I live in the UK and applying to business schools here. So far, I think, I was successful with my applications - I got places in good MBA schools, some schools offered me a scholarship.
1. Warwick –got an offer of a place.
2. Bath – waiting for reply.
3. Cranfield – got an offer of a place.
4. Henley - waiting for reply after interview.
5. Lancaster – invited for interview.
6. Ashridge – got an offer of a place.
What I start finding now is that there is little difference between business schools: they all promise (and usually deliver) high salary expectations and good career opportunities. I also suspect that many companies happily recruit graduates from these schools as well as MBA graduates from Cambridge, Oxford or LBS, i.e. in real live there is little difference between the very top schools and these ones. You can see how ranking of all schools changes every year, this again means reputation of business schools is very subjective.
So, could anybody explain to me what is the competitive advantage of each of these business schools? I read a few replies that, for example, Lancaster is strong in Finance, Warwick is good in Consulting and Cranfield in Marketing, but is it really like this? From my understanding, they are all strong in all these fields (not sure about Ashridge though), therefore they are ranked highly. And because many companies hire graduates for the same positions from several schools, again this shows in real life there is little difference among these business schools, it is your personal attributes will mainly determine how successful you will be with job offers, not the reputation of the school…