2009 Quantnet Ranking of Financial Engineering (MFE), Quantitative Finance Programs

[dstefan]

Without discussing the ranking criteria, your system seems fundamentally flawed.

First of all, the search for NYU-Poly is different than all the other ones. It should contain in quotes the name of the program, not of the department. A search for NYU Polytechnic Institute "Financial Engineering" returns 4,330 results, not the 122,000 listed.

Also, the numbers seem to be inaccurate: a search for Stanford University "Financial Mathematics" returned 10,500 results instead of the 41,600 claimed above. The same happens with other searches as well.

The system of counting search results is wildly unstable and greatly depends on the keywords being searched for. Searching for NYU "Mathematics in Finance" returns 623,000 results, not the 95,400 listed below.

 

[GusTsahas]

Prof. Maymin's logic is flawed but getting Nicholas Taleb on their faculty was a home run. Too bad Baruch has a few economist walking around at the business school as I am sure Taleb would have liked working with the faculty and students of our FE department.

 

[DanM]

University of Toronto at the bottom? Is not John Hull teaches over there?

He doesn't teach in the program. He teaches a derivatives course to business students.

 

[PZM]

Without discussing the ranking criteria, your system seems fundamentally flawed.

First of all, the search for NYU-Poly is different than all the other ones. It should contain in quotes the name of the program, not of the department. A search for NYU Polytechnic Institute "Financial Engineering" returns 4,330 results, not the 122,000 listed.

I think the department is more important, to gauge research and other impact. For example, if I write an article for a financial newspaper, I am referred to as part of the NYU-Poly Finance and Risk Engineering department. I thought I had done them all consistently. Of course I'm not familiar with all of the other programs or departments, so I just used what was listed from the quantnet rankings. Obviously it is easy enough to google anything else, and straightforward enough to start comparing research downloads and other metrics.

Also, the numbers seem to be inaccurate: a search for Stanford University "Financial Mathematics" returned 10,500 results instead of the 41,600 claimed above. The same happens with other searches as well.

This is a common thing with Google, especially if you have personalization settings on, or cookies, or other things. Try rebooting, running a fresh copy of Google Chrome, and searching there. I've found that tends to get the best results. But of course the number does change over time.

The system of counting search results is wildly unstable and greatly depends on the keywords being searched for. Searching for NYU "Mathematics in Finance" returns 623,000 results, not the 95,400 listed below.

Of course it depends on the keywords.

This was intended to at least provide some numbers for all programs, rather than just ones that have been bookmarked on a particular website.

Google's hit counts can change, but they are indicative only. Other numbers, such as total downloads of research and other factors, are better proxies, but harder to compute for programs that don't even participate in e.g. SSRN.com.

Bottom line: One way to interpret my original comment below is that there are at least 6-7 or more ways to rank programs and departments, and we just about always come out on top, even on something as trivial and as easy to check as Google hits. In other words, one way to judge a ranking of FE programs is to ask the simplest question: does it at least include NYU-Poly FRE, the largest program, second oldest, first certified by IAFE, most research impact, etc., etc.

 

[Stefan Zota]

I think the department is more important, to gauge research and other impact. For example, if I write an article for a financial newspaper, I am referred to as part of the NYU-Poly Finance and Risk Engineering department. I thought I had done them all consistently. Of course I'm not familiar with all of the other programs or departments, so I just used what was listed from the quantnet rankings. Obviously it is easy enough to google anything else, and straightforward enough to start comparing research downloads and other metrics.

Research is a decisive factor for a PhD. That is purely academical, the goal is to find a research area as quickly as possible and work with top names in that area.
MFE is a professional degree, the end goal is to find the "best" job possible. This means teaching and practical side are much more important.

These two directions are different, they can even be complementary. Some professors want to focus only on research, or they don't have very good teaching skills, or they don't spend a lot of energy in class.
In the end, the pinnacle of MFE is the performance in job interviews. No research or name of your professor can help you with technical questions.

This is a common thing with Google, especially if you have personalization settings on, or cookies, or other things. Try rebooting, running a fresh copy of Google Chrome, and searching there. I've found that tends to get the best results. But of course the number does change over time.
Of course it depends on the keywords.
This was intended to at least provide some numbers for all programs, rather than just ones that have been bookmarked on a particular website.

Google's hit counts can change, but they are indicative only. Other numbers, such as total downloads of research and other factors, are better proxies, but harder to compute for programs that don't even participate in e.g. SSRN.com.

Your acknowledgment for "instability" of google hits dismisses the metric. If you can get different results now vs an hour from now, then how can you publish a total?
By the way, there is no need to reboot to clear up long-term cookies.

To sum up, it makes sense to have rankings on criteria like research volume. The question if they are relevant for the applicants.

 

[PZM]

Research is a decisive factor for a PhD. That is purely academical, the goal is to find a research area as quickly as possible and work with top names in that area.
MFE is a professional degree, the end goal is to find the "best" job possible. This means teaching and practical side are much more important.

These two directions are different, they can even be complementary. Some professors want to focus only on research, or they don't have very good teaching skills, or they don't spend a lot of energy in class.
In the end, the pinnacle of MFE is the performance in job interviews. No research or name of your professor can help you with technical questions.

A great point. In our program we strive to be the best in both. That's why our professors have extensive practical backgrounds with a commitment to teaching as well as to research.

 

[Stefan Zota]

A great point. In our program we strive to be the best in both. That's why our professors have extensive practical backgrounds with a commitment to teaching as well as to research.

Your statement can be found on any MFE website. In other words, it is a wish rather than a fact.
Personally I have an excellent image for NYU-Courant (not including Poly) and I consider it high in rankings, but since I don't have a metric, there is not much I can argue ...

 

[PZM]

Your statement can be found on any MFE website.

The Poly website was recently redesigned and unfortunately the content of all programs, not just ours, was essentially lost and is being replaced but you can see this statement e.g. in the wiki: NYU Poly - QuantNetwork Wiki

Not to worry -- it will soon be up on Poly's website too, once everything gets restored.

 

[Andy Nguyen]

The CMU MSCF program has featured the 2009 QuantNetwork ranking on its front page.
Link Master In Computational Finance : Tepper School of Business

 

[dstefan]

I think the department is more important, to gauge research and other impact. For example, if I write an article for a financial newspaper, I am referred to as part of the NYU-Poly Finance and Risk Engineering department. I thought I had done them all consistently. Of course I'm not familiar with all of the other programs or departments, so I just used what was listed from the quantnet rankings. Obviously it is easy enough to google anything else, and straightforward enough to start comparing research downloads and other metrics.

Then you should use departments for all searches, not just for NYU-Poly.

 

[Andy Nguyen]

Princeton University has announced the 2009 QuantNetwork ranking on its website
Link News and Events - Bendheim Center for Finance - Princeton University

 

[JDMe]

Duh! Why won't CMU and Princeton show this ranking on their website?

I will see the strength of your ranking if UCB, NYU, Cornell breeds put your ranking on their website. They won't as they know this ranking is bogus. Common since when did community colleges start to stand in the same line as elite world famous colleges.

 

[cw202]

>Common since when did community colleges start to stand in the same line as elite world famous colleges.

When graduates of "community" colleges come out with high six figure salaries and work along side those from "elite world famous colleges".

When did UCB become private?

Baruch is a public college, not a community college. If you're going to critique an institution, at least get the facts correct.

Disclosure: I have a degree from one of your so called "elite world famous colleges". My ROI from "community" college was several times higher than my ROI from
one of your "elite world famous colleges" .

 

[Eugene Krel]

Duh! Why won't CMU and Princeton show this ranking on their website?

I will see the strength of your ranking if UCB, NYU, Cornell breeds put your ranking on their website. They won't as they know this ranking is bogus. Common since when did community colleges start to stand in the same line as elite world famous colleges.

You seem to think that these rankings should be done like little league baseball, i.e. everyone should win an award (whether they lost or won). Unfortunately, that's not the case with these things. Even if UCB, NYU etc were ranked higher people would complain that Princeton, CMU etc were ranked too low.

I think cw202 addressed the community college issue succinctly.

 

[jovee]

Just because a few (non-Baruch) members of Quantnet question your rankings of FE programs does not mean you should get all rattled.

It was not long ago that many on this board agreed that ranking MFE programs was useless and subjective. Now all of a sudden you've come up with an algorithm to legitimize Baruch's place in the MFE world so YOUR FE program Ranking is the de-facto standard ?

I'm sure Baruch has an excellent program. What I don't agree with is using Quantnet which is NOW a forum open to the public at large (whereas before it was a Baruch only website) to manipulate perceptions of FE programs in an effort to bolster the prestige of your diploma.

 

[WilliamY]

Andy: I don't think the word "Methodology" is big and flashy enough for some readers of this forum.

 

[Andy Nguyen]

Just because a few (non-Baruch) members of Quantnet question your rankings of FE programs does not mean you should get all rattled.

We have no problem with people questioning our ranking and methodology. In fact, our ranking has been published on other quant finance forums for all to debate (see WM, NP, GD).

By now, the ranking has been viewed a dozen thousand times by many people (majority of them non-Baruch people). Questions, misconceptions by a handful of people have all been responded to (please see GD)

It was not long ago that many on this board agreed that ranking MFE programs was useless and subjective. Now all of a sudden you've come up with an algorithm to legitimize Baruch's place in the MFE world so YOUR FE program Ranking is the de-facto standard ?

It is interesting to know how this QuantNetwork ranking of MFE program came about. The ranking is a byproduct of our accidental discovery of Xmarks and its data. It's an Eureka moment when we realized we can come up with an algorithm to rank different subjects. The resulting MFE and Business Schools rankings are just some small applications of our patent-pending algorithm.
As with any ranking, there will be people questioning the ranking (see discussion about USNews ranking). It's our belief that the QuantNetwork ranking methodology is unique, transparent, robust and a departure from other subjective rankings out there.

I'm sure Baruch has an excellent program. What I don't agree with is using Quantnet which is NOW a forum open to the public at large (whereas before it was a Baruch only website) to manipulate perceptions of FE programs in an effort to bolster the prestige of your diploma.

Again, I'd like to point out that QuantNetwork is a public community to provide information for people who need it. We are doing good service to many people. Just because we have more information about and members from one specific program (given the history of QuantNetwork), it's unwarranted to say we "manipulate perceptions of FE programs in an effort to bolster the prestige of your diploma."

If you have been here long enough, you would have seen the efforts we take to make this place a more useful place for all. I'm proud that members here are friendly, respectful of others and very helpful. We provide more than enough good discussion here to satisfy all types of members. Not everyone here is looking for an MFE ranking or cares about it. MFE program info is just one part of our site.

It will take time but we are on a right path.

 

[cw202]

>I just happened to stumble upon the ranking and was aghast. What more surprised me was the discussion on GD form.

Why don't you make an educated and substantive argument against the methodology instead of simply stating that other people are critiquing the ranking on other forums?

If you can't do that, at least try to synthesize a list of critiques you may, or may not have heard about the ranking methodology and share your thoughts on them.

Have you visited the Baruch program or any other program for that matter? How do you know our program does not rank within the same league as the other programs in your
"world class colleges".

Why don't you come to Baruch, and I will personally address your questions, concerns, and assumptions you may have about the program. You can PM me for further information.

>I can't find a singe non-Baruch soul who supported the ranking on non-QN forum.
Why does this matter? Someone at CMU, and Princeton obviously supported the ranking.

 

[Simon Li]

Your statement can be found on any MFE website. In other words, it is a wish rather than a fact.
Personally I have an excellent image for NYU-Courant (not including Poly) and I consider it high in rankings, but since I don't have a metric, there is not much I can argue ...

If this statement can be found on any MFE website, that has already proved reseach is very important for even MFE, the so-called " professional program". At least the schools themselves admit this. I think the existence of Michael Porter is one great reason why HBS can enjoy such outstanding reputation.

Then the research part should be considered seriously, just as Prof. Maymin from NYU-Poly said.

I think the program of NYU-Poly should be at least among the top ten of this list.

 

[JDQuant]

Rankings are Good, but internationally incomplete

I really appreciat these rankings as I had little idea that an MFE or Masters in Mathematical Finance could get one as far in the IB/Hedge Fund world as a PhD. But the rankings do not seem to incorporate some crucial data - selectivity, starting salary of graduates, and follow up five years later, and qualitative plus quantitative (eg ranking) input of the the major employers.


For example, I have found myself in Australia, where I have started a Masters of Mathematics/Statistics, but have recently been informed that the University of New South Wales three years ago started a Masters of Financial Mathemtics . The 3 semester course is situated totally withing the Math department.


The course consists of 6*1 Semester Compulsory Courses; 4*1 Elective Courses; and a 2 course long supervised dissertation.

The compulsory subjects are:


MATH5335 Comput'l Methods for Finance (6 UOC)
MATH5816 Continuous Time Fin'l Model'g (6 UOC)
MATH5835 Stochastic Processes (6 UOC)
MATH5965 Discrete Time Fin'l Modelling (6 UOC)
MATH5975 Intro to Stochastic Analysis (6 UOC)
MATH5985 Term Structure Modelling (6 UOC)


The Four Electives can be taken from any graduate department in Math, Economics, Accounting, Actuarial Studies, Computing, etc.


Now, I reckon that stacks up pretty competitively with pour US Top 5, especially with a 10,000 word dissertation on top of the Financial Math coursework.. What say you?

---------- Post added at 03:39 AM ---------- Previous post was at 03:37 AM ----------

Oops, here is the link.


http://www.maths.unsw.edu.au/honpg/future/coursework/mfin.html