You can use as many illogical arguments as you want but that doesn't change the truth. I guess you may not have any real qualifications and background in Quant Finance, that's why you are making such statements.
CMU/Baruch are very good programs. But each program has its own vision, focus and strengths and weaknesses. But your original statement about Princeton MFin "I don't think they can produce quants" just shows your ignorance.
I don't see what purpose attacking me serves. Many of the people going into serious quant programs have already taken general courses in ODEs, PDEs, statistics, linear programming, and numerical analysis in their math, physics and engineering programs. Now they come to see it applied to finance. That's what a good quant program does. The last thing they need is to be shuffled to some other department to take general courses in PDEs and numerical analysis.
As the message from Wendell Collins makes clear, they're looking for "leadership" qualities rather than hard-core programming and math skills. So many of their candidates may not have the technical flair to apply general concepts to finance (assuming they even have the inclination to do so).
I'm sure Princeton does a good job of creating finance generalists who can go on to assume "leadership" positions -- but stop this puerile argument that the program can produce quants. Or at least put forward a credible counterargument. Just citing the names of courses in bold and calling me illogical and ignorant doesn't cut it.