- Headline
- USC MFE Feedback
- Class of
- 2024
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.
- Recommend
- No, I would not recommend this program
- Students Quality
-
3.00 star(s)
- Courses/Instructors
-
2.00 star(s)
- Career Services
-
1.00 star(s)