2020 QuantNet Rankings of Financial Engineering (MFE) Programs

Felicity

New Member
I’m surprised that CU MSFE has better placement statistics than CMU MSCF. I attended CMU MSCF and had many friends from CU MSFE. The numbers given by quantnet contradict what I heard and observed.

1. The employment rate after graduation is unfair for programs with an earlier graduation date. CU MSFE calculated the statistics as of February 2019, one month later than CMU's graduation date.
2. According to MSFE's website, only 63% of MSFE students reported their compensation. Assuming students normally report compensation along with job search status, I'm curious about how you get the 93% employment rate for CU MSFE (93% is even higher than MSFE's self-reported 90%), is the rate calculated only from students who responded? If so, this is unfair for CMU MSCF, because we have a much higher response rate for compensation (91%), which indicates that our statistics are much more reliable.
3. Different programs have different standards to report their placement statistics. While MSCF strictly follows the rigorous mbacsea standard, most programs fail to do so. Quantnet should really take the quality of placement statistics into account next year.
4. Why not including internship statistics? This is another important part of placement record.
 

Chilbal

Member
I’m surprised that CU MSFE has better placement statistics than CMU MSCF. I attended CMU MSCF and had many friends from CU MSFE. The numbers given by quantnet contradict what I heard and observed.

1. The employment rate after graduation is unfair for programs with an earlier graduation date. CU MSFE calculated the statistics as of February 2019, one month later than CMU's graduation date.
2. According to MSFE's website, only 63% of MSFE students reported their compensation. Assuming students normally report compensation along with job search status, I'm curious about how you get the 93% employment rate for CU MSFE (93% is even higher than MSFE's self-reported 90%), is the rate calculated only from students who responded? If so, this is unfair for CMU MSCF, because we have a much higher response rate for compensation (91%), which indicates that our statistics are much more reliable.
3. Different programs have different standards to report their placement statistics. While MSCF strictly follows the rigorous mbacsea standard, most programs fail to do so. Quantnet should really take the quality of placement statistics into account next year.
4. Why not including internship statistics? This is another important part of placement record.
Including internship, statistics is a brilliant idea. Now it seems so silly that the didnt include that (Maybe there is some reason for it).
I also agree with the discrepancies but i think in this case it doesn't matter much as CMU MSCF is undoubtedly better in quality of students and the placements. this can be seen with a simple Linkedin search.
Columbia MSFE student quality seems a bit of a mess recently.
 

ParthRShah

New Member
Can anyone help me with an objective comparison between the Rutgers MQF Program and Stevens Financial Engg program?

I have received admits from both of these universities and also have got 20k scholarship from Stevens.
Please help me out
Thanks in advance.
 

Chilbal

Member
Did anyone ever get an admit in Georgia tech after being deferred to the next round? (Already gave an interview in early-round)
 
Top