2019 QuantNet Rankings of Financial Engineering (MFE) Programs

P. Carr

Member
I asked for clarification on placement statistics for the class of 2018 (post #52).

You replied, saying to contact career services, and declined to provide them, which is perfectly fine. (post #55).

Cge responded to your reply, post 55, in post 62, saying the information should be available online.

You then replied in post 66, suggesting that cge should reveal his/her identity. That's the message I was responding to, in post 68. That's the context of the conversation. The content I was responding to throughout had nothing to do with the course registration process, but was about clarification of placement statistics. There is no lack of understanding on my part.

You lament the distortion of the truth, yet you accuse me of being another person, assert that apparently I have been previously "kicked off" (so previously banned and came back?) and call me a troll. For what? Asking for clarification on placement stats? That's pretty out of line. Given the things I have heard about you, I expected far better.
The thread got pretty convoluted. I do see your interpretation. There is actually another interpretation,
which arises from one person having 2 online identities, which another poster was suspicious of as well.
But either way, I am definitely guilty of wanting to know who is asking for more information. Apollo Chariot could be an alum with a legitimate interest in the status of his or her degree, and Apollo Chariot could be a program director posing as an alum, also posing as a troll named CGE.
In the latter case, go ahead and post anonymously as either Dr Jekyll or Mr. Hyde. Write anything you like, knowing I won't respond in this thread, and see what it gets you. Or in the former case, you can simply email me, as hundreds of others do everyday, to see what's going on.
 
27913


Here's the back of my NYU transcript. I can also take screenshots of emails only FRE alums receive as well. Great job, you've accused one of your alums of being a troll, sockpuppet, and previously banned user without evidence, and then doubled down instead of apologized.

The thread got pretty convoluted. I do see your interpretation. There is actually another interpretation,
which arises from one person having 2 online identities, which another poster was suspicious of as well.
But either way, I am definitely guilty of wanting to know who is asking for more information. Apollo Chariot could be an alum with a legitimate interest in the status of his or her degree, and Apollo Chariot could be a program director posing as an alum, also posing as a troll named CGE.
In the latter case, go ahead and post anonymously as either Dr Jekyll or Mr. Hyde. Write anything you like, knowing I won't respond in this thread, and see what it gets you. Or in the former case, you can simply email me, as hundreds of others do everyday, to see what's going on.
It's not an interpretation, it's factually what happened in the reply chain. There was no lack of understanding on my part, as you earlier asserted. The content I was replying to has always been about placement statistics, not course registration.

It's amazing, I ask for clarification on placement statistics of the class of 2018. 116 employment seeking graduates out of how many graduates in total? That's basic information, it's not out of line to ask for that information, nor do I blame you if you say "I don't want to disclose that here". Instead, I get accused of being a sockpuppet troll.

I can accuse yourself of having no intention of offering clarifying information on placement statistics and instead just want my identity so you can either intimidate or retaliate against me, since I have been less than flattering about my alma mater in the past, but I would never do that. I'm sure you would agree it's not nice to be falsely accused without evidence.
 
Last edited:

cge

Member
The thread got pretty convoluted. I do see your interpretation. There is actually another interpretation,
which arises from one person having 2 online identities, which another poster was suspicious of as well.
But either way, I am definitely guilty of wanting to know who is asking for more information. Apollo Chariot could be an alum with a legitimate interest in the status of his or her degree, and Apollo Chariot could be a program director posing as an alum, also posing as a troll named CGE.
In the latter case, go ahead and post anonymously as either Dr Jekyll or Mr. Hyde. Write anything you like, knowing I won't respond in this thread, and see what it gets you. Or in the former case, you can simply email me, as hundreds of others do everyday, to see what's going on.

based on the last posts ( sorry if is not the case) I have the feeling that this was meant for me and Apollo to be kicked out from the forum...so disappointing, and coming from you it's even more disappointing...
 

cge

Member
View attachment 27913

Here's the back of my NYU transcript. I can also take screenshots of emails only FRE alums receive as well. Great job, you've accused one of your alums of being a troll, sockpuppet, and previously banned user without evidence, and then doubled down instead of apologized.



It's not an interpretation, it's factually what happened in the reply chain. There was no lack of understanding on my part, as you earlier asserted. The content I was replying to has always been about placement statistics, not course registration.

It's amazing, I ask for clarification on placement statistics of the class of 2018. 116 employment seeking graduates out of how many graduates in total? That's basic information, it's not out of line to ask for that information, nor do I blame you if you say "I don't want to disclose that here". Instead, I get accused of being a sockpuppet troll.

I can accuse yourself of having no intention of offering clarifying information on placement statistics and instead just want my identity so you can either intimidate or retaliate against me, since I have been less than flattering about my alma mater in the past, but I would never do that. I'm sure you would agree it's not nice to be falsely accused without evidence.

Apollo- a suggestion if you allow me to make, it is not worth to post...it has already a bitter taste, but as you think.
I do think that there is no need to justify yourself...
 
Apollo- a suggestion if you allow me to make, it is not worth to post...it has already a bitter taste, but as you think.
I do think that there is no need to justify yourself...
See, I'm hesitant to reply because I'll just get accused of talking to myself without any evidence.

When someone attacks my character, even if it's an anonymous profile, my instinct is to fight back, and I'm sure most people here would do the same. If anyone wants to say my evidence is insufficient to indicate that I'm probably an NYU FRE alum, there is more evidence I can provide.

If Peter Carr wants to use the fact that I don't want to disclose my identity as proof that I'm a sockpuppet troll, whatever, I'm not out to change his mind. It's not only insulting to myself, but also to the person(s) responsible for running the message board, as he's suggesting that previously banned people can post under 2 different accounts without any consequence.


@Andy Nguyen, I've read the privacy policy, and from what I understand, if someone makes a request for my information which could potentially identify me, QuantNet will not provide it. Is that interpretation accurate? Edit: Assuming no laws are broken and there is no police warrant/order from a judge, of course.
 
Last edited:

Andy Nguyen

Member
@Andy Nguyen, I've read the privacy policy, and from what I understand, if someone makes a request for my information which could potentially identify me, QuantNet will not provide it. Is that interpretation accurate?
I can hardly see a scenario when we are ordered to hand over such info given the nature of the forum. Moreover, the personal data we keep is so minimal that it's impossible to reveal anyone's identity.
 

NumeroUno

Member
University of Washington CFRM is a shit show.

As a student, I hope that the decline in the rankings, from #12 to #16, will encourage the administration to develop a plan for improvement.

UW has been highly disappointing. Key faculty members, who built the program, like Eric Zivot and Guy Yollin, are no longer involved. Another key faculty member, Tim Leung, has stopped teaching his core "Monte Carlo Methods" course, in order to teach an esoteric elective course on cryptocurrency. Yet another key faculty member, Matt Lorig, has stopped teaching his core "Options and Derivatives" class in order to work as an administrator.

The above faculty have been replaced, as instructors, by faculty who have just finished their PhDs recently. The majority cannot speak English in a manner that is comprehensible.

I have yet to take a single course where the instructor has actually taught the course before. Every single course, so far, has been taught by a rookie, teaching the course for the first time, ever. Probably the only new faculty member who I appreciate is Bahman Angoshtari, because he works very, very hard to overcome his limitations with English; he is extremely well organized in terms of syllabus, lecture notes, R examples, etc. He actually did some teaching at UM and Oxford before coming to UW. The other new faculty members, though, are completely inept, in terms of organizing their courses. Generally, they wait until the night before their lectures to prepare their material. Some of them do not even have a plan in mind until they walk into the room and start writing random bits of disparate and unrelated material on a tablet device. Of course, the output from the tablet device is sometimes "lost" for a few days.

I say that UW is a shit show, and I hope it tanks out of the top 20, frankly.

I seriously don't think the administration is going to make any efforts to improve the presentation of course material to students. Research projects seem to be the #1 priority for UW faculty and administration, and teaching seems to be the very lowest priority.

The former Head Administrator of the CFRM program, Matt Austin, has been gone since 2017, which is about the time that things started to decline. In 2017, when I did the undergraduate QFCF pre-MS certificate program, I had nothing but positive things to say about the UW CFRM program. Now, in 2019, as an MS student, I would probably describe it as the single worst coursework experience of my entire life.

My grades in the MS program are fine. I have managed to overcome the above obstacles, but in order to do this, I have had to make a great number of sacrifices and adaptations which have been costly, in terms of time and money, and such measures should not be necessary, in my humble opinion.

If your time is worth anything to you, I suggest going to a program where the faculty have a fair amount of experience in the courses they teach (i.e. > 0 hours).

#shitshow
 
Last edited:

husky

New Member
I have seen several of your posts on this forum and wanted to just let it go, but I feel this deserves a response. As recent graduate of the CFRM program, this could not be further from the truth...


The above faculty have been replaced, as instructors, by faculty who have just finished their PhDs recently. The majority cannot speak English in a manner that is comprehensible.
This is not only a ridiculous statement, it is completely insulting. The staff is diverse, and while all are not native English speakers, they all can communicate fluently and effectively in English. I never had an issue throughout the entire program understanding a professor.

The quantitative finance world, in general, is very diverse and multinational. If you expect to get a job and communicate only with native English speakers, I'm sorry to inform you that you will be severely disappointed. I feel even more sympathy for your would-be employer for your lack of cultural understanding.


I have yet to take a single course where the instructor has actually taught the course before. Every single course, so far, has been taught by a rookie, teaching the course for the first time, ever.
You must not have taken many courses because the 3 introductory courses and a Machine Learning course were taught by the two "rookie" professors to whom you are referring. They combined course material from previous years with material from previous courses they have taught at other universities.


Probably the only new faculty member who I appreciate is Bahman Angoshtari, because he works very, very hard to overcome his limitations with English; he is extremely well organized in terms of syllabus, lecture notes, R examples, etc. He actually did some teaching at UM and Oxford before coming to UW.
His limitations in English? Are you kidding me?! I'm going to assume this is a joke.


The other new faculty members, though, are completely inept, in terms of organizing their courses. Generally, they wait until the night before their lectures to prepare their material. Some of them do not even have a plan in mind until they walk into the room and start writing random bits of disparate and unrelated material on a tablet device. Of course, the output from the tablet device is sometimes "lost" for a few days.
I'm assuming you're the same student that complained about not having PowerPoint presentations (and I have a strong belief that I am correct). This is an Applied Math department. I don't think I have ever had a math class ever use PowerPoint in my entire scholastic career. So if by not prepared, you mean they (even though you're referring to one professor in particular) don't use PowerPoint and cause death by slideshow. Then, ok, they are not "prepared." The professor to whom you're referring was prepared for all classes. He simply chose to write equations and other notes as the class discussed them, all of which were posted online afterwards for review.


I say that UW is a shit show, and I hope it tanks out of the top 20, frankly.
The other 35 reviews on this site would seem to disagree...


The former Head Administrator of the CFRM program, Matt Austin, has been gone since 2017, which is about the time that things started to decline. In 2017, when I did the undergraduate QFCF pre-MS certificate program, I had nothing but positive things to say about the UW CFRM program. Now, in 2019, as an MS student, I would probably describe it as the single worst coursework experience of my entire life.
Seeing as you don't know the actual title, you must be well-informed. Laurie, the current Program Manager, has been with the program from day one and took over after Matt's departure. She is terrific and an absolute asset to the program. Karen, the Career Services Manager, joined the program in 2017 and has been great as well in building out the network for the CFRM program which was previously just the Seattle area essentially.


My grades in the MS program are fine.
Are they? Really?

I have managed to overcome the above obstacles, but in order to do this, I have had to make a great number of sacrifices and adaptations which have been costly, in terms of time and money, and such measures should not be necessary, in my humble opinion.

If your time is worth anything to you, I suggest going to a program where the faculty have a fair amount of experience in the courses they teach (i.e. > 0 hours).

#shitshow
This program is housed in an Applied Mathematics department which is one of, if not, the best in the country. Therefore, the program is heavily mathematical. If by obstacles you mean understanding and having to review undergraduate maths at times, learning from and engaging with a diverse faculty and student population, and putting in a lot of time and effort; then yes, you will need to overcome these "obstacles" to succeed.

I overcame these so-called obstacles. In doing so, I had 2 job offers before I even graduated in addition to several final round interviews with some other prominent companies. All of whom told me they were impressed with my knowledge, reasoning, and overall conduct. You get out what you put in.


My final statement to anyone reading this post would be understand who is posting. This is the same person who said:
In general, I'm not the type of guy who likes high-pressure high-stress work, except on occasion.
and not to mention this zinger of why he studies at the School of Medicine
Because 1.) the female med students tend to be very fit, 2.) they wear yoga pants to the library, and 3.) I make eye contact and then there's this dismissive look like "eww..."

The only shit show here is you.
 

NumeroUno

Member
I have seen several of your posts on this forum and wanted to just let it go, but I feel this deserves a response. As recent graduate of the CFRM program, this could not be further from the truth...




This is not only a ridiculous statement, it is completely insulting. The staff is diverse, and while all are not native English speakers, they all can communicate fluently and effectively in English. I never had an issue throughout the entire program understanding a professor.

The quantitative finance world, in general, is very diverse and multinational. If you expect to get a job and communicate only with native English speakers, I'm sorry to inform you that you will be severely disappointed. I feel even more sympathy for your would-be employer for your lack of cultural understanding.




You must not have taken many courses because the 3 introductory courses and a Machine Learning course were taught by the two "rookie" professors to whom you are referring. They combined course material from previous years with material from previous courses they have taught at other universities.




His limitations in English? Are you kidding me?! I'm going to assume this is a joke.




I'm assuming you're the same student that complained about not having PowerPoint presentations (and I have a strong belief that I am correct). This is an Applied Math department. I don't think I have ever had a math class ever use PowerPoint in my entire scholastic career. So if by not prepared, you mean they (even though you're referring to one professor in particular) don't use PowerPoint and cause death by slideshow. Then, ok, they are not "prepared." The professor to whom you're referring was prepared for all classes. He simply chose to write equations and other notes as the class discussed them, all of which were posted online afterwards for review.




The other 35 reviews on this site would seem to disagree...




Seeing as you don't know the actual title, you must be well-informed. Laurie, the current Program Manager, has been with the program from day one and took over after Matt's departure. She is terrific and an absolute asset to the program. Karen, the Career Services Manager, joined the program in 2017 and has been great as well in building out the network for the CFRM program which was previously just the Seattle area essentially.




Are they? Really?



This program is housed in an Applied Mathematics department which is one of, if not, the best in the country. Therefore, the program is heavily mathematical. If by obstacles you mean understanding and having to review undergraduate maths at times, learning from and engaging with a diverse faculty and student population, and putting in a lot of time and effort; then yes, you will need to overcome these "obstacles" to succeed.

I overcame these so-called obstacles. In doing so, I had 2 job offers before I even graduated in addition to several final round interviews with some other prominent companies. All of whom told me they were impressed with my knowledge, reasoning, and overall conduct. You get out what you put in.


My final statement to anyone reading this post would be understand who is posting. This is the same person who said:

and not to mention this zinger of why he studies at the School of Medicine



The only shit show here is you.
"husky"

Brand new account. Created today.

And I quote:

"
28395

"

Nice English, pal.

"Multiculturalism" is not synonymous with the tolerance of constant grammatical errors.

Based on what you have written, I am not inclined to become more tolerant. No.
 
Last edited:

Michsund

Active Member
C++ Student
"husky"

Brand new account. Created today.

View attachment 28394

Nice English, pal.
"husky"

Brand new account. Created today.

View attachment 28395

Nice English, pal.

"Multiculturalism" is not synonymous with the tolerance of constant grammatical errors.

Based on what you have written, I am not inclined to become more tolerant. No.
Good response to be honest. I hate when people play this race card calling you a racist for wanting people to speak better English. Also good that you caught this is a new account probably made by someone at your school right now. Speak your mind and try to fix the problems at hand. Good job.
 

NumeroUno

Member
Good response to be honest. I hate when people play this race card calling you a racist for wanting people to speak better English. Also good that you caught this is a new account probably made by someone at your school right now. Speak your mind and try to fix the problems at hand. Good job.
Right. Thank you.

I am frustrated with the way things are playing out, and I sincerely hope that the school makes an effort fix its outstanding problems.

I would like the issues at hand to be addressed, so that UW's ranking is, once again, in the top half of ranked programs (rather than the bottom half).

I suspect that someone at the school created the "husky" account, today, in an attempt to discredit me.
 
Last edited:

husky

New Member
"husky"

Brand new account. Created today.

And I quote:

"
View attachment 28395
"

Nice English, pal.

"Multiculturalism" is not synonymous with the tolerance of constant grammatical errors.

Based on what you have written, I am not inclined to become more tolerant. No.
Haha, if the only thing you have to argue is that I forgot to type the single letter "a" within a post of nearly 600 words, I'm fine with that.

Probably the only new faculty member who I appreciate
If you want to argue grammar points, it's "whom I appreciate" but I digress...



Good response to be honest. I hate when people play this race card calling you a racist for wanting people to speak better English. Also good that you caught this is a new account probably made by someone at your school right now. Speak your mind and try to fix the problems at hand. Good job.
I'm not sure how I'm playing the race card? Nowhere in my response did I say he was racist either. I'm a native English speaker, and I have had the privilege of learning multiple languages and interacting with people all over the world. However, calling out a professor on a public forum because his first language isn't English, in my opinion, not only lacks respect but also lacks the cultural understanding which is necessary in a profession like Quantitative Finance. Native English speakers don't even use proper grammar, vocabulary, or syntax. I've dealt with C-Suite employees for the bulk of my career; and you'd be lucky to get a complete, coherent sentence from most of them in an email. If you wanted everyone to speak perfect English you should have looked for an online Master of Arts in English.

And yes, I created this account today. I usually lurk QuantNet and the forums without commenting. I was unaware that I needed an account to view the forums, see suggestions on reading lists, and find other ways to improve myself in regards to Quantitative Finance. As I write this, there are 36 members and 296 guests online. You should tell those 296 people they need to create an account if they plan to comment several years from now...
 

NumeroUno

Member
Haha, if the only thing you have to argue is that I forgot to type the single letter "a" within a post of nearly 600 words, I'm fine with that.



If you want to argue grammar points, it's "whom I appreciate" but I digress...





I'm not sure how I'm playing the race card? Nowhere in my response did I say he was racist either. I'm a native English speaker, and I have had the privilege of learning multiple languages and interacting with people all over the world. However, calling out a professor on a public forum because his first language isn't English, in my opinion, not only lacks respect but also lacks the cultural understanding which is necessary in a profession like Quantitative Finance. Native English speakers don't even use proper grammar, vocabulary, or syntax. I've dealt with C-Suite employees for the bulk of my career; and you'd be lucky to get a complete, coherent sentence from most of them in an email. If you wanted everyone to speak perfect English you should have looked for an online Master of Arts in English.

And yes, I created this account today. I usually lurk QuantNet and the forums without commenting. I was unaware that I needed an account to view the forums, see suggestions on reading lists, and find other ways to improve myself in regards to Quantitative Finance. As I write this, there are 36 members and 296 guests online. You should tell those 296 people they need to create an account if they plan to comment several years from now...
Welcome to the forum.

Unless we're content to be in the bottom-half, we need to acknowledge that UW has a problem with its ranking,

If we can acknowledge that we have a problem, we can next discuss how we fix it.

As fellow alumni, perhaps we should point our conversation in another direction.

Is this reasonable?
 
Last edited:
This is not only a ridiculous statement, it is completely insulting. The staff is diverse, and while all are not native English speakers, they all can communicate fluently and effectively in English. I never had an issue throughout the entire program understanding a professor.


The quantitative finance world, in general, is very diverse and multinational. If you expect to get a job and communicate only with native English speakers, I'm sorry to inform you that you will be severely disappointed.
Don't argue against a straw man; there's a big difference between wanting professors of your classes, which one pays enormous amounts of money to attend, to be proficiently fluent and expecting to only communicate with native English speakers. It's not about diversity, it's about proficiency of the English language.

As someone who attended NYU Tandon, there were absolutely instances of professors being unable to communicate effectively in English, although it's not my primary complaint about the faculty or professors.

I overcame these so-called obstacles. In doing so, I had 2 job offers before I even graduated in addition to several final round interviews with some other prominent companies. All of whom told me they were impressed with my knowledge, reasoning, and overall conduct. You get out what you put in.
In my experience, "you get out what you put in" is code for "any success you have will be in spite of the program, not because of it".

As brutally honest and critical I am about my alma mater, CFRM is very likely considerably worse (guessing from what little I've read). 36% placement rate at graduation according to latest QuantNet rankings.... if that isn't a shit show, what is?
 
However, calling out a professor on a public forum because his first language isn't English, in my opinion, not only lacks respect but also lacks the cultural understanding which is necessary in a profession like Quantitative Finance.
I suppose you can always try misrepresenting what the other person posted if you don't have a coherent argument. Here is the word for word quote.

The majority cannot speak English in a manner that is comprehensible.
Speaking English as one's first language and speaking English in a manner that is comprehensible are two completely different things; do you not agree?
 

husky

New Member
Welcome to the forum.

Unless we're content to be in the bottom-half, we need to acknowledge that UW has a problem with its ranking,

If we can acknowledge that we have a problem, we can next discuss how to we fix it.

As fellow alums, perhaps we should move our conversation in another direction.

Is this reasonable?
It is completely reasonable. Realizing that rankings aren't the definitive answer to which program is best would be the first step.

Here's where I would start...

Peer assessment score should be weighted at 10% or less. This is essentially an opinion poll, and I doubt that any one university representative knows enough about all 38 programs in the rankings. This leads to them ranking previously ranked universities higher or universities where they may have a friend or former colleague.

Second would be a cost of living adjustment on starting salaries. 10 of the top 12 universities are located in the highest cost of living areas in the US. A starting salary of $90k in NYC is much different than $90k in Seattle. Basically programs are rewarded for placing in NYC, Chicago, and LA. UW students could go work for Amazon and Microsoft in Seattle making $100k+, but what would be the point of that if they're not staying in Quantitative Finance? Their ranking would go up though.

Third thing would be to release who are the employers for the employer survey score? If I ask 100 companies in NYC and Chicago, they're going to respond Columbia, NYU, and the University of Chicago.

Lastly, I would add a research/publication component to the ranking.


As brutally honest and critical I am about my alma mater, CFRM is very likely considerably worse (guessing from what little I've read). 36% placement rate at graduation according to latest QuantNet rankings.... if that isn't a shit show, what is?
This is purely speculative. You have never taken a course at UW (what would be your peer assessment score?). Now you agree with the placement statistics, after you were skeptical of your own university's placement data? Are all the programs being honest in reporting? I would hope so, but where is the verification and what are the standards for reporting.

I suppose you can always try misrepresenting what the other person posted if you don't have a coherent argument. Here is the word for word quote.

Speaking English as one's first language and speaking English in a manner that is comprehensible are two completely different things; do you not agree?
Have you heard the professor speak? Until then, I'll wait for you to pass judgement on his comprehensibility. As I said, I never had an issue understanding him.
 
This is purely speculative. You have never taken a course at UW (what would be your peer assessment score?). Now you agree with the placement statistics, after you were skeptical of your own university's placement data? Are all the programs being honest in reporting? I would hope so, but where is the verification and what are the standards for reporting.
1) Asking for clarifying information is not necessarily being skeptical. Nowhere did I post or suggest that the numbers are falsified or mis-reported. You have a very bad habit of mis-representing what people post.

2) Programs are extremely unlikely to UNDER-report their placement rates at graduation. So do you think a 36% placement rate at graduation is a shit show? Will you argue that is good, or in any way acceptable?


Have you heard the professor speak? Until then, I'll wait for you to pass judgement on his comprehensibility. As I said, I never had an issue understanding him.
Not the point. I was pointing out how you at best misquoted and at worst outright lied about what another person posted. Way to totally ignore the discrepancy between what you said someone posted and what he ACTUALLY posted.
 

NumeroUno

Member
"Lastly, I would add a research/publication component to the ranking. "
I would prefer not to see this happen, unless completing an MS thesis becomes common practice, across schools. MS students don't get exposure to the research of CFRM faculty.

Frankly, I was asking if the two of us could agree on ways for UW to improve its program.

I was not suggesting that we try to redesign the QuantNet ranking methodology.
 
Last edited:
Top