2019 QuantNet Rankings of Financial Engineering (MFE) Programs

[husky]

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?

Did you not have doubts about the reported placement statistic?

Tbh, I'm very surprised that the program was apparently able to achieve 75% employment at graduation, assuming the numbers in the rankings are verifiable and accurate. NYU Tandon having 75% and Columbia Mathematics in Finance 37% is insane, and I would be inclined to believe there are some irregularities or methodology differences among the two schools to arrive at those numbers.

You're right, you weren't skeptical at all...

Peter Carr was right, you are definitely a troll. I'm going to continue the productive conversation.

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.

Research/publications would be insight into the strength of professors at different universities. Also, MS students do in fact get exposure to research with the CFRM faculty. Given you are an on campus student and had the ability to meaningfully contribute to their research, you would just have to ask. There were several students in my cohort who did research with professors, and at least one I know of for sure that was published.

As far as going forward for UW, I think they're on the right path. Bringing in quality professors (which we apparently disagree), building the alumni network nationwide, and expanding course offerings (to involve more computer science and fintech) are all positive aspects in my mind. The program has started to collaborate more with Foster Business School where you can take a class (or two maybe) as credit towards the CFRM degree. I believe it's the same for the Econ and Computer Science departments, but I could be wrong.

As I said, I used the knowledge I learned and performed well enough in almost every interview that I had to get to the final round. I would not have had a phone call or resume looked at without the degree, and I can say that as a fact since I applied to some jobs that I didn't hear anything back from before starting the program.

 

[ApolloChariot]

You're right, you weren't skeptical at all...

Peter Carr was right, you are definitely a troll. I'm going to continue the productive conversation.

Believe it or not, one can express surprise and disbelief without saying or suggesting someone lied.

You and Peter Carr both dishonestly and personally attacked those who are critical of your respective programs, and then subsequently doubled down on the lie instead of showing contrition. You two would probably get along well.

The forum is frequented by many prospective students, making decisions on where to spend tens of thousands of dollars and a couple years of their academic careers. You know who the real trolls are? The misleading sycophants who are willing to post anything, tell any lie, make any rationalization, attack anyone who is critical to make their program look better, despite its woeful and obvious shortcomings such as an apparently self reported 36% placement rate at graduation.

It would be funny if it isn’t so pathetically sad.

 

[Michsund]

Believe it or not, one can express surprise and disbelief without saying or suggesting someone lied.

You and Peter Carr both dishonestly and personally attacked those who are critical of your respective programs, and then subsequently doubled down on the lie instead of showing contrition. You two would probably get along well.

The forum is frequented by many prospective students, making decisions on where to spend tens of thousands of dollars and a couple years of their academic careers. You know who the real trolls are? The misleading sycophants who are willing to post anything, tell any lie, make any rationalization, attack anyone who is critical to make their program look better, despite its woeful and obvious shortcomings such as an apparently self reported 36% placement rate at graduation.

It would be funny if it isn’t so pathetically sad.

Holy shit @husky you ain’t got no response to this.

 

[husky]

You said:

I would be inclined to believe there are some irregularities or methodology differences among the two schools to arrive at those numbers.

If believing there are some irregularities is not being skeptical, then I'm not sure what else would satisfy the definition for you.


Once again, there was nothing dishonest about my statement. If you had read the entire post you would have seen he first said:

The majority cannot speak English in a manner that is comprehensible.

Then gave the example by naming a specific employee:

because he works very, very hard to overcome his limitations with English

In my opinion this is calling out the professor because English is not his native language. The professor has no difficulties in being understood or expressing himself in English, and I do not believe any English speaker (native or second language learner) would have difficulty in understanding him.


You jumped in a conversation in which you have no first hand knowledge of the program and cherry picked one statistic to incite a reaction. This is in my opinion is the definition of a troll.

The only personal attack is you calling someone a sycophant and accusing me of being an professor/administrator in the program because I have a positive opinion and support my program. Furthermore, I see my choice of UW as "where to spend tens of thousands of dollars" as a great choice considering the employment I now have.

Since you want to keep pointing out the 36% employment statistic at graduation, I'm not sure the cause for it. The Career Services Manager didn't start until later in 2017, so this could be a reason. It would be worthy to mention that we did have 100% employment within 3 months, an accomplishment that your program was unable to achieve in the same year (87% for NYU Tandon). However, I wouldn't go as far as you to base my entire opinion on NYU Tandon off this single statistic and your opinion of it.

 

[ApolloChariot]

You said:

If believing there are some irregularities is not being skeptical, then I'm not sure what else would satisfy the definition for you.

There are many causes of irregularities other than outright lying. Methodology differences, difference in criteria, how and when data is collected, differences in graduation dates and recruiting periods between the two schools/program. Do you not understand that? As I have stated, you have a terrible habit of lying and/or putting words in other people's mouth.

Once again, there was nothing dishonest about my statement. If you had read the entire post you would have seen he first said:

Then gave the example by naming a specific employee:

In my opinion this is calling out the professor because English is not his native language. The professor has no difficulties in being understood or expressing himself in English, and I do not believe any English speaker (native or second language learner) would have difficulty in understanding him.

No. Taking issue with someone being unable to effectively communicate in English is completely different than taking issue with someone not having English as a native/first language. You can have English as your first language and not be able to communicate effectively enough to teach a Masters level class, and vice versa. Why you refuse to acknowledge the plain and obvious distinction, and instead choose to repeatedly lie about what another person has posted is beyond me.

You jumped in a conversation in which you have no first hand knowledge of the program and cherry picked one statistic to incite a reaction. This is in my opinion is the definition of a troll.

Actually, I jumped in the conversation because you repeatedly lied about what someone else posted, and to point out it is NOT uncommon for professors in quantitative finance to not be able to effectively communicate in English, as I have first hand experience in that respect. I don't like seeing outright lies being unchallenged, just as you didn't like it when someone here criticized your program.

The only personal attack is you calling someone a sycophant and accusing me of being an professor/administrator in the program because I have a positive opinion and support my program. Furthermore, I see my choice of UW as "where to spend tens of thousands of dollars" as a great choice considering the employment I now have.

Yet another lie. I never stated that you're a professor/administrator in the program.

You really want to assert that I'm the only one who made personal attacks? Fine, if indirectly suggesting that you were a sycophant fits your definition of a personal attack, then what would you call these:

I feel even more sympathy for your would-be employer for your lack of cultural understanding.

The only shit show here is you.

And yes, I did notice the HUGE discrepancy between placement rate at graduation and placement rate 90 days after. Regardless of how well students did after they graduated, does not the 36% placement rate at graduation highlight a woeful inadequacy? Seeing how you're willing to repeatedly lie to defend your program, I doubt it's something you would admit.

 

[AppliedMath]

Employment Rate and Selectivity. So the program aren't really ranked directly based on how well then develop someone into a Quant. Just indirect stuff.
- What happens if you go to a program in a state with few Quant jobs?
- Selectivity and entry scores? Which and how many applicants will apply to an out-of-the-way school? Seems correlated with some of what is exogenous to job placement.

Wouldn't highly ranked schools have a type of "momentum" in their favor for both categories?

The ranking system not so good overall. In some ways, it sucks.

 

[pingu]

The ranking system not so good overall. In some ways, it sucks.

all rankings suck one way or another. This one attempts to rank programs and, IMHO, does it "less bad" than the competition.

 

[Onegin]

Dunno, seems pretty reasonable to me to rank vocational masters programs on job placement. It’s clear that there’s a feedback loop - better education creates stronger graduates creates better jobs creates better applicants seems reasonable. I’m not sure how to take your geography comment. Probably the marine biology program for the University of Nebraska is fantastic, but it’s not clear one wishing to study marine biology should travel as geographically far from oceans as possible in the US for school.

 

[AppliedMath]

Dunno, seems pretty reasonable to me to rank vocational masters programs on job placement. It’s clear that there’s a feedback loop - better education creates stronger graduates creates better jobs creates better applicants seems reasonable. I’m not sure how to take your geography comment. Probably the marine biology program for the University of Nebraska is fantastic, but it’s not clear one wishing to study marine biology should travel as geographically far from oceans as possible in the US for school.

Yeah. That was what I was getting at. If, to continue the anecdote, you do Marina Bio in Nebraska, since that's all you got accepted to, what are your job prospects? You're at a disadvantage during the search Easier to hire a grad living at studying near the coasts.

By the ranking methodology, the school rank drop, despite a possibly equivalent program.

 

[IntoDarkness]

due to the tight labor market, we started interviewing candidates from some lower ranked schools this year. the quality and preparedness of those candidates were generally inferior compared to our traditional target programs. so the ranking is not too bad

 

[Onegin]

By the ranking methodology, the school rank drop, despite a possibly equivalent program.

If job placement is an [important] attribute of a program, then how can 2 programs with different job stats be equivalent?

What's the use of a ranking system that controls for the most important attribute?

 

[Anky]

Do any of the schools mentioned in the list accept a GMAT score?

 

[Chilbal]

Anyone got interview invite to georgia tech QCF program fall 2020.
I cant seem to find anyone who applied to this in early round.
does it generally have low number of applicants or only this year?

Also quantnet states average salary of georgia tech qcf program lower than they claim on their site.
would be useful if anyone can give their honest review of qcf program in 2019 (All other reviews are very old)

 

[Chilbal]

Also when are the new rankings up?

 

[Soccent]

It's December, That very special time of the year with that special day which young and old look forward to for a whole year. A season of wonder excitement as they anticipate that special day - the day when the new rankings are released. Can't wait.

 

[Andy Nguyen]

The 2020 QuantNet MFE rankings will be released when it's ready and soon.
We raise the bars for inclusion in the rankings every year and the 2020 promises to be the best so far.
We can't wait to release it and hope you love it too.

 

[Chilbal]

Ya of course, quantnet ranking is the only legit source for students going to quant programs.
I know it can't be rushed. was just making an enquiry about its estimated release date so that i could add/remove some colleges for my applications this year.