Thank you for sharing with us. I agree with you that Kellogg is obviously better choice, well established, and one of the M7 schools. In regard to Oxford and Cambridge, I believe Oxford has a better brand particularly in finance, the said school is younger than Judge yet it managed to be a top tier even compared with american schools. I think thats largely because of the Oxford name that is very well known in america. I visited Yale SOM last year, and when talking with many people there students, professors, and street people, they associate consider Oxford with Harvard and Yale. I know that is because of the mother university, but the truth is that Brand becoming more and more important in the MBA industry as it been commoditized. However, I would to correct that also cambridge offers the internship opportunity in the summer activity section. Having said all this, I'd really be very careful when choosing which programme to attend, because all the top schools offer fairly the same chance of education and employment, the critical factor is really the "FIT" factor. if the student choose the best programme for him/her regardless the ranking, it will really serve his/her career very well. For me, I got admitted into INSEAD, Cornell AMBA, and IMD, and now will be interviewed by cambridge, I know from ranking prospective, all of them better than cambridge, but I really do believe that Judge is the best fit for me from different aspects, personally (family wise, I could manage this part), and professionally where I work in the energy sector and will continue with it in the future. I also believe that Cambridge as overall university is really better than Oxford, and this will be reflected on the business school. Keep in mind that Cambridge MBA is only 150 or 160 students which is good for some people who want some kind of exclusiveness. With all these facts, I am still in dilemma on which school to attend, witing for the career reports of INSEAD and IMD to see the employment status of the last year..anyone reading this, I'd really appreciate any thought, advise, or ideas..

A few more points:
Last year's class at Cambridge was 150 people and Oxford's was 191, so class sizes do fluctuate from year to year. Additionally, higher quantity does not obviously imply higher quality. In fact, I would argue for the opposite.

I'm also not sure there is such a thing as a "mainstream" one year MBA to compare these programs with. In other words, it's hard to determine which one is more "orthodox". I'm not sure how you arrived at the Said~ Insead equation. Finance, rather than consulting is Said's strength in my opinion and INSEAD is much bigger and more international.

Both Said and Judge offer a chance to do an internship. If you compare their most recent career reports, Judge's superior performance is apparent. WomeMBA - did you consider the fact that Cambridge may have offered you a scholarship (since they have more to offer versus Said)? Or perhaps your company is paying for your MBA?

(Disclaimer: I will matriculate at Cambridge this fall)

Thank you. in regard to Oxford and Cambridge, it is known and almost in all major rankings and publications that Cambridge is stronger than Oxford in particular to pure science and contribution to the modern technical civilization.

A better university is not measured solely by its technical departments. If that were the case Caltech, MIT and ETHZ would be the best universities in the world. Oh well, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. Anyway, good luck in the process!

You seem to be well informed, however, please allow me to disagree with you regarding to Oxford and Cambridge universities. University of Cambridge is better than University of Oxford by most measures. Caltech, MIT, and ETHZ are all great academic institutions, but university of Cambridge has the superiority in advancing the human knowledge throughout the years. It is very difficult for many universities to compete with Cambridge due to its long history and its significant contribution to all fields of science. The most accurate academic ranking nowadays is the chinese one of ARWU, which always put Cambridge ahead of Oxford.

The most accurate due to its idea of origin, this ranking was a result of the project that established by the chinese government through the Shanghai Jiao University to understand and measure the educational systems in the world in order to pick the best practice for china and then the ranking emerged. The main criteria they use is the output of the research, affiliated nobel laureates, the impact (scientifically, socially, and economically) on a certain field. Although one of the critics of this ranking is that it somewhat ignore the teaching and focus on the research, yet, it is fairly far from the bias that may occur in the other rankings. It is produced by a public university and there is no commercial activity involved.
another point, many major "breakthrough" discoveries in modern science were done by people affiliated with cambridge; isaac newton, charles darwin, maxwell, and many more. Officially, the university of cambridge holds the world's record of Nobel laureates. I just want to address very important point, this forum is about MBAs which is a professional taught degree and then students should not get confused between the strength of a university and its MBA, for example John Hopkins as a university is far better than say Emory or Georgetown yet its MBA is even not considered to ranked! similar logic applied for engineering at Harvard compared to say Purdue or UIUC.

I agree 100%. My intention, although it probably didn't seem like that, was to express that it doesn't make sense to say Canon is better than Nikon, just because CNET said so.

Debate is good as long as the eyes are open, the mind is open .

... the moment emotion or ego takes over
... the moment the winning spirits takes over
... the moment one-man-upships takes over

This is getting too far away from the spirit of this thread. I'm out.

anyone got any news?