Which of the above mentioned programs is the better one, concerning reputation and accreditation? A friend of mine who is currently working in the UK asked his personell head to give a statement about the quality of the programs. The head didn't know anything about the Heriot-Watt MBA. Thanks for your help!!
Took a trip to Google, but turns out it's The Open University Business School. For just a tiny second, I thought it might be Oxford University Business School.
I guess this is the most frequently asked question in the forum. But it better starts by asking yourself a few questions: 1) What do you want to learn from the programme? 2) How much you are willing to spend? 3) What do you know and expect from each of these schools? Whether it's better than the other is entirely subject to the person. A Harvard MBA may be not good if it could make you into financial troubles or make you quit your job which may have very good prospect.
IMHO, HR people are usually the worse people to ask about "quality of programs." That being said since I graduated from Heriot-Watt, I can tell you it is a high quality program. Open University seems to be very good too. They make a very good MBA Study Guide that I've used with my Heriot-Watt courses. (They give pointers on how to study, how to answer case study and essay questions, ect.) I think either one will suit your needs.
In case European accreditation is important... OUBS has both AMBA as well as EQUIS accreditation. I am not sure about Heriot-Watt.
I would favour the HW-MBA because of the broad variety of fianancial electives. My concern is that the HW-program isn't accreditated by one of the major agencies, and I don't know how the program is rated by the employers. Thanks for advice!
I have not joined this thread because it was about the merits of HWU v OUBS, which is really an matter of opinions. People undertake study for a variety of reasons and those that suit some people's circumstances would lead them to OUBS but would not suit other people's circumstances, which would lead them to HWU. However, the issue of accreditation has been raised and on this board that could create false impressions, though DAW is careful to discriminate between official accreditation (in the UK by Royal Charter awarded by the government) and unofficial 'accreditation' awarde by self-appointed 'accrediting' bodies with no official standing and which can be regarded as 'closed' marketing agencies acting on behalf of their private members. EBS/HWU has not applied to be 'accredited' by any of the competing agencies and is happy to rely on its Royal Charter status, without which no organisation in the UK can award British university degrees. Our case against 'accreditation' by such as 'AMBA' is that it has pursued a campaign since the 1970s in favour of an unresearched pedagogy and acted as a retarding influence on management education. Broadly, it defines the quality of a management degree by its inputs and not its outputs. In the 1970-80s it defined quality by fulltime campus taught inputs only and did not ecognise part-time campus taught inputs; in the 1980s it relented and admitted part-time MBA courses into membership; in the later 1980s it rejected 'distance learning (or rather what is now known as 'distance teaching' or 'DT') as eligible for recognition, thus depriving thousands of DT taught MBAs of recognition for the quality of their performances (a wholly reactionary stance). In the event, the spread of DT MBAs among its own members forcved it to relent again and a restricted definition of allowable DT was adopted, allowing it to accept DT MBA programmes. This allowed the OUBS into the fold. The EBS MBA at Heriot-Watt University remained outside the fold, even though its DL MBA was of a far higher academic standard than many campus fultime, part-time, and DT MBAs among AMBA's members in the fold. Performance is measured by the quality of the output, in our view, and not by prior qualifications. If the exam regime is tough but fair, then that should be the sole criterion under which we decide whether a person with a MBA from such and such a School is of the attested standard. Several AMBA schools have soft exam procedures: continuous assessment, which in DT and DL is vulnerable to fraud; choice of questions, which allows candidates to study the application of management concepts to a shallower level; projects, written off campus and out of sight, which allows candidates who pass the soft exams to underperform in (they don't need the marks) and poor candidates the excel in, assuming they wrote them, or graders to grade lightly, to pass through weak candidates to maintain a high completion rate, with zero or near zero failure rates (a criterion used in many so-called 'ranking' tables). Other devices to boost marks, include degrees of 'class participation (a wholly subjective and unmonitored practice) and even 'attendance in class' (as if attending a class determines the quality of post-class performance). Needless, to say none of these practices are prevalent at EBS/HWU. For these reasons EBS has not applied to join the AMBA club - we do not believe several of its 'members' should be in any club claiming to be a badge of quality (some have no exams at all!). In my considered opinion, after 32 years in academic work in several British Universities, a MBA from OUBS will be an excellent experience, as would a MBA from EBS.
Hi, Here's my logic of thought in this issue: How many of employers really care or would really do the checking on whether your MBA is accredited by any of the agencies? or go a bit even further... do they know any of the accredition agencies? and how much they understand from this? I'm afraid there may not be one out of 1000 who would have much detailed understanding on this issue like Prof Kennedy. Employers care about the quality of the degree you have, but not exactly how well it is accredited by which agency. The name of the school already constitute much of the 'quality' to many people's view.
What is the rank/reputation of the HWU and EBS in the UK? I really favour this program but I have no experiences with the UK-Universities and their reputation (I'm from Germany). I would like to join a good MBA-program with interesting electives. thanks for advice!!
See private message DAW I have sent you private message as I do not think it appropriate to give an opinion about my own institution on the public segment of this board. Clck on the private messages (PM) box at the bottom of the screen when you return to your page on the board. I have made a suggestion where you can ask your question from existing students of EBS/Heriot-Watt on their independent web site. Good hunting
Either OUBS or HW are respectable and well-known (I'm astonished an HR person in the UK wouldn't have knowledge of both); however, from what I've been able to glean, there are a number of DL alternatives better than either of the above: Henley Management College University of London-Imperial College (and possibly, Royal Holloway) Aston Manchester Warwick Check out "The Economist" "Which MBA" for world rankings. No offense to Professor Kennedy, yours is a school rightfully well-regarded, but I'm sure you'd admit there may be some more esteemed schools in terms of perception within the UK, just as I readily admit that the small university at which I teach is likely not the best within a 10 mile radius!
"but I'm sure you'd admit there may be some more esteemed schools in terms of perception within the UK" I shall confine my remarks to the value of 'esteem' as indicated by 'rankings'. The ranking system is a product of newspaper journalism. It is not scientific, nor researched. It is a feature motivated by what sells newspapers and almost always collected from data provided by the Schools being 'ranked'. Mostly, the criteria deciding the categories that are 'ranked' are heavily biased to campus-based full and part-time MBA programmes, with elements of Distance Teaching (DT) taken as an add on. Campus teaching and Distance Learning are different means of delivery and require different learning strategies. Those Schools that practice (all those you list for comparison, and most others) incorporate campus criteria which contribute to their 'rankings'. For example, selection by prior qualification, either at Bachelor Degree level or by GMAT (though neither are good predictors of performance). These prior qualifications serve another purpose, namely the rationing of applicants to a fixed number of places. DL is scalable because there is no need for rationing, hence it does not require prior qualification - reliance on a tough but fair DL exam regime eliminates those without the ability, or the motivation, to complete the course - yet the absence of unresearched entry selection counts against a DL programme in a 'ranking' even thouigh it has limited impact, if any, on the quality of the output of the MBA degree. A School that takes in both non-prior qualified students and qualified by first degree, or other post-grad degree, students does not score well in rankings, even though there is statistical evidence (covering tens of thousands of DL MBA exam candidates across 140 countries) of the highest probity and quality to show that if a non-prior unqualified DL MBA student passes three of the nine MBA courses he or she will likely pass the MBA, though about half fail and leave the programme after 1 or 2 courses. The other half of the 25 per cent that fail their DL MBA exams are prior qualified (first, degree, MSC or PHD + GMAT), which is the basis of my statement. Hence, it comes down to the DL course materials, print and on-line and the rigour of the exam regime. Many campus and DT Schools submit zero or near zero completion scores used in the 'rankings'. Partly, this reflects excellence in their provision, which I often praise, but it also reflects some shady practices to maintain or improve their 'rankings'. For example, and briefly, the use of 'continuous assessment' and off campus and out of sight assigments, which are open to fraud; to unproctored exams and exams proctored by the School faculty; to choice of questions which require a shallower study of the subject materials; and to off campus and out of sight 'projects', used both to impress 'rankers' and to 'adjust' failing grades in the written exams or as nominal exercises for high passing grades. A DL School without off campus continuous assessment or project suffers in the rankings, even thought its exam regime is among the toughest in the all 2.500 MBA programes across the world. I could elaborate on these and other features that help create the impression, for marketing purposes, of the 'ranked' quality of many MBA programmes. Schools with grade inflation, low claimed failing and non-completion rates, may not be as quality assured as they are perceived to be. My concern here is mainly about the integrity of the Distance Learning mode of provision, which already carries a heavy public prejudice against it. That so many DT Schoolss have adopted the doubtful practices alluded to above of many campus schools is disappointing. I hope that members of this Board, which aims among other things, to promote the quality merits of DL degrees would take the time out to research these issues and not just accept 'perceived quality' from newspaper 'rankings' to cast doubts on those DL Schools that stand up for quality programmes and the probity of their attestation of fitness of candidates in the courses they take. While the trend towards softer assessments predominates in campus and DT Schools is to make it easier to pass, a few DL Schools continue to make it harder and they maintain their high quality standards. Incidentally, the percentage of Distinctions in such DL MBA School remains steady and you could not tell from their results if the students concerned were prio-non qualified or qualified. Those that pass tough but fair exam regimes appreciate what they have achieved - so do their employers and the colleagues with whom they work.
Dr Kennedy: I don't disagree with a word you wrote, but as you seem to have acknowledged, I limited my comments to perceptions about programs--fair or unfair, how a program is regarded in the marketplace has a measurable effect upon the success of graduates. To wit, I could start an MBA program out of my office, employ the most stringent regimen of examinations in the world, and those students who ran the gauntlet might be amongst the most qualified in the world--but they would still be at a severe disadvantage when competing in the job market with "Mike's MBA" on their resumes vis-a-vis Oxbridge, LBS, Harvard, Wharton, even if the latter schools used the questionable evaluation techniques you mentioned and I did not. It's unfortunately a world where perception often rules the day--ask anyone in marketing.
Hi mrw142 "It's unfortunately a world where perception often rules the day--ask anyone in marketing." Why stop at 'marketing'? We could add in 'politics', and 'prejudice' and 'sporting teams' and 'chauvinism' and just about any other set of unresearched beliefs and ideas. And I agree with your assessment. However, this is a board to which well qualified, and soon to be qualified, graduates and faculty contribute, not just passing readers of newspapers, magazines and tv couch potatoes (though that does not exclude some overlaps in a few cases!). I expect those of us so qualified to go a bit deeper into the issues. By the way, the core Marketing course at EBS was written by senior faculty from a top US School and the top UK School, LBS. Most of the Electives in Marketing come from faculty in the US. I am well aware of the themes you mentioned. The Schools that you did mention did not include 'Oxbridge, LBS, Harvard and Wharton', which are outstanding in their own right on their campus MBA programmes and graduates from them have a clear advantage in the job markets they apply themselves to. This is not such a clear cut decision in the Distance Teaching MBA courses you did mention: Henley Management College, University of London-Imperial College (and possibly, Royal Holloway), Aston, Manchester and Warwick, though they are all good Schools and their campus MBAs are very good too. For reasons I have explained I am not so sure your 'marketing' analogy is anywhere near as strong when comparing their DT output with DL. If you can get to the Harvard, LBS, Oxbridge and Wharton, do so. If you cannot for reasons of circumstances and not your abilities, be a little bit more selective. It is that section of the DL MBA market I am interested in - and 'market' to - with a heavy prejudice in favour of telling the truth and not blurring it around the edge by false assertions using dubious 'quality by association' messages and relying on the 'less than wonderful' perceptions of the relative ignorance of otherwise intelligent customers. I am grateful for your views and respect the intentions of your contribution.
You dismayingly omit the Keyboard Kommandos (us). A real outcome-based assessment of a school's degree utility would be the success of its students in the real world. Don't know if any such assessment has been made or could be made.
Prof Kennedy You're quite right, this is a sophisticated forum; however, the same cannot be said for all hiring managers, committees, human resource personnel, et. al.--and therein lies the problem. Anyway, I appreciate your contributions as well, hope to have more interchanges in the future.
