INSEAD vs LBS re-loaded

Given you're very clear on what your goals etc are then Insead seems to make sense - however if you are looking toplace into London offices the networking opportunities are much better at LBS.

If MBA is just a route to get you to MBB then I'd recommend Insead.

If u don't care about post MBA location, then just go to Insead. It costs less, you will finish and start earning faster. It makes a huge difference to your debt. Good luck!

Thank you very much for your response, guys.

After talking to many people in managing functions in Europe, Asia and US I made my decision to go to INSEAD - ultimately the best school in Europe for everything but finance in London (and even there INSEAD is very strong).

I am very relieved and happy with that decision

Thanks again for your help!

Best,
Jansen

Congrats on the decision.

Not that I'm going to change your mind now given you'll not be paying the deposit today and obv's im biased - I did also get an admit to Insead though - but I'd say whilst Insead is a great school the statement of its the best in Europe at everything bar finance in London is wrong. LBS is a much better school for placement into all categories in the UK given the location advantage (and ultimately visa). IESE also outperforms Insead in Spain.

No doubt Insead is a great school and does very well - but the number of sponsored students and total class sizes at Insead sometimes skews the perceptions people have.

Well I didnt mean you to take that as a slight on you but wanted to provide a different viewpoint to anyone else reading the thread. You seem to have taken it personally. Dont get me wrong Insead is a great school but I wouldnt make such a sensationalist claim as it being the best in Europe at everything. A school cant magically turn you into anything you want just because you went there, Insead and LBS are both rated as leading schools so that only gets you past the first hurdle - the school can only help you along a particular path and can be highly dependent on your prior experiences and personal characteristics.

I'm not sure how you evidence the 'Insead is equally as strong as LBS in MBB and Corporate in London' - I could easily turn around and say LBS is equally as strong as Insead across Europe in MBB, Corporate and Finance. Because at the end of the day it comes down to individual factors such as career focus, prior experience, and personal characteristics. Stats are always misleading due to self selection. This argument has been beaten to death on the US school selections pages of Booth v Kellogg, Wharton vs Harvard etc. Its like saying Harvard is better than Stanford at everything bar Tech in Silicon Valley.

However clearly we have been speaking to different people - 'MBB stats at Insead are inflated to any other school (globally) due to MBB consultants that are sponsored' - thats from having spoken directly to a McKinsey Partner (Swiss Office), Principal (Dutch Office) and 2 engagement managers (French and UK Office) we have had working for my team (All bar the partner are Insead MBAs) and 1 Bain Partner (French Office) (largely as a result of Insead being 1 year they can be back into their firm quickly). They've also said that as long as the school is on their target lists it doesnt matter where and thats for any office you apply as long as you have a good story why you want to work in that location.

Visa point - yes fine if you are eu - but if you are not then its more difficult without the tier 4 visa to get a job in the UK for most firms (MBB and IBs are obviously different here as they will help get any visa). Given the majority of people attending LBS, Insead, IESE etc are non-europeans this is quite a relevant point for many.

Whether you go to Insead or LBS or IESE you will get the same opportunities at any major firm. It then comes down to who you are and how you interview. Suggesting Insead gives you a better shot at MBB than LBS is a misconception.

However - location is always an advantage - LBS places well into Finance because London is a huge finance hub and students actively choose that path in that location. Additionally the networking opportunities from being in that location are much better - very possibly you will have met many of the interviewers before you even step into the first interview (thus have a connection etc). Harder when you apply to a foreign office. Likewise those at Insead are likely to have excellent language skills and will get good network opportunities into the French, Swiss, German, Dutch offices.

Finally continental schools tend to have students spread more diversely largely because language is so important - almost every firm will need you to be business fluent to land a job in a firm in a european country - thus Insead sees more students returning to home countries whilst a larger percentage of students at LBS will be looking to stay in the UK.

Biased opinion here, but I would and I will go to INSEAD. I read your comment carefully gcb09173 about the inflated numbers in Consulting, and let me say that INSEAD discloses that statistic. 189 MBA grads go to MBB (18,5%), and 70 return to their jobs on MBB (let's assume 100% of them are sponsored). So that leaves us with 8,5% of grads going to MBB unsponsored. LBS, on the other hand, places 64 people on MBB (16%), and doesn't show how many are sponsored. And don't make the mistake to think that if LBS took their class to 1000 students numbers would go up, numbers don't work that way, and they are with INSEAD here.

But I think that the definitive piece of data you should consider is Network. In this matter, INSEAD is simply unbeatable, and competing only with HBS and GSB. Not to use the CEO statistic, personally I don't think is a "useful" number (but here they are, if you want to check it https://poetsandquants.com/2015/01/23/th ... mpanies/2/ https://www.businessinsider.com/the-11-b ... 015-6?op=1), but you should do your own research, and see on LinkedIn just where INSEAD grads are at in every country, and where LBS grads at. And remember, INSEAD arguably has the tightest knit community in the B-School world.

Bottomline, I think they are both excellent schools and you can't go wrong, but INSEAD is a step forward.

glitch

I have been following top b-schools for a couple of years. I think that business education is strong in the U.S. and I am considering applying to top 5 b-schools in the U.S.
Top 5 (for me): H/S/W/CBS/MIT.
The only school that I consider outside U.S and whose stats are comparable to top US schools is LBS.

Putting personal preferences aside, some of the reasons/facts why I would pick LBS over INSEAD:

1. The average starting salary and compensation of MBA graduates at LBS are higher. And this is not an isolated case. LBS consistently outperform INSEAD on salary and compensation (even when INSEAD uses old exchange rates, see below).

2. LBS is ahead of INSEAD in all major international rankings (can give links to those rankings).

3. It is far more difficult to get into LBS. Acceptance rate 13% at LBS vs 30% at INSEAD
The owner of P&Q, John A. Byrne, recently said, quote "The actual acceptance rate at INSEAD generally varies between 31% and 33%, according to very reliable sources who know the number". I Googled several confirmations immediately. For example, https://www.vinceprep.com/interviews/insead 25-33%.
Some 5 years ago, I saw an information from LBS stating that they have more than 3000 applications. I don't know how much more than 3000 but with the class size of circa 300 (back then), despite the yield, the acceptance rate must be pretty low. From the recent data I just googled https://admissionado.com/mba/allresource ... ss-school/ https://poetsandquants.com/school-profil ... ss-school/ both sources state 13% acceptance rate.
Acceptance rates at U.S. M7 schools are in the range 7-23%

4. Base salary down the road from Forbes. Class 2008, salary in 2012.
1 Stanford 221,000
2 London 214,000
3 IMD 211,000
4 Harvard 205,000
5 Pennsylvania (Wharton) 205,000
6 Chicago (Booth) 200,000
7 Columbia 192,000
8 Dartmouth (Tuck) 189,000
9 MIT (Sloan) 185,000
10 Northwestern (Kellogg) 176,000
11 UC Berkeley (Haas) 175,000
12 Insead 175,000
13 SDA Bocconi 165,000
14 UCLA (Anderson) 165,000
https://www.forbes.com/business-schools/

5. Questionable practices from the fairness point of view.
In its 2014 employment report INSEAD uses exchange rate from 2012. I did not even noticed that before this question was raised on a forum. I think it is unfair to other schools as it distorts comparability. Another question is GMAT. INSEAD admission officer confirmed that they take highest verbal score from one exam and matches it with the highest score on quantitative part in another exam. ask-insead-admissions-127157-40.html
This inflates GMAT.

In fact, the Stanford's alumni network is substantially less than that of INSEAD.
It is probably good to have a very large alumni network, but size not always means quality. INSEAD has a network of circa 50 000 alumni, IE (which has an acceptance rate ~33% and only MBA class of more than 600 students) has an alumni network that exceeds 50 000. On the other hand LBS has an alumni network of circa 39 000 and Stanford 28 000. I do not want to imply anything about quality of INSEAD or IE alumni network (I just do not know). But there are definitely people, including yours truly, who would prefer to be a part of smaller but more selective community.

INSEAD is a top school. No doubt many INSEAD alumni occupy very good positions all over the world. But we have to admit that from a huge alumni pool it is easy to find hundreds, if not thousands, of successful people. This sample, however, may not reflect the overall quality of an alumni network.

I think you're partially right, and the following are just some considerations on your remarks:

Acceptance rate: Given, INSEAD has a bigger acceptance rate than LBS, and other top business schools, though information is very varied on this matter, you found 33%, I found 25%, also found LBS at 25%, and INSEAD at 31% https://poetsandquants.com/2015/01/03/th ... schools/2/ . Both high numbers nonetheless. But you're not considering that INSEAD has the third highest yield in the world, at 75% (Following HBS and Stanford: https://www.gmatclub.com/forum/veritas-prep-resource-links-no-longer-available-399979.html#-school/insead/ ). So this says that applicants to INSEAD actually prefer INSEAD over any other option. I think it is an important aspect when assessing this matter.

Network: I was talking about quality of network, not size. But again, the CEO statistic, only behind HBS. You have a network of 50.000 alumni, with a very high number of alumni with great careers -pure subjective, personal research-. Also, LBS has a network of 39.000 alumni (https://www.london.edu/experience/alumni#.Vaz8BvlklNQ), so I would re evaluate the thought of a "smaller but selective comunity". Being that the only stat we can use is the one of the CEO's, I think that 50.000 = 6 CEOs of F500 vs 39.000 = 0 could make your statement at least arguable. And I agree with you that from thousands (50k to be exact) you can find thousands of successful alumni, you could expect the same from 39k.

Rankings: I can't argue with that, and again I was biased from my research and having a more european than american work experience. INSEAD in Europe is the top school, no questions asked. Even people I interviewed and recommended me to LBS admissions told me that they dreamed about INSEAD, but went to LBS for Location. Once more, please remember I don't think this is the absolute truth, it's just my insight.

Compensation: INSEAD is a school that places students all over Europe, and the world. You don't have a vast majority going to one place (like London, for example, or US for American B-Schools), where compensations are higher. You might think that in London or the US is where everyone wants to go and I can't argue if this is what you think. INSEAD places a lot in Asia and South America too, where salaries are lower. Can't argue in this matter, but I give you a broader perspective. Earning U$S50k in my country can buy you a house, a BMW and have a great life, but in London you can't afford your own private apartment. It's just how compensations are made. Just to finish, I think this is linked with the network quality, you'll go to any country and probably find an INSEADer in a top position to connect. Can't be 100% certain that LBS can't say the same.

GMAT: First, an old but always handy thought. INSEAD is the most international B-School in the world. 90 nationalities, with the vast majority coming from non-english speaking languages. This is unique in the top MBA world, even LBS doesn't have it only because it is in UK and local applicants invented the language. So it's safe to say they might not score that high in the verbal section. I myself scored a 37V, and got a 49Q. So GMAT scores can be lower in Europe, but it doesn't necessarily means applicants are less bright in Europe. Having said this, I do think it's OK that a unique program like INSEAD with so many nationalities, did that to applicants, knowing that 85% of them don't speak english as a first language. I haven't read it anywhere, even in the link you put, but I wouldn't disagree if that was true, or even say the numbers are inflated.

In sum, I think they are both excellent schools, I was luckily accepted at both, and LBS was my second choice, because I wanted to go to Europe. Location did have a huge weight towards LBS, but I chose what I thought would be a better education. You can't go wrong on either, but I think INSEAD is stronger than LBS all around, except for Finance in London.

Hope I was clear enough, english is not my first language and don't want to come out as agressive.

Well, with all due respect, I have to reiterate words of gcb09173, and say – you cannot just say. Even though I personally prefer LBS and based on many facts think that it is number 1 outside U.S., I refrained from saying that and using it as an argument. I gave only facts. I did not mention, for example, that some IESE graduates think that IESE at a minimum number 2 in Europe and competing with LBS for the first place, while INSEAD at best in the third place in Europe. That were words, just words, the same words you use. But it is counterproductive and immature to argue in this way. Claims without facts bring nothing but rows and tension.

Now let's look at your arguments
John's assessment is either based on old data or simply wrong. In the comments, you can see an explanation that his LBS number is wrong and no reply from him. You may wish to find some evidence that INSEAD's number is also low. I can find you many links indicating less than 15% acceptance rate for LBS, even in this forum (GMAT Club) in International MBA rankings table you can see LBS acceptance rate of 12,5%. Can you find anything close to that rate for INSEAD? All the rates I have seen for INSEAD are between 25-33% and I posted that range.

Firstly, the number of CEOs reflects the past strength, but not necessary the current state of the world. It is said that INSEAD dominated Europe till the late 80s early 90s, the exact time many current CEOs went to b-schools. Since then INSEAD competed neck and neck with LBS till about decade ago. In the last decade, judging from rankings and stats I mentioned earlier, LBS gradually took the reins.

Secondly, many INSEAD grads went to MBB and MBB produce a lot of CEOs regardless of school they attended. In your articles not only INSEAD but also such schools as Southern Methodist (Cox), Owen, Olin, IIM, University of San Diego, Cranfield, Wisconsin School of Business - all of them are ahead of LBS and MIT. Are all those schools better than LBS or MIT? Are their alumni networks of a better quality? I doubt. This ever-changing list of CEOs represents a very small portion of alumni and not an indication of overall alumni quality or strenth of school.

Thirdly, I just looked at prominent LBS alumni list on Wikipedia and found plenty of CEOs. Some of the current and former CEOs from the list:
Huw Jenkins - UBS
Dyfrig John - HSBC Bank plc
David E.I. Pyott - Allergan
Cyrus Pallonji Mistry - Tata Group
Sir Richard Greenbury - Marks & Spencer
John Bowmer - Adecco

Finally, I know the number of 39000. I myself posted that number a bit earlier. It is substantially less than 50 000. And we also need to remember that LBS has more programs, which translates to more grads. But if you look at INSEAD MBA class size, you will see that it is almost 3 times larger than that of LBS.

Hmm, so, you think that INSEAD's lower salary is explained by employment in Asia and Latin America… let's see
I converted their respective salaries to USD based on today's exchange rate (you can double check)
LBS:
Asia
base salary: mean $100 815 median $100 443 Sign-on bonus: median $20 158, mean $21 460 Year-end bonus: median $18 793, mean $23 127

Latin America
base salary: mean $99 226 median $98 874 Sign-on bonus: median $18 534, mean $23 967 Year-end bonus: median $26 529 mean $46 810

INSEAD:
Asia
base salary: mean $89 780 median $92 596 Sign-on bonus: median $16 570

Latin America
base salary: mean $89 564 median $85 665 Sign-on bonus: median $16 894
(INSEAD did not publish data on mean sign-on bonuses and no data on year-end bonuses)

Take any figure and see that LBS > INSEAD.
You did not understand my point. There are three factors explaining why European schools have lower GMAT score. I am not questioning that. But these factors apply equally to LBS and INSEAD.
My point is: top schools take your largest score on GMAT but not blend different parts from different exams. By this "convenient matching" INSEAD inflates its GMAT score and that is unfair.

rtbs15, your writing style is somehow similar to that of Jansen, especially the final conclusion both of you use - "LBS is a good school but INSEAD is better at everything but finance in London".
My apologies if you are two different guys)))
However, let me for a moment indulge in your style rhetoric:

INSEAD is good, but LBS is far better than INSEAD at literally anything except for consulting in France. In consulting in France, INSEAD may have a tiny edge.

P.S. I am kidding. No hard feelings. However last sentence may give you a hint at how "easy" it is to argue with you.

Hey! That last sentence was just an opinion, it was in no means an argument statement, please re read the whole passage, I put many facts in there, and expressed an opinion in the last sentence. I am entitled to that am I? Sorry if you didn't get it that way.

On the "being one person in two profiles", I am sorry again to disappoint you. I am a Latin American, 28 year old person.

I think that what we can get from both our arguments is that we disagree, escalating this might make it personal, and I just wanted to give you my point of view. Just let me put some things straight.

Well, with all due respect, I have to reiterate words of gcb09173, and say – you cannot just say.

The funny thing is I can! I was just expressing an opinion, and by no means arguing on this. It's an opinion.

On the acceptance rate matter, I think that if you are going to say that a negative statistic is wrong, it's not easy to argue with you at all. Having said this, bear in mind that neither LBS nor INSEAD disclose their application number and acceptance rate. On the INSEAD part, according to your line of thinking it's because the numbers are huge, but on LBS what would their explanation be? Numbers are too good to disclose? We want to let the fact that our numbers are on par with GSB and HBS on stealth mode? Maybe you do have an explanation on that, and yes arguing with me is too easy.

I think you can find a lot of info on the yield number, and that's where INSEAD's number of students who want to go to INSEAD is revealed.

On the alumni, here you have an INSEAD alumni list: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_INSEAD_alumni , again, this is just my opinion, but the list reflects many notable alumni as well.

Compensation: If your explanation on why there are more successful grads in INSEAD than LBS is that most of them go to MBB and then become CEO's, I can easily say the same in this matter. Most LBS graduates go to finance in London and afterwards their country, what's the industry that pays the most? You migh find a hint on compensation there.

On the GMAT, like I said, I agree with you. I haven't found that info disclosed, but if true (I'm sure you might ne right, not doubting) I don't see it wrong, or that it makes the number inflated.

Overall, I think your choice of schools are great, and hope you have a blast on your MBA experience. If you think your line of thinking is better, you are definitely making the right decision on only looking LBS outside the US, and maybe my point of view made you see INSEAD another way, or not. Best of luck.

rtbs15, I get your point.
Let me make some clarifications: of course, you can express your opinion. But what I was trying to say is that you need to substantiate your claims. You can claim whatever you want. But are there hard facts for your claims? That is my point.
There are many rankings that measure different aspects of business schools. Some reflect employers' opinions, some measure GMAT, salary, quality of the faculty, employment etc. etc. If most of the rankings put LBS ahead of INSEAD, isn't it too much to claim that INSEAD - "is stronger than LBS all around, except for Finance"? Even if LBS was stronger not in majority but in some of the aspects, that kind of claim would have been wrong and offensive to your counterparts in the discussion. Even though I think that HBS is stronger in many aspects than other schools I cannot say that HBS is better all around than, say, Ross, or IE etc.
For example, one guy at Poets&Quants, after finding some aspects in which Goizueta Business School are better than INSEAD was claiming that Goizueta far better than INSEAD. He did not even want to listen anything. Is he right? Is his position constructive? - NO.

Anyway, I see that you about to become a student at INSEAD. I wish you to enjoy your time there, while getting high grades. I am positive INSEAD will help in the future.

I think there are hardly any HARD facts on assessing whether X school is better than Y, you take the facts that you think weights the most and make your own: Tradition, Prestige, Alumni, Professors, compensations, etc etc and make your considerations. Even rankings are questionable, look at FT's rankings reviews https://poetsandquants.com/2015/01/25/ha ... t-ranking/ (how a school can drop 16 places in one year, and one go up 15 places? Did they hire the Lebron James of BSchool teachers?).

And I presented facts before I stated my opinion, so I don't agree that my opinion is not substantiated. You made it clear that you don't agree with my rationale, but it was substantiated.

Anyways, I think it's great to have these debates for future applicants. Thanks for the run!

Grad,
Just want to point out one misconception you made on INSEAD GMAT scores. While it is true that on its website it states, that if you have taken the test more than once and you meet the 70-75% criteria in both sections albeit different tests, they may take that as satisfactory given that the lower section does not drop too much. This however does not mean that the avg GMAT score they report is by taking the higher section of each test, this is certainly not true. For the GMAT reporting they take the highest score you achieved and avg GMAT score is 702 whereas 700 at LBS so it's basically the same.