Both work. The question is sequencing, and the honest answer is that for most people, two to three years of work experience before a UK master's produces a better outcome - with clear exceptions.
The case for working first
You will get more from the course. Management, finance and business subjects assume organisational context. Students with experience contribute more, understand the cases, and take more away.
You will be more employable afterwards. A master's plus three years of experience is a far stronger position in the UK market than a master's straight after a bachelor's. Employers hire the experience and the qualification together.
You will fund it better. Savings reduce the loan burden substantially.
You will choose better. Two years of work usually clarifies what you actually want to specialise in.
The case for going straight away
Academic momentum. Study habits are intact, and returning after a long gap is genuinely harder.
Life logistics. Fewer commitments at 22 than at 30 - relocation is simpler.
Career-stage fit. Some fields - academia, research, certain technical specialisms - want continuous progression.
Course eligibility. Some graduate schemes have graduation-date windows that close.
What tips it either way
- If your target role in the UK requires experience you do not have, work first.
- If your target role is entry-level and recruits from graduate schemes, going sooner may fit the cycle better.
- If you cannot fund it now, work first - taking on avoidable debt for an uncertain outcome is the worst version of this decision.
The option in the middle
Work in India in a UK-facing role - a global capability centre, a UK client account, a multinational. You gain relevant experience and international exposure while saving, which strengthens both the application and the outcome. See why are some UK companies only hiring in India now.
Next step
If you need to bridge to UK degree entry first, explore the Level 3 Diploma in Business and Management, or contact admissions to plan the sequence.