are three extremely good programmes in UK. My personal view is, they are better than Oxbridge, if you keep the branding and worldwide recognition out of the equation. My experience so far only confirmed my stand.
My friend, I would advise you to look at your personal FIT. The differences are so subtle that it may be silly for another person but may be useful for you. I have chosen my school based on those subtle elements.
The bottomline is, Cran and Warwick are equally good, like Canon and Nikon. Whichever you choose will be good for you.
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.