Latest reviews

Faculty and colleagues are second to none. Period. Solid and rigorous mathematics. Not for the timid. Students from all over the globe. Visiting professors are top-flight. Albert Shiryaev told stories of Kolmogorov. Derman, Karatzas, Protter, Smirnov, etc. are outstanding. You may also take electives from the graduate business school and the engineering school. Tough and rewarding time in my life.

The course material is well-structured and Prof. Duffy is able to deliver them well and combines with his own experience.
The TAs are really helpful and provide feedback fast.
The general timeline is good and the workload is just right.
This course really equips me with basic concepts and fundamentals of C++ programming.

CMU's MSCF program is special, and not just for its rigorous academics and industry relevance, but for the community it fosters. The alumni network is incredibly supportive and engaged, opening doors and offering guidance long after graduation. The faculty genuinely care—not just about your grades or whether you land a job, but about you as a person. Their support feels personal, not transactional. The student body is collaborative, and filled with people who are experts in all kinds of areas. No matter what you want to learn, you’ll always find someone willing to share their knowledge.

I entered the MSCF program with a background in Math and Computer Science, but an unsteady foundation in Finance. During an interview with a top-tier asset management firm, I successfully answered over 10 complex fixed income questions — and in that moment, I realized just how instrumental the Fixed Income course from my first semester had been. At the end of the interview, the interviewer said, "I’ve worked with many professionals from the MSCF program — they’re all excellent, which is why I chose to interview you." That was when it truly hit me: the reputation of a program can open doors and create opportunities you wouldn’t get otherwise.

One of the qualities that sets MSCF apart is the unwavering support from its staff. They are deeply committed to guiding students toward becoming top-tier quants and go above and beyond to help us land strong roles in the industry. MSCF also creates countless networking opportunities — whether it's conversations with alumni or events featuring leaders like the Head of Factor Investing at Point72.

Another standout resource is the MSCF Resume Book. It connects students with exclusive job opportunities. Both my classmates and I were contacted through it, and many of us converted those connections into actual offers.

If your primary goal is to break into Quant Finance, Data Science, or Software Engineering, I truly believe MSCF is one of the best choices you can make.

I'm a class of 2026. Attending this program is one of the best decisions i made. MSCF is one of the best programs out there with very high quality teaching resources, career service, and acadmic environment. It also offers location flexibility to be in Pittsburg or New York City, which none of the other programs can do.

Its courses range from mathematics, statistics, machine learning, and programming (python and C++). Faculty at CMU are amazing at teaching with outstanding track record. Students come from all around the world, with some of the best students I have seen in my life, exemplifying the admission competitiveness of the program. Highly recommend to people looking for opportunities in the quant finance space.

The coursework is overwhelming, and the professors just read off the slides. What you learn is completely different from what you're actually asked in job interviews. Even the professor in charge of career development admits that you won’t learn anything useful from his class. The heavy workload and assignments take away time you need for job hunting.

The curriculum is completely disconnected from reality — they’re still using slides and assignments from 2016, even in 2025. The school has no resources that can actually help you. I've even encountered people in networking who changed their attitude after hearing about my school.
It’s absolutely not worth paying such high tuition just to waste your time here.

Also, all the positive reviews are solicited — students are asked to leave good reviews on QuantNet.

A very simple question: if all those extra 5-star reviews are real, then why did this school rank lower on QuantNet compared to last year?

BUSINESS IS BUSINESS

I am currently in my second semester, and I have had a great experience with the MAFN program, starting from the admission process all the way through to career support. I have met amazing people - faculty, staff, and fellow students, who have inspired me to push my boundaries. Many instructors are adjunct professors who also serve as managing directors at hedge funds, banks, etc, so they bring real-world expertise directly into the classroom. In terms of academics, I agree with a previous review here - you truly get back what you put in, and staying motivated and engaged opens up plenty of opportunities.

Career services is highly proactive, beginning in the summer before the official start of the program. They offer early resume reviews, host networking events on campus and at company offices, and connect us with alumni working in the industry. Professors remain approachable and supportive, and our new director, Professor Choi, is extremely receptive to feedback.

Most of the students join the program directly after their undergraduate studies, but there are some who do have previous full-time work experience. I came into the program with a few years of relevant work experience, which helped strengthen my application despite a low GPA. I have had my fair share of summer internship interviews and full-time interviews (yes, you can graduate in one year). If you have work experience (especially in tech or financial markets), I strongly recommend this program for its flexibility, robust curriculum, and solid career outcomes. Columbia’s location and brand value also provide an incredible platform for achieving professional goals.

I’ve really enjoyed my time in the Columbia MAFN program so far. The coursework is definitely challenging, but it’s also practical and closely tied to what’s happening in the industry. One of the highlights for me has been the mentorship program — it’s been such a great way to connect with professionals already working in the field. My mentor has given me so many hands-on suggestions, from navigating job interviews to approaching real-world projects, and it’s made a huge difference in how I think about my career path. Another thing I appreciate is how flexible the electives are — we get to choose from a wide range of topics like C++, machine learning/deep learning, and algorithmic trading, which really allows us to tailor the program to our interests and goals.

The Financial Engineering program at USC looks solid on paper but falls short in execution. While it is housed in the Electrical Engineering department, the teaching quality does not match the standards of a strong quantitative finance program.

A major issue is the misalignment of required courses. For example, Corporate Finance, a business school course, is mandatory despite having limited relevance to Financial Engineering students. Meanwhile, essential topics like Stochastic Processes, which are crucial for quant finance, are not emphasized enough. The Financial Engineering course, which references Hull, is poorly structured. While the professor is knowledgeable, lectures primarily involve reading off slides, making the learning experience passive. Similarly, Mathematics and Tools for Financial Engineering, an important foundational course, crams multiple financial concepts into a single book and rushes through them in just a few lectures—topics that other programs cover over an entire semester.

Probability is a strong course, particularly under Professor Kosko or his students, but it leans heavily on electrical engineering examples, making it difficult to relate to finance. This issue extends across the program, where many courses lack a finance-oriented approach, weakening their effectiveness in preparing students for real-world roles.

After two semesters, many students—especially those without a strong mathematical background—find themselves unprepared for quant roles. The curriculum is intense, with heavy workloads of homework, closed-book exams, and weekly tests, leaving little time for self-study or preparation for quant job interviews. As a result, securing quant internships is extremely rare through this program alone. The Finance and Business Economics (FBE) courses also lack a quant focus. More relevant electives, such as Quantitative Investing and Financial Analytics, require special clearance, meaning many students don’t gain proper exposure to quantitative finance until late in the program, while students in other MFE programs spend multiple semesters building these skills.

The program also suffers from a disconnect with the finance industry. Many professors lack practical industry experience, and coursework examples are often unrelated to financial markets. This lack of industry relevance makes it difficult for students to develop the applied skills necessary for quant careers. Additionally, very few companies actively recruit from USC’s MFE program. Some recruiters are even unaware that USC offers a Financial Engineering degree, which speaks to its low visibility in the job market. By contrast, programs like Baruch’s MFE provide Pre-MFE courses, including solid C++ training via QuantNet, that are more advanced than the graduate-level coursework at USC.

Another major issue is the lack of leadership and program support. The program director, whose background is in electrical engineering and autonomous systems, does not specialize in quantitative finance. His stance that “students must find their own jobs” is understandable, but the program itself does little to equip students with the necessary skills to secure even entry-level quant roles. Furthermore, a significant portion of the class consists of Progressive Degree Program (PDP) students, who take the MFE for free after undergrad and often show less commitment to the field, lowering the program’s overall rigor.

Compared to competing programs like UCLA, Baruch, and even NCSU, USC’s MFE falls behind in curriculum strength and industry connections. Given the high tuition costs, students expect a structured program that delivers real career value. To improve, USC needs to take responsibility for restructuring the curriculum, integrating more industry-relevant coursework, and strengthening career support for quant roles. Without these changes, the program will continue to lag behind its peers in preparing students for the demands of the field.

I found the course through the Baruch MFE program. The course helped me to understand the concepts of OOP and generic programming quite smoothly, especially through the exercises, which are extremely well designed. Before the course I had little programming experience and was especially afraid of OOP, but now it seems like an easy concept.

If you're considering the UC Berkeley MFE programme, ask yourself this: are you prepared to spend a fortune and 12 months of your life navigating chaos, incompetence, and institutional gaslighting? Because that's what you're signing up for.

Let’s not sugarcoat this—the programme is a mess, top to bottom. During my time here, we had three executive directors in under a year. For half that time, there wasn’t even anyone leading career services. It felt like no one knew—or cared—what was going on. Students were left scrambling for jobs while the leadership played musical chairs and patted themselves on the back for “long-term vision.”

And let’s talk about cheating—because the programme certainly won’t. It’s everywhere. Students share answers, submit work they didn’t do, and openly collude on take-home exams. No one stops it. Why would they? The system practically rewards it. The administration turns a blind eye.

The career services “function” is a joke. For months, there was no one running it. When they finally hired someone, they somehow found the least qualified person imaginable.

The students are smart. But many are out for blood.It’s a shark tank—and not the fun kind. There’s no sense of community. No shared ambition. It’s survival of the sneakiest, and if you stumble, you’re on your own. Don't expect help, empathy, or even basic decency from some of your classmates.

This programme is living off an outdated reputation and the UC Berkeley name. It is broken at its core—academically, administratively, and culturally. You will not be supported. You will not be protected. You will not be told the truth.

I came into the Berkeley MFE programme expecting world-class instruction, strong career support, and a collaborative student environment. Unfortunately, what I found was a disorganised, poorly managed, and at times, downright demoralising experience.

Let’s start with leadership. In just one year, the programme cycled through THREE executive directors. For six months, there wasn’t even a career services director—an unbelievable failure for a programme that advertises career outcomes as one of its main strengths. During this time, students were left completely unsupported at a crucial stage of their job search.

To make matters worse, the programme office, led by Diane, made life difficult for students whose ambitions didn’t align with the office’s narrow view of acceptable career paths. I’ve never seen an administrator act so openly against student interests. Rather than supporting students in their goals, Diane and her team seemed to actively discourage independence, even when students were working hard to secure top-tier roles on their own.

Academics: Promising but Poorly Executed

The coursework itself is interesting, and some professors are genuinely excellent. The problem lies in the delivery. Cramming such dense material into eight-week modules makes real learning incredibly difficult. There's barely time to absorb the basics before you're thrown into exams or rushed group projects.

Even more concerning is the culture around academic integrity. Cheating is widespread—and worse, tolerated. The system unintentionally encourages students to game assignments and collaborate unethically. There’s no incentive to learn properly when it’s so much easier—and more effective—to cut corners. Linda, who is supposed to uphold academic standards, seems largely indifferent.

Career Services: A Stunning Letdown

To describe the current state of career services as "non-existent" would be to offer an unearned compliment. Career support, at present, is a disaster. Several students who landed roles at leading hedge funds or quant firms did so entirely on their own. In some cases, the MFE office actually stood in the way. When Ann Marie was finally hired to lead career services, many hoped things would improve. They didn’t. She lacked even basic knowledge of the finance world—unable to distinguish between banks and hedge funds, unfamiliar with firms like BNP Paribas, and utterly unaware of what quantitative roles entail. She encouraged students to apply to unrelated start-ups in San Francisco, which felt like a complete misunderstanding of our goals.

The new programme director, Dr. Ananth Madhavan, appears more enamoured with abstract curricular reform than with the immediate and pressing needs of job-seeking students. His “long-term vision” may bear fruit someday, but it offers little comfort to the current cohort staring down fast-approaching graduation dates.

To her credit, Linda has an uncanny knack for securing placements—but only for those lucky enough to fall within her circle of favour. If you’re considering this programme, take note: success may depend less on merit and more on the quality of your flattery.

And let me be clear: the placement numbers the programme advertises are heavily manipulated, if not blatantly false. They are designed to impress prospective students and recruiters, not to reflect the truth.

Cohort and Culture: Competitive to a Fault

The cohort is undeniably smart. But the culture is cutthroat. Students don’t share resources, don’t help each other, and in some cases, actively withhold information to gain an edge. One student, for example, accepted a job in January but kept his résumé in circulation, gathering ten offers—each one taking away an opportunity from someone else. It’s every man (or woman) for themselves, and if you're expecting a collaborative or supportive group of peers, you're in for a rude awakening.

Final Verdict

Unless you have absolutely no better option, I would not recommend the UC Berkeley MFE. You’ll likely leave the programme frustrated, possibly underprepared, and without meaningful support in your job search. The teaching has potential, but is rushed. The career services are dysfunctional. The office politics are exhausting. And the community is anything but supportive.

If you're serious about a future in quantitative finance or asset management, I would strongly advise looking at other top programmes—Princeton, CMU, Columbia, or Chicago all offer better structure, fairer environments, and more reliable career support. Berkeley may have the brand, but right now, the programme is not living up to it.

I had a really good experience throughout the entire course. I came in with zero formal training in programming, and now I feel that I have a good understanding. The course forum was very valuable, as well as the TA's feedback. I definitely recommend this course for those looking to learn C++ with a focus on Financial Engineering applications.

I took this course in preparation for applying to Financial Engineering programs, and found it directly through QuantNet.

The MS in Financial Engineering program at Lehigh University is a rigorous and well-structured program that effectively combines finance, mathematics, and computational methods to prepare students for careers in quantitative finance, risk management, and financial technology. With a comprehensive curriculum covering stochastic processes, derivatives pricing, machine learning, and fixed income, the program ensures a strong theoretical and practical foundation. Lehigh’s renowned faculty, industry connections, career support services and practical projects provide students with valuable insights, networking opportunities, and strong job prospects. The state-of-the-art computational resources and collaborative learning environment further enhance the academic experience. The program Manager also support students in their job search. Given its academic excellence, industry relevance, and career preparation, I highly recommend Lehigh’s MSFE program to anyone seeking a successful career in quantitative finance.

The course proved important to get a solid understanding of the basics of C/C++. It was easy to follow with logical structure and exercises that helped you to understand the content well. The support throughout the course was excellent, always responding in a timely manner.

Lehighs MFE program is a great way to both grow your quant finance skills and connect with professionals for career opportunities.

The program is designed to educate as well as get a hands-on experience through diversified projects. Excellent courses that challenge you and projects that force you to rise. The professors help out a lot and there are numerous opportunities for networking.

The classes were very rigorous is you decide to take the good ones, especially from ISyE. There are some legendary professors in that department(Obviously as ISyE is always ranked #1). As someone with prior hedge fund experience I had a clear idea of what gaps I had, Gatech courses helped me to fill those gaps.
The scheller business courses were not really useful. At least to me. But some courses were fun as the students are much more diverse than a typical ISyE class.
Also a big shoutout to career services. Helped me stay on top of my game.