New York University - MS in Mathematics in Finance

I chose NYU’s MSFM program over Columbia’s MAFN, now I feel some regret

I come from a math and econ background, I had prepared myself thoroughly before entering the program, stochastic calculus, machine learning, regression analysis, statistics, programming, CTA trading internship(okay cap), qr trading internship(not big names),

For me, the coursework itself is not inherently difficult, but it is extremely time-consuming. Weekly assignments and quizzes dominate the schedule, and in one course, it allocates two-thirds of the grade to weekly quizzes. That structure forces students to devote upwards of around 12 hours a week to just one class. And all the lectures are scheduled after 5pm and the latest one is ending at 10:25pm. Easily forty hours locked into classwork each week if you really want to comprehend the courses. This leaves little space for the most essential component of a professional program, preparing for recruiting, I believe to land a job in quant finance is a common goal for most of the cohorts, same as one of the main purpose of the program, but it’s not.

Career services: never used them, excepts the talk given by some companies, shout out to Ariane.

Updates on application: despite the program’s small class size, only a handful of students even received interview invitations from sell-side banks, and almost all were rejected by buy-side firms. The majority of students failed to make it past résumé screening. This raises a serious question: are résumés being carefully reviewed with input from actual industry practitioners? Or, NYU Courant MSFM has become a history after Peter Carr? From what I witnessed, I have serious doubts.

As for the Director, I never personally saw him in person throughout my time in the program.

My impression of the courses themselves is mixed. Stochastic Calculus was excellent—coherent, rigorous, and enriched by the lecturer’s valuable industry insight. Machine Learning was also very strong. Computing in Finance, views vary. Demanding for those coming from little programming backgrounds, was ultimately fair; the professor was strict but responsible, with quizzes that, while heavy, were clearly designed to uphold the program’s reputation, the lecturer knows exactly what the industry needs. Risk and Portfolio Management: my least favorite course, most of my friends find it fine tho. It attempted to cover a range of topics, from risk measures to fixed income to equity models and etc. To truly master the material, a student would have to dedicate an enormous number of extra hours. Financial Securities and Markets was fine.

What makes this workload particularly frustrating is the comparison with peer programs. I have friends at Columbia, CMU, and UChicago, and they all report lighter workloads except CMU’s. Their programs give students more time to focus on recruiting, some of them provides more resources which is precisely what translates into stronger placement outcomes. By contrast, the MSFM curriculum consumes so much energy that a big part of the students often cannot balance their studies with the interview process, which results in they can do neither well.

Me personally need a lot of time to refine my cv, doing leetcode, greenbook, more stats skills and each of them are time consuming.

I do not see myself as a victim, and as Charlie Munger once said, I do not complain but simply do the work. Still, it is important to acknowledge what is missing here. The program is somehow academically solid, but it is not aligned with the actual needs of students who are seeking quant finance roles. It consumes their energy without adequately supporting their career ambitions.

Don’t forget Courant is famous in strong mathematics, I’ve you have strong mathematics and are considering a phd, this place might suit you well, or why not just do your phd after undergrad? For those who wishes to land onto quant finance role while not exposed well enough to the recruiting process in the undergrad, well you have to work really hard, regardless of which program you choose.

The rise and fall of a program’s reputation cannot be explained by a single factor. However, I believe the role of the director is vital in every aspect. I did see the directors from other prestigious programs are making a scene in building stronger connection with the industry.

I admire those who works hard as hell, I respect that. I just presume there could have been a more efficient way for this program to achieve the students’ goals in career-wise, meanwhile improving this program’s reputation. Application office can be more strict in selecting the candidates . And also, all I care about is a job, that’s the place to learn actually insights. I’m not the smartest person ofc, but I’m persistent, it’s still frustrating to see your got rejected just because of the name of your programs.

I mean there's no program can guarantee your success in landing a job, you have to work hard and hard and hard whereveryou are. But it would be good if there's someone giving a assistance and guidence to save your time, that's the main purpose of my ideal program.

I left two stars rather than one due to the great efforts from the lecturers, Ariane, and Nancy.